Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed

[Tyrant]

Man, I think what discourages me most about this whole debate is the complete, utter lack of respect the representatives on both sides have for each other. Name calling and insults don't belong in a real debate. Those are the first things you're taught to shed when you learn how to debate in grade school, for crying out loud. 

 

[BBQ Platypus]

This sums up my feelings nicely

Great video.  It sums up pretty much everything I wanted to say, but couldn't phrase exactly, as far as the science front goes.

[torgosPizza]

My problem is just what everyone else's is. The misrepresentation of everything. Sure, I get that there is always a bit of name-calling and whatever. But when Ben Stein says that we're just "mud animated by lightning" and that evolution and natural selection are just "dumb fate and random chance" ... that's the complete opposite of what Darwin came up with. Science and evolution are way more elegant than that. Why him and the film itself try to make people forget that much really is what irks me.

Although the "random chance" definition is what most people who don't really know what evolution is, think it is.

[bratpop]

Where are you getting this stuff about "mud animated by lightning?" They sure as hell didn't put that in the trailer.

[bratpop]

Is it me, or is Ben Stein ripping off Rifftrax?

Spoiler

[esoobaC .T bocaJ]

so there's like no common ground for this right?

you're either a rational human being, or a religious nutjob?

[BathTub]

Yeah the lies is one of the most amazing things about this film, the producers have been totally shameless about it (and they are the religious ones).

They lied to the scientists about the film to get them to do interviews (many who have said they would have done them anyway).

They lied to The Killers to get their song in the film, they just flat out took John Lennons Imagine, Yoko is pissed, lawsuits pending.

They originally stole an The Life of a Cell animation from Harvard, until they were pinched for it in previews, and then they had their own animator make a look-a-like animation, lawsuits have started.

They lied to people about previews of the film, they emailed suspected undesirables and told them that their previews were canceled, when people inquired at the theaters the showings were still on.

Of course they are lie continuously in the film about what happened to the scientists who were meant to be expelled. Lets put it this way, when writer Kevin Miller was simply asked to name a single person who lost their job for believing in ID, he couldn't actually name anyone who had.

Of course they quote mine and misrepresent the interviews in the film.

Hitler, despite never mentioning Darwin in his writings, not believing in common descent, banning/burning Darwin's book, killed the Jews because of Darwin's theory.

After expelling PZ Myers (one of the scientists interviewed for the film) from a preview screening, they told about 5 different stories about why (Including he hacked the website, he was harassing other people in line), until the producer simply came out and said he didn't want PZ to see it for free.

That's just off the top of my head, these guys are totally compulsive. Some people have made suggestions that they are deliberately stirring controversy to get ticket sales, it's a hard claim to ignore really.

[BathTub]

so there's like no common ground for this right?

you're either a rational human being, or a religious nutjob?

It's strange because this isn't strictly 'Science' VS 'Religion', this is Creationists vs Evolution*, many Christians believe in theistic Evolution. It's the official belief of the Catholic Church. This is essentially the Discovery Institute working to get Creationism into the Science Class. Something that has gone to court twice (the first time to the Supreme Court) and both times been thrown out.

One of the odder things used in the film and all the publicity around it is the term Darwinist, or Darwinism. People don't study Darwinism, or become Darwinists. Charles Darwin is the guy who kicked started things off, he had a powerful idea, was wrong in many places, but gave the science a powerful start, but the subject has moved on. We don't get become Netwonist because we study physics or optics, we don't become Einsteinists when we study relativity. I think it's a weird move to perhaps attempt to diminish the science or even try to portray it more as a cult of personality.

[Chaos]

I'm with Tyrant on this one. I really don't see why people in general (not all people, just most people) are incapable of seeing that both "answers" can be right. Why can't there be a god who created the universe, set things in motion, and then left everything to its own designs to evolve as it would? Isn't the very notion of a divine being inherently something that is beyond our personal understanding?

For the record, I believe that there is some form of higher power out there, but not in the same way that most people who consider themselves to be religious do. I'm also VERY strongly against organized religion, because of the things that they do to people, and allow them to do to each other in the name of their religion. To me, the relationship between a man and his god is a personal one. But I also have the decency not to push my beliefs on others, or judge them for what they believe in. To each, their own.

[BathTub]

Again this isn't actually a Science Vs God Issue, we could probably make it such if you are wanting to do so. This is a Science VS Non-Science Scenario. Creationism is not science. It's non-falsifiable. It can't be tested. The Discovery Institute for all it's years of work hasn't actually provided anyone with a scientific hypothesis to test yet.

[esoobaC .T bocaJ]

so there's like no common ground for this right?

you're either a rational human being, or a religious nutjob?

It's strange because this isn't strictly 'Science' VS 'Religion', this is Creationists vs Evolution*, many Christians believe in theistic Evolution. It's the official belief of the Catholic Church. This is essentially the Discovery Institute working to get Creationism into the Science Class. Something that has gone to court twice (the first time to the Supreme Court) and both times been thrown out.

One of the odder things used in the film and all the publicity around it is the term Darwinist, or Darwinism. People don't study Darwinism, or become Darwinists. Charles Darwin is the guy who kicked started things off, he had a powerful idea, was wrong in many places, but gave the science a powerful start, but the subject has moved on. We don't get become Netwonist because we study physics or optics, we don't become Einsteinists when we study relativity. I think it's a weird move to perhaps attempt to diminish the science or even try to portray it more as a cult of personality.

there were a lot of words in there I didn't really understand, but I think I understand what you said.

I'm with Tyrant on this one. I really don't see why people in general (not all people, just most people) are incapable of seeing that both "answers" can be right. Why can't there be a god who created the universe, set things in motion, and then left everything to its own designs to evolve as it would? Isn't the very notion of a divine being inherently something that is beyond our personal understanding?

For the record, I believe that there is some form of higher power out there, but not in the same way that most people who consider themselves to be religious do. I'm also VERY strongly against organized religion, because of the things that they do to people, and allow them to do to each other in the name of their religion. To me, the relationship between a man and his god is a personal one. But I also have the decency not to push my beliefs on others, or judge them for what they believe in. To each, their own.

that's what I meant to say, that's just a lot smarter than I could ever explain it


but anyway, this isn't about all that, well it kinda is, but mainly it's about this movie, I like Ben Stein, so I'm just going to consider him a celebrity voice instead of the movie's creator, this is all someone else's  idea, he's just the pretty face for the camera.

[bratpop]

Uh, I don't even see the controversy about this movie, let alone the controversy about science vs. "intelligent design" (a debate which doesn't even exist). It's a movie being promoted (on TV) with not one mention of what it's about (not really anyway). The promo seems to be saying "if you can't say how life began, then our 'god did it' explanation is true." That's enough to discredit this even as a viable form of entertainment. However I do find the promo entertaining because of the black girl's reaction, as if all school kids are like, "Oh snap! Take that, you science teacher!" That's probably better than the movie, and it's unintentional. If there's still controversy about Hollywood "documentaries" that are clearly propaganda being full of made-up statistics and flat-out lies, I can't understand why. Especially when they're "hosted" by some "funny" guy like Michael Moore, Ben Stein, or that Al Gore fellow. I mean, this movie is full of crap? You might as well say pee is yellow, or Carrot Top is worse than cancer. Redundant.

[Darth Geek]

I have always held the belief that science is never "against" religion. Science is the study of the world around us in all it's forms. Using evidence to support theories that make the most sense WITHOUT any preconceived notions of the end result. It is religious people (of all religions) who get mad at scientist when the results don't happen to agree with their own personal theistic beliefs.

It should be no surprise that the religious side of the debate has to resort to lies, as they can't use science to support beliefs that science was never used to generate in the first place.

[torgosPizza]

Where are you getting this stuff about "mud animated by lightning?" They sure as hell didn't put that in the trailer.

Actually it is in the trailer. It's on the website's "super trailer" and Ben Stein says it twice. Not the most resourceful person, are you?

See how far that'd go.

Exactly - it wouldn't. Just like I get these "Why wait for marriage?" and "Why do I need to go to church?" pamphlets stuck to my car windshield wiper in the morning. I really don't think they would be pleased if I came to their parking lots and started putting pamphlets on their cars about why evolution and physics work perfectly fine without anything supernatural to explain them.

[Bairman]

What if the response was, "Okay. But we want space to talk about evolution--by people who believe in it--in your church."  See how far that'd go.

As an atheist, my position has always been that I'll agree to allowing religion to be taught in schools when science is allowed to be taught in churches.

Yeah... that'll never happen.