Espritmodel.com Telemetry Radio
Reply
Thread Tools
Old Apr 11, 2008, 08:22 PM
Registered User
Joined Aug 2004
831 Posts
Rant
Great, now Ben Stein is breeding some more idiots...

His new movie expelled is coming out soon, almost forgot about it.
http://www.expelledthemovie.com

Metaphysics does not belong in science. It's faith,religion, belief, not science. As soon as there is a scientific theory to explain or suggest a god is involved in the creation of all life, that would mean there is nothing metaphysical about the whole idea. (at least Ben Stein isn't going so far as a young earth creationist, at least I hope) They're completely twisting the whole philosophy behind science by saying intelligent design is a theory.... just great. So you know, NOTHING scientific has ever transcended the metaphysical to the physical.

For some reason, people think that when a scientist says they have absolutely no idea how our planet spawned life, they are allowed to insert any standard they wish to explain how life started and expect it to gain a high standard. Their idea IS NOT as good as one created with the movement of science. By inserting religion into science, you'd have the beginnings of the second rising of a council similar to the catholic church in the times of Martin Luther. I'll bet he says science makes theories and laws based on consensus. I'm sure Ben Stein's idea of empirical evidence of god starting life is based on the volume of people who adhere to the body of anti-knowledge known as faith.

There is a philosophical value to the idea of god, but there is no accepted hypothesis (or argument) about god that has a proper premise and complete conclusion. It should be an official policy that religion and science should not be related, because the standards simply aren't the same, and should not be given the time of day. Please, begin a conversation and set the ground premises for a philosophical discussion of this nature before taking off! Quite frankly, the premise behind this movie is false, and it is actually drawing intelligence away from this whole debacle we've been going through. I cannot say the conclusion is false about a god being involved in the beginning of life, it's the nature of the logic and philosophy behind science. But that does not mean, "insert alternate here" and expect it to be just as good. All it's inserting is a roadblock, and it's called playing religion, not science.

There is no evidence of design, the evidence is a fabrication in his head. And the accidental, random-chance of life forming is again, another deliberate mis-characterization of the communication going on among scientists. How about a movie about the philosophy of science for a change?

Now, if he made a movie about the philosophy about intelligent design or the existence of god (because there is no science), that would be wonderful! I cannot imagine the volume of thought it would generate.

Geez, lock me up in a cryogenic freezer and take me 400 years into the future so I don't have to go through this . When will humanity change it's behavior and seek to develop it's logic at the very least? Perhaps we need to evolve more. After all, there must be some philosophical value to realizing we just might be the first or second generation of advanced intelligence. I can imagine Jesus or Christ or whoever he is giving himself a good smack on the forehead and shaking his head, thinking "This is not what humanity needs. Although, there are other things that need more work on right now, like war, famine, suffering..."

Hmm, who's Geez? Is he an old geezer? (insert J,)
Accu157 is offline Find More Posts by Accu157
Last edited by Accu157; Apr 11, 2008 at 08:52 PM.
Reply With Quote
Old Apr 11, 2008, 08:42 PM
Canucklehead
orenda635's Avatar
GTA, Ontario, Canada
Joined Apr 2004
827 Posts
Ben Stein is an idiot. I remember just last year he was mad at Opie & Anthony for being anti-Semitic because they said "chewed out" and he thought they said "Jewed out".

Science has explained how life started. Carbon bonded with hydrogen to form organic molecules. We don't know exactly what triggered these molecules to become life but we do have some pretty good ideas. Stein is either lying or didn't do his homework. He deserves detention.
orenda635 is offline Find More Posts by orenda635
Reply With Quote
Old Apr 11, 2008, 08:59 PM
Registered User
Joined Aug 2004
831 Posts
I remember there being a test to see what organic compounds could form under conditions similar to that of early Earth. Some of the molecules formed were said to be unexpectedly complex after very little time, and in several instances, were basic building blocks of life.

Why can't he see that intelligent design is pseudo-science? He calls it an ideology as well. Excuse me, WHO's pushing an ideology here?! He says it's the most compelling argument for imperialism and inspiration for the holocaust. Yup, he's a nutjob.
Accu157 is offline Find More Posts by Accu157
Reply With Quote
Old Apr 11, 2008, 09:31 PM
INDORUS EXPARAMINTO
SPEED-E-FLYER's Avatar
Springfield, Missouri, United States
Joined Jul 2002
4,206 Posts
Just curious if you've seen the movie.

I don't believe he is an idiot at all.

I'm not trying to play devils advocate here but you're spouting your ideology.

I love reading the section in Scientific American where they have stories from 50, 100, 150 years ago.
Man those guy thought they had the world by the tail.

I remember your test about the primordial soup also. But what proof did it really show at the end. Yes it formed some basic molecules but it must not have been too conclusive enough to settle the debate.

Still, as far as Mr Stein's movie, maybe he's got a different take on some things.
I wait till I see it before I call it.

I believe in evolution with a touch of creations.
But that's just my opinion.

Larry
SPEED-E-FLYER is offline Find More Posts by SPEED-E-FLYER
Reply With Quote
Old Apr 12, 2008, 09:12 AM
Registered User
Southern MA. USA
Joined Jan 2003
623 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by Accu157
His new movie expelled is coming out soon, almost forgot about it.
http://www.expelledthemovie.com

Metaphysics does not belong in science. It's faith,religion, belief, not science. As soon as there is a scientific theory to explain or suggest a god is involved in the creation of all life, that would mean there is nothing metaphysical about the whole idea. (at least Ben Stein isn't going so far as a young earth creationist, at least I hope) They're completely twisting the whole philosophy behind science by saying intelligent design is a theory.... just great. So you know, NOTHING scientific has ever transcended the metaphysical to the physical.

For some reason, people think that when a scientist says they have absolutely no idea how our planet spawned life, they are allowed to insert any standard they wish to explain how life started and expect it to gain a high standard. Their idea IS NOT as good as one created with the movement of science. By inserting religion into science, you'd have the beginnings of the second rising of a council similar to the catholic church in the times of Martin Luther. I'll bet he says science makes theories and laws based on consensus. I'm sure Ben Stein's idea of empirical evidence of god starting life is based on the volume of people who adhere to the body of anti-knowledge known as faith.

There is a philosophical value to the idea of god, but there is no accepted hypothesis (or argument) about god that has a proper premise and complete conclusion. It should be an official policy that religion and science should not be related, because the standards simply aren't the same, and should not be given the time of day. Please, begin a conversation and set the ground premises for a philosophical discussion of this nature before taking off! Quite frankly, the premise behind this movie is false, and it is actually drawing intelligence away from this whole debacle we've been going through. I cannot say the conclusion is false about a god being involved in the beginning of life, it's the nature of the logic and philosophy behind science. But that does not mean, "insert alternate here" and expect it to be just as good. All it's inserting is a roadblock, and it's called playing religion, not science.

There is no evidence of design, the evidence is a fabrication in his head. And the accidental, random-chance of life forming is again, another deliberate mis-characterization of the communication going on among scientists. How about a movie about the philosophy of science for a change?

Now, if he made a movie about the philosophy about intelligent design or the existence of god (because there is no science), that would be wonderful! I cannot imagine the volume of thought it would generate.

Geez, lock me up in a cryogenic freezer and take me 400 years into the future so I don't have to go through this . When will humanity change it's behavior and seek to develop it's logic at the very least? Perhaps we need to evolve more. After all, there must be some philosophical value to realizing we just might be the first or second generation of advanced intelligence. I can imagine Jesus or Christ or whoever he is giving himself a good smack on the forehead and shaking his head, thinking "This is not what humanity needs. Although, there are other things that need more work on right now, like war, famine, suffering..."

Hmm, who's Geez? Is he an old geezer? (insert J,)
I'm more interested in knowing why such a movie would cause a grown intellegent man to be so threatened by it that he would have to bring it up in such a way as this.

Whether God exist or not is not going to harm you, whether science is right all the time, or is right only most of the time (as has been the case in the past) shouldn't make so big a deal in anyone's life.

It is after all just a reflection of someone opinion, it not a new concept, look at Moore's films, Al Gore's twisted film on GW, even Oliver. Stones movies explore other opinions, what about Cruse's film on the 9/11 WTC bombings by Bush and Company.

It's just entertainment folks.
Moe M. is offline Find More Posts by Moe M.
Reply With Quote
Old Apr 12, 2008, 10:10 AM
fix-it-up chappie
tolladay's Avatar
Valley Village, CA
Joined Jan 2002
2,262 Posts
I've been following this for a while, but only because they used such dishonest means to accomplish their movie. How you say did they use dishonest means? Well they contacted scientists to make a movie that was pro-evolution. They filmed these guys, asking some somewhat puzzling questions, and then later the scientists found out what the real scoop was.

PZ Myers was one such scientists, and a very visiable one (in terms of the internet). Here's a sample of some of the dirt they have dug up against the makers of Expelled.

His blog site, Pharyngula always has a lot of info about this topic.

What I do not understand is the subterfuge. If God is on their side, why the dishonesty? Such behavior is not in keeping with their professed belief system, and I believe it reflects poorly on good-hearted Christians everywhere.

[edit] I just found this post from no less than Richard Dawkins. A good, but clearly slanted recap, of some past events. Moral of the story: Do not dupe a prominant blogger into being in your movie, and then boot him from the premiere after inviting him. And if you're stupid enough to do that, then do not lie about why he, and Richard Dawkins were there in the first place.

I believe this is called "adding insult to injury", or more like "snatching defeat from the jaws of victory". [/edit]
tolladay is offline Find More Posts by tolladay
Last edited by tolladay; Apr 12, 2008 at 10:21 AM.
Reply With Quote
Old Apr 12, 2008, 10:30 AM
Happy Trees
m4rs's Avatar
Colorady
Joined Mar 2005
1,332 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by tolladay
I've been following this for a while, but only because they used such dishonest means to accomplish their movie. How you say did they use dishonest means? Well they contacted scientists to make a movie that was pro-evolution. They filmed these guys, asking some somewhat puzzling questions, and then later the scientists found out what the real scoop was.

[/edit]
I thought that was the norm now anyways. Kinda like MM movies.
m4rs is offline Find More Posts by m4rs
Reply With Quote
Old Apr 12, 2008, 12:34 PM
In Development Now
Indiana_Geoff's Avatar
Joined May 2005
445 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by tolladay
I've been following this for a while, but only because they used such dishonest means to accomplish their movie. How you say did they use dishonest means? Well they contacted scientists to make a movie that was pro-evolution. They filmed these guys, asking some somewhat puzzling questions, and then later the scientists found out what the real scoop was.
Your summary, what the author in the link says...

Quote:
Yes, I did say that. But remember, I was told specifically that this movie was to be about the "intersection of science and religion", and their questions were all about atheism and religion, and my quote in that section is about why I think science erodes religious belief, well in keeping with what I was told the movie was about if they'd asked me about specific issues in Intelligent Design creationism, I would have gladly addressed them (and they may have, but answers that were examples of "clear-eyed scientific empiricism" would not have made it into this movie). This is yet another example of how they skewed the interviews with editing. Hitchens isn't in this movie, so why bring him up? And why get irate about capitalizing the name of a god? I can't say that the typological argument for bestowing respect on a deity is very persuasive, either.
The topic he was interviewed about in clearly in the theme of what the movie is about. The author seems to imply that if he had a different definition of the movie he would have given a different answer. Hardly a paragon of truthfulness.

I have no idea how it was edited till I see the movie. If it's edited like a Michael Moore or 60 minutes doco, then he will probably have a reason to complain. But I'll have to see it before I can make that judgement.

I have read some of the other links provided and they seem to consist mainly of whining about someone making a Doco one disagrees with, Ad Hominem attacks on Stein and general refusal to seriously consider the question. If the participants were that awful in the interviews, then they won't look good.
Indiana_Geoff is offline Find More Posts by Indiana_Geoff
Reply With Quote
Old Apr 12, 2008, 01:28 PM
Registered User
Joined Nov 2006
1,067 Posts
Ben Stein isn't breeding any idiots, he is pandering to those who already exist and producing a movie just for them. Parents and other organizations that are involved in deluding people from a very young age are breeding the idiots, other people are just exploiting those idiots.
Kurpal is offline Find More Posts by Kurpal
Reply With Quote
Old Apr 12, 2008, 02:54 PM
fix-it-up chappie
tolladay's Avatar
Valley Village, CA
Joined Jan 2002
2,262 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by Indiana_Geoff
Your summary, what the author in the link says...



The topic he was interviewed about in clearly in the theme of what the movie is about. The author seems to imply that if he had a different definition of the movie he would have given a different answer. Hardly a paragon of truthfulness.
You seem to be under the impression that two somewhat related concepts require the same answer. You are mistaken in this regard. The topics are no more related than the two topics of gun storage and one's personal interpretation of the 2nd amendment.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Indiana_Geoff
I have no idea how it was edited till I see the movie. If it's edited like a Michael Moore or 60 minutes doco, then he will probably have a reason to complain. But I'll have to see it before I can make that judgement.
There are several reviews out. Many have seen it. The editing is in line with Michael Moore and others.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Indiana_Geoff
I have read some of the other links provided and they seem to consist mainly of whining about someone making a Doco one disagrees with, Ad Hominem attacks on Stein and general refusal to seriously consider the question. If the participants were that awful in the interviews, then they won't look good.
Oh, they not only look good, they look like they supporting the contention for the movie (that scientists who believe in ID are being persecuted) either in a positive way or a negative way.

There is no serious consideration of ID because it is not serious science. It makes for a wonderful debate topic, but science doesn't work like debate, nor should it. Applying a false standard (political debate) to a scientific subject does not make any more sense than lecturing about abiogenises in Sunday School.
tolladay is offline Find More Posts by tolladay
Reply With Quote
Old Apr 12, 2008, 05:09 PM
Registered User
Joined Aug 2004
831 Posts
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karl_Popper
http://evans-experientialism.freeweb...com/ayer01.htm
These two are important in the development of the science movement.

Many of the accepted ideas that correctly challenge (not reject or destroy) the philosophy of science are within the realm of philosophy, not religion. The reason some of these ID'ers get rejected from science institutions is because their philosophy has broken down, and will negatively effect the movement. They're no longer scientists.

BTW, an old favorite that no longer shows up here made a nice post in modeling science specifically on the philosophy of science.... Vintage!
Accu157 is offline Find More Posts by Accu157
Reply With Quote
Old Apr 12, 2008, 07:58 PM
Pompano Hill Flyers
Miami Mike's Avatar
Miami Lakes, Florida, USA
Joined Mar 2003
8,485 Posts
There's a great article on the Scientific American website about the movie. At the moment the entire website is down and says "Site Under Maintenance", which may be true, but the problem may also be caused by the "Digg effect".
Miami Mike is offline Find More Posts by Miami Mike
Reply With Quote
Old Apr 12, 2008, 08:10 PM
Go get them Meg!
lrsudog's Avatar
Cabin 21...
Joined Jan 2001
2,118 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by m4rs
I thought that was the norm now anyways. Kinda like MM movies.

MM are not the norm in documentary film making. See more documentaries if you doubt me.
lrsudog is offline Find More Posts by lrsudog
Reply With Quote
Old Apr 12, 2008, 08:31 PM
Pompano Hill Flyers
Miami Mike's Avatar
Miami Lakes, Florida, USA
Joined Mar 2003
8,485 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by tolladay
What I do not understand is the subterfuge. If God is on their side, why the dishonesty?
Maybe it's not so much that God is on their side, but that science is on the other side.
Miami Mike is offline Find More Posts by Miami Mike
Reply With Quote
Old Apr 13, 2008, 01:31 AM
Plane Durability Tester
munky99999's Avatar
Windsor, Ont
Joined Feb 2008
210 Posts
Expelled wont be making it to the theatres any time soon. They've been sued for copyright infringement. If they go ahead with releasing the movie... and they are found to be infringing. Damages just became quite expensive.
munky99999 is offline Find More Posts by munky99999
Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools

Similar Threads
Category Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Some more "Pro Lites" are available now... GGoodrum Electric Heli Talk 9 Feb 09, 2005 09:51 AM
some more pictures (high res) Charles.H.S Electric Heli Talk 9 Sep 11, 2002 05:08 PM
Whoops! Some more Blonds Don Sims Humor 0 Aug 20, 2002 11:20 PM
OK, Need some more help setting up a Network! mrebman Life, The Universe, and Politics 19 Mar 31, 2002 02:36 PM
CGR17500 Lithium-Ion cells...I need some more information e-sailpilot86 Power Systems 13 Jan 07, 2002 08:11 PM