Intelligent Design Film is Far Worse Than Stupid »
Posted By Neophile 1 year, 6 months ago in Arts & EntertainmentRarely 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 »
531 Views Share Story 54 Comments Report
Submitted By:
Neophile
I'm a Propeller Scout so if you have any questions or concerns, send me a message and I'll be happy to help.
Other Related Articles:
Why not submit a story?
RSS Join the Discussion
+ Add CommentShowing 196 of 199 Comments (view all)
-
Neutral
Bkumm1 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
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
Reply-
Neutral
NoSpinDave1 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
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.
Reply
-
-
Neutral
Bkumm1 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
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.
Reply -
Neutral
walden31 year, 6 months ago
-
-
Neutral
PapaWolf1 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
>>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.
Reply -
-
-
Neutral
SFCGuyW1 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
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.
Reply
-
-
Neutral
Bkumm1 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
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."
Reply-
-
Neutral
papageno1 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
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...
Reply
-
-
Neutral
quackpot1 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
"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.
Reply -
-
Neutral
Spadecaller1 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
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.
Reply-
-
Neutral
memestryker1 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
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.
Reply -
-
Neutral
CRYMTYPHON1 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
"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.
Reply
-
-
-
Neutral
Bkumm1 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
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.
Reply-
Neutral
jordan111 year, 6 months ago
-
-
-
-
Neutral
chevydog1 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I guess I really don't know what intelligent design is. What I do know is that my religious tradition always accepted evolution as the way things happened. Then we marveled at the great power that made evolution possible. Never saw any conflict between science and religion. It was always "Those words in the Bible really don't mean what they seem to mean today; we really don't know what they mean." That's why they call it the Creation Myth.
But that was long ago, before movies like this tried to "enlighten" us.
Reply -
Neutral
KYRed1 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Wow. after watching the trailer for this movie I must say that Ben Stein is just as wretched as Michael Moore. Only that Stein didn't have to take people's words out of context. Still, a good entertaining move like Moore's. Ever seen Me and Roger? Great watch, I might add. Made me laugh a lot. Go Stein. I guess you didn't really think you would win an award with this one, though, did you? I love these faux documentaries. One day there will be college classes for students about documentaries and you and Moore will be items of interest as to how not to express the truth. Does anybody else think, like I do, that Stein and Moore have studied German propaganda films from the 30's and 40's?
Reply-
mackiemesserComment removed: Retracted by user
-
Neutral
CRYMTYPHON1 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Sorry;
Mr. Moore's movies are good.
And funny.
And above all, factual.
Anyone can rebut this dismal movie.
I have never seen a rebuttal of Fahrenheit 911 that went much farther than saying that he is fat and likes the French.
Don't try a right-handed swipe at Moore by saying Stein's stuff is in the same species level; not.
Reply
-
-
-
-
Neutral
ETproductions1 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Lightning and thunder were once understood to be part of intelligent design as well. The Romans KNEW them to be signs of Jove's anger. The ancients knew that sickness was caused by witches casting curses or the anger of the gods. Some parts of the "intelligent design" myth die harder than others.
Most of those who insist that the "theory" of intelligent design be taught alongside the theory of evolution have no earthly understanding of what "theory" means in scientific terms. It is NOT synonymous with "hunch". A few intelligent designers are actually scientists and know very well that the word "theory" can't rationally be applied to their explanation of the origin of the species. But they also understand the politics of dumb-down in play in America and know which side their bread is buttered on.
Reply-
Neutral
ETproductions1 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I should add that I am not dismissing the possibility that there really is an Intelligent Designer, and that His hand is seen in all life? I mean only by the above that believing such is believing, having faith. There isn't a shred of scientific evidence on which to base such a belief, so it ain't science.
Reply
-
-
-
-
Neutral
spdde1 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
We all start our beliefs with certain presuppositions, which are ideas expressing an opinion based on incomplete evidence, or put another way, it is a supposition made prior to having knowledge. When we apply this presupposition and logic to what is written in Genesis, we understand the facts and events stated as real. We then use this knowledge to explain and hypothesize the evidences we observe around us. Our Religion is fundamental to our presuppositions.
Evolutionists have the same presuppositional nature when their theories are examined. They start with the basis of no god or at least not one involved with special creation as described in book of Genesis. They then use their presupposition to interpret the same evidences to put forth their evolution theory. The manner in which they proclaim this theory as fact is in itself their religion. The Webster's dictionary defines religion as a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith.
Reply-
Neutral
quackpot1 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
spdde, you have totally missed the crucial point that differentiates your two examples.
When people who take the King James version of Genesis as their starting point run into trouble with their hypothesis, they refine the hypothesis by invoking the power of God. That is, they change the rules to fit their preconceived idea.
When people who take Darwin's hypothesis as their starting point run into trouble, they refine their hypothesis ONLY with the known laws of the universe.
If one is free to invent new laws of the universe under the guise that "God is all powerful and can change the laws at her whim" then ANY hypothesis is equally likely to be true - including life starting with spaghetti (pastafarianism).
Reply -
-
Neutral
Tangent0011 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
That is not entirely the case. Science grew up in an environment steeped in God and included such concepts ans Formal and Final Causation that speculated as to the 'meaning' or 'purpose' of a particular phenomenon. In its infancy, science started with the presupposition of God. It was only when the church started to realize that science was continually narrowing the 'gaps' that God was supposed to fill that Formal and Final causation were removed from scientific inquiry. Basically, science and philosophy became separate disciplines.
Reply
-
-
Neutral
KMFDM1 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Well we all know why Ben Stein is constantly using Clear Eyes. He is smoking some serious $#@!
Where does live ultimately come from?
Ha, You dont have a percise answers, just logical theories.
Therefore since you dont know, I sujest that we replace your logical theories with my theology!
Reply-
Neutral
spdde1 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I am reminiscent of my struggle with evolution vs. creation. I thought about it in hindsight once I accepted creation. That it was by order of learning that I accepted evolution over creation (I was taught evolution before I learned of creation). It was then I realized that what ever a person is taught first is up held by that person as truth, in logic and in defense. I would suppose the amount of respect one places on the teacher has a factor in this also. It is not until a person has sufficient time exposed to, and subsequent investigation of, new ideas that they can realize that teachers are human and subject to the level of ideas and theories they themselves are taught in the learning process. It is only then by a preponderance of the evidence that one can accept new ideas and paths of thought. The radioisotope dating techniques used to prove the ages of most everything not observed is faulty, and has many assumptions. The fossils are a result of the global flood in Genesis.
Reply
-
-
-
Neutral
Dionys1 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
"You dont see Scientist going into churches and pushing evolution.
Please stop going into our schools and pushing religion."
You do however see plenty of Scientists going around writing about how there's no scientific proof of God. You do see scientists pushing Atheism, which frankly has nothing to do with science.
Perhaps when you stop pushing Science as an alternative to Religion and stop pushing people to drop their beliefs simply because you do not believe they will stop pushing religion into the same spheres you inhabit. Then again they may not, but at least then you can have the ethical upper hand.
Reply
-
-
Neutral
KMFDM1 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
For all you people that think that science is a religion and is only real if you believe in it, please step to the edge of a clift. The theory of gravity is only a theory, and if you dont really believe in it, you should be ok if you step over the edge of the clift.
Reply -
-
-
Neutral
jesh1 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I have not seen the movie so I can not comment on that but the story was so slanted I had to put my monitor on its side to read it . science is by definition doing something over and over again noting the result and proving theory's of natural laws and how they react .if the beginning of life started with a big bang could an explosion bring order ? or does it make sense that someone planed it and put it in order . Darwin's theory is just that a theory [ although some fight so fiercely for it you would think it were there religion . some of Darwin's theory has proven to have solid evidence and some of it has little if any proof . the origins of the beginning of life is where Darwin's theory falls apart and can not be proven scientifically ,despite popular opinion the intelligent design does have scientific proof for its beliefs especialy in area of the origins of life . check out darwins black box an excelent book
Reply-
Neutral
Tangent0011 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Evolution is not ABOUT the origin of life. Evolution is about how organisms change over time. If you're arguing about abiogenesis, sure, there's a lot less certainty and a great deal more speculation.
What sort of 'scientific proof' does ID have to offer?
Reply -
Neutral
Helixbuilder1 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
'Darwin's Black Box' is crap. See the detailed review at Talk Origins. http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/behe/review.html
Reply -
-
-
-
Neutral
SFCGuyW1 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
As of 2001 there were over 313 main religions in the USA and many more denominations and offshoots of these religions. There are thousands of different religion and denominations throughout the world and many of these are imported to the USA by immigrants.
If public schools want to teach other than evolution they would have to teach the beliefs of each & every religion or face violating the US Constitution. Do you want you child to learn that one God exists & who is that particular God, or maybe that many Gods exist, or spirits in place of God, or that man himself is a God, or that the Earth is Godlike, or that no God exists, or that the elements are the Gods of the Earth, or aliens are our Gods, etc. etc. etc.? Christianity's view of creation cannot, must not be the only one taught if we are to be a free people in a nation controlled by ALL of the people.
Reply -
Neutral
saneman1 year, 6 months ago
-
-
Neutral
joeblowe1 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I used to watch Ben's game show. It was funny when Jimmy Kimmel was on it. The problem is, although Ben is (supposedly) pretty smart, he has some notions stuck in his head that apparently will NOT yield to logic. "Intelligent design" isn't really even a theory; there isn't any real evidence to support it. None. Whatsoever. It's more an idea, or maybe a tale. The word "theory" belongs in a rational discussion with ideas that can be demonstrated with evidence. THEORY: "a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world;..." There is NO substantiation for "intelligent design." It shouldn't be TAUGHT in any public school in ANY class. Sunday school - OK, if you want to - go ahead and mix it in with the other stories and tales. Anyone with sense would then realize it was just a fictional "tale."
Reply -
Neutral
tiredofwhiners1 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I doubt this movie can be called a documentary. I haven't seen it. I suspect it is a feel good movie for religious creationists. C'mon, let them have their movie too. I believe in evoution and am not religious. Death Wish (not a documentary) was one of my favorite movies and yet I would never consider going out and wasting every criminal I come across (although sometimes I wish I could).
I think many deeply religious people need their beliefs and would be lost without them. It's human nature. Let them have this. I don't mind as long as they don't drag me kicking and screaming to church every Sunday.
To say the profs who were fired because they strayed from their subject matter is to ignore the well known fact that a lot of profs do this in a political way today and they're not fired. Far from it, they often are hired or kept because of their (liberal) inclinations. If I had an anthropology professor teaching creationism, I would fire him too.
Reply -
Neutral
StillUnashamed1 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I have researched the question asked by Stein, "Where did life come from?" and can't find the answer but here's some of what I found:
R. C. Lewontin http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-fact....
It is a FACT that the earth with liquid water, is more than 3.6 billion years old.
It is a FACT that cellular life has been around for at least half of that period and that organized multicellular life is at least 800 million years old.
It is a FACT that major life forms now on earth were not at all represented in the past.
It is a FACT that major life forms of the past are no longer living.
It is a FACT that all living forms come from previous living forms.
The last stated FACT is indeed not a fact by the evolutionist's own admission. Tracing backwards, one must at some point conclude that a living form came from a non-living form. I have no problem with the facts presented. I do have a problem with the assumptions derived from those facts.
Reply-
Neutral
StillUnashamed1 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
And, David Berlinski, the author most recently of Infinite Ascent: A Short History of Mathematics http://www.discovery.org/a/3209
"At the conclusion of a long essay, it is customary to summarize what has been learned. In the present case, I suspect it would be more prudent to recall how much has been assumed:
First, that the pre-biotic atmosphere was chemically reductive; second, that nature found a way to synthesize cytosine; third, that nature also found a way to synthesize ribose; fourth, that nature found the means to assemble nucleotides into polynucleotides; fifth, that nature discovered a self-replicating molecule; and sixth, that having done all that, nature promoted a self-replicating molecule into a full system of coded chemistry.
These assumptions are not only vexing but progressively so, ending in a serious impediment to thought."
Reply
-
-
Neutral
dunkirk1 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Intelligent Design as Science is pure folly. Its an attempt by the religious wack-nuts to turn our educational system into madrasses. I always laugh at the righties when they point to the Islamic schools as indioctrination clinics when that is exactly the same thing they want to do with our schools here.
Reply -
-
Neutral
Redneck1 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
FTA: "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."
Ridiculous conclusion!!!
Reply -
Neutral
Mutainia1 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I saw this movie, and enjoyed it. It was fun seeing Stein do a Michael Moore on Dawkins to the point where Dawkins accepts the possibility OF intelligent design. He also did a great job of showing how many scientists take to evolution the way the religious do with their belief in God.
Reply -
Neutral
memestryker1 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Here's a video on the history of religion--I think it's a popcorn moment.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-110907...
Reply -
Neutral
memestryker1 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Kville, this 13 minute video is for you. I had to dig to find it again, but I think it's well worth watching.
http://science.propeller.com/story/2008/04/23/z...
Reply -
Neutral
Tangent0011 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Richard Dawkins and other scientists were bamboozled into doing this movie. They were approached with doing interviews for a movie called 'Crossroads' about the intersection between science and religion. The producers later claimed 'Crossroads' was the original title but the project became the movie 'Expelled' as they gradually uncovered all this sinister censoring stuff (insert creepy music here) going on.
Fair enough. Why then did the production team reserve the web address for www.expelledthemovie.com months BEFORE they did these interviews. Why did they NEVER reserve www.crossroadsthemovie.com?
Reply -
Neutral
cmmndrblu1 year, 5 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
If ID were actually scientific, why do it's proponents distort information? Abiogenesis is not the same as spontaneous generation. Secondly, why is it at all surprising that organic matter should arise from matter? It's only astounding because of the side that we're on.Repeating processes which occur due to laws, not chance, happen throughout the universe. The formation of organic life from in organic materials is based on chemical laws, not random chance. Furthermore WHY should any of this mean that meaning is being taken away from the universe? It's not meaning that's being destroyed, it's just an outdated cosmology that's changing
Reply -
Neutral
Natureboy1 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Damn right.
Lets have a byebul curriculum in science.
Astronomy - The sun revolves around the earth, just like the byebul says.
Chemistry - fire and brimstone is all ya need to know
Paleontology - the earth is 5,000 years old, and the fossil record is a tool of the devil placed here to deceive the faithful.
Yeah, let's be "open minded."
Reply -
-
-
Neutral
quackpot1 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
KvilleTx,
Your comments might be more productive if you either respond to one of the well reasoned comment here or present a well reasoned comment of your own.
A list of rants and arbitrary names (even if in upper case) is not very persuasive
Reply -
Neutral
Tangent0011 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I'm all for competing theories. That's what science is all about.
ID is simply NOT a theory. It is a conclusion based on the unsupported idea of 'Irreducible Complexity'. Until ID has something more substantive than an argument from incredulity to bring to the table, teaching ID in a science class is like teaching air guitar in a music class.
Reply -
-
Neutral
Radiofreeeuropa1 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
What passes for education in Kville is what is sad. Why not tell kids 2 plus 2 equals 5, it is the opinion of someone who does not understand math and they demand it be taught in math class. You are censoring if you don't let crackpot math compete with actual math in math class. Should I type it in all caps to annoy more? Those communists who won't admit 2 plus 2 equal 5 are not broad minded!
(Sarcasm off).
Reply
Add a Comment
Sign In With Your Propeller Account
Please keep your comments relevant to this story.
To create a live link, simply type the URL (including http://) or email address and we will make it a live link for you. You can put up to 3 URLs in your comments. Line breaks and paragraphs are automatically converted — no need to use <p> or <br /> tags.