Intelligent Design Film is Far Worse Than Stupid »
Posted by: Neophile 3 months ago190 CommentsReflectReport this Story
Rarely has a movie subtitle so capably assessed a movie's content as does "Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed." There is not a shred of intelligence on display in this just released "documentary" purporting to be a careful examination of the fight over teaching creationism and evolution in America.
Read Full Story at msnbc.msn.com
Join the Discussion 
+ Add Comment
Comments So Far: 190
-
Bkumm
April 22, 2008, 2:57 p.m.And it just keeps getting better than this:
"The definition of what science is and what should be taught as science in a world in which Asia and Europe are itching to clean our economic clocks by seeing us throw away our considerable lead in synthetic biology, genomics, agriculture and the biomedical, oceanographic, geological and energy sciences escapes Stein and his producers."
Yeah, it does. Here's more FTA:
"Science, by the very definition of the term, wants to invoke god or divine intervention as little as possible in seeking explanations for natural phenomena. Is that because, as "Expelled" suggests, scientists hate religion? No. Rather it is because the whole point of science is to press to see how far natural causes and mechanisms can go in explaining what is going on around us."
More
-
NoSpinDave
April 23, 2008, 2:17 p.m.Why is it that liberals can't understand that religious bigotry is just as bad as any other kind of bigotry?
Until liberals stop living a life of hypocrisy its hard to even begin a discussion with them.
Great job Neo, I guess between all your drive by neg'ing you have time to prove you are a religious bigot too.
-
-
Bkumm
April 22, 2008, 2:53 p.m.FTA:
"There is not much room in science, although there is in history, religion, philosophy or sociology class, for jumping up and down and invoking god as the explanation of anything and everything. Could such an explanation be true? Sure. Is it science? Hardly. Does the movie get us anywhere close to understanding the difference? Not a bit.
Worse, those who embrace intelligent design â;; either the view that evidence of a designer's hand can be found in living things or that the creationism of the Bible is a valid account of how we came to exist â;; have to behave as if these accounts are subject to empirical disproof. But, think about it, Ben. Is that any way to save religion? Isn't the price of making faith into science and subject to empirical falsification heresy?"
I'd seriously put my own comment here, but I can't say it better.
-
StillUnashamed
April 23, 2008, 10:47 a.m."Could such an explanation (that there is a Creator) be true? Sure. Is it science? Hardly." Are you saying that science isn't about truth?
-
-
walden3
April 22, 2008, 2:54 p.m.I think it's an interesting debate to have. I don't support the silencing of any opinion or information. The forum of the debate needs to be appropriate though.
-
-
PapaWolf
April 22, 2008, 4:18 p.m.>>I think it's an interesting debate to have
But NOT in a SCIENCE class. Intelligent Design is NOT science.
Being a Christian, I naturally believe in Creationism. That does NOT preclude my belief in evolution.
One is a philosophy; the other is science. To try to teach about a "supernatural being" as science is ludicrous - unless, of course, it's parapsychology.
-
Helixbuilder
April 23, 2008, 8:41 a.m.No one has been silenced, it is a concocted story. They were fired because the were incompetent not their views. No one cares if you believe in ID as long as you do your job.
-
-
SFCGuyW
April 23, 2008, 10:17 a.m.It is a debate that has no place in PUBLIC schools. Public schools are completely tax money supported, regulated by government & thus, barred from mixing religion into it's corriculum. School districts which do mix it into their curriculum face the possiblility of having to spend millions of little available tax dollars to defend something that cannot be defended. It is virtually guaranteed that someone would file a federal lawsuit. Families who want their children to learn 'intelligent design' shud enroll them in a church class, such as Sunday school. The only fair way to teach non-Darwin creation is to teach the ideas of every religion that exists in the USA - even if only one small group of people follow that said religion. To do anything else would mean gov't support of only the Christian religions - completely UnConstitutional.
-
-
Bkumm
April 22, 2008, 2:56 p.m.More FTA:
"Then, and most culpably in terms of the downright immorality of the movie and everyone associated with it, we are presented with what will happen if we keep teaching Darwinism in our schools. The logical consequence of Darwinism is Nazi eugenics!
No, I am not making this up. The core of the movie consists of a sequence in which Stein visits the former German psychiatric hospital at Hadamar where the mass sterilization and murder techniques were first perfected that were later to be used in the concentration camps. Then Ben heads to Dachau, where 35,000 people died. Stein finishes this sequence by bravely visiting a statue of Darwin where he stares the long deceased now marbleized evil-doer down while making it clear who is directly to blame for Hitler, the sterilization of tens of thousands of German children, the death of 6 million Jews and the deaths of countless other millions of victims of Nazism and those who died fighting the Nazi regime."
-
-
papageno
April 23, 2008, 1:44 p.m.I would be worthwhile to read the article entitled "Never You Mine" in Scientific American. It begins by repeating the Darwin quote that Ben Stein uses to connect Darwin's ideas to Nazi horrors. The writer continues Darwin's excerpt beyond where Mr. Stein conveniently stops, thereby providing some fascinating insights.
Back in the day when people were trained to write with more rigor, a valid essay required the inclusion of both thesis and antithesis. Excerpt one half and you get the wrong part of the argument.
This is a very worthwhile read:
http://www.sciam.com/podcast/episode.cfm?id=61D...
-
-
quackpot
April 22, 2008, 3:01 p.m."Intelligent design" is TOTALLY useless as a scientific hypothesis, CAN NOT be tested by the scientific method and is therefore NOT science.
To be useful, a hypothesis MUST be testable and should lead to predictions and hence new discoveries.
Darwin's theories ARE testable and DO to lead to new predictions and discoveries.
"Intelligent design" is NOT testable and has lead to nothing but this silly movie and an even sillier museum of creationism.
-
Spadecaller
April 22, 2008, 3:04 p.m.Stein is a perfect example of an educated person who lacks the ability to reason. With a great command of unrelated facts and figures, he has managed to distill ignorance into a concentrated form of propgaganda that belongs, at best, on an early Sunday morning religious show.
According to his dubious form of logic, drilling holes in people's heads to cure headaches should also be taught in medical school as an effective alternative to the use of pharmaceuticals.
And after watching a few minutes of this documentary, you may consider head drilling too.
-
-
memestryker
April 22, 2008, 10:43 p.m.Ben Stein is a trivial pursuit king, and he understands persuasion, but science requires a different type of thinking.
I remember from personality studies, doctors generally have very different personalities from scientists. They may be very bright, but it manifests differently. Same with engineers.
And even among scientists, some are functionaries, while others are more theoretical. I read Behe, and thought "what a crackpot." Yet he's become the darling of the creationism/ID crowd.
-
MRCOFFEECAKE
April 23, 2008, 9:37 a.m.Ben Stein is a man with quite a bit of knowledge that he uses to create in vast theories of stupidity.
He supported Bush..Nuff said!
-
CRYMTYPHON
April 23, 2008, 9:33 p.m."neo-con jews?"
midleft, are you or are you not a sock-puppet for some conservative who wants to make leftist-sounding rants ?
You seem to have no natural ability to be objective; no desire to question your words, and place no limitations on what you can say and be within the known truth.
You would be a good ID spokesman.
-
-
quackpot
April 22, 2008, 3:10 p.m.An assistant professor in ANY scientific field who only formulates non-testable hypotheses can not expect to receive tenure at ANY respectable University.
The hypothesis of "Intelligent design" is a non-testable hypothesis.
-
Bkumm
April 22, 2008, 3:13 p.m.Has anybody seen this yet?
http://beta.coralridge.org/equip/PastorsPulpits...
Oh, it keeps getting better:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MZ3Xq607780&feat...
Unbelievable.
-
jordan11
April 22, 2008, 3:40 p.m.Well, we're a big country. There will be loons in every part of our culture. Fortunately, the loons are a minority.
-
