Stein tackles issues in `Expelled'

Want to know what Christians thought of the movie? Go to this website and follow the see full review thread.

http://zannucci.wordpress.com/2008/04/23/anot...

Gracie wrote:

"Why so angry? What are you afraid of?"
I'm afraid of a nation of ignorant boobs. And angry that people apparenly LIKE being ignorant and try to encourage others to be ignorant too.
But that's just me.
Also, Ben went on Craig Ferguson's talk show and said this movie should be watched after hitting the bong. Look for it on YouTube. Hopefully you can laugh at yourself.

saw it and thought stein looked nuts saying the movie was made to counter evolutionists claim that evo accounts for everything,from gravity to how stars r formed.

I am tired of C David Parson's frequent commercials for his creationist materials. He offers no useful or intelligent information to a discussion but haunts blogs for opportunities to insert his commercials. His commercial should be retired.

Dave wrote:

I saw "Expelled" and enjoyed it. I'm an engineer, religious in the traditional sense but not affiliated. So I've got a foot in both camps, and I see no need for a war between scientists and religionists. I was glad to see that "Expelled" was not simplistic and monolithic; it covered a lot of turf and expressed a number of viewpoints. Stein directly addressed some tough questions (such as, were the cases of academic bullying systematic and representative, or where they isolated and anecdotal?; is I.D. simply creationism?; is discussing I.D. as inane and silly as discussing a flat Earth theory?) I think Stein's goal here was not to end a discussion, but to begin one. And I agree it's a discussion worth having.

One would wonder if you actually did some research before or after seeing the moving. Maybe you just took it on faith. Intelligent Design supporters do not have problems when claiming that the designer has to be a religious entity.
The only debate going on is whether Intelligent Design is science. The assertions that Stein makes are factually false.
There is one thing that Stein is correct about is that they are times when people academic careers are changed by publishing ideas that are not part of the establishment. However, many of these have later been accepted when the theories have been revised or proven to be correct.
The problem with Stein's presentation of the facts is that he wants an unproven theory to be taught/discussed in high school science class, when there are many more valid theories that aren't. Nobody learns super string theory in high school, but you can encounter it in university at the undergraduate or graduate level.
Stein is intellectually dishonest. Those who accept Stein arguments have been quite effectively deceived.

Love of Science wrote:

<quoted text>
One would wonder if you actually did some research before or after seeing the moving. Maybe you just took it on faith. Intelligent Design supporters do not have problems when claiming that the designer has to be a religious entity.
The only debate going on is whether Intelligent Design is science. The assertions that Stein makes are factually false.
There is one thing that Stein is correct about is that they are times when people academic careers are changed by publishing ideas that are not part of the establishment. However, many of these have later been accepted when the theories have been revised or proven to be correct.
The problem with Stein's presentation of the facts is that he wants an unproven theory to be taught/discussed in high school science class, when there are many more valid theories that aren't. Nobody learns super string theory in high school, but you can encounter it in university at the undergraduate or graduate level.
Stein is intellectually dishonest. Those who accept Stein arguments have been quite effectively deceived.

Did you even see the movie? From your statements I think not. Stein was trying to promote discussion at the top levels, not high school. ID is constantly labeled as creation, which it is not. Dawkins, the ultimate G-d basher defined ID perfectly in his last theory in the movie when he mentioned aliens. Absolutely hilarious. Way funnier than the crystal line.

Nephilim wrote:

<quoted text>Did you even see the movie? From your statements I think not. Stein was trying to promote discussion at the top levels, not high school. ID is constantly labeled as creation, which it is not. Dawkins, the ultimate G-d basher defined ID perfectly in his last theory in the movie when he mentioned aliens. Absolutely hilarious. Way funnier than the crystal line.

Id is simply christian creationism wearing a new dress. Ultimately, who designed the intelligent designer(s)?

Try reading up on the fine folks at the Discovery Institute and the Wedge Document.

Nephilim wrote:

<quoted text>Did you even see the movie? From your statements I think not. Stein was trying to promote discussion at the top levels, not high school. ID is constantly labeled as creation, which it is not. Dawkins, the ultimate G-d basher defined ID perfectly in his last theory in the movie when he mentioned aliens. Absolutely hilarious. Way funnier than the crystal line.

Your understanding of the issue is sorely lacking. For one thing, if you believe that ID is not religiously motivated, that the "intelligent designer" is somehow supposed to be something other than the Christian God, you have had the wool pulled over your eyes. I do not see HOW you can come to such a conclusion given the message of the rest of the movie. It is clearly religious in its implications.

As for Dawkins, he was only giving aliens as an outside shot at how life came to be on Earth. It was the only way HE could see that an intelligence of any sort was involved. That is not really an answer to the origin of life, for it fails to answer the question of how life started on the alien planet.

The universe, as we understand it, is finite in its age. Thus, there can only be a finite regression of intelligent beings seeding other planets to create new intelligent beings. At some point one MUST confront the origin of life.

As for "Stein was trying to promote discussion", in science there is nothing to discuss at this time. Science is not a philosophical discussion group. To talk science, one has to bring evidence to the table. At this time, ID has none. And what do we see? Instead of doing research, trying to confirm their assumptions, they are spending millions on PR. Nothing but whining.

Wow, what are you guys afraid of?

Talk about of closed minded people.
"As for "Stein was trying to promote discussion", in science there is nothing to discuss at this time."

This attitude is exactly the point of the movie. You flat earth guys are just stuck and are unwilling to even talk. No I am right, no I am right neener neener neener. Absolutely childish.

Nephilim wrote:

Wow, what are you guys afraid of?
Talk about of closed minded people.
"As for "Stein was trying to promote discussion", in science there is nothing to discuss at this time."
This attitude is exactly the point of the movie. You flat earth guys are just stuck and are unwilling to even talk. No I am right, no I am right neener neener neener. Absolutely childish.

It's like we tell all the rest of you whackos, bring us the scientific discussion of ID, and THEN we will be glad to "promote discussion" with you.

Why don't you ask the Discovery Institute for some scientific findings on ID? They accept thousands of private dollars for "research", they should be willing to help.

Puleeze! Science and creationism are two very different things. Ben Stein's opinions aside, anyone who claims scientific legitimacy based on religious preconceptions should not be surprised by academic rejection from real scientists.

This may be the single greatest link we could have for this Debate Forum, any way we can sticky it to the top???

http://www.aclu.org/religion/schools/16371res...

>>>>Nephilim
 
Wow, what are you guys afraid of?

>>>>>Gillette
We're not afraid of ANYTHING. Why do weak-minded fundamentalist Christians immediately reach for that one? "Afraid of something?" We do get annoyed when people who plainly don't know sh!t about science try to criticize it.

>>>>Nephilim
Talk about of closed minded people.
"As for "Stein was trying to promote discussion", in science there is nothing to discuss at this time."

This attitude is exactly the point of the movie. You flat earth guys are just stuck and are unwilling to even talk. No I am right, no I am right neener neener neener. Absolutely childish.

>>>>>Gillette
We've been answering the same tired fundamentalist Christian BS for YEARS: Darwin leads to Hitler and the Holocaust, you just don't want to be accountable to Jesus for your sins, if we evolved from monkeys why are there still monkeys, etc. etc. etc.

You don't "try to promote discussion" by accusing scientist who research evolution of promoting Nazism. You don;t try to promote discussion by approaching leading scientists under false pretenses, then quoting them out of context.

Your movie was sleazy and dishonest,as befits its fundamentalist Christian sources:
http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm...

Oh so you are afraid of G-d. I see.

All the name calling and hysteria does not give me much reason to trust in the scientific community. Seems like we need a lot more science and a lot less emotion.

Say all you want, but your hero Dawkins used ID for his last theory. Of course that was immediately after a childish tirade toward G-d.

Gillette wrote:

You don't "try to promote discussion" by accusing scientist who research evolution of promoting Nazism.

You obviously did not see the movie. Thank you for commenting.

Nephilim wrote:

Wow, what are you guys afraid of?
Talk about of closed minded people.
"As for "Stein was trying to promote discussion", in science there is nothing to discuss at this time."
This attitude is exactly the point of the movie. You flat earth guys are just stuck and are unwilling to even talk. No I am right, no I am right neener neener neener. Absolutely childish.

Again we see the erroneous conception of "open minded" by a creationist. "Open minded" does not mean a willingness to accept just any tom-fool idea that comes along. What it DOES mean is a willingness to listen to the evidence before deciding.

The evidence I have heard for creationism...utter silence. Based on this lack of evidence...case closed. Bring some evidence to the table and I will reevaluate the case.

As for Stein and his movie...they are insisting on all the privileges of science without paying any of the dues. Bring some evidence to the table and we will talk. Until you have that evidence, ID is just so much philosophical woo.

Nephilim wrote:

Oh so you are afraid of G-d. I see.
All the name calling and hysteria does not give me much reason to trust in the scientific community. Seems like we need a lot more science and a lot less emotion.
Say all you want, but your hero Dawkins used ID for his last theory. Of course that was immediately after a childish tirade toward G-d.

I am not afraid of the boogie man. Fairy tales haven't scared me for a long time.

And, yes, ID needs a lot more science. Care to present ANY that was mentioned in the movie? Seems there wasn't any at all. Just appeals to emotion. Mr. Pot...Meet Mr. Kettle.

Nephilim wrote:

<quoted text>You obviously did not see the movie. Thank you for commenting.

Are you going to try and tell me the movie DOESN'T try to equate ToE with Nazism. You mean all those scenes of Nazis shown before and after Dawkins' and Myers' interviews were a figment of my imagination?

>>>>>Nephilim
 
Oh so you are afraid of G-d. I see.

>>>>Gillette
Not at all. Why would you say that?

His supposed FOLLOWERS can be pretty creepy, though.:)

>>>>>Nephilim
All the name calling and hysteria does not give me much reason to trust in the scientific community.

>>>>Gillette
Great. Well, if you should have the great misfortune of coming down with cancer, you go right to Pastor Billy Bob and have him cure you. No reason to "trust in the scientific community."

>>>>>Nephilim
Seems like we need a lot more science and a lot less emotion.

>>>>>Gillette
We've got ALL THE SCIENCE on our side. It's you fundamentalist Christian who criticize science without even having a rudimentary understanding of it.

Darwins Stepchild wrote:

Are you going to try and tell me the movie DOESN'T try to equate ToE with Nazism. You mean all those scenes of Nazis shown before and after Dawkins' and Myers' interviews were a figment of my imagination?

If that is what you got after seeing the movie you truly are closed minded. I thought it was indicative of being closed minded, not a comparison to "Nazism". Me thinks you protest way too much.

I wonder if Darwin would ever have come up with his theories and subsequent studies if he had that mindset?

Gillette wrote:

>>>>>Nephilim
 
Oh so you are afraid of G-d. I see.
>>>>Gillette
Not at all. Why would you say that?
His supposed FOLLOWERS can be pretty creepy, though.:)
>>>>>Nephilim
All the name calling and hysteria does not give me much reason to trust in the scientific community.
>>>>Gillette
Great. Well, if you should have the great misfortune of coming down with cancer, you go right to Pastor Billy Bob and have him cure you. No reason to "trust in the scientific community."
>>>>>Nephilim
Seems like we need a lot more science and a lot less emotion.
>>>>>Gillette
We've got ALL THE SCIENCE on our side. It's you fundamentalist Christian who criticize science without even having a rudimentary understanding of it.

I am not a fundy so you can just cut with the intended insults. I am all for science. What I am opposed to is closed minded thinking.

Did you hear they doscovered the world in fact is not round?

Then let's be open-minded, then. Please present all the evidence available for the theory of ID, of which I'm SURE they mentioned in the movie. Didn't they...?

chipfle wrote:

<quoted text>Engineer != scientist, despite the silly pretentions of plug&crankers. When the creIDiots actrually present anything remotely approaching actual research or evidence, we can talk. CreIDism is simply an exercize in flock-fleecing and political power. Should we also have a discussion about astrology, phrenology, pyramid power? They have at least as much validity as creIDism.

chipfle- Leave astrology out of this, it accurately predicts what I am doing today. I can't do a thing until I get the papaer in the morning:)