No intelligence in new Ben Stein movie
Guest Post by Morbo
Ben Stein’s movie “Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed” opened yesterday. What should be done with it?
I’m torn. One on hand, really unloading on the movie and meticulously pointing out every one of its errors and bizarre assumptions seems a bit excessive and leaves opponents open to the charge that there must be something to the movie’s claims since their reaction was so severe. This plays into Stein’s hands. He and his backers want the movie to be controversial, and the more it is attacked, the more attention he gets.
On the other hand, ignoring the film seems an unsatisfying response.
It reminds me of the ongoing debate among biologists, paleontologists, anthropologists, etc. about debating creationists. Some say it’s not worth it to share a stage with these cranks because it leads the average person to conclude that creationism and evolution are equal concepts and all one must do is listen to the arguments and choose which one to believe. Other scientists assert that the creationists have done great damage to science education in America and must be answered.
The National Center for Science Education, a group in California that defends the teaching of evolution in public schools, has it just about right, I think. The group has set up a special site exposing the flaws of “Expelled.” Visitors can dip into it and take away as much ammo as they like.
The site contains resources visitors can use to debunk the claims of the movie, including a brief YouTube video featuring Christine Comer, former director of science for the Texas Education Agency, who was forced to resign for failing to remain neutral on creationism.
Also included are reviews of the film from newspapers and magazines nationwide and articles that explain how Stein and his supporters used deception to get some of their interviews. Included is a link to this great piece from the Salt Lake Tribune noting that the film isn’t being screened for critics — a sure sign you’ve got a dog on your hands.
Religious fundamentalists and their allies in the right-wing media are already crowing over “Expelled.” Scientists and left-leaning bloggers are pointing out that the movie is absurd. I suspect in the end the film will change few minds. But if you should happen to run into someone who sees it and asks for the real lowdown on “intelligent design,” send them to ExpelledExposed.com.
I suspect in the end the film will change few minds.
No, probably not. But it will be picked up by the evangelicals,. shown in religious schools and mega churches, and make a big pile of money for its makers.
I read a review of the movie in yesterday’s paper, and it was scathing. Morbo doesn’t mention it, but there are many fraudulent elements in this piece of tripe. Scientists purportedly interviewed by Stein (they weren’t, the film was edited to make it seem like they were), statements taken out of context, and the usual clap-trap we see from these cretins.
Not even worth the price of a rental when it comes out on DVD.
Intelligent design is the purist form of narcissism.
Buehler?
Buehler?
As if I’m ever going to trust that evil sub-minion of the AntiChrist with my children.
The best way to get back at these philo-terrorists is to expose the lies, the deceptions, and the blatant disregard for the Constitution—and then ask everyone: “Do you trust these people with your children? With your neighbor’s children? With anyone’s children?” I’m confident that the vast majority will answer, “No—we do not.”
As for the minority who cling to this film as meaningful? They are lost; beyond hope—as are their children. Cut them loose, cast them out, and let them twist in the winds of their holier-than-thou addiction. Their incessant arguments actually have a purpose; to further retard the progress toward the eventual day when they no longer feed their maniacal hunger for power over others at the trough of society….
I haven’t gotten around to looking into the distributor of this film, but I was surprised to see it opened on over 1000 screens. Compared to the average “independent” release of 200 or fewer screens, that is a major release. Whose money is behind these people?
Apologies to Sam Cooke.
Don’t care much about geology
Don’t know any biology
Don’t care much about DNA junk
Don’t care much about this genetics bunk
But I do feel that god made you
And I know that if you accept it too
What a well designed world this would be
Don’t care much for evilushuns
Don’t care for stem cell solutions
Don’t care much about the big bang
Don’t care what carbon dating is for
But I do feel that god made you
And I know that if you accept it too
What a well designed world this would be
Now, I do claim to be a fact seeker
‘Cause I’m clueless you see
For maybe by “being” a fact seeker, nerdies
I can erase those (pesky) facts you see
Almost all Americans know next to nothing about science. Their opinion doesn’t matter. Sadly, their behavior does.
Only in America is there any “debate” over the science of evolution. For that matter, America is the only place in the world where there is debate over the science of global warming.
The rest of the world looks at Americans the same way most Americans view Muslims — as ignorant, superstitious and violent children. Unfortunately, they’re all-too-frequently correct. Most Americans don’t know the difference between a chromosome and a chrome wheel cover.
The basic argument from the advocates of intelligent design is that the “scientific establishment” is too “materialist”. That is, they insist on dismissing anything that can’t be measured. Any 8th grader should be able to say, with confidence, if it can’t be measured, it ain’t science. Period. End of discussion.
This whole debate is really a sad commentary on the sorry state of American education.
Laughter, scorn, derision.
Ben Stein: another talentless egomaniac like Dennis Miller, or David Horowitz, who had to move right to find an audience dumb enough to fill his celebrity hole with adulation.
Move along folks, nothing to see here.
I think it unfair to label Mr. Stein as a “talentless egomaniac,” although this makes it worse, not better for my opinion of him. I can’t escape the conclusion that he understands the clownish nature of this film and its message, and wants to use it as vehicle for self promotion. I’m not necessarily against self promotion, but I would hope that he could find something other than the degeneration of American intellectualism as a means.
Check the parody by Dawkins “The stork theory”. I think that’s sums it up pretty well.
http://youtube.com/watch?v=-ThQQuHtzHM
Yes,
Why don’t you expose the lies of this movie, instead of saying you are going to do it.
Fact, Hitler used Darwin’s theory to justify killing the Jews,
Fact: You are not allowed to challenge the party line of Darwin in “Public” school systems.
Evolution is a lie, which will be exposed!
http://www.truthnet.org/Christianity/Apologetics/Evolutiontrue4/
http://www.truthnet.org/pdf/Apologetics/4Isevolutiontrue.pdf
“Expelled” makes frequent reference to Hitler.
In his comment, Joe Smith refers to Hitler.
Would that be Adolf Hitler, possibly the 20th century’s most famous CHRISTIAN? You know, the fascist dictator who never renounced his Roman Catholic faith? That Hitler?
If you oppose perpetrators or genocide, then God is your biggest enemy. (Or are you too stupid to actually read your precious Bible?)
[…] a group in California that defends the teaching of evolution in public schools, […] — Morbo
Teaching of evolution needs to be defended??? In 2008??? Like Steve T, @8, says: “Only in Amerika”…
13. Joe Smith said: Fact, Hitler used Darwin’s theory to justify killing the Jews,
No. The social darwinism that influenced Hitler is not the same thing as the darwinism taught in science classes. I know it gets confusing for idiots because they share the word darwinism, but please make more of an effort to learn something before you spout nonsense.
Hitler didn’t even have much to do with “social darwinism.” His ideas (and that of many eugenicists of the era) had much more to do with the unnatural selection of centuries-old animal breeding practices than Darwin’s theories of natural selection.
(This isn’t to defend “social darwinism” which is, after all, a gross misinterpretation and misapplication of Darwin’s theories. Rather, it shows that the “scientific” underpinnings of Hitler’s genocide don’t have anything to do with Darwin at all.)
+
I feel the greatest defense against “intelligent design” is to address the notion head-on — that a single intelligence designed the Earth — and ask what kind of sadistic intelligence would have willingly done so. I actually thought about this when watching a small rescued feral kitten named Selima throwing up a roundworm. She had a severe case, and even while receiving veterinary care and medication, still coughed and hacked regularly from the parasitic worms that were living in her lungs.
Yes, ID advocates. A cute innocent kitten was living with parasitic worm larvae in her lungs; the parasitic roundworms themselves DESIGNED to live there. In her lungs. Slowly killing her. Leaving me — said human who rescued Selima — with the choice of veterinary care and medicine that would kill the roundworms, or letting “God” or “ID” or “fate” see who would win out: Selima, or the roundworms infecting her lungs. (Selima is fine now, thanks to “fate” — err, me, my vet, and powerful human-made meds.)
So why would any “intelligent” being — God, who/whatever — create parasitic lung worms in the first place? Let’s take it up a notch: Why would any intelligent designer create cute cats who must KILL other cute animals (mice can be cute) to survive? Why create a world where death is so much a part of life? If the designer was so intelligent, why not create a world of herbivores with low sex drives, so overpopulation doesn’t become a problem and no one died a horrid death becomming someone else’s dinner?
If the whole “lion lies down with the lamb” thing sounds like such a good idea, why didn’t this so-called Intelligent Designer just design that into Earth? Why all the death built into the design? For kicks? Watching these creatures of his/its design tear each other to pieces?
And why roundworms, who only exist to screw up higher life organizms?
This is called Intelligent Design? I say we call it Sadistic Design, and ask Bible-thumping parents why they want their kids to worship a “designer” that built so much pain DIRECTLY into this supposedly “intelligently-designed” world. Pitched the right way, “Sadistic Design” could have the Bible-thumpers running to Darwin just to defend their fuzzy notion of some loving God. (Cause NO loving God would purposely design worms that live in a kitten’s lungs.)
Fact: You are not allowed to challenge the party line of Darwin in “Public” school systems.
You’re also not allowed to challenge the party line of Christopher Columbus. If you want to argue, say, that the Chinese discovered North America in 1421, you’re expected to produce “evidence” that will convince “historians” that you are “correct” and not a “lunatic.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1421_hypothesis
Or maybe we should teach everything and let children figure it out for themselves.
Hey, there’s Ben Stein’s pasty face in the sidebar ad!
The sad fact is that if you don’t agree with Darwin crap you can’t say so with out being fired or made fun of or talked about like your and idiot like the reviewers have done on this site. What happened to free speech??? What happed to thinking for yourself??? What happened to freedom of religion. What are you people afraid of?????????
I’m afraid of people who use too much punctuation. Long experience has shown me that they’re usually criminally stupid or dangerously insane.
I’m also afraid that the adherents of non-empirical belief systems (e.g. religions) will continue to agglomerate more power unto themselves, to the detriment of the empirical system we know as science.
So I think the way to counter this film is to say “It’s wrong” at every opportunity. And to educate ourselves as to why so we can explain it. Really, would you be able to state the evidence for evolution in a couple of minutes? Try this page if you can’t.
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/0_0_0/lines_01
Fight ignorance gladly, with cold hard reason.
LOL, I see their ads still show it would be “in theaters February 2008.” You may notice its opening weekend was April 18th. This would be largely because they got caught stealing one of the animations in the movie - ripped it off from a firm called XVIVO. They had to create their own shoddy plagarized copy. They’re using the song “Imagine” without permission. They’ve copied from PBS. They misrepresented their intentions to scientists, and they misrepresented their intentions to a band called The Killers and then said “Sorry, too late” when the Killers told them they no longer want their song in their propaganda film.
That’s a tiny sampling of the lies and theft they’ve engaged in. They have to lie , they have to make false analogies, and they have to whine about academic freedom because their ideas are completely hollow. They’re not only scientifically meritless, but they’re horrible theology.
These people deserve all the scorn that’s been heaped on them.
Want more lies exposed, Joe Smith? Morbo was kind enough to put in a link to a little place called Expelled Exposed. I know this is a hard concept for you, but if you click that link, it exposes the lies Expelled tells.
Morbo, bravo for calling this film out for what it is! And bravo to the rest of the commenters here. America still has intelligent people. She still has a chance.
Dunno about Dennis Miller or David Horowitz, but Ben Stein was a speechwriter for Richard Milhous Nixon before he ever became a “celebrity”.
In other words, if he moved right then he didn’t have to pay much for the U-Haul to do it.
It’s a sad commentary when opposing views are not allowed - When those who present them are alienated and called names or worse. At the heart of Expelled is the issue of free speech. Today, I saw this documentary as I had previously seen Michael Moore’s documentary and Al Gore’s Inconvenient Truth. All these films worked toward a desired result with a slanted view, but think about it - there have been hundreds of documentaries featured on PBS, and exhibitions at the Smithsonian along with other taxpayer sponsored media and educational programs supporting the THEORY of evolution. Isn’t it fair to allow an opposing viewpoint payed for with private funds? What’s all the ruckus about?
I just viewed Expelled and found it to be a thought provoking and entertaining film that I recommend to all thinking people.
Expelled exposes the discrimination against those who have the courage to question the dogma of politically correct orthodoxy by pointing out obvious inconsistencies in this new “religion” and the foundation on which it stands. Further, Stein artistically compares on film historical applications of blind dogma and explores the grotesque ends of what starts as a “mere” assault on personal liberty, freedom of thought and freedom of speech.
Evolution as religion? For 200 years, the best and the brightest minds have been trying to make names for themselves by finding anything wrong with the cumulative theories of evolution. Darwin was a member of the third generation to write about evolution, and most of his observations and conjectures have been proven true thousands of times, and false zero (0) times by people hoping to build a career out of proving him wrong.
Free speech is not a maxim of science. New ideas are generally doubted until actual evidence and repeatable experiment prove the new idea more correct than the old one. Ideas are not published until they meet certain well defined, openly published, minimum requirements of veracity. Only after general acceptance of an idea does it make it into text books. Darwin read about evolution as he worked toward his degree in Divinity.
Free speech is not about inserting religious assumptions into science classes. “Someone made the world” is such an assumption. Evolution is a relatively simple mechanism that clearly explains how speciation happens, why the lowly amoeba has massively more DNA than us mere mammals, and how chemistry, biology, physics, geology, cosmology, and other sciences all converge to make life on Earth an obvious and inevitable occurrence.
It seems obvious that one thing that has been said is true: This movie is unlikely to change such strongly held opinions. But all the ad hominem nonsense in much of the above and the often abusive rhetoric suggests to me that almost none of any so ready to criticize this movie have actually seen it. Out of 25 comments, maybe three show any signs of an actual viewing. Sure, go read Expelled Exposed, but see the movie before you feel so free to disparage it.
And for anyone jumping on mrmgraphics particular bandwagon: it’s possible you haven’t encountered an inteliigent, reasoned discussion from a theist, Christian or otherwise. But I would seriously recommend a careful reading of C.S. Lewis’ The Problem of Pain before you blithely write off any intelligent discussion on the matter.
Someone Who Actually Saw the Movie
@24,
5+3 = 14 is free speech, too. But it’s also wrong. ID has never been able to get beyond the idea of who the ID was, besides god.
For ID to work, DNA has to be static but recent discoveries show that it is dynamic (ie changes as we live.) The mechanism that initiates DNA dynamism is a reaction to diet and the environment (ie: natural selection.)
Meh.
What needs to be done to counter this film is to make one about The Flying Spaghetti Monster and the Pastafarian story of how the universe began.
Now THAT’S a film that I’d definitely want to see.
It would amusing to try to explain patiently to Ben and his minions the complete intellectual bankruptcy demonstrated by being suckered in to believing the ridiculous stories of the creationists.
But it’s far, far more amusing to let Lewis Black do it for us.
Oh, and I forgot to add, it would have pirates in it, too.
Science is evidence-based. ID simply hasn’t been able to produce consistent and testable evidence. Science not based on popularity, or some idea of debating “opposing viewpoints.” It’s built up, step by step, by the presentation of hypotheses with evidence and tests presented for the validity of those hypotheses.
The evidence for evolution is profound and overwhelming — no less weighty than the evidence for the existence of atoms. Teaching ID as science would be like teaching the phlogiston theory of combustion as science. Both are nice “just-so” theories with scant evidence behind them. Evolution, on the other hand, has left evidence throughout the entire tree of life — not just fossils, which make up only a tiny part of the evidence for evolution, but living species, cells, molecules; it has become the organizing principle of the entire science of biology. Without it, modern biology would scarcely have progressed beyond the cataloging of species and characteristics performed by 17th-century naturalists.
We don’t “teach the controversy” between the electron theory of electricity and Benjamin Franklin’s “electric fluid” in school. Neither should we teach ID.
Every year there is a new strand of influenza because it evolves (mutates) to ensure it’s existence, if it didn’t the flu would have been eradicated. Essentially christians receiving the current flu vaccination are succumbing to the ‘theory’ of evolution.
And since Ben wants to know where the life came from to evolve, can someone ask him where god came from ?
No one who believe in God creating the world ever said that there is no form of evolution. That is just not how the world started. It boils down to a matter of faith, you have it or you don’t. The problem on this site is that the people who don’t have it are just down right rude to those who do. I can’t look around at my children, the mountains or any other beautiful thing in this world and think it could be just an accident. I’m I stupid? You may think so but the bible is my guide and I believe I am right. If I don’t mind the crazy idea of evolution being represented in school to my children then why are are evolutionist so outraged that they are also told that some people believe in creation? They can both be presented as therory, even though my kids will know which one is right.
There is a presumption here of the theist position that should be corrected. The assumption I keep seeing is that Christians or any theists don’t believe in any kind of evolution, which is not true. There are generally considered to be two forms of evolution: Macro and micro, speciation being the dividing line. There are VERY few Christians who would deny microevolution––subtle adaptive changes within a species. It’s the idea of species developing from others and specifically and ORIGINALLY from nothing which we think is nonsense. That thought itself would involve breaking several much more established laws of logic and science (for instance, the law of non-contradiction: something can’t be and NOT be at the same time in the same relationship; law of inertia: something can’t change of it’s own accord without being acted on by an outside force).
This brings me to a second point. I think it would also be helpful to point out that science is not merely empirical. There is a second and maybe more important factor in scientific inquiry: reason. You can gather all the physical facts you want until your face is a dark shade of indigo and still not be able to come to any reliable conclusions without a reasoned epistomology: How do you know what you know? The rules of logic and reasoning are also needed, and for ID folks or more specifically for those like me who believe in a Creation by God (a subset of the Intelligent Design community), that origin is the total failure of the argument from the point of view of macro-evolution and the success of the theist argument.
Before you blow me off, read the following “cosmological argument for the existence of God” which is not too bad for Wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmological_argument
I’m aware this argument has fallen out of popularity in some circles, but since when is popularity a reliable barometer for truth.
One last thought: There is plenty of admonition in the Bible to pursue science and many of our greatest scientists were theists of some kind––Sir Isaac Newton and Albert Einstein to name just a couple. Newton is famous for saying that in pursuing his science, he was merely “thinking God’s thoughts after Him.”
It is rather entertaining to see the evolutionists just drool and blather over this film. When they don’t have sound arguments, they always result to insults.
Can’t prove ID? Correct.
You CAN prove evolution? Wrong.
Did we evolve? Maybe. But the “theory” of evolution is just that - a theory. Believe it if you will, but the fossil record is still lacking much proof.
Both evolution and ID requires a certain amount of faith since neither can be proven. When the evolutionists react so strongly to a film showing an opposing view it only shows the weakness of their arguments. It also supports the claim of those on the right that it is the left that fears truly free speech.
I suppose ultimately one theory or the other will be proven in the end. If upon your death you simpy black out for ever - then the evolutionists were right. If upon your death you come face to face with God - then I supposed ID will look pretty strong to you.
I for one truly hope for the latter. If for no other reason than to watch the stunned faces of those who don’t believe in ID. It should prove to be rather entertaining encounter…
Good grief. Evolution is not good science. If all the rabid anti-theists out there want to dis ID, have at it. But c’mon. Evolution requires a great deal of FAITH to swallow (many holes; few observable results — sound like a religion to you??) You believe it if you like. But puleeeze do not call it science.
I think the absolute emotional outrcry from the anti-religious community is telling in of itself about how far we have fallen from good science and intellectual debate. I don’t think the issue of this move was trying to prove ID…but to expose the fact there is no room for any other view but the one currently being espoused. Good Lord you don’t have a degree to understand how weak of a theory evolution is. Even if you were an honest Atheist you should be able to admit this!
There’s a lot at risk for them if there is any truth to a world-view not their own. Until then I guess we will continue to live on a flat earth…if you know what I mean. Isn’t it interesting that we live in a world of tolerance (just about everything is tolerated), the only thing not tolerated is a Christian World-view…why is that?
@ grapeshot in 29:
Here you go:
FSM is Expelled
@ Kmad in 35:
Microevolution is macroevolution. You can’t just pick and choose.
Say you take a blank mr. potatohead and add an ear. You accept that that change occurs. Add another ear. You accept that that change occurs. Add feet, you accept that change; add eyes and you accept that change; add a hat and you accept that change. What you’ve got at the end is very different from what you started with.
That’s just an analogy. An actual occurence of small changes over time can be found in a heck of a lot of species. For example look up the following species:
Pakicetus
Indohyus
Kutchicetus
Ambulocetus Natans
Protecetus
Rodhocetus
Basilosaurus
Dorudon
Squalodon
Cetotherium
And for fun, you can look up Kentriodon as well.
Each of these species represents tiny changes that occur (like adding the hat to our mr potatohead, but instead changes like reduction of hind limbs and relocation of the nostrils) that could maybe be marked as microevolution, but when you look at them as a whole a cetotherium is vastly different from a pakicetus and cannot reproduce with one, hence drastic speciation via small changes over time.
As another analogy, think of footprints in the snow leading from point A to point B. The common argument that microevolution occurs but macroevolution doesn’t is like acknowledging that each individual footstep exists, but then saying that someone didn’t walk from point A to point B.
Also, I accept that evolution occurs, and I am a proud Catholic (who was born Jewish!)
I find it interesting that folks like Ken Miller (another Catholic evolutionary scientist) were left out of the film. For anyone who believes that evolution is an atheist perspective, please view
Ken Miller on Intelligent Design
It’s a wonderful explanation of the current state of evolution and the hollow attacks on it. All from someone who believes in the existence of a Christian God.
Another famous Catholic who accepts evolution as fact is someone a lot of people know, just took a big trip and gave a big speech in New York in fact…
Believe it or not, CHUCK NORRIS wrote a great column about Ben Stein’s EXPELLED, titled, “Win Ben Stein’s Monkey.” You can read it at http://www.worldnetdaily.com/?pageId=62142
The links in Chuck’s article are great references as well
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/?pageId=62142
just saw Expelled; the fact that Ben Stein isn’t trying to win any popularity contests helps to validate his message… i gather that his goal is to promote free thought, especially more thinking about the worldviews that drive American academia
You are all FOOLS! Don’t you know that the CIA evolved apes to create the internet!
A great argument against evolution is, How have humans been superior beings over all other species throughout history? The reason we have so much control over other species is Dominion, something God gave Adam in the Garden of Eden.
But even if you don’t believe in Creatonism, and believe comments like this “Any 8th grader should be able to say, with confidence, if it can’t be measured, it ain’t science. Period. End of discussion” I have one question for you. Astrologists (scientists) believe that the universe is constantly expanding…how the heck are they measuring this?