Thread: Expelled

I'm not sure where this should go:

But has anyone seen Expelled, what are your thoughts?

Personally I haven't watched it (from what I've heard I'll lose alot of hair).

Here's a review of it:

http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/ed...d_for_science/

http://www.expelledexposed.com/

You mean Expelled, No Intelligence Allowed?

I like it, it's good. Ben Stein does a good job of uncovering things in it.

The only thing Stein uncovered with that film is how gullible people are to blatant logical fallacies and lies.

the whole movie is basically like the bible. a giant turd.

Terrible.

Originally Posted by inow

The only thing Stein uncovered with that film is how gullible people are to blatant logical fallacies and lies.

I see you have a very biased viewpoint of it. What about the facts he uncovered as well? Is it proper science to dismiss them because it doesn't fit your ideas?

Originally Posted by Wild Cobra

Originally Posted by inow

The only thing Stein uncovered with that film is how gullible people are to blatant logical fallacies and lies.

I see you have a very biased viewpoint of it. What about the facts he uncovered as well? Is it proper science to dismiss them because it doesn't fit your ideas?

What facts, he just like shows edited clips of scientist then ridicules them and regurgitates the same old creationist arguments. This is a conspiracy film about the idea that somehow there is a broad evolutionist conspiracy to keep the truth of ID under wraps...

Originally Posted by Wild Cobra

What about the facts he uncovered as well? Is it proper science to dismiss them because it doesn't fit your ideas?

If you cite which specific facts you mean, I will try to address them as best I can. However, a bunch of hand waving and baseless assertions simply ain't gonna cut it.

Refer specifically to which facts he uncovered and why you accuse me of dismissing them for lack of alignment with my worldview. This should be interesting.

Originally Posted by inow

Originally Posted by Wild Cobra

What about the facts he uncovered as well? Is it proper science to dismiss them because it doesn't fit your ideas?

If you cite which specific facts you mean, I will try to address them as best I can. However, a bunch of hand waving and baseless assertions simply ain't gonna cut it.

Hmmm, you link an activist site and call people gullible. That's not very factual. I'd say it's a worthwhile movie for someone to see and make up their own mind. You seem to agree with censorship.

Originally Posted by inow

Refer specifically to which facts he uncovered and why you accuse me of dismissing them for lack of alignment with my worldview. This should be interesting.

Censorship.

All the claims of censorship in that movie have been thoroughly debunked.

Originally Posted by Wild Cobra

Originally Posted by inow

Originally Posted by Wild Cobra

What about the facts he uncovered as well? Is it proper science to dismiss them because it doesn't fit your ideas?

If you cite which specific facts you mean, I will try to address them as best I can. However, a bunch of hand waving and baseless assertions simply ain't gonna cut it.

Hmmm, you link an activist site and call people gullible. That's not very factual. I'd say it's a worthwhile movie for someone to see and make up their own mind. You seem to agree with censorship.

I see you've decided to stick with the hand waving approach. Good for you.
Not only are you a global warming denialist (based on our conversations in other threads), but you think Expelled was a good film which did a good job at illuminating truth.

If censorship is your claim, then I must point out to you that ID is not being censored in the same way that the stork theory of childbirth is not being censored. It's just wrong. As IFT already noted in the post above, all claims of censorship have been thoroughly debunked.

This might get some real discussion going:

http://www.discovery.org/scripts/vie...wnload&id=1489

Dr. Sternberg is a systematicist, the article he allowed to be published was a paleontology article. So, first of all he wasn't an expert in the field of the article he edited. Second, he violated procedure by not including secondary editors in the decision, and he should have passed on the article to a paleontologist (which the Smithsonian has several of). None of this was against the rules, but it is in very bad form.

Moreover, the journal which this was published in was a journal for systematics and taxonomy, such as publishing the discovery of new species. This paper by Meyer had nothing to do with the subject of the journal. It could have been rejected on that basis alone, besides its inferior content.

Ultimately, what is at the core of this is that Sternberg failed in his role as an editor by allowing a sub-par paper to be published. It is perfectly reasonable for the Smithsonian staff to demote him once they have seen that he would allow his personal beliefs to effect his decisions to the point of publishing such an article.

http://pandasthumb.org/archives/2004...opeless-1.html

http://scienceblogs.com/dispatches/2...e_sternber.php

The second link addresses the report.

Originally Posted by Golkarian

This might get some real discussion going:

http://www.discovery.org/scripts/vie...wnload&id=1489

so what. with the insanely ridicolous claims, and uneducated assumptions these people come up with, they should expect nothing but hostility.
thats how science generally greet all new ideas. extreme sceptiscism and hostility.
only if you have solid hard, cold evidence, will people even begin to consider your thesis.
a tiny google search will show you why exactly all of science accepts evolution, and denies creation. and its the mountains upon mountains, upon mountains of supportive evidence.
the theory of evolution itself, einsteins theory of relativity both had to go through the same nihilistic scrutiny, as creation, and they survived.

I saw the whole movie. Not only were the "arguments" and "evidence" horrible, it was a bad movie overall. It made some classic amateur mistakes and failed to even present one coherent and well-balanced argument.

Typical creationist dishonest tactics and biased undertones all the way. Complete and utter crap.

I did get a few good laughs out of it though; on one of the more sad, contradictory, pathetic, inane and silly parts of it. Like the idiotic scene where Stein walks around New York looking for the discovery institute or something. I mean, what the hell? What a stupid and pointless scene. I almost laughed my guts out on that one.

Originally Posted by i_feel_tiredsleepy

All the claims of censorship in that movie have been thoroughly debunked.

Really?

Have you even seen the movie, or are you going by what someone else says?

Originally Posted by Obviously

I saw the whole movie. Not only were the "arguments" and "evidence" horrible, it was a bad movie overall. It made some classic amateur mistakes and failed to even present one coherent and well-balanced argument.

Typical creationist dishonest tactics and biased undertones all the way. Complete and utter crap.

I did get a few good laughs out of it though; on one of the more sad, contradictory, pathetic, inane and silly parts of it. Like the idiotic scene where Stein walks around New York looking for the discovery institute or something. I mean, what the hell? What a stupid and pointless scene. I almost laughed my guts out on that one.

What I got from the movie had nothing to do with the idea of creationism, but the absolute dismissal of other possible ideas. ID is a broad topic and when you limit your thinking to creationism, then you are guilty of scientific prejudice. To absolutely dismiss genetic engineering in the past is just wrong. We simply don't know all the facts, and certainly cannot dismiss the idea that maybe, just maybe, a greater intelligence once visited our world.

There is no absolute proof of evolution as it is taught. It is a very good theory, but it is only a theory. That does not make it right. At one time, science thought the world was flat too. Granted, evolution is likely correct, but really now. Are you really that certain you are correct? Just remember. People were also once certain the world was flat.

Ug, ID is based on argument from incredulity, it is illogical and patently unscientific. Thus, it has no place in science. IDers attempt to show that current evolutionary theory is wrong, which they fail at. They then leap to the illogical conclusion that if evolutionary theory is wrong, that their untestable hypothesis is true because evolutionary theory is wrong. It just simply isn't science. If you expect biologist to consider ID, you should expect them to consider magic as well.

Originally Posted by Wild Cobra

... but it is only a theory.

Christ...

Atomic theory is a theory as well which is why I am an atomic bomb denialist and I refuse to believe that nuclear power plants give us power. The mere idea of splitting an atom is ridiculous!

Cell theory is just another theory. I think that scientists are repressing my point of view to prevent it from entering class rooms. I want to be able to teach that we are made up of little pixies which transfer oxygen to our brains through the blood stream. It's dumb to think that non-sentient globs of donut shaped goo had anything to do with the transfer oxygen.

Originally Posted by Wild Cobra

Originally Posted by i_feel_tiredsleepy

All the claims of censorship in that movie have been thoroughly debunked.

Really?

Have you even seen the movie, or are you going by what someone else says?

Oh and I have seen half of it, then I stopped.

This movie doesn't just spout nonsense and old lies. It plays ominous music while biologist speak, it equates people who believe in evolution with Nazis. It conflates evolutionary theory with hypotheses of abiogenesis. I gave up on this when Ben Stein decided to just act like an obtuse asshole when Dr. Huse tried to explain the idea of crystals contributing to abiogenesis. It is steeped in ignorance.

I don't think a more dreary, morose, unintelligent and entirely uninteresting creationist exists than Ben Stein.

Originally Posted by KALSTER

I don't think a more dreary, morose, unintelligent and entirely uninteresting creationist exists than Ben Stein.

Oh... Come on... There's always Ray Comfort, Kirk Cameron, and Ken Ham.

Nah, those three are more fun to laugh at than Ben. I just get depressed when I see Stein... He's more of an arrogant ass to boot.

Originally Posted by inow

Originally Posted by KALSTER

I don't think a more dreary, morose, unintelligent and entirely uninteresting creationist exists than Ben Stein.

Oh... Come on... There's always Ray Comfort, Kirk Cameron, and Ken Ham.

Remember Stanly Ipkis' therapist in The Mask? Ben Stein! He got the role specifically for being the way he is.

Originally Posted by Wild Cobra

It is a very good theory, but it is only a theory.

Others have already commented eloquently on this statement, however you may wish to take note that with that single remark you identify yourself as someone who should never be taken seriously in any scientific discussion, at any time, on any subject.
Unredeemed ignorance is defensible in fools, but not in the intelligent.

I must confess, I too feel the suddent urge to hit something when I hear the old "It's only a theory" canard. The Atomic Theory of Matter is "only a theory," but all of our physics and chemistry are based on it, it's been tested and verified in countless experiments, and it's not yet been falsified. Stephen Jay Gould summed it up nicely:

Facts and theories are different things, not rungs in a hierarchy of increasing certainty. Facts are the world’s data. Theories are structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts. Facts do not go away while scientists debate rival theories for explaining them. Einstein’s theory of gravitation replaced Newton’s, but apples did not suspend themselves in mid-air pending the outcome.

Debating the role (if any) of Intelligent Design won't change the fact that all life on earth shares a common ancestor. Thus far, ID has not brought anything to the debate worth considering, and making a movie about how ID proponents have supposedly been shut out of the debate will not change the fact that its principle examples (the bacterial flagellum, the clotting cascade, etc.) have all been found to be faulty because numerous examples exist in nature of analogous systems and structures that function just fine without one or more of the "essential" components.

I find it difficult to give much stock to Stein's views, namely because he comes off as being yet another celebrity giving his ten cents on something he likely has little understanding of.

Erm... how can you agree with that film?

It's propaganda, and not very good at that. it makes me angry at how they try to say people who acknowledge that evolution is proven and true are nazis...

Isn't that what the nazis did? Anyone who is opposed to us is evil?

Good old Argumentum ad Nazium.

Originally Posted by i_feel_tiredsleepy

[
Oh and I have seen half of it, then I stopped.

This movie doesn't just spout nonsense and old lies. It plays ominous music while biologist speak, it equates people who believe in evolution with Nazis.

If you want to understand why these sorts of things are the way they are, it's important to understand who the intended audience is. Films like this aren't made to convince anyone who doesn't believe in evolution; they're meant to be watched by people who are already creationists and merely want a mental "pat on the back" for having the "correct" beliefs. It's not meant to be watched by someone who is going to critically evaluate the intellectual merits of the claims and perhaps do their own independent fact-checking. If you already believe everything the film is saying, and moreover want to believe it, then you're going to just smile and nod your head until the end, and leave happy with a vague impression that your beliefs are correct and you're a smart person for having them.

If anything, being stupidly over-the-top and outrageously inaccurate/dishonest only helps the film accomplish its goals better, since it also gets non-creationists talking about it (even if only to complain about how bad it is).

Kind of like Fox News. They don't need to present facts, they just need to reinforce what people want to hear and their viewers love it. Doesn't matter how far from reality it is.

The only parts of Fox news i've seen are on comedy shows.

Generally, most of the british news is informative but dreary.

Originally Posted by Holbenilord

The only parts of Fox news i've seen are on comedy shows.

Generally, most of the british news is informative but dreary.

It's really difficult to consider Fox to be "news." They sometimes share news information, but the vast majority of it is opinion, half truths, spin, and even blatant lies. They are essentially a propaganda channel for the conservative wing of the Republican party. They even organized protests, encouraged people to go, then covered it as if it were a grassroots movement (see the 912 project). That goes WAY beyond mere bias.

Most organizations at least attempt to report the news... they may add their own little spin to it, but Fox actually makes up the news (astro-turfs) and drums up anti-government rage (while Democrats are in power, anyway... When republicans ruled the roost, they were active cheerleaders for the government).

You can see why I find parallels between them and the Expelled folks.

Yup.

Originally Posted by inow

You can see why I find parallels between them and the Expelled folks.

Isn't that because Ben Stein is from Fox News, or am I wrong about that?

Well, he's not "from" there, but he apparently is a regular guest. He actually made his name being a speech writer for President Nixon, and later for President Ford. It was only later that he did the Ferris Bueller thing and had that game show.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ben_Stein