Ben Stien's new movie EXSPELLED

farmerman wrote:

While that may be true there baddog, the Stein movie is presenting itself as "FACT". when all through the movie is the false thesis that the ID/Creationists are losing their "tenured" positions. In all cases of individuals mentioned, they were, at best part timers, volunteers, and adjunct faculty.
Stein has made a mockery of the documentary as much as Al Gores "Inconvenient Truth", both movies are twaddle.

Ive finally seen Steins movie and can quickly go through each item of his points and find information that disputes it soundly.

I'm confident that you could go through Stein's movie and pick it apart and I agree that it could've been better. The same is true for Gore's movie and Moore's stuff and so on. In fact, any documentary-type movie can be scrutinized - there is no question about that.

I still believe that the overall message of Stein's movie is spot on. It's been my experience that most of the current science community scoffs at (or at the very least - ignores) I.D. It's been my long-riding position that science should consider all possibilities, and put forth the same energies toward all possibilities until each possibility is proven wrong. [Using the SAME methods of proof/evidence for each possibility.] This is not happening and Stein used the movie as exposure for this narrow mindset.

0 Replies

baddog1 wrote:

Diest TKO wrote:

Given Dawkin's large volume of work, I'd be hard pressed to believe you'd be able to trump him in a full length film with any amount of soundbytes selected.

Speculative thought Deist. You should also assume that Stein had/has a large volume of work (as I've heard) - yet Stein made the commitment to participate in this movie. With his connections & following; surely Dawkins could also make his own movie and interview anyone he chooses.

Certainly, and he does. Dawkins has many recored lectures, and documentary media. Not to forget his books.

baddog1 wrote:

Diest TKO wrote:

However, if you're smart, you can simply take the film for what it is. It's not proof of anything, simply an artistic expression of one man's perception of the world. Emphasis on "perception."...

Isn't this true for all films?

This is true yes. That's my point. It's just a movie. I think video is a great way to quickly communicate simple ideas quickly to a general audience, however it is a poor form of media to communicate the necessary information needed to make convincing arguments.

To Stein's credit, a documentary is a good choice if you simply wish to ask an audience to consider an idea. Perhaps that was the only goal. If the goal post was however to convince them of his stance, I think he over exceeded his limits.

In terms of cinema, it's not a bad film. I like documentaries. It was filmed in a style which I enjoy. Additionally, I think both proponents of ID and evolution benefit from having material to discuss. I won't fault Stein for making the film, I won't even be critical of his points. I'm just not going to give him an award.

Speaking of documentaries. Everyone should watch "Jesus Camp."

It's in my opinion, the best documentary to date to talk about issues of faith in America. The reason I am fond of it is that the film has no thesis at all, it simply is documentary.

If you don't believe in evangelical practices, you watch and are mildly alarmed. If you are evangelical and perhaps more in line with those documented in this film, you watch and can probably agree with it. The film offers little to no commentary, it lets people speak who are involved in it.

Some shots in the film were actually filmed in my college town of Rolla, MO. That kind of freaked me out at first. Regardless, an interesting film.

T
K
O

0 Replies

Are most documentary films propaganda pieces, TKO, baddog, and/or farmerman?

0 Replies

Diest TKO wrote:

baddog1 wrote:
Diest TKO wrote:

Given Dawkin's large volume of work, I'd be hard pressed to believe you'd be able to trump him in a full length film with any amount of soundbytes selected.

Speculative thought Deist. You should also assume that Stein had/has a large volume of work (as I've heard) - yet Stein made the commitment to participate in this movie. With his connections & following; surely Dawkins could also make his own movie and interview anyone he chooses.

Certainly, and he does. Dawkins has many recored lectures, and documentary media. Not to forget his books.

baddog1 wrote:
Diest TKO wrote:

However, if you're smart, you can simply take the film for what it is. It's not proof of anything, simply an artistic expression of one man's perception of the world. Emphasis on "perception."...

Isn't this true for all films?

This is true yes. That's my point. It's just a movie. I think video is a great way to quickly communicate simple ideas quickly to a general audience, however it is a poor form of media to communicate the necessary information needed to make convincing arguments.

To Stein's credit, a documentary is a good choice if you simply wish to ask an audience to consider an idea. Perhaps that was the only goal. If the goal post was however to convince them of his stance, I think he over exceeded his limits.

In terms of cinema, it's not a bad film. I like documentaries. It was filmed in a style which I enjoy. Additionally, I think both proponents of ID and evolution benefit from having material to discuss. I won't fault Stein for making the film, I won't even be critical of his points. I'm just not going to give him an award.

Speaking of documentaries. Everyone should watch "Jesus Camp."

It's in my opinion, the best documentary to date to talk about issues of faith in America. The reason I am fond of it is that the film has no thesis at all, it simply is documentary.

If you don't believe in evangelical practices, you watch and are mildly alarmed. If you are evangelical and perhaps more in line with those documented in this film, you watch and can probably agree with it. The film offers little to no commentary, it lets people speak who are involved in it.

Some shots in the film were actually filmed in my college town of Rolla, MO. That kind of freaked me out at first. Regardless, an interesting film.

T
K
O

I agree with all points and thanks for the heads-up on "Jesus Camp"; I will check it out.

0 Replies

wandeljw wrote:

Are most documentary films propaganda pieces, TKO, baddog, and/or farmerman?

I think so wandeljw. When you peel the sugar-coating from all of them; I'd say you are correct.

0 Replies

baddog

Quote:

It's been my long-riding position that science should consider all possibilities, and put forth the same energies toward all possibilities until each possibility is proven wrong.

Thats exactly what science does. A robust theory can be used as a tool of prediction and discovery. ID , on this point,has not even gotten out of the starting gate. I believe that its the responsibility of its proponents to prove that ID can be so used in applied science and that there is something to it. SO far, the silence has been deafening (havent you been listening?).

You can preach all you wish about what scientists "should do". As far as Im concerned, Ive moved through the ID stage many years ago in early life and have been , not so much dismissive of ID , but more demanding of the present synthesis that encapsulates evidence from all disciplines involved.

When ID can even get close to that record, then you can be demanding about what scientists should or should not, believe.
ACtually, ID is quite dismissive of certain aspects of normal science. Its only departures from Creationism has been to "accept" the fact of an old earth and the concept of common ancestry. However, the concept of species arising, fully formed throughout key points of earths history are yet to be even conceptualized by the IS crowd, no matter how many expeditions into the " search for intelligence" they embark upon

0 Replies

I'm confident that you could go through Stein's movie and pick it apart and I agree that it could've been better. The same is true for Gore's movie and Moore's stuff and so on. In fact, any documentary-type movie can be scrutinized - there is no question about that.

I still believe that the overall message of Stein's movie is spot on

I see.It can be dead wrong but if it agrees with your worldview its "spot on". Not very credible bd. Im a liberal and I freely admint that Global warming caused by humans is crapola. One does not necessarily have to buy the whole dozen.

I understand that conservatism and ID go hand in glove but I think that itd be nice if we try some independent thought whenever we criticize others for dependent thought. Laughing

0 Replies

baddog1 wrote:

It's been my long-riding position that science should consider all possibilities, and put forth the same energies toward all possibilities until each possibility is proven wrong.

When you say "all possibilities" does that include possibilities which are inherently unprovable because they contain elements of the supernatural? For example, should science consider the possibility that magical aliens twiddled with the brains of early primates to create humans? Should we wait until the possibility is proven wrong before we stop researching it? How much time and money should we spend on each of these 'possibilities'?

If you think the basic concept of ID is any different from any other magical theory, then you simply don't understand ID.

You are correct when you say that scientists dismiss ID. They dismiss it because it's not science. They recognize it for what it is, and they are right to dismiss it.

You cannot infer the intervention of a mysterious intelligence simply because you can't explain something in nature. People have been doing that for eons, but that's not science, it's religion.

0 Replies

wandeljw wrote:

Are most documentary films propaganda pieces, TKO, baddog, and/or farmerman?

Yes. I also would go further to say that most films (including other genres) are also full of propaganda.

I think it's impossible to avoid. A director or writer is going to put their own world view into a film. I'd say about 80% of the time the propaganda is presented in such a way that it's obvious to the viewer. So much to the degree that the viewer can understand that they are being appealed to. I think with documentaries specifically, their is an extra challenge, because of how direct the media is. They way the film actually speaks directly through the 4th wall to the viewer.

From the first second I saw this film's trailer, I knew with a large degree of certainty that I would not be swayed in my opinion of ID/evo. I was also skeptical about a systemic suppression of ideas in the scientific community. What I was interested in is how the proponents of ID would frame this film.

Stein in my opinion, tried to leverage validity to his beliefs with sympathy for individuals of similar beliefs while making connections between those who oppose his ideas and persons of particularly powerful negative brand. I'd ask the viewer of the film how the gives validity to the ideas he is trying to promote.

T
K
O

0 Replies

What has always amused and bemused me is the attitude of many in the evolutionary camp is the attitude that those who believe in a creator are not capable of rational thought.

I submit that Dawkins' comment about the possibility of extraterrestrial 'seeding' bespeaks a linear concept of time and a corresponding vacuum of rational thought.

0 Replies

neologist wrote:

What has always amused and bemused me is the attitude of many in the evolutionary camp is the attitude that those who believe in a creator are not capable of rational thought.

It's not that we don't think you're capable, it's that we don't see you doing it.

0 Replies

rosborne979 wrote:

baddog1 wrote:
It's been my long-riding position that science should consider all possibilities, and put forth the same energies toward all possibilities until each possibility is proven wrong.

When you say "all possibilities" does that include possibilities which are inherently unprovable because they contain elements of the supernatural?

Someone else put it this way:

Quote:

As for matter/energy, they are not necessarily the only things in existence and the only possible precursors: things unknown or forever beyond understanding could be there

Was this a scientific statement?

0 Replies

RL - have you seen the film?

T
K
O

0 Replies

No.

0 Replies

real life wrote:

rosborne979 wrote:
baddog1 wrote:
It's been my long-riding position that science should consider all possibilities, and put forth the same energies toward all possibilities until each possibility is proven wrong.

When you say "all possibilities" does that include possibilities which are inherently unprovable because they contain elements of the supernatural?

Someone else put it this way:

Quote:
As for matter/energy, they are not necessarily the only things in existence and the only possible precursors: things unknown or forever beyond understanding could be there

Was this a scientific statement?

I would say so. But in my original quote I wasn't talking about the possible and the impossible, I was talking about the probable and the improbable, and what science should spend time researching.

Richard Feynman wrote:

It is scientific only to say what is more likely and what less likely, and not to be proving all the time the possible and impossible.

0 Replies

rosborne979 wrote:

I would say so. But in my original quote I wasn't talking about the possible and the impossible, I was talking about the probable and the improbable, and what science should spend time researching.

And therein lies the issue. Who decides what is probable and improbable? There was a day when personal flight, communication by wire, underwater welding, teaching via interconnected computers, hair replacement, bone fusing, etc. etc. etc. were all considered impossible. The impossible then became improbable, which then became possible by imagination, then possible by science...

It simply astounds me that anyone with a science background would so casually discount the possibility of a topic that approximately 1/3 of the world population believes in (Christianity). And nearly 85% of the world believes in some sort of God.

Given those facts; deductively it can only come down to an emotion-based decision to be totally closed to the possibility of something that billions of others believe.

How are emotion-based decisions viewed in the science-community?

0 Replies

rosborne979 wrote:

neologist wrote:
What has always amused and bemused me is the attitude of many in the evolutionary camp is the attitude that those who believe in a creator are not capable of rational thought.

It's not that we don't think you're capable, it's that we don't see you doing it.

What you don't see is my kneeling to your self proclaimed enlightenment.

0 Replies

baddog1 wrote:

And therein lies the issue. Who decides what is probable and improbable?

Science decides what is probable or improbable to science. You decide what is probably or improbable to you. There is no "issue" inherent with that.

baddog1 wrote:

It simply astounds me that anyone with a science background would so casually discount the possibility of a topic that approximately 1/3 of the world population believes in (Christianity). And nearly 85% of the world believes in some sort of God.

As we've explained before, certain concepts are not measurable with science, so science doesn't research them, or comment on them.

ID is one of those concepts.

baddog1 wrote:

Given those facts; deductively it can only come down to an emotion-based decision to be totally closed to the possibility of something that billions of others believe.

The number of people who believe something is irrelevant to its validity as science.

0 Replies

neologist wrote:

rosborne979 wrote:
neologist wrote:
What has always amused and bemused me is the attitude of many in the evolutionary camp is the attitude that those who believe in a creator are not capable of rational thought.

It's not that we don't think you're capable, it's that we don't see you doing it.
What you don't see is my kneeling to your self proclaimed enlightenment.

There you go behaving irrationally again. Just stop making irrational claims and we'll stop thinking you're irrational.

By the way, before we do too far down this silly path, you should know that I don't consider belief in a "creator" to be irrational because your use of the term creator hasn't been defined well enough for me to know if its irrational or not... I was just playing your game. If you want to tell me exactly what you mean by "creator" then maybe I'll can call you irrational. Smile

(My definition of irrational has more to do with people who believe things which are in direct conflict with physical reality, things like "creationism).

0 Replies

As far as the argument goes, I do not believe in creationism either.
Nor do I believe in evolutionary theory.

Both are concepts. Nothing else.

Is there a creator?

Some might say the law of simplicity disallows the existence of a prime mover or one who can call himself "He who causes to become".

I would say the law of simplicity is not so simply understood.

0 Replies

Ben Stien's new movie EXSPELLED

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know