« Skeptics’ Circle | Main | Poor Babies »

April 27, 2008

Comments

Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

It is probably best to watch [Expelled] while high…

That explains SO MUCH.

It isn't just a fluke, either.. he's said the same thing in many other interviews. See the expelled exposed page here:

https://www.expelledexposed.com/index.php/contest/on-what-evolution-explains

Are people actually falling for this?

I posted about this weirdness too— I think Stein forgets that evolution is a theory specific to biology; since he views it as the principle opponent of Creationism he mistakenly sees it as a competing theory of everything.

My concern is that being the piece of propaganda that Expelled is, too many laypeople that lack knowledge in science will fall for it despite the poor quality of the video, and the effect will be hard to undo. Science will be dealt a serious blow in the eyes of the public, even though intelligent people will see through the nonsense. Most people are not intelligent or critical enough to identify the dishonesty, lies, and strawmen.

What is the scientific community going to do in response? Lay people don't read these blogs. Half of america still believes in the literal interpretation of Genesis!

I think science needs to produce their own propaganda piece.

I think markp is right...in Stein's eyes, since Biblical Creation explains the origins of the entire universe, that Evolution should be some kind of anti-Creationism that does the same. It's like he views Evolution as the Bizarro-Creationism.

Yes, we do have a problem. I wanted to watch a movie this past Saturday and went to fandango.com to see what the latest releases were. Upon viewing the page, I clicked on "Top 10 Fan Rated" movies. Guess what is the #3 top fan rated movie - nothing other than "Expelled". It was being showed at ALL the movie theaters around me and always displayed near the top of the theater's movie list. I do live in TX and understand that this is part of the bible belt, but this is just ridiculous. I can't help but think how many people are going to really be influenced by this B.S.

Get yourself over to Youtube and check thunderf00t's vidos on "Why do people laugh at creationists!". The last three are on Stein, and #23 is on that very part:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3X8aifay678

Maybe this man can not understand the difference between religion and scientific theory.

Thanks for posting. I love idiots.

OK I realy hate to do this but.....

I.....agree.....with....ben...stein

Oh god, that just hurt to type.

He didnt say most scientists believe that evolution explains the cosmos. He said most people (according to your quote).

Thats true. Ask a creationist, without prodding him, what evolution is. they will start with the big bang, then something about primordial soup (or if they say the movie I guess the new thing will be crystals in mud), then dinosaurs, then people.

Here">https://berlzebub.blogspot.com/2008/01/creation-debate-contd.html">Here is an example.

dont forget, 65% of this country thinks the creationist view is fact and that evolution is a nice story made up by a bunch of atheists.

so, yeah, I think he's right. (ow, that hurt again!).

I see what youre saying Techskeptic.

Creationism = Religions answer for everything.

Darwinism = a challenge to PART of the myth of creationism, therfore, a challenge to the entirety of creationism, that implies therefore, that Darwinism is Atheism's answer to everything.

Its flawed logic, but religious zealots love to keep things as simple "good vs. evil".

"I think science needs to produce their own propaganda piece."

Show them Cosmos. If that doesn't reach them, they have no souls.

I also see where Techskeptic is coming from, but that doesn't excuse the makers of Expelled. If you make a documentary about something, it is assumed that you've done at least some research into the topic. It's abundantly clear that they only did some very light reading into it, if any. And science doesn't need a propaganda piece. Expelled should try to publish their theories in scientific journals and let the results show what substance there is to the argument.

Also, could we please stop calling it 'Darwinism'? I do not worship Darwin. His theory makes sense, that is all. Equating modern scientific practice with some form of worship bugs the hell out of me. Rationalism would be far preferable, if you have to stick an -ism on the end of it. Far as I'm concerned, doing that brings the whole world of science down to the level of creationism.

Techskeptic: He didn't say most scientists believe that evolution explains the cosmos. He said most people (according to your quote).

The quote just says "people," actually, not "most people." My immediate reaction, on reading that, was "Really? What people?"

You're saying that the "people" in question are creationists. That many creationists imagine that "Darwinism" (i.e., natural selection) is a theory that attempts to explain the entire cosmos.

That may be true. But what Stein said here still doesn't make any sense. Creationists don't "think that Darwinism explains everything," because they don't believe it's true; they don't think it explains anything.

In any case, if Stein really did mean that his pro-creationist movie disputes the views commonly held by creationists, it does put him in a rather odd position.

I don't think that's what he meant, though. I think it's just a standard exercise of goalpost-shifting. By making obvious, impossible-to-argue-with statements ("Darwinism" doesn't explain everything) which ostensibly support a radical notion (creationism is science), the arguer and his radical notion seem less radical.

To some people, anyway. It seems to me that Stein is an unprincipled snake, and that simply listening to what he says he believes is not likely to lead to a correct understanding of what he truly believes.

In my experience, American scientists aren't likely to call evolutionary biology or the principle of natural selection "Darwinism"; that's mostly a British thing. Over here, if you hear the D-word, you're probably listening to somebody whose knowledge of science derives from creationist propaganda, but serious uses of the word are not unknown in English academic circles. Globalization is changing this, however, and even Richard Dawkins is reportedly having second thoughts about it.

But then the great thing about evolutionary theory is whilst it is clearly specific to biology and genetics, its over-arching idea works quite well in physics and chemistry. The physical properties of our universe are the way they are because an 'evolution' effect acts against entropy to do things like bring stars together, form heavy elements, produce complex molecules, etc. Obviously this isn't 'evolution' as such, but it is a similar formation of complex things over time despite the natural tendency of things to move into less ordered states.

So, in a way, it kind of does explain those things.

"Lostn" said that the lay people will fall for this nonsense, and he is right. This is how Bush got elected twice. Most people don't take the time to read and research. What a shame. He also said that science should come out with it's own propaganda. This is counter to all that science stands for, since I see science as the real "TRUTH". Although, anything that is counter to creationism and the "iditology" (made up a word) of this movie, since it would be opposite to falsehood, would probably be completely true. :-/

He's only speaking to laypeople. Lumping all of Science and people who study or agree with Darwin's theories as "Darwinists" then ignoring theories like "Big Bang" because a lot of Intelligent Designists believe in "Big Bang." Stein the opportunist must be trying to get back in television or something.

Well, From reading these posts, Do you really think Ben is wrong in saying a scientist will get fired for being a believer in a Creator?

This is typical of the attack dogs of Anti-religion. You want to have No god so bad you kill any messenger that just says differently.
Most, granted not all, creationist just want to point out to all the pointy headed "Dr's" of Biology that Evolution does not prove No God. It just points to an evolutionary pattern on Earth.
Just watched a bunch of astrophysicists talk about finding life on other planets. Smart??? No, All they wanted to do was find life to disprove God. All of them said it in their interview. "When we find life on other planets" "It will change the way we think about how we came about"
Wow, Real scientists. Like most evolutionist, all of their research gets skewed toward toward the conclusion they Want, that is "There is no God".
Please let bones be bones, Stop telling people that you found the missing link. The truth is ... "They're bones, we don't know for fact what they are from." It is what a TRUE scientist would say.

Well, From reading these posts, Do you really think Ben is wrong in saying a scientist will get fired for being a believer in a Creator?

Considering that Stein couldn't find a real example of it happening for the movie, I generally doubt it.

This is typical of the attack dogs of Anti-religion. You want to have No god so bad you kill any messenger that just says differently.

How does valid criticism entail "killing the messenger"? I usually see more instances of Creationists playing Orwellian games, and none from scientists.

Most, granted not all, creationist just want to point out to all the pointy headed "Dr's" of Biology that Evolution does not prove No God. It just points to an evolutionary pattern on Earth.

What the hell are you talking about? I'm generally the type that goes around thumping people's ears in the very, very rare instances anyone claims evolution disproves theism. If anything disproves theism, it's the Modus Tollens exception when Creationists start making scientific claims about their deity.

Just watched a bunch of astrophysicists talk about finding life on other planets. Smart??? No, All they wanted to do was find life to disprove God. All of them said it in their interview. "When we find life on other planets" "It will change the way we think about how we came about"

Are you on acid? How would finding life on other planets disprove your deity? If I had to guess, you've got faith that we're the only life in the universe, and your faith is so weak you'll just ad hominem any attempt at looking around, rather than follow where the evidence leads.

Wow, Real scientists. Like most evolutionist, all of their research gets skewed toward toward the conclusion they Want, that is "There is no God".

How do they skew it? Give us a step-by-step.

Please let bones be bones, Stop telling people that you found the missing link. The truth is ... "They're bones, we don't know for fact what they are from." It is what a TRUE scientist would say.

To me, that sounds like, "We found a weapon with fingerprints and blood on it, but we don't know for a fact it was involved with the crime, despite finding several details that would parsimoniously explain the whole thing."

We don't need hubris-filled defeatists like you making a priori claims about what is and is not possible. We don't need any psychobabble about alleged motives, either, so stop wussing out of the discussion with your martyr complex and actually discuss the topic.

Wow nash. thats pretty idiotic. You write as if atheists don't realize that you can't prove god or no god. You are showing such a tired and common misunderstanding that godbots have. why don't you actually try to read and understand an atheists perspective before you spout of a bunch of drivel like that.

Atheists, for the most part, don't think that there is proof of 'no god'. We don't even set out to prove there is no god. We don't need to. If you god folks are going to claim there is a god, and then legislate and moralize around this 'fact' then you better be prepared to back up your so called fact with some evidence...something a little stronger than a circular argument involving an age old rag with a bunch of fairy tales in it.

We don't want no god. There just is no proof of one (as you may know), so, why believe it? It would be great if there was this big daddy in the sky always looking out for me and making a nice home for me when I die and that I actually will live forever. Why base a society with a cultural morality around this pretend fact? Its better to base it around the good of people, rather than one groups pretend deity vs another groups pretend deity vs another.


The scientist and "pointy heads" (so anyone who spends literally decades understanding the world and universe around us is a pointy head? Lemme guess.. a football player and other sports figures who wear pajamas all day while playing a game and getting paid a stupid amount of money...they arent pointy heads right?) for the most part ALREADY understand evolution and how it works on our planet. Knowing there is life on other planets could very well change our ideas about the mechanisms and possibilities of evolution. Its got nothing to do with trying to disprove your poor imaginary friend.

So you think we should just leave bones where they are and not learn from them? This way your fragile grasp of reality can stay as deluded as you are showing now?

twit.

He might be talking about the creationist astronomy professor who was denied tenure...

FWIW, Rotten Tomatoes shows expe!!ed barely cracking the top ten in its first week of release, making under $3mil against such withering competition as "Baby Mama" and "Harold & Kumar." Scored 9% on the T-meter and 0% on the top critics meter. Let it die the miserable death it deserves.

To paraphrase (in part) comedian Arj Barker, can my body physically withstand the amount of dope I will have to smoke to sit through Expelled.

Oh nash, by the way

Do you really think Ben is wrong in saying a scientist will get fired for being a believer in a Creator?

Yes, he is wrong. Read background information rather falling for this crap hook, line, and sinker.

Calling it Darwinism is really silly, and seems to be as somethign akin to an anti-automobile activist insisting on calling all cars "Fords" since a man named Ford was the first to mass produce cars.

I've seen the argument of the practical applications of evolution being used against creationism many times. The argument goes something like "Creationists have to contend with geology, geophysics, hydrology, vulcanism, astrophysics, astronomy, atmospherics, climatology, physics, radiometry, cosmology and chemistry." Meaning all these fields of science rely in some way on the theory of evolution. Which might be what he's referring to.

Still shows a pathetic lack of understanding of the science by these clowns.

Ben made a comment at the end of the interview about Scots. He got that wrong also.

Frankly, these ID advocates honestly need to consider the idea that they are complaining simply to hear their own voice.

Think of this comparison, Charles Darwin asks himself how did the diversity of live on Earth come to be. Then he went out and DID EXPERPERIMENTS. He did long experiments with heredity, Darwin was able to predict certain things about the genetic material, DNA, before it was discovered from his experiments, he was disecting vestigial flower parts on grasses, he studied variation in barnicles etc etc.

Intelligent Design advocate asks himself the same question, and know what he does? Writes a book about how Darwin is in Hell, how everything bad that has ever happened is because of evolutionists, make a movie like EXPELLED, etc etc.

The Discovery Institute has raised millions but has yet to produce those experiments on intelligent design they've been promising for a decade now. Heck, lets face it, Intelligent Design advocates don't even write up research or grant proposals, they have absolutly no intentions what so ever of even pretending they have any interest experiments.

So, are these intelligent design scientists being denied tenure for believing in a creator, or because the last time they stepped foot in a lab Nixon was president?

"It is probably best to watch [Expelled] while high…"

WOW! Talk about a serious buzz-kill!

Next time you post while high, talk about a subject that won't confuse the mass of stoners. Not the massive stoners....the mass of STONERRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRZZZZZZZZZZZZZ.

Nashphile:

Do you really think Ben is wrong in saying a scientist will get fired for being a believer in a Creator?

Only that isn't what he said, did you even read what Skeptico reported?

Since you brought it up though, and in the context of Expelled, why shouldn't a scientist who identifies themself as a creationist be fired?

If your job is to teach the theory of evolution, but you are a creationist and don't want to and don't hold to it, why should you not be fired? Should we allow someone who holds to the Ptolemiac theory of the universe to teach astronomy and astrophysics?

You want to have No god so bad you kill any messenger that just says differently.

To steal a phrase from Tom. Yeabuhwha? Who did we kill recently?

Most, granted not all, creationist just want to point out to all the pointy headed "Dr's" of Biology that Evolution does not prove No God.

Great, name calling and making up positions for your opponents which they don't hold. There's a new approach from a religious apologist and/or creationist.

Just watched a bunch of astrophysicists talk about finding life on other planets. Smart??? No, All they wanted to do was find life to disprove God.

Nonsense.

All of them said it in their interview. "When we find life on other planets" "It will change the way we think about how we came about"

See. Where in there does it say they want to find life to disprove god? Not very good at this are you?

Like most evolutionist, all of their research gets skewed toward toward the conclusion they Want, that is "There is no God".

Right. So you'll have some proof of this then won't you? Or, since it's been a few days without response since Bronze Dog first called for the proof are you just another smug, ignorant and poorly informed cretinist?

Please let bones be bones, Stop telling people that you found the missing link.

You don't really understand what fossils, the missing link and bones are either, do you?

The truth is ... "They're bones, we don't know for fact what they are from." It is what a TRUE scientist would say.

Really? And what makes a TRUE scientist, precisely?

Are people this dumb really allowed to vote?

Two quick points:

1) I don't know a single palaeontologist who doesn't think that the phrase "missing link" is laughably simplistic. Arguably any life-form that not been found fossilised and has produced offspring is a missing link. Most of them will never be found, but even if there were not a single fossil in the world the evidence for evolution would still be overwhelming.

2) The reason people are looking for alien life is the same reason that most scientists carry out experiments of any sort: Whether the results are success or failure they will tell us something interesting, and if the experiment is a sucess it will be really, really cool.

Anyone else think Ben Stein might actually be a saboteur in the ID movement? He seems to be going out of his way to make himself look stupid...

Expelled claims that Darwin caused atheism which caused nazism.

Well here's a news story (in German) about a church in Berlin that was built in the 1930s. Click on the photo to see it more clearly - yes, that's Jesus with one of his followers...who is wearing a German military helmet.

https://tinyurl.com/3rytlj

Jesus? Looks like a wood carving to me.

Anyway if you're into that kind of stuff, you should check out Jerry and Wendy's new website: https://www.jesusinthedoor.com/

It's the best.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Search site