Ben Stein's "Expelled"

[jsktrogdor]

Anyone who is willing to make the argument that darwinism is bad, cause hitler beleived it, makes me question their ideas. Throughout the film he explains that ID deserves a place in science but never clerifies how its any different from creationism?

The whole movie is about the expulsion of ID from the scientific community. What he seems to ignore is that ID is based on a "designer". A designer by definition is supernatural, unless: I thought for a second he was going to go down the road that ID doesnt have to envolve a god, perhaps extra-terrestrials, which would of been interesting to me. But instead, he mocks Francis Crick who suggested the idea of aliens starting life on earth.

How can you mock a nobel prize winner for suggesting science-fiction, and similtanously try to suggest something super-natural? Science-fiction has a stronger base in reality than the super-natural. I'll bet you we discover aliens before we discover ghosts.

I agree with his point that science should be open, but I dont think ID can be defined as science.

Science (from the Latin scientia, meaning "knowledge" or "knowing") is the effort to discover, and increase human understanding of how the physical world works

Saying that theres a creator does nothing to,"increase human understanding of how the physical world works". It just writes it all off as his/her creation.

I think everyone with half a brain should aknowledge that darwinism has its holes, but thats how science works. Thats how it has worked for hundreds of years. It never just comes all at once, it builds over decades. I'd rather take the theory that gives part of the awnser, than the one that ingores the question.


BTW: try to keep the conversation vaugely within the movie, I think there are other threads for debate on Darwinism/ID.

[Skooma Addict]

Can you give a link to the film?

[jsktrogdor]

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1091617/, out on DVD recently

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

[Rich86]

Ah yes; Ben "I don't have a ing clue what I am talking about and I am proud of this" Stein?

If I am not mistaken whilst promoting this film he came up with such gems as;

"EVOLUTION CAN'T EVEN EXPLAIN GRAVITY!!!!"

It's not meant to Ben. That's like arguing that that the theory of relativity can't explain why I'm a lousy cook.

"EVOLUTION SAYS THAT LIGHTNING HIT A PUDDLE AND LIFE FORMED!"

No Ben. It does not. Evolution accounts for the diversity of life, not the origins - it certainly mentions nothing about lightning hitting a puddle.

If you fancy a quick giggle head on over to youtube and check it out.

Anyone who is so ignorant as to what evolution actually is cannot be expected to be taken seriously if he is making a film that deals with the whole 'Evolution vs Creationism/ID' controversy.

[Iron Juggernaut]

Also, Hitler and Mussolini and Stalin were not Atheist or believers of evolution. Hitler was a devout Roman-Catholic who believed souly in Creation, Stalin was an Agnostic who didn't do much for science, and Mussolini was raised a Roman-Catholic.

[jsktrogdor]

Also, Hitler and Mussolini and Stalin were not Atheist or believers of evolution. Hitler was a devout Roman-Catholic who believed souly in Creation, Stalin was an Agnostic who didn't do much for science, and Mussolini was raised a Roman-Catholic.

When speaking with atheists about a life in america with less religion and more science, he compared it to the USSR, making the connection that life in atheism (he didnt mention the forced part of it) was so terrible.

I read his wiki page, aparently he doesnt really have a single scientific credit going for him, although a fairly prestigous career. He was a speach writer for nixion and ford I believe, a lawyer and has written a few books. But I dont think being the teacher from Ferris Buelers Day Off qualifies you to make an arguement about darwinism.

[Morkonan]

When speaking with atheists about a life in america with less religion and more science, he compared it to the USSR, making the connection that life in atheism (he didnt mention the forced part of it) was so terrible.

I read his wiki page, aparently he doesnt really have a single scientific credit going for him, although a fairly prestigous career. He was a speach writer for nixion and ford I believe, a lawyer and has written a few books. But I dont think being the teacher from Ferris Buelers Day Off qualifies you to make an arguement about darwinism.

I tend to agree with your criticisms. But, for what it is worth, Ben Stein is a pretty brilliant man. So, I tend to look at this as not an error of him speaking out of school but, a demonstration of what fervor and misdirected passion can do to someone's reasoning.

I happen to be a Christian who also believes in Evolution and who comes from a scientific background. So, when someone say's they have "proof" of something relating to Evolution, my ears perk up. Sadly, nothing is "proof" regarding Evolution. It's the darn best explanation we have as to why we are all here and it's as close to being absolute as is possible. Yet, ID'ers will insist on making assumptions, usually bad ones, and demand that Science pay attention to them. Well, the thing is, Science would pay attention to them if they had anything Scientific worth saying. They just don't. Yet, they continue to blame Science for it as if it was constantly moving the bar on them. /sigh

In the end, it all relies on the unmeasurable and unknowable. Science doesn't attempt to address "God" and never will. It's not Science's business. Quite frankly, I'm sort of tired of people that believe it IS the business of Science to answer such questions. ID has absolutely nothing going for it other than circumstantial and sometimes woefully misunderstood drama-filled "evidence" that doesn't have any validity in addressing their premise.

You don't need your Faith in order to prove Science and you certainly don't need Science in order to validate your Faith. They really need to remember that.

[Aetius]

He is a Jew who is internally conflicted between his religion and what he knows makes more sense.

In denial, he made this pathetic attempt of a move to justify his choices.


A lot of intelligent Jews I know are the same way...

[Trey]

He is a Jew who is internally conflicted between his religion and what he knows makes more sense.

In denial, he made this pathetic attempt of a move to justify his choices.


A lot of intelligent Jews I know are the same way...

What an offensive comment.

And @ Exarch, it's neutered.

[Gaidin]

I tend to agree with your criticisms. But, for what it is worth, Ben Stein is a pretty brilliant man. So, I tend to look at this as not an error of him speaking out of school but, a demonstration of what fervor and misdirected passion can do to someone's reasoning.

You left out the fact that Ben Stein has no background in science. Or if he did, it's affect has long worn off.

[Morkonan]

You left out the fact that Ben Stein has no background in science. Or if he did, it's affect has long worn off.

That's true, he doesn't have a science background. His background is in Law. But, even somewhat out-of-school, I still have to give him some credit for intelligence. Misapplied intelligence and a lack of certain perspective, yes. But, intellect nonetheless.

Of course, in defense of my assertion, I have to point out that even though much of the subject matter of Intelligent Design deals with scientific subjects, it isn't "Science." So, he can comment to his hearts content without having to validate his opinions or present his credentials. Of course, if he begins to attempt to refuse Scientific principles and the work of learned professionals, he had better be able to defend his position against scientific scrutiny and review. I don't think he would be able to do that despite whatever natural intellect he possesses.

[Ragabash]

Sadly, nothing is "proof" regarding Evolution. It's the darn best explanation we have as to why we are all here and it's as close to being absolute as is possible.

There is definetly proof in support for the theory of evolution. That is why the theory is accepted as best model to represent scientific observations and data we have. However, that something is supported by scientific proof doesn't make it infallible or perfect.

[Sphere]

Proof is not the correct word. 'Proof' cannot support something, it can only 'prove' something. Nothing in the physical sciences can be proved. Ideas can be supported by evidence and experiments, but this is not proof.

That being said, there is a wealth of evidence and experiment that support the core evolutionary theories. The first line of evidence was direct biological observations (Darwins Finches etc.), the second line was the fossil record, the third line was genetics (inherited traits, mutations etc.), the forth and most compelling line is DNA. All these new areas of investigation have further supported the core theories, and refined the edges. Its rather remarkable actually that Darwins first ideas have held up rather well, even though he had no knowledge of genetics or DNA.

Even the new Intelligent Design movement does not discount the core ideas of evolution, that DNA mutation and natural selection can alter a species traits . Instead they have lached onto very small biological structures that are quite complex. They argue that the best explaination for these structures is that they were designed, not evolved. They use this rather fringe evidence (which is largely refutable), to cast doubt and suggest that non-natural forces either direct evolution, or that the core components of life were initially designed.

[Morkonan]

There is definetly proof in support for the theory of evolution. That is why the theory is accepted as best model to represent scientific observations and data we have. However, that something is supported by scientific proof doesn't make it infallible or perfect.

See Sphere's post above. That is what I was referring to. In regards to "proof" there is none. There is just a heavy preponderance of evidence that so overwhelmingly suggests "Evolution" as to be virtually indistinguishable from "Fact."

That's as good as we can get.

[Frédéric Chopin]

I find it impossible to take seriously a man who once said, "Love of God and compassion and empathy leads you to a very glorious place, and science leads you to killing people." This film is the sort of rubbish which can only aspire to drivel.

[chamaeleo]

Although I think ID is pretty silly, I do not disparage its existence. It allows theologians to accept major tenets of Evolutionary Theory, and it encourages them to actually "think" and not rely so heavily on religious tomes. It is faith-based, thus, fundementally flawed from a science perspective. It also helps science to keep perspective, yet another critic to ask those questions that the researchers overlooked.

Scientists DO NOT (YET) know how life began on Earth, but they are getting pretty close. Random DNA mutation, not as big a factor as previously thought. Natural selection, huge factor, but new variables are cropping up at an alarming rate. Nonrandom DNA mutation, such as viral influences on gene expression, is probably the biggest theoretical advance in years. Lots of other cool ideas, such as how mitochondria (which have their own distinct DNA) may have originally been symbiotic organisms that were assimilated into other organisms during the Proterozoic (2500Mya). Exciting times to live in!

[Valiant Champion]

I plan on buying the movie.

[Gaidin]

Me too...just to use it as a coaster.

[jsktrogdor]

I plan on buying the movie.

Me too...just to use it as a coaster.

Seriously, I wouldnt, even if you support him. Theres no real flare to it other than some catchy songs. But the soundtrack it will keep you entertained longer. Let me summerize it for you: two hours of ben stein (remember for a moment what his voice sounds like) talking with digruntled biologists about how angry they are with their old boss at the smithsonian. /YAAAAAAAWWWWWWWWNNNNNNN, it really is one of the slowest documenterys ive ever seen.

[Gaidin]

Never said I'd watch it. It's just a coaster.