Slashdot Mirror
Ben Stein's 'Expelled' - Evolution, Academia and Conformity
eldavojohn writes "Painting the current scientific community as just as bad as the Spanish Inquisition, an extended trailer of Ben Stein's "Expelled" has a lot of people (at least that I know) talking. It looks like his movie plans to encourage people to speak out if they believe intelligent design or creationism to be correct. In the trailer he even warns you that if you are a scientist you may lose your job by watching 'Expelled.' Backlash to the movie has started popping up and this may force the creationism/evolutionist debate to a whole new level across the big screen and the internet."
adholden points out a site called Expelled Exposed, which asserts that 'Expelled' "is simply an anti-science propaganda film aimed at creating controversy where none exists, while promoting poor science education that can and will severely handicap American students."
You are 20 days too late to take these lying clowns seriously.
We are talking about 'Expelled' not 'An Inconvenient Truth'
You have to give our American evangelical fruitcake cousins credit though, for at least standing firm in what they believe in, even if they are completely and utterly batfuck crazy. They, at least, are biblical "literalists" (I use that word very very loosely), ie they believe in the entire contents of their bibles, from start to finish.
European, and especially UK "fundamentalist evangelicals" on the other hand are neither fundamentalist nor evangelical in the strict sense of the words, and don't have the strength of conviction to believe that their bibles are the inspired word of god. I've always found that stance more than a little perplexing: either your faith and beliefs are based on the bible or they're not. You can't choose to only believe certain chunks of it and not others, because that at once invalidates its authority.
From what i am reading here I am sure this will never see the light of day but, here goes. I read post after post indicating that you have to be a moonbat to take anything but evolution seriously. This all based on the fact that the "experts" agree. Well let me draw an analogy that will work here, "according to the experts windows is the best operating system"! Now after visiting oh say 1,000 mainstream websites on the subject of computing it could be pretty safe to run around and state rather authoritatively windows is the source of all computer greatness. Oh, sure there is a group of nutbags that keep mumbling irrationally about bsd and linux but, the experts assure us that they are fanatics and there is nothing whatsoever to what they are saying. I know what I believe, and I also know, that enough people are full of crap on a wide variety of topics, and that they pontificate about pure dribble in front of some pretty impressive backdrops to add legitimacy to their bunk. So much of what is declaratively said by "scientists" is based on a long convoluted rube goldberg set of suppositions and extrapolations that accepting what they say as the incontrovertible truth, and therefore the final word, makes you an idiot. I am not agreeing with intelligent design but, I do agree with what I think is the premise of the movie which is, a lot of scientists that espouse theories are really narrow minded self important megalomaniacs that in all reality have no definitive answers. Especially when they insist that anyone that disagrees with their "facts" is a poopy head.
There are a lot of stealth creationists out there that conceal their idiotic beliefs in order to pass through the academic establishment. I recently met a physics graduate who when sufficiently interrogated admitted that he thought the universe was less than a million years old. He had got through his exams and coursework simply by lying about what he really thought.
So I say lets do as they are accusing us of doing anyway and persecute the motherfuckers. Thinking one thing and saying another to get ahead is entirely antithetical to the principles of science, so it isn't at all out of order for us to expel these intellectually dishonest retards from out midst.
Prominently featured in the propaganda reel of a trailer is a straw-man science teacher being unable to answer Steins question, and the same question being addressed to Professor Dawkins and his admission that science doesn't know for sure being portrayed as an admission of God.
Perhaps I shouldn't be so aggressive. Maybe its the wisdom teeth I currently have erupting from my gums like a pack of angry xenomorphs, but these people make me feel extremely confrontational and aggressive.
If we can put a man on the moon, why can't we shoot people for Apollo-related non-sequiturs?
"Oh - and can you pls link to the CNN article?"
It almost certainly doesn't exist. It was probably invented by electrictroy (912290) or some liar in media.
"I zero-index my hamsters" - Willtor (147206)
your absolutely right1
while were at it, lets get rid of the periodic table of elements in chemistry class.
One major concern I have is the elevation of the 90-something elements as a means of all materials to an unrealistic importance. I just don't see why it's so important in and of itself. One could certainly be a competent physician, for example, and not believe in Oxygen or Carbon (or hydrogen). It seems to me that one could even be a quite competent practitioner of any of the bio-chemical sciences (other than the various sorts of helium balloon fillers) without necessarily agreeing with chemistry. Yet, we are constantly told that a failure to teach the periodic table at the high school level will destroy science education as we know it and result in a US population that is hopelessly ignorant of all science, etc. etc. I just don't buy it.
-I only code in BASIC.-
It's interesting that you mention organisms next to oceanic vents. Those are discussed in Dr. Walt Brown's book "In The Beginning". You should check it out. Buy.
He presents compelling explanations for nearly everything that science is struggling to understand - sedimentary layers on mountains, lack of dust on the moon, the origin of life. Throughout his book he relies on scientific studies performed by evolutionists. He does this to prevent anyone from claiming that his facts are contrived.
You are using English. Please learn the difference between loose and lose; they're, there, and their; your and you're.
I can no more respect those who believe in Creationism than I can those who believe in vampires, werewolves, fairies and goblins. It's all the same.
Maybe that's why guys like me took 60 credit hours of Greek, 30 of Hebrew, with a bunch of Latin thrown in just for grins. And why guys like me think it's cool when little scraps of 1st century papyrus with Biblical text on them turn up.
And please, quit with the straw men.
doc
The movie raises some good points and he interviews people that were fired after even mentioning ID. This is propaganda and lies? Hmmm.
Besides that, the primary point of the movie is that ID is not open for debate in the scientific community. If you doubt this and are in a position to test it, write an article or paper about ID and see what happens. Let us know how it goes. The fact is, evolutionary theory has problems, big problems, and any debate would expose such problems. Otherwise, why not debate the ID folks and send them to an early grave? The fact that evolutionary science has problems has nothing to do with ID -- those problems exists within the theory itself, therefore it cannot be debated because it cannot be fully defended.
My question: if evolution and global warming are the "consensus", why are there so many scientists devoted to these causes? Sure there should be a handful working on these topics, but there are many of them at every university around the world. Why so many for "settled science"? Fact is, there are more questions than answers on ID and global warming. How exactly is this settled science? Seems there is room for debate and alternative theories, rather than this fit-the-data-to-the-theory approach to science.
Never mind the fact that evolutionary science starts after the first cell. No one has a better answer than "God" for how that first cell came about. In the movie, Dawkins even concedes that ID is possible, by arguing that the first cells could have been "seeded" here by aliens. This is Intelligent Design, folks.
There is another "scientist" in the movie (I forget his name) that claims the first cells came about by mutations on the "backs of crystals"! This is science? This is somehow more scientific than allowing for intelligent design. Want to convert me to evolution and atheism? Grow me some cells (from nothing) on the backs of crystals!
Well, what have you done that's supposed to give you a relevant opinion?
Wake me when the list is longer than "read the bible".
I agree that there is no true revelation other than personal revelation (i.e. if you tell me god told you something, I can't tell you from a madman).
/. its a discussion not a term paper but that was a pretty big error. Apologies.
I don't feel the need to prove your religion wrong as long as it doesn't get into suppressing hard evidence, cutting funds for real science, violate the social contract (murder, taxes, child abuse, etc.) and so on. You and your buds can believe whatever goofy thing you want.
"And I know because"... I only know what christians tell me. The ones who are serious and have a divinity school and the sources they have referred me to and a few books/articles I've read on the subject over my lifetime (which are all mashed together in my muddly mind) say this is the truth of their religion. It was surprising enough for me to remember. The soul separate from the "steeler's" fan.
Of course, if you think about it- an ordinary human life stretched over eternity is probably a form of hell... at the end, you would be completely jaded- probably unable to fall in love any more, given eternity and human nature, over eternity, you would experience both infinite happiness and infinite misery and infinite boredom.
Mormons are not christians. That's some goofy thing they started this century. I can worship a pineapple and say I'm christian but that doesn't make me one. Mormons do not believe the key passages of the bible and instead use a different definition for who god and jesus are. It is very weasely to do this and makes you mormons look bad to the rest. It is about as goofy as a Hindu religion somehow claiming they are christians too. Just accept the glory of your own unique beliefs and move on. Using tortured grammar and logic to say you are christians just isn't working among anyone I know.
And sorry- it was joe smith, my bad. I'm sloppy a bit on
She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
Actually... Mormons are not Christian. Although this is a common misconception. Please, give the bible a read. Just read the gospel if you like (Matthew, Mark, Luke, John). It doesn't take all that long to get through them - and once you do, I think you'll realize the difference between Mormonism and Christianity.
Please understand that I'm not trying to attack you; I'm just trying clarify something that's often misunderstood.
You are using English. Please learn the difference between loose and lose; they're, there, and their; your and you're.
I saw the movie, liked it and wonder how many nay sayers saw more than the trailer? Not everyone will agree with his views. Many will. His deductions however are verifiable. Be sure to attack the man. Character assassination is often used when you can't attack the argument. His biggest point is a word picture that compares much of academia enclose by a Berlin Wall mindset. This is arguably true. No amount of reason is going to change peoples minds when they don't want to change. It's easier just to put up the wall. Safer too. It's easier to punish those with questions than answer them. Some will think they are doing right by preventing free speech and free exchange of ideas. I believe it was Joseph Stalin who said "We don't let our people have guns, why would we let them have ideas". Where theres a will, there's a wall. ;-)