Ben Stein "Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed"

[RougeUnderoos]

Dawkins reviews the film and insults the makers endlessly. Pretty funny.

http://richarddawkins.net/article,23...ichard-Dawkins

Stein has no talent for comedy, as he demonstrates in a weird joke about scratching his back, which falls completely flat. But his attempt to do tragedy is even worse. He visits Dachau and, when informed by the guide that lots of Jews had been killed there, he buries his face in his hands as though this is the first time he has heard of it. Obviously it was not his intention, but I thought his rotten acting was an insult to the memory of the victims.

[photon]

Yeah the producer is a real gem. They removed PZ Myers (who is good enough to APPEAR IN THE FILM) from the line to see it, but let Dawkins and PZ's family in.

The producer told PZ and everyone else at the screening (when Dawkins asked about it at the Q&A after the film) that he was removed because he was "crashing" an invite only party, when all they had to do was reserve a spot on a website, which is what they did, with their own name and everything.

Then the producer said to a blogger that he didn't want PZ to go in because he wanted him to pay for it. So which is it?

Fits well with how they got these guys in the film on false pretenses, then claimed the title and topic they told them to get the interviews was only a working title, when they had registered the real name's domain name far before the interviews.

Lying is habit forming I guess.

[burn_this_city]

Originally Posted by photon

Yeah the producer is a real gem. They removed PZ Myers (who is good enough to APPEAR IN THE FILM) from the line to see it, but let Dawkins and PZ's family in.

The producer told PZ and everyone else at the screening (when Dawkins asked about it at the Q&A after the film) that he was removed because he was "crashing" an invite only party, when all they had to do was reserve a spot on a website, which is what they did, with their own name and everything.

Then the producer said to a blogger that he didn't want PZ to go in because he wanted him to pay for it. So which is it?

Fits well with how they got these guys in the film on false pretenses, then claimed the title and topic they told them to get the interviews was only a working title, when they had registered the real name's domain name far before the interviews.

Lying is habit forming I guess.

After reading his blog, it appears Dawkins figures they booted PZ Meyers because Mathis knew he was coming. Dawkins probably slipped by because he wasnt on the internet guest list, and had a pass given to him by Meyers. I bet he wouldnt have been removed if Mathis knew he was coming. Pretty shabby for Mathis and his band of fools to interview these guys under false pretenses and frame their interviews as supporting ID.

[Thor]

nvmd.

[tussery]

Wow, I made the mistake today (I am an athiest) of playing devils advocate with a christian conservative in class today who took this film as gospel. You would have thought I dropped a nuclear weapon in the class. Everyone was looking at me like I was the devil for even questioning ID. I remember why I don't talk politics or religion with the idiots in Texas.

[troutman]

Originally Posted by tussery

Wow, I made the mistake today (I am an athiest) of playing devils advocate with a christian conservative in class today who took this film as gospel. You would have thought I dropped a nuclear weapon in the class. Everyone was looking at me like I was the devil for even questioning ID. I remember why I don't talk politics or religion with the idiots in Texas.

All the credulous, live in Texas.

[photon]

Apparently the Nazi connection is strong in this movie, natural selection being invoked by the Nazis so it must be false being the claim. Nazi's used physics too, the theory of gravity made the bombs fall, so the theory of gravity must be false.

Do these people even listen to themselves?

[tussery]

Originally Posted by photon

Apparently the Nazi connection is strong in this movie, natural selection being invoked by the Nazis so it must be false being the claim.

I saw this toaday.

http://richarddawkins.net/article,24...ichard-Dawkins

[peter12]

Originally Posted by photon

Apparently the Nazi connection is strong in this movie, natural selection being invoked by the Nazis so it must be false being the claim. Nazi's used physics too, the theory of gravity made the bombs fall, so the theory of gravity must be false.

Do these people even listen to themselves?

I have a lot of problems with directly connecting Darwin to Hitler in this manner. I do think that the notion of natural selection and survival of the fittest can have an impact upon the mindset of those who are not willing to explore it philosophically.

There's quite a bit of philosophical/historical evidence that the notion of natural selection and species competition led to the race idea and the cultural circumstances that led to Nazism, Imperialism et al...

I don't think modern evolutionary theory suffers from this same problem to the same extent. And of course, it doesn't justify throwing out the theory on this basis, it just means being careful about your science.

[Flashpoint]

Originally Posted by tussery

Wow, I made the mistake today (I am an athiest) of playing devils advocate with a christian conservative in class today who took this film as gospel. You would have thought I dropped a nuclear weapon in the class. Everyone was looking at me like I was the devil for even questioning ID. I remember why I don't talk politics or religion with the idiots in Texas.

Don't be too hard on them. They were born and raised in the bible belt. It isn't like they had a choice to be brainwashed or not. It's like Canadians and hockey. If you don't join the party, you get kind of excluded.

I'm sure you can find some folks who came to it late in life. Why you would choose to believe in Santa Claus (and other fairy tales) as an adult, I don't know - but hey! That's the beauty of the America. You can believe in whatever crazy nonsense you want - polygamy, god, scientology, the San Jose Sharks...

...go nuts!

[photon]

Originally Posted by peter12

And of course, it doesn't justify throwing out the theory on this basis, it just means being careful about your science.

Just means you have to be careful about presenting your science.

That these guys think the validity of a scientific theory is dependent on how appealing that theory is shows their complete dishonesty. Lying for Jesus.. Jesus would not be amused.

[peter12]

Originally Posted by photon

Just means you have to be careful about presenting your science.

That these guys think the validity of a scientific theory is dependent on how appealing that theory is shows their complete dishonesty. Lying for Jesus.. Jesus would not be amused.

Wait, you'll have to explain this comment.

[photon]

They say Nazis invoked natural selection in their cause, therefore natural selection is false. As I said, that's like saying Nazi's used gravity to deliver their bombs, therefore gravity is false. It does not follow, and the guys that made this movie know it full well. They purposefully choose to misrepresent the facts, manipulate the viewers with Nazi imagery, etc.. to try and give their point the merit which it doesn't have.

All so they can get Intelligent Design into the classroom and circumvent the laws against religion in the classroom.

They're lying for Jesus.

[Burninator]

Not sure if this has been posted in here or not.

http://www.expelledexposed.com/

There you can see how much this movie has lied, misrepresented the facts and ignored the science.

[photon]

http://www.jewcy.com/post/intelligen..._immoral_fraud

Neat article I passed by today.

Let us suppose for the sake of argument that the theory of evolution really led to some undesirable political consequence, which, as we have seen, is simply not true. From this assumption, it is supposed to follow that evolutionary theory is false and we should replace it with ID. Let us see where this takes us. From the usual rules of chemistry many nations, including the United States, have designed chemical weapons. From this, should we conclude that chemistry is false and we should replace it with Intelligent Alchemy? From the principles of molecular genetics, many of these same nations have designed biological weapons. Should we declare molecular genetics false and replace it with Intelligent Pangenesis? From quantum mechanics came the nuclear bombs that were dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Therefore, quantum mechanics is false and should be replaced by Intelligent Ether Theory?

[peter12]

Originally Posted by photon

They say Nazis invoked natural selection in their cause, therefore natural selection is false. As I said, that's like saying Nazi's used gravity to deliver their bombs, therefore gravity is false. It does not follow, and the guys that made this movie know it full well. They purposefully choose to misrepresent the facts, manipulate the viewers with Nazi imagery, etc.. to try and give their point the merit which it doesn't have.

All so they can get Intelligent Design into the classroom and circumvent the laws against religion in the classroom.

They're lying for Jesus.

Presentation goes for both sides, of course. Of course, the ID'ers are shoddy and poor intellectuals. They deserve absolutely no credibility.

Of course, I have a problem with Dawkins et al. saying that evolution is the ultimate purpose of our existence as well.

Darwinism as a scientific theory is excellent and is easily the most imaginative and effective way of taxonomy and explaining the origin of life on this planet. As an all-encompassing ideology it sucks.

[photon]

Originally Posted by peter12

Of course, I have a problem with Dawkins et al. saying that evolution is the ultimate purpose of our existence as well.

Do they now, please cite where they say that.

Darwinism as a scientific theory is excellent and is easily the most imaginative and effective way of taxonomy and explaining the origin of life on this planet. As an all-encompassing ideology it sucks.

Thank goodness evolution never claims to be an all-encompassing ideology then. Evolution doesn't explain where my socks go either, is that a knock against it as well?

[peter12]

Originally Posted by photon

Do they now, please cite where they say that.



Thank goodness evolution never claims to be an all-encompassing ideology then. Evolution doesn't explain where my socks go either, is that a knock against it as well?

In regards to your first point, the purpose of evolution to an organism is to make sure that enough copies of your genetics are passed on to the next generation. I believe that Dawkins has said in interviews and in his writing that that is our ultimate purpose, to copy our DNA. Now I obviously know that he doesn't believe that is our sole purpose, but I do have a problem with viewing humanity as simply material survival machines.

Evolution when used in context as a good scientific theory certainly does not claim to be an ideology, but there are still those who do use it as an ideology to explain and understand all aspects of human development.

This isn't a knock against evolution, just a reminder that like any human idea, it can be twisted for the wrong reasons. The notion of evolution, although distorted, was adapted very easily by the Nazis for their racial doctrine.

[photon]

Originally Posted by peter12

In regards to your first point, the purpose of evolution to an organism is to make sure that enough copies of your genetics are passed on to the next generation. I believe that Dawkins has said in interviews and in his writing that that is our ultimate purpose, to copy our DNA. Now I obviously know that he doesn't believe that is our sole purpose, but I do have a problem with viewing humanity as simply material survival machines.

Sure that's the purpose of our biological processes.. Read his Selfish Gene, from a gene's point of view we're merely transport mechanisms for genes to propagate.

Humanity could also be seen as a host for language to transmit and propagate itself if you are a linguist.

It depends on what context you are talking about.

Ultimately what else are we than survival machines then? And like I said before, you liking or not liking a view doesn't have anything to do with the validity of that view.

Evolution when used in context as a good scientific theory certainly does not claim to be an ideology, but there are still those who do use it as an ideology to explain and understand all aspects of human development.

I lost you, evolution is a major tool in modern biology (biology being the quest to explain and understand all aspects of biological development, which includes humans). Without evolution, modern biology does not exist.

What's an example of using evolution inappropriately as an ideology to explain human development?

This isn't a knock against evolution, just a reminder that like any human idea, it can be twisted for the wrong reasons. The notion of evolution, although distorted, was adapted very easily by the Nazis for their racial doctrine.

Of course it was, but if evolution hadn't been discovered yet, they would have went ahead anyway using some other reason agreed?

Like I said, just because someone takes something like natural selection and misuses it for their own ends doesn't mean ANYTHING with regards to the validity of that thing. Agreed?

[peter12]

Originally Posted by photon

Sure that's the purpose of our biological processes.. Read his Selfish Gene, from a gene's point of view we're merely transport mechanisms for genes to propagate.

Humanity could also be seen as a host for language to transmit and propagate itself if you are a linguist.

It depends on what context you are talking about.

Ultimately what else are we than survival machines then? And like I said before, you liking or not liking a view doesn't have anything to do with the validity of that view.

I lost you, evolution is a major tool in modern biology (biology being the quest to explain and understand all aspects of biological development, which includes humans). Without evolution, modern biology does not exist.

What's an example of using evolution inappropriately as an ideology to explain human development?

Of course it was, but if evolution hadn't been discovered yet, they would have went ahead anyway using some other reason agreed?

Like I said, just because someone takes something like natural selection and misuses it for their own ends doesn't mean ANYTHING with regards to the validity of that thing. Agreed?

I agree with you to a certain extent. I do think that an understanding of human beings as simply existing to be survival machines has an effect on how we view the value of human life.

What I'm wary of, and I think a lot of sensible scientists agree, is the danger of how much consilience we are willing to allow between biology and the rest of our human understandings.

How does the validity of natural selection affect our moral understanding of certain issues, such as euthanasia?