Posted on 04/19/2008 12:17:00 PM PDT by cornelis
I like rebels, especially ones who go against type. Take Ben Stein in his latest film, Expelled, which comes out this Friday. Dressed in a sport coat, tie, and tennis shoes, he’s not who you expect — the deadpan, monotone-voiced but ever-likable teacher he portrays in Ferris Bueller’s Day Off and The Wonder Years.
Stein retains his characteristic deadpan affect, but this time he’s playing himself — a deceptively erudite and well-educated interviewer, who is passionately skeptical of evolutionary biology and its leading proponents.
The film’s endeavor is to respond to one simple question: “Were we designed, or are we simply the end result of an ancient mud puddle struck by lightning?”
Big science doesn’t like that question because they can’t answer it. Underneath their antagonism toward explanations that suggest an intelligent cause, lies a fundamental egoism. Science wants to deny any evidence of a supreme being precisely because it wants to be a supreme being. Moreover, representatives of big science in the film are unsettlingly snippy, suggesting that they feel threatened by rival opinions, rather than assured of their own.
To make this point, the film introduces teachers and scientists who are shunned, denied tenure, and fired for questioning dogmatic Darwinism. The film’s producers spent two years traveling the world, talking with more than 150 educators and scientists who say they have been persecuted for questioning Darwin’s theory of natural selection.
Dr. Richard Sternberg, a biologist, publishes a peer-reviewed paper, which posits evidence for intelligent design (ID) in the universe. For his efforts, Sternberg’s bosses at the Smithsonian Institution trashed him so badly that it led to a congressional investigation.
Iowa State University denied tenure to Guillermo Gonzalez, an accomplished astrobiologist. University officials admitted that Gonzalez’s work on ID is a factor.
For Richard Dawkins, by contrast, job security is not a problem. To this superstar Oxford University evolutionary biologist, and devout atheist, intelligent design is nothing more than an “ideological cousin of creationism.”
The highlight of the film features Ben Stein interviewing Dawkins, who concedes that an intelligent being may have created life on earth. But that being cannot be “God.” Instead, he suggests it may be an alien, itself a product of “Darwinian evolution.” Oh, the scientific imagination — there’s nothing like it on God’s green earth.
Dawkins has since complained that the interview was set up under false pretenses, and that he didn’t even know who Stein was. It is rather astonishing that it did not occur to the world’s smartest atheist to look up Ben Stein on the Internet, where he might have readily discovered numerous examples of his writings that are critical of Darwinism.
Dawkins dismisses the Emmy-winning actor as having “no talent for comedy.” He believes during the interview Stein is an “honestly stupid man, sincerely seeking enlightenment from a scientist.” A lawyer, a law professor, an economist, and a speechwriter for both Nixon and Ford, Stein hardly seems to fit the description “honestly stupid.”
In the end, the film isn’t really about intelligent design as much as about a relentless attack on an authentically free inquiry. As Ben Stein points out, “Freedom of inquiry has been greatly compromised, and this is not only anti-American, it’s anti-science. It’s anti-the whole concept of learning.”
— Dave Berg is a senior segment producer at The Tonight Show with Jay Leno.
“I have no scientific background...”
If you don’t have a scientific background, how do you know Coppedge isn’t lying to you?
If you don’t find what you just posted to be sick and twisted...
...well, that says volumes.
Hitler did cite it to justify his virulent anti-semitism.
It is nonsense to blame either Darwin or Christianity for Hitler's atrocities, IMO. Ethnic cleansing has been going on for thousands of years.
The intellectual tool of science is designed only to make sure that one's measurements be as accurate as one's technology permits, that one's measurements use the appropriate tool for the quantity to be measured, and that one's conclusions follow logically from one's premises.
If one works very diligently, then one may be able to separate what one hopes or believes is out there from what actually is out there. That is, one may be able to systematically eliminate one's misconceptions about what is out there in the world by the practice of science and, as a result, be able to exercise control over it and then use it for one's ends. This is the power of science.
The choice of both premises and ends, though, lies outside the field of science because science is limited to reasoning and experimentation based on measurable quantities. The biggest error of the past three centuries has been the assumption that since everything that can be measured exists, nothing exists if it cannot be measured. The belief is that since measurement is but the extension of our senses by technical means, there is nothing that exists apart from that which is open, at least in principle, to our senses; ie, "seeing is believing" or, ostrich-like, "If I can't see it, it doesn't exist." Accordingly, personality, thought, love, and free will are just smiley faces we put on biochemical processes that are irrevocably part of a chain of cause and effect that we only think we control.
The funny thing is that there are some people who feel comforted in believing this who at the same time ridicule people who believe Jesus rose from the dead because of the testimony of others who witnessed it. They claim that their witness cannot be trusted because1. something like that cannot happen,The retort to 3, because they cannot argue with the first two, would be that 'history' or 'one's life' are not truly 'things,' but simply labels slapped arbitrarily somewhere along the chain of natural events that exist on their own without rhyme or reason and that sticking on these labels is just an attempt by weak people who lack the bravery to see things the way they really are to provide a feeling of meaning where is none--yeah, sort of like the people who use the label of "science" to claim to have the only true way of separating fact from fiction as well as the only means by which to define 'fact' and 'fiction' ?
2. it cannot happen since they've never observed it,* and
3. if it doesn't happen more than once and they haven't witnessed it themselves, then anyone else claiming to have done so must either be insane or a liar. And then they abuse the word "science" by claiming 1-3 to be scientific.
The answer to the above is, of course,
1. that the most they can say is that, given the usual nature of things, it doesn't happen, not that it cannot happen if given sufficient cause, and that if it did happen, that would be, in and of itself, evidence that the cause was outside the usual nature of things. Stating categorically that there can be no sufficient cause "because biology teaches us..." is just naked arrogance trying to use science as a fig leaf;
2. that plenty of things happen that one has never witnessed or had any idea that they could happen,
3. that there are plenty of things that happen only once--the history of one's life, for instance, beginning with one's conception--that are nonetheless real.
* or observed by anyone they trust, meaning 'by anyone who believes what they believe', meaning 'if you've claimed to have witnessed this, you're no longer someone I can trust,' meaning, 'only that which I believe is true or can possibly be true,' meaning, 'I, and those like me, are the sole arbiters of truth,' meaning, 'if you don't fit in with the program, then you're an enemy,' meaning, 'if you don't accept the tenets of _____, then you're the enemy of truth and since we accept the tenets of _____ and we are human, then you are also the enemy of mankind." And how is this any different from any other form of tribalism?
1. David Coppedge believes in the Bible (not in religion which is man-made).
2. CreationSafaris.com has an informative section called "Baloney Detection." You won't find anything like this on Darwin Central.
3. You have a false premise --if you don't have a scientific background.. Not necessary when the evidence is properly presented. Coppedge makes a better case for creationism than the evolutionists do for their view.
4. Key words used by the researchers: assumed, imagined, probably, must have, most likely, hoped for, supposed, etc.
5. SETI - A subset of evolution. I shake my head and wonder how anybody can believe such nonsense (But imagine if intelligent life was found elsewhere - where would that leave the Bible and its believers? See the motivation?).
And many more things I've seen from the behavior of evo's. Too tired right now.
"The only other newcomer in the Top 10 was conservative commentator Ben Stein's #8 documentary, Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed in which he takes the creationists' side against scientists in the evolution battle. Playing in 1,052 theaters, the pic distributed by Rocky Mountain Films earned $1.2M Friday for what should be a $3.4M weekend. But the per screen average was a feeble $1,130 (not the $3,000 erroneously rumored on the Internet), showing there wasn't any pent-up demand for the film despite an aggressive publicity campaign. So much for the conservative argument that people would flock to films not representing the "agenda of liberal Hollywood". (Just for comparison purposes: Michael Moore's most recent Sicko did $4.4 mil its opening weekend from only 441 theaters, and his Fahrenheit 9/11 did $23.9M its opening weekend from 868 venues.) "
You're comparing apples to oranges as far as movies go and a great debut to an exceptional debut for the rest. Expelled made it to #68 in all time box office receipts in its first weekend, only $15,000 less than Shut Up and Sing did in its entire run. It's already done more boxoffice than Jesus Camp. It won't take much more to break into the top 50 and top 25 is possible. Documentaries don't generally compete with movies, although Expelled has already done better than Redacted. Expelled also doesn't have the wide appeal to compete with documentaries like March of the Penguins or Farenheit 911 but your assesment is misleading, to put it politely, at best.
http://www.boxofficemojo.com/genres/chart/?id=documentary.htm
Let's look at your figures then. You compare Exposed to the opening of "Jesus Camp" and "Shut Up And Sing". Yet " Exposed" opened in 1,052 theaters while "Jesus Camp" opened in 52 and "Shut Up And Sing" opened in 84. The better comparison would be with "Sicko". That opened in 350 fewer theaters (702 vs. 1052). "Exposed" won't be the all time blockbuster movie, and nobody expects it to be. But with the promotion it's been getting and with Ben Stein as state one would have expected a better opening than it got.
He’s referring to Democratic Underground, which is a website. DU for short. The participants there are often referred to as DUmmies by FReepers.
It’s wise to lurk for a period of time before joining a discussion group and beginning to post. Apparently, you didn’t do that before you started posting here, and as a result, you don’t understand a lot of things that are common knowledge here.
Astronomy
Nuclear Physics
Geology
Botany
Genetics
Paleontology
Archeology
just to name a few.
Are they all part of some conspiracy?
???
Nor could we check our sympathy, even at the urging of hard reason, without deterioration in the noblest part of our nature. The surgeon may harden himself whilst performing an operation, for he knows that he is acting for the good of his patient; ***** but if we were intentionally to neglect the weak and helpless, it could only be for a contingent benefit, with an overwhelming present evil. ******
In what way is it sick and twisted?
‘while mine is always the same in God’s Word’
Then why have I had preachers tell me that Catholics are worse than atheists and doomed to hell, that non-SBC Baptists will burn in a lake of fire, that those who dare not belong to the non-SBC Longview Babtist Temple will spend eternity in hell?
That is just 3 examples of diametrical opposed ‘Truth’ for three different churches, all using the same translation of the KJV Bible.
As for my ‘hollow empty existence’ that just isn’t so.
The term science designates a way of thinking. And thinking is precisely a science when it has matter for it's object. There are different sciences, which is good, because the behavior of matter is not confined to just one science.
There may be any number of scientific tools that allow us to manipulate matter or "to exercise control over it and then use it for one's ends." However, stated in this way, with language of control and "one's ends," --if we admit this as part of science, then the ends of science have more than matter for it's object. :)
That is not the Truth that I was talking about. All Christian religions believe in the 10 Commandments or as you would call them 10 Suggestions if the Ends justify the Means. You however are stuck w/Moral Relativism and a belief that you are all there is. Complete emptiness.
You can rip into the Bible, but Darwinism is the direct cause of over 200 million murders in the last century. You want to explain why the mere suggestion of ID is reason for expulsion from academia? We’re talking tenured scientific professors being fired for even researching the possibility.
Pray for W and Our Troops
Newtons theories are used in war as well - is he guilty as well?
Apples and Oranges, nice try. Hitler and Stalin both were Darinists and removed God from their culture. Hitler was more a Eugenics Darwinist and Stalin was a pure communist who replaced God with Atheism/Darwinism.
Went to see the movie last night and it was well done. You would hate it since it exposes the Gastapo tactics of the Darwinists inside academia.
Pray for W and Our Troops
You see everything as religion, don’t you?
When it is a religion, yes I do. Darwinism is a religion masked behind science. The amount of faith it takes to believe in it is far more than a mustard seed. Far more than a cynic like me could ever muster.
You believe in something you willingly accept has no beginning. How did that first cell begin?? No answer? Just having faith that it happened w/o GOD.
Can you even calculate the odds that life would start from sterile primordial soup randomly then multiply that by the odds of genetic mutations?? Can you say Infinity to 1 odds?
Pray for W and Our Troops
Evolution, as you must surely know, doesn’t cover the origin of life. For you to claim it does borders on outright lying.
As for the odds - please show your work so I can see if I agree or not.
No of course the origin of life has nothing to do w/evolution....HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! And sex has nothing to do w/having a baby.
It used to have something to do w/evolution until it became unexplainable and could not be reproduced in a lab. Then they just set it aside like it doesn’t matter.
The Science Gastapo is more like the Witch Hunters in Boston than curious scientists. Heresy, ID is Heresy!
Pray for W and Our Troops
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.