Six Things in Expelled That Ben Stein Doesn't Want You to Know...

Scientific American ^ | April 16, 2008 | John Rennie and Steve Mirsky

[AntiKev]

I’m probably going to get flamed for jumping on this thread, but ignorant viewpoints like yours are the reason that conservatives are demonized in popular media.

There are many conservatives (some here, including me) who do not subscribe to intelligent design theory. Now you may come back at me and say “It’s not a theory.” Well...it is. There weren’t any of us there when it happened. Noone that is alive today witnessed creation, no matter how it happened.

Now, intelligent design (as postulated by the religious, I’m not going to go into all the different variations on it here) requires an assumption that can not be proven, that is the belief that God exists. That goes against the scientific method.

Don’t get me wrong here, I’m not anti-religious. I’m not a religious person myself, and I find no need for it, but if you need to believe to get through your day, go ahead. I won’t stop you. That being said, many of these “athiests” that you talk about aren’t actually athiests. They just don’t share your viewpoint so you demonize them just like the left does to those of us who think firearms should be unregulated.

For some reason there are many here who demonize science and scientists. Without scientists we wouldn’t be able to organize on this forum, so you may want to rethink your position. Science is not about politics, when you get right down to it. Numbers don’t lie (unless they’re statistics, but that’s another post). People do put their own personal biases into their interpretation of the data, but the data doesn’t lie.

All in all, I think many here need to re-think their viewpoints on science in general. Some of those here who go on complaining about “Scientific America” need to look inward to their own viewpoints and the hypocrisy contained therein. Don’t fall into the trap of being dragged down to their level because they’ll beat you with experience.

I’m off to don my asbestos underwear.

[savedbygrace]

intently = intensely

[Liberty Valance]

[trumandogz]

The late Pope John Paul II said that evolution was compatible with Roman Catholicism as an explanation for mankind's physical origins.

I was not aware that Pope John Paul II was a member of the "Liberal Elite."

[Campion]

Darwin explicitly rejected the idea of eliminating the "weak" as dehumanizing and evil.

That's fine, but the people who were and are in favor of eugenics and the Holocaust definitely pointed back to Darwinism as part of the justification of their ideas.

To the extent that Darwin himself disagreed with them, they'd simply say that he was being inconsistent, and they weren't.

[the_daug]

But the reality is that showing Miller would have invalidated the film's major premise that evolutionary biologists all reject God.

I thought the major premise was those who believe in Intelligence design being discriminated against.

[Paradox]

Sounds like Michael Moore type tactics. However, I don’t think that expelled bills itself as a documentary, or not completely. Either way, I won’t see it. I’ll be one of those non-creationist conservatives who will be cringing at home.

[weegee]

We civilized men, on the other hand, do our utmost to check the process of elimination. We build asylums for the imbecile, the maimed and the sick; we institute poor-laws; and our medical men exert their utmost skill to save the life of every one to the last moment.

He should really check in on the pro-death industry that is with us today.

It is all about a "quality of life" now whether you are terminal, bored, unable to care for yourself, or an inconvenient pregnancy.

[Non-Sequitur]

Ben Stein still gets props from me for simply speaking out against the eduocracy.

Sure. Like Michael Moore gets credit for simply speaking out against the health care industry.

[Boxen]

I think you might be confusing the words “premise” and “conclusion.”

[dmz]

Who knew that Ferris Bueller’s Day Off was a documentary? I thought it was a fictional piece, one in which the rules of ‘willing suspension of disbelief’ were in full force.

I think you are suggesting that Ben is a documentarian in the style of Michael Moore, or even Borat.

[wilco200]

“Science teaches us how God created the world; the Bible teaches us why.”

Best comment in the entire thread. Worth repeating.

[weegee]

If God did not create the universe, then:

(A) God does not exist
(B) God exists but operates independent of our creation
(C) God evolved along with the space dust and this leaves open the possibility for other gods to also have evolved.

The mechanism of that “creation of life” is not the key component to believing in ANY idea of creationism. It hinges on whether you believe God played a role or not.

So those who deride all notions of creationism should really state what ideology they hold that denying any possibility of “creationism” does not deny the existence of god (forcing the “no god” god of atheism on the “deniers”).

Atheism is not the absence of religion. It is a faith too. Agnostics are the ones who say “we cannot know these things”.

I don’t see the point to teaching any theory as fact. That’s how we get the junk science of Man Made Global Warming in the circulum.

Odd too that science is unwilling to declare WHEN life begins even though there are millions of prenancies to observe but they are quite sure of the latest theory of HOW life began.

[EveningStar]

bump for later

[dmz]

I’m a pro evo and I cannot wait to see it.

[NCLaw441]

You are absolutely correct. This movie (I hope to see it soon, but I don’t know if it is even playing around here) is not about evolution so much as it is about bias and inhibiting free speech on college campuses, where, if anywhere speech should be at its freest.

As for the scientists who say they thought they were being filmed for another movie, are they saying that they would have changed their answers (i.e., lied) if they knew the true reason for the film?

I have no real interest in seeing a film that makes a scientific or even a faith-based assessment of evolutionary theory. I wouldn’t mind seeing a film about a scientific basis for the origins of life, but I doubt THAT movie will be made anytime soon.

This film could be about any number of forbidden areas of speech and belief at our so-called liberal arts colleges and universities.

[Boxen]

I’m not a professional debater(a “master” debater, if you will) or anything, but techinically, I think that might be what is called an ad hominem attack. You are attacking the manner of the arguer, not the argument itself.

[trumandogz]

Ben Stein still gets props from me for simply speaking out against the eduocracy.

Ben Stein gets props from me for making another comedy and calling it a "documentary."

"Expelled" Best Comedy of the Year!

[TruthConquers]

I dumped Scientific American in the 80’s for being liberally biased.

So, have they done a point by point dissection on Al Bore’s movie “An Inconvenient Truth?”

Inquiring minds want to know.

[TalonDJ]

1) So? That does not break the connection. He could have read from the papers written by Nazis to make the point. Just because Darwin shied away from the logical conclusion does not mean those that carried out atrocities did not make the connections.

2) Duh, it is a movie.

3) Duh, would they have even agreed to be interviewed?

4) Yeah, there are as many sides to every story as there are people involved.

5) Some in science do reject it for that reason. "This looks like it was designed, so there must be a designer; we know there is a designer because this looks designed." Right, because that makes so much less sense than, "It is statistically impossible so therefor it must take millions of years of random chance."

6) So? Of course they did not focus on that in the movie. Why would they have?

Scientific American would have had more credibility of discredit the film if they had not taken the time to print this weak attempt to discredit it.