"Expelled", movie by Ben Stein

Status
Not open for further replies.

topflan

New member
I just saw it this evening. It exposes some disturbing trends in this country that many of you are already aware of.

It has to do with the suppression of freedom. Because it's not a crowd pleaser or one that will attract young people, it won't be in the theaters for very long. I highly recommend it.
Regards

Louis
 
Oh oh...... You just opened one hell of a can of worms......... :eek:

Personally I try to avoid watching propaganda, unless it's to understand the broader implications (such as Triumph of the Will) so I'm not going to waste my time seeing it (nor waste my time watching Bowling For Columbine :barf:)

Yet, I have to wonder what Ben Stein's scientific credentials are? The only people who seem to not believe in the fact of evolution are those who don't even understand what a scientific "Theory" is and thus can't even contexualize the discussion, much less criticize the specifics of evolution.

It's a bit like discussing the semiauto vs. revolver or 45ACP vs 9mm argument with Sarah Brady or Barbra Boxer.

But let's face it, evolution is a falsefiable theory that is supported by mountains and mountains of objective, peer-reviewed evidence. None of which contradicts evolution (because remember it would take just one piece of objective evidence to disprove evolution once and for all, and the same thing with the theory of Gravity, Relativity, etc, etc, etc. Of course I totally expect to be quoted out of context and have people point to all sorts of non-evidence thinking they "got me"......).

While "Intelligent Design" is a non-falsefiable theory that has no objective evidence and instead rests on subjective interpretations and arguments that can not be evaluated or proven (or disproven), which are the essential elements of science.

But since some people's paradimes are so wrapped up in a literal interpretation on the Bible with God and what not, and Evolution presents a threat to that paradime, they are willing to discount any and all evidence to the contrary so they can still believe what they want to. Kind of depressing for it stiffles the human mind and our ability to liberate ourselves from our old, stale worldview. :(
 
Who's Ben Stein?

Wildhesometypeofevolutionarybiologist?Alaska TM

PS folks should be permiited to say what they want, what is Ben Stein trying to do, shut down speech?
 
Call me a supporter of Beretta686's views. It is a depressing view of the world too, that basic scientific methodology is such an unknown. 99% of the time it seems that people can't even state what the theory of evolution even is, mixing it up with a half dozen other theories.
 
B66,
Ben Stein in on record in support of Darwin's Thoery of Evolution. He points out, though, that in order for something to evolve that it has to be there to begin with. How it, and everything else forthat matter, got there to begin with is the debate, and how that debate is handled in academia is, I believe, the crux of the matter in his movie. The film is a First Amendment film, or so he says. (I have not seen it.)

B66 and WA,
From his site:

Ben Stein (Benjamin J. Stein) was born November 25, 1944 in Washington, D.C., (He is the son of the economist and writer Herbert Stein) grew up in Silver Spring, Maryland, and attended Montgomery Blair High School. He graduated from Columbia University in 1966 with honors in economics. He graduated from Yale Law School in 1970 as valedictorian of his class by election of his classmates. He also studied in the graduate school of economics at Yale. He has worked as an economist at The Department of Commerce, a poverty lawyer in New Haven and Washington, D.C., a trial lawyer in the field of trade regulation at the Federal Trade Commission in Washington, D.C., a university adjunct at American University in Washington, D.C., at the University of California at Santa Cruz, and at Pepperdine University in Malibu, CA. At American U. He taught about the political and social content of mass culture. He taught the same subject at UCSC, as well as about political and civil rights under the Constitution. At Pepperdine, he has taught about libel law and about securities law and ethical issues since 1986.

In 1973 and 1974, he was a speech writer and lawyer for Richard Nixon at The White House and then for Gerald Ford. (He did NOT write the line, "I am not a crook.") He has been a columnist and editorial writer for The Wall Street Journal, a syndicated columnist for The Los Angeles Herald Examiner (R.I.P.) and King Features Syndicate, and a frequent contributor to Barrons, where his articles about the ethics of management buyouts and issues of fraud in the Milken Drexel junk bond scheme drew major national attention. He has been a regular columnist for Los Angeles Magazine, New York Magazine, E! Online, and most of all, has written a lengthy diary for twenty years for The American Spectator. He currently writes a column for The New york Times Sunday Business Section and has for many years, a column about personal finance for Yahoo!, is a commentator for CBS Sunday Morning, and for Fox News.

He has written, co-written and published thirty books, including seven novels, largely about life in Los Angeles, and twenty-one nonfiction books, about finance and about ethical and social issue in finance, and also about the political and social content of mass culture. He has done pioneering work in uncovering the concealed messages of TV and in explaining how TV and movies get made. His titles include A License to Steal, Michael Milken and the Conspiracy to Bilk the Nation, The View From Sunset Boulevard, Hollywood Days, Hollywood Nights, DREEMZ, Financial Passages, and Ludes. His most recent books are the best selling humor self help series, How To Ruin Your Life. He has also been a longtime screenwriter, writing, among many other scripts (most of which were unmade ) the first draft of The Boost, a movie based on Ludes, and the outlines of the lengthy miniseries Amerika, and the acclaimed Murder in Mississippi. He was one of the creators of the well regarded comedy, Fernwood Tonight.

He is also an extremely well known actor in movies, TV, and commercials. His part of the boring teacher in Ferris Bueller's Day Off was recently ranked as one of the fifty most famous scenes in American film. From 1997 to 2002, he was the host of the Comedy Central quiz show, "Win Ben Stein's Money." The show has won seven Emmies. He was a judge on CBS's Star Search, and on VH-1's "America's Most Smartest Model."

He lives with his wife, Alexandra Denman ( former lawyer,) six cats and three large dogs in Beverly Hills. He is active in pro-animal and pro-life charitable events.

"PS folks should be permiited to say what they want, what is Ben Stein trying to do, shut down speech?"

As noted, he is billing it is a First Amendment film defending the Freedom of Speach to speak and to debate about where everything came from on academic campuses.
 
In 1973 and 1974, he was a speech writer and lawyer for Richard Nixon at The White House and then for Gerald Ford.

Basically that sums up everything I need to know about Ben Stein, in addition to being a second rate actor. I would take anything this guy says with a bag of salt.
 
Basically that sums up everything I need to know about Ben Stein, in addition to being a second rate actor. I would take anything this guy says with a bag of salt.

Why? Because of his association with Nixon? Nixon was one of the better Presidents of the 20th Century.
 
So he's a lawyer, an academic, an author... quite a lot, actually, who is in a position to reflect about how academia handles this and other First Amendment issues.

Think about how they handle First Amendment issues relating to the Second Amendment, for example. (If that was the pretext to the movie, we'd be rallying around it.) Ever seen someone shouted down on campus over it? I have.

I've also seen people, students and lecturors, shouted down over questioning the origin of the universe, life, physics, and all things related to it.

The bias is real, palpable, and you only have to dare to study the "wrong" thing, write the "wrong" thing, debate the "wrong" thing, or even talk about the "wrong" thing for it to surface. Think origin, guns, global warming, many things on the right of the spectrum, and many things effecting the funding of things on the left of the spectrum.
 
"PS folks should be permiited to say what they want, what is Ben Stein trying to do, shut down speech?"

As noted, he is billing it is a First Amendment film defending the Freedom of Speach to speak and to debate about where everything came from on academic campuses.

Yes, and Mr. Stein and anyone else has as much right to speak their mind as they wish. Yet that doesn't mean we have to tolerate their arguments or show them any respect when they are hollow.

This is similar to the the Holocaust denial movement, which just as the ID/Creationist movement seeks to disavow evidence, reason, scientific facts and consensus, through selective interpretations of evidence and midleading arguments, in order to advance a certain worldview. i.e.-Make the evidence fit the (wanted) conclusion, rather than the conclusion fit the evidence.

If we were to follow the "Teach the Controversy" (which is non-existant in scientific circles about Evolution) line of reasoning, History classes should also teach students about how the Holocaust was fake and those 6 million people either never died/existed or the Nazis didn't really intend to murder them. Since there are some potential holes in the "Theory of the Holocaust".......Like, how could the Nazis possibly transport 6 million people to camps?
 
The film uses the premise of Intelligent Design / Evolution to point out a larger problem in acedemia..trouncing out those that don't go with the political agenda. This is has the effect of stifling avenues to discovery. That is the point of science, to discover the nature of things.

The evidence used is the discovery of very similar and seemingly transitional fossils. The idea that there once was a far more diverse sampling of lifeforms and that many are now extinct as an explanation that fits into the evidence and isn't disproved by the inability

The biggy with evolution is that none, zero, nada trans species mutations are viable. The 'evolution' of a life form into another species has no scientific basis. The rare radical mutation in a life form always yields an infertile subject if it even lives to see adulthood. Drifts in genetics eventually yield inviable strands rather then more complex ones. Those facts are ignored or placed in the 'yet to be discovered' file. For those holding evolution as an established fact I would like to hear a genetic scientist show his peer reviewed physical testing showing otherwise.

The evidence used is the discovery of very similar and seemingly transitional fossils. The idea that there once was a far more diverse sampling of lifeforms and that many are now extinct as an explanation is rejected.

The other problem is the inability to bring organic compounds to 'life'. For life to have begun as a primordial ooze the has to exist a means for organic compounds to make the jump to life form to begin with. No means is known to facilitate that jump.

Evolution as defined by spontaneous beginning of life then becoming more and more advanced via mutation and natural selection has no scientifically based merit. The theory has been tested and tested in genetic labs around the world and has YET to be shown to be true. It fails scientific method 101. The adaptation of existing species and extinction of species unable to adapt from an existing, broadly diverse sampling of species fits the evidence we have. The first theory is accepted by academia despite it's lack of viability, the second is rejected despite it's viability. The reason is because the second suggests an intelligent designer / creator.

The intelligent design theory fits all the evidence but anyone advancing that theory is ridiculed and run out despite the fundamental failings of evolution as described above. Why? Because they can't scientifically prove it. But neither can the geneticists for evolution. Well, evolution is accepted and has the edge because no intelligent designer or creator is required to be in the equation. So what if life can't form spontaneously of evolve trans species. We really don't want there to be a creator, that's religion/philosophy, not science.

The specific issue aside there are others (global warming via human activity for example) that require faith to accept due to the lack of evidence. Remarkably the alternatives are rejected because they require a higher faith!

The movie points out academia's lack of genuine scientific interest in what the actual nature of things is and has 'evolved' into a desire to prove a specific pre-conceived idea about the nature of things. Again, a remarkable irony given they use that exact argument to trounce other trains of thought.

The tendency has shifted from evidence generating conclusions to conclusions seeking evidence. That is the point of Ben's movie. As the left likes to say.....keep your mind open.
 
It's a bit like discussing the semiauto vs. revolver or 45ACP vs 9mm argument with Sarah Brady or Barbra Boxer.

Bruxley: *sigh* :(

Do an internet search and those objections will be easily answered.

Although I will grant that academia (even though I love it so) does have certain things it seems intrensically against (firearms being one of them). Yet the best way to educate them is to discuss them in a rational manner, which I always did when I had a prof ask about my "Beer, Beef & Bullets Machine-Gun Shoot" T-shirts.
 
Ever seen someone shouted down on campus over it? I have.

I've also seen people, students and lecturors, shouted down over questioning the origin of the universe, life, physics, and all things related to it.

You are entitled to raise your ideas, you are not entitled to have them raised respectfully.

I'm entitled to stand up and screech over your looney ideas just like you are entitled to screech over mine. As long as government stays out of it...

This is that about that intelligent design again crap isn't it? It's like the Kennedy Conspiracy redux...

If you think your kiddies are being indoctrinated by Socialist schools against the creation of the World by a Happy Yhwh, teach em at home or send them to religious school...hey it's only 2008, why let something like science interfere with beliefs inherited from Paleolithic man as he cowered in fear from lightning strikes while muttering "uggguug Buuguug" (translated as "Save me, O Large Unkown Thing That Makes Things I Don't Understand Happen")*

WildseefootnoteAlaska TM

* Now are we saying here that the GOVERNMENT is stifling the right of Intelligent Design Folks to speak their silliness
 
Hey Brux scientists have been peeing on each others methods, observations and conclusions since Glugdorp found that flint from Heidelburg was stronger than Urgburps flint from CatalHayuk.....

Are you telling me that Government is doing this? if not, it isnt free speech...

Not every crank scientific movement has merits.....there are no faces in Mars...

WildtheskeptikAlaska TM
 
Ben Stein is a true renaissance man. Besides being a speechwriter for a president (a bad president and a junior speechwriter, and he admits to partaking in a few drugs back then) he's also become a successful comedy actor, writes well respected books on the stock market and investment, and is just overall one really freakin' smart guy.

I'll be seeing the movie next week, but I'm looking forward to it.

Mostly what you're seeing on this board are people trying to scream Ben down (on the internet) who haven't even heard what he has to say. they are just offended by the fact that he's saying it.

Like it or not, I know from what I've read that he makes some very solid points.

I'm looking forward to it. I hope I'm not disappointed.

And BTW -- I did watch "bowling for columbine" and most of "an inconvenient truth". I LIKE seeing both sides of every issue, and I'm not afraid to have my beliefs challenged.

What are the rest of you afraid of that you feel a need to shut this man up before you even know what he has to say?
 
DISCLAIMER: I am not an expert in either Evolution or Intelligent Design. I am posting to this thread mostly to gain rather than provide information.

MY PREMISE: I don't see Evolution and Intelligent Design as being mutually exclusive. Given my limited knowledge of these two areas, I see Evolution as a "micro-approach" to life and Intelligent Design as a "macro-approach" to life.

From my readings, Evolution does explain how a species can adapt over time to a changing environment. But how does Evolution explain a butterfly? How can it explain the process that developed to change a fat, rubbery caterpillar into a butterfly with wings, long legs, and powdery scales? That process is extremely complex and requires sufficient similarity among members of a population to reproduce in sufficient numbers to overcome losses and become sustaining. I would think the required evolutionary process would have to happen for a vast number of caterpillars both simultaneously and in an identical manner. I have yet to read anything that accounts for such a process.

Intelligent Design can account for that process. However, it doesn't necessarily rule out Evolution. Using the "watch maker" analogy employed by the Intelligent Design supporters, a divine entity may have created the watch, but does that same entity have to wind it/replace the battery to keep it running? Perhaps that task has fallen to Evolution.

Regardless, as for the movie, the complaints I've heard are that Ben Stein has selectively edited and even barred information in much the same manner as he complains has happened to Intelligent Design supporters. If true, it would undercut sympathy for his claims of unfair treatment.
 
I have a degree in biology and that and $5 will get you a cup of coffeee at Starbucks.

There are plenty of living organisms that are here now that were not here a few million years ago. And plenty that were here a few million years ago that are not here now.

But, if you must make it about religion, consider this. The universe is not infinitely old. Would you rather believe that it just poofed in to existence or that some power way beyond our comprehension created it. Take your pick.
 
I LIKE seeing both sides of every issue, and I'm not afraid to have my beliefs challenged.

I see...... Then I recomend Richard Dawkin's, The God Delusion and than you can finally get rid of that silly thing about us Athiests (I read the Bible and found it one of the best arguments against Christianity I've seen yet. I also read about 12 pages of Joel Osteen's book and realized a 3rd grader could write it).

But how does Evolution explain a butterfly

Read a book on Evolution and it will explain it rather nicely.

just poofed in to existence or that some power way beyond our comprehension created it.

There are numerous theories on that, but either way just because science doesn't have an immediate explination for things, doesn't mean there was a God or anything else. It just means we don't know.

Many of you seem to be falling off into the "God of the Gaps" argument, which is nice until you run out of gaps to stick God into (as WA so nicely pointed out). Remember just because we can't explain it doesn't mean God did it.
 
The biggy with evolution is that none, zero, nada trans species mutations are viable. The 'evolution' of a life form into another species has no scientific basis. The rare radical mutation in a life form always yields an infertile subject if it even lives to see adulthood. Drifts in genetics eventually yield inviable strands rather then more complex ones. Those facts are ignored or placed in the 'yet to be discovered' file. For those holding evolution as an established fact I would like to hear a genetic scientist show his peer reviewed physical testing showing otherwise.

Oh I don`t think so. There is a methodology in evolutionary theory called Cladogenesis which utilizes cladograms to help facilitate evolutionary progress and correlations among species. As for mutations, if a member of a species experiences a mutation, their environment will determine if that organism will be viable, and the so called "rare radical mutation" can sometimes yield a fertile subject. Contrary to popular opinion, mutations are not always visible (macro).

The evidence used is the discovery of very similar and seemingly transitional fossils. The idea that there once was a far more diverse sampling of lifeforms and that many are now extinct as an explanation is rejected.

Oh really...hmmm well I guess that means that the Cambrian Explosion should not be used as a proxy for evolutionary progress.

The other problem is the inability to bring organic compounds to 'life'. For life to have begun as a primordial ooze the has to exist a means for organic compounds to make the jump to life form to begin with. No means is known to facilitate that jump.

Well this statement does have some truth. However, I really don`t like where this is going (faith+1).

Evolution as defined by spontaneous beginning of life then becoming more and more advanced via mutation and natural selection has no scientifically based merit. The theory has been tested and tested in genetic labs around the world and has YET to be shown to be true. It fails scientific method 101. The adaptation of existing species and extinction of species unable to adapt from an existing, broadly diverse sampling of species fits the evidence we have. The first theory is accepted by academia despite it's lack of viability, the second is rejected despite it's viability. The reason is because the second suggests an intelligent designer / creator.

Whoa...stop the planet I want to get off. Maybe this could help with you false interpretation of what a theory is:

From Wilkipedia.com
In science, a theory is a mathematical or logical explanation, or a testable model of the manner of interaction of a set of natural phenomena, capable of predicting future occurrences or observations of the same kind, and capable of being tested through experiment or otherwise verified through empirical observation. It follows from this that for scientists "theory" and "fact" do not necessarily stand in opposition. For example, it is a fact that an apple dropped on earth has been observed to fall towards the center of the planet, and the theories commonly used to describe and explain this behavior are Newton's theory of universal gravitation (see also gravitation), and the theory of general relativity.

According to the National Academy of Sciences,

Some scientific explanations are so well established that no new evidence is likely to alter them. The explanation becomes a scientific theory. In everyday language a theory means a hunch or speculation. Not so in science. In science, the word theory refers to a comprehensive explanation of an important feature of nature that is supported by many facts gathered over time. Theories also allow scientists to make predictions about as yet unobserved phenomena.[1]
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top