Ben Stein "Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed"

[Textcritic]

I hadn't seen any threads or posts about this new documentary by Ben Stein, scheduled to be in theatres on 18 April. This will certainly provide a plethora of fodder for ID proponents to continue fighting the good fight.

Check out the website and the trailers:

http://www.expelledthemovie.com/home.php
http://www.expelledthemovie.com/playground.php

A feature player in the film is former editor of the Preceedings of the Biological Society of Washington, Richard v. Sternberg, who ignored peer-review protocol to have a paper by Stephen C. Meyer published in the journal.

http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/new..._10_4_2004.asp

I shudder to think about the effect of a film of this nature. Why do Hollywood celebrities feel they must blanket the culture with their opinions on everything that has NOTHING to do with them?

[AC]

The idea that people can still refuse to accept that evolution is true and cling onto ridiculous ideas in this day and rage is really depressing.

[Bobblehead]

Ben Stein also argued that the sub-prime mortgage collapse would only have a minimal effect on the American economy (and he has a phd in economics).

I think he has jumped the shark.

And since I brought up economics, and this thread is regarding science and religion, I was reading an interesting article on the Economist (link) discussing how scientists are studying the phenomena of religion. Interesting stuff.


Edit: phenomena may be a bad word for it - the concept of religion and how/why it affects people

[Burninator]

I've been following this film on the badastronomy blog and the Pharyngula blog. The irony of their slogn "No Intelligence Allowed" is too much for me to handle. I bet this movie will be along the lines of a Micheal Moore style "documentary". So expect to see lies, misrepresentation, ignoring facts and more lies with an extra side of lies. This will have zero impact here in Canada (if it even plays here). I suspect that this will just preach to the choir, so to speak.

Anyone who says they don't believe in evolution just doesn't understand it yet.

[troutman]

Originally Posted by Bobblehead

And since I brought up economics, and this thread is regarding science and religion, I was reading an interesting article on the Economist (link) discussing how scientists are studying the phenomena of religion. Interesting stuff.


Edit: phenomena may be a bad word for it - the concept of religion and how/why it affects people

That was the theme of Daniel Dennett's book Breaking The Spell.

http://ase.tufts.edu/cogstud/incbios...d/dennettd.htm

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/02/19/bo...ieseltier.html

"The goal of either proving or disproving God's existence," he concludes, is "not very important." It is history, not philosophy, that will break religion's spell. The story of religion's development will extirpate it. "In order to explain the hold that various religious ideas and practices have on people," he writes, "we need to understand the evolution of the human mind." What follows is, in brief, Dennett's natural history of religion.

[RougeUnderoos]

Ha ha. Talk about melodramatic.

"If you watch this movie you may lose your friends and your job".

And gee, the poor persecuted religious people. All of them out there unable to work, unable to vote. Must be tough.

[photon]

They're using the same PR firm and tactics that was used for The Passion of The Christ, closed preview audiences who are sympathetic, NDAs, complain when someone actually reviews the movie honestly, even offering to pay to get people into the theatre.

Some reviews: http://blogs.orlandosentinel.com/ent...-stein-th.html
http://www.nerve.com/CS/blogs/screen...e-allowed.aspx

[MarchHare]

Why do Hollywood celebrities feel they must blanket the culture with their opinions on
everything that has NOTHING to do with them?

Ben Stein isn't just a random Hollywood star; prior to becoming an actor/game show host, he was a lawyer and college professor. He was valedictorian when he graduated from Yale's law school (where, coincidentally, he was a classmate of Bill and Hillary Clinton), and he also has political experience, having served on the White House staff of presidents Nixon and Ford.

That being said, he's dead wrong about ID.

[Lanny_MacDonald]

No wonder the kids were asleep in his classroom in Ferris Buehler. Really, who would listen to this crap? Relgious nutbars and the fringe rightwing that has never be in touch with reality?

This topic is DEAD since Kitzmiller v Dover. Science routed religiosity so bad that the majority of pro-ID "experts" went home before testifying because they knew they were dead in the water. No intelligence indeed.

[Thor]

Originally Posted by Lanny_MacDonald

No wonder the kids were asleep in his classroom in Ferris Buehler. Really, who would listen to this crap? Relgious nutbars and the fringe rightwing that has never be in touch with reality?

This topic is DEAD since Kitzmiller v Dover. Science routed religiosity so bad that the majority of pro-ID "experts" went home before testifying because they knew they were dead in the water. No intelligence indeed.

Its never dead until the great day that the theory of intelligent falling is tought along side the controversial theory of gravity.

All pastafarians be praised!

[Kipper is King]

Well, I do believe that we are here because of God. However, I also believe that evolution happened. They aren't contradictory at all. Just because God started the whole process off does not mean that the process did not occur. Why can't we be comfortable with both?

I look at the complexity of the Earth, and I think this can`t be random. Someone had to think this up.

Ultimatly, I believe in God, and evolution together. Science makes sense. To me, so does God.

[troutman]

Originally Posted by Kipper is King

Well, I do believe that we are here because of God. However, I also believe that evolution happened. They aren't contradictory at all. Just because God started the whole process off does not mean that the process did not occur. Why can't we be comfortable with both?

I look at the complexity of the Earth, and I think this can`t be random. Someone had to think this up.

Ultimatly, I believe in God, and evolution together. Science makes sense. To me, so does God.

Evolution is not random.

Someone could have thunk this up, or it could have started without a someone. The way evoultion works, hints at the latter being more likely.

[Kipper is King]

I can`t imagine anyone debating that this is a masterpiece, created by a being.

So why is so hard to state that this is also a masterpiece, created by someone?

[Kipper is King]

Lol, I chose Starry Night without even thinking how ironic it was.

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by Kipper is King

So why is so hard to state that this is also a masterpiece, created by someone?

It's not hard to state. You just stated it. It's not hard for me to state it, it's not like I want to and can't. I just don't believe it.

[photon]

Originally Posted by Kipper is King

I look at the complexity of the Earth, and I think this can`t be random. Someone had to think this up.

Just because you think it can't be random doesn't mean that it can't be. That's an argument from personal incredulity, which is a logical fallacy.

Plus it isn't random as troutman points out; that so many people find evolution implausible based on randomness is an indication of the failure of the education system to properly educate about evolution.

Ultimatly, I believe in God, and evolution together. Science makes sense. To me, so does God.

To me that's fine, if someone wants to believe on faith that God originated things on faith, I have no problem with that. With the caveat that things were done in such a way to appear completely natural since there's no evidence of design or an external agent.

Of course I can use the same reasoning to propose that the universe was created six minutes ago in such a way that it appears old and we all have our memories, and from a scientific point of view that holds the same merit.

[Kipper is King]

Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos

It's not hard to state. You just stated it. It's not hard for me to state it, it's not like I want to and can't. I just don't believe it.

touche! Why is it so hard to believe it, then? That's a better wording.

[llama64]

So much time is spent on this pointless issue. Both ID and traditional science theories should be taught in school. Knowledge doesn't corrupt people. Teaching your kids about ID doesn't turn them into religious nuts. More likely, expanding their knowledge to alternative views on things will make them more intelligent.

There is a lot of bias and blindness on both sides. The religious element of society is to large to ignore. Better to understand it's impact on our lives then to rage about how wrong proponents of ID are.

[Thor]

Its easy for me to not believe everything is created, take away the obvious philosophical problems with stating someone created all this (who created the creator, etc..)

Just because things are awe inspiring doesn't mean its necessary to evoke a magical being behind it all, our lack of understanding isn't proof of an all mighty, its just more for us to learn and understand.

I find it much more satisfying to believe in evolution while others believe the earth is 6000 years old. I find it more satisfying to believe the earth revolves around the sun, and not vice versa.

I find awe and inspiration from science, not from a god.

[Metro Gnome]

...that thought process begs the question: created by who? Where he did that being come from?