Interesting new movie

Post Reply New Topic

It's called "Expelled", and is written and produced by Ben Stein. It talks about the current supremacy of Darwinism in virtually all aspects of our society -- government, scientific, and all levels of schooling -- and the strict intolerance of any other opinion as to the origins of life on Earth. It talks about people being fired and intimidated for simply disagreeing with Darwinism.
Here's the preview:

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xGCxbhGaVfE[/youtube]

It'll be in theaters on April 18. Who plans to see it besides me?

Sounds like an interesting movie, Ben Stein, is quite good at expressing opinions. This movie should bring up alot of debate, on the forums. Its funny that the Vatican agrees with Darwinism

Vatican admits Darwin correct

Ya, and I hear they've also come out with the first ever bicycle that actually backpedals.



They are masters of the intellectual backflip, that's for sure.

Their motto should be:
"Catholicism: We can have it both ways."

Last edited by Ragtime on 24 Mar 2008, 4:10 pm, edited 2 times in total.

ya thats true

well, the only way you can "disagree" with biological darwinism is to
supply a valid scientific theory and sufficient evidence to counter it.
that has not happened.

i can say i "disagree" with gravity, or "believe" the moon is cheese
(and i do like cheese), but without sufficient scientific evidence these
will be only beliefs. and science is not primarily about faith and belief.

science is a very constrained set of methods for answering specific
questions about the world. the paranormal (eg., God, or whatever
you choose to believe in) is not easily assessed. nor should it be.
that would only demean spiritual belief.

if you had real faith in your God (or gods, or whatever your spiritual
belief is) - and i know plenty of scientific people who do - you would not
be so threatened by a scientific theory - the only one we have that
explains the scientific characteristics and complexity of life on earth.

and besides, aspies are too literal to believe in god.

fG

This actually sounds interesting. I've been noticing that certain scientific theories have gained a religious following lately.

Actually i think the germans already did, decades ago, but unfortunately they've been phased out. They functioned as brakes. But it was fun, being able to cycle backwards for a few yards before falling over.
re: the film; i think it sounds rather like the british documentary called "The Great Global Warming Swindle", but with even less scientific foundation.

Whereas "The Swindle" provoked a lot of articles, ferocious debunkings, outraged denials and refutations because there was actually "some" scientific material to go on, and, I think, still leaves a pretty big question effectively hovering, ("Is GW really manmade, and is there really anything we can do by cutting back on CO2 emissions?"), I can not see any scientific merit in this Creationism/Anti-Darwinism film.

I don't really agree with that. I'm pretty much an atheist, but I can see certain aspies flocking to religion because each religion (or cult) provides an easy enough "script" with which an aspie can follow. It's an easy way of getting a foothold into a community and feeling accepted. Plus, I have a feeling that the religious fundies that take an excruciatingly literal interpration of religious literature are aspies under the guise of charismatic faith. Aspies who desperately want to fit in can sometimes find "shelter" in religion or anything else that has a simple enough "script". I think aspies who are natural contrarians or subversives often find such "scripts" difficult to swallow, though (which is in agreement with your quote).

Actually there are numerous examples of paradoxes, logical and mathematical pitfalls, and unsolvable problems that aren't typically talked about in school. Evolution is really a whole different subject from physics or chemestry in that it's very exsistance can't be observed or even reproduced in a lab. There are astronomical numbers involved in many separate probabilities. I think the point is that with such a controversial theory that even the scientific community can't agree on, people deserve to look at it from all it's angles and come up with their own interpretation free of critisism and persecution. Darwin had no issue openly discussing in depth many of the problems with his theory (which to this day still have no answer, but many more new problems added). So why should schools and other intstitutions be afraid of being as open and honest as he was?

Ever hear of P.Z. Myers?

Here's something from his blog...

EXPELLED!

Category: Creationism

There is a rich, deep kind of irony that must be shared. I'm blogging this from the Apple store in the Mall of America, because I'm too amused to want to wait until I get back to my hotel room.

I went to attend a screening of the creationist propaganda movie, Expelled, a few minutes ago. Well, I tried … but I was Expelled! It was kind of weird — I was standing in line, hadn't even gotten to the point where I had to sign in and show ID, and a policeman pulled me out of line and told me I could not go in. I asked why, of course, and he said that a producer of the film had specifically instructed him that I was not to be allowed to attend. The officer also told me that if I tried to go in, I would be arrested. I assured him that I wasn't going to cause any trouble.

I went back to my family and talked with them for a while, and then the officer came back with a theater manager, and I was told that not only wasn't I allowed in, but I had to leave the premises immediately. Like right that instant.

I complied.

I'm still laughing though. You don't know how hilarious this is. Not only is it the extreme hypocrisy of being expelled from their Expelled movie, but there's another layer of amusement. Deep, belly laugh funny. Yeah, I'd be rolling around on the floor right now, if I weren't so dang dignified.

You see … well, have you ever heard of a sabot? It's a kind of sleeve or lightweight carrier used to surround a piece of munition fired from a gun. It isn't the actually load intended to strike the target, but may even be discarded as it leaves the barrel.

I'm a kind of sabot right now.

They singled me out and evicted me, but they didn't notice my guest. They let him go in escorted by my wife and daughter. I guess they didn't recognize him. My guest was …

Richard Dawkins.

He's in the theater right now, watching their movie.

Tell me, are you laughing as hard as I am?

Here's a link to his Blogsite.... --->Pharyngula

And here's a link to a story in SALON.... --->Salon Story

Some pastors at my Church went to the prescreening of Expelled at the Mall of America in Bloomington Minnesota. They reported a funny little incident. After the film was over this guy in a gray suit and English accent started rambling about the film, throwing out accusatory statements, and otherwise behaving like a lunatic. He was EXPELLED from the theater.

His name? Richard Dawkins.

This link says Dawkins attended, but it was someone named Myers who was not let in.

http://www.uncommondescent.com/expelled ... screening/

I admit Ben Stein is incredibly smart, but I really don't agree with his political views at all. And to blame Darwin for the Nazis really Godwins his argument, and makes the entire movie just a farce.

It always amazes me that this is even a debate in America.

Here in Australia if it's a catholic school they teach Darwinism and only subject students to creationism in "religion studies."

Everyone else gets taught Darwinism... because... well... it's true. At least, that is to the extent of my knowledge of the curriculum here in Australia.

The ID movement is not Creationism; neither Biblical nor Scientific Creationism.

By definition, Creationism approaches Nature using the Bible as a historical-deductive text, id est a starting point where assumptions and the framework for the data come from.

Intelligent Design on the other hand doesn't involve the Bible in the least. It relies mainly on biochemistry, philosophy, etc. Intelligent Design isn't about religion and doesn't name who or what the designer is. It starts from and remains in Nature and shows the naturalistic explanation is insufficient.

Now I suppose that if you can't account for all forms and varieties of life via evolution then it still has to come from somewhere; if it doesn't occur naturally then the alternative is supernatural. I guess an atheist would have a problem with this, but there should be no reason against using such simple logic by a sane person.

Even if Creationists like ID for what it says and how it says it, ID is still not Creationism.

Yes, Dawkins was let in. But after the movie he made an ass of himself.

I know it's only an "argument from intimidation" but the brash self-confidence in the belief that he might get away with such a post is just beyond reckoning.

I find it interesting, psychologically speaking Iamnotaparakeet, but do you often get away with arguments like this?