I saw the film EXPELLED today and it was interesting ...

Select poll option that suits you most closely:

I am with Ben Stein who is a genius.	12.7%	[ 40 ]
I am with Dawkins who is brilliant!	28.3%	[ 89 ]
Darwinism is a foggy working hypothesis.	6.4%	[ 20 ]
There is no academic freedom anymore.	14.6%	[ 46 ]
I evolved from a cluster of cells that emerged from a pokey-ball.	37.9%	[ 119 ]
Total Votes:			[ 314 ]

[Redem]

mrsculedhel

He stated this in his book Descent of Man.

I've read it, I know. He never advocated anything like the "social darwinists" (a better term would be social spencerists, as he was the person who came up with the phrase"survival of the fittest" ).

Those ideas long predate Darwin's birth.

So I am left wondering, why bother mentioning it at all in the movie? It's not an historical exploration of Nazi Germany, so why mention it, if the purpose is not to smear evolution by association?

mrsculedhel

A lot of books were banned in Nazi Germany because they were anti-intellectual. However the elite Nazi's could do what they liked and believe what they liked. Perhaps there is misinformation on this film, but the film was getting this bad information from German sources.

A lot of books, including those of the man who Stein is trying to link to the Nazi ideals, and specifically to the holocaust. That doesn't make sense, unless the books were unrelated.

mrsculedhel

Thank you for not hurling the F word at me. I cannot read with a p***s in my eyeball! blaugh

You reminded me of a thread on /b/ where... well a dude stole a skull from some catacombs, and... well... ******** it. p***s in the eye sockets. ;_;
I did not need that memory. lol

[The Plantagenet]

SUCK_I crying REBEK

I lost a lot of respect for stein for this film. I do think that Creationism should be taught in science (maybe) but saying that it's the soul reason of life is (to quote Penn & Teller) BULLSHIT. After learning that Stein was a speech writer for Nixon and that he is a Nixon sympathizer, I now don't care what he says EVER.

Yes, a speech writer for the president of the United States. Meaning, he's a hell of a lot smarter than you are. Who cares if he sympathized with Nixon? I'm seriously doubting you were even alive when Nixon was president, so really all you know about Nixon is whatever you learned in a general history book.

[Trorbes]

mrsculedhel

Trorbes

mrsculedhel

Quote:

Please refrain from quoting after every line of my post; it's irritating. As far as my reply, you can pretty much read Redem's post addressing these issues you've brought up, because he's said the same thing I would say. Also - I've watched every bit of this movie that's available to me through the official trailers, but I can't watch the rest as it isn't available to me. As soon as the full movie comes to bittorrent, I'll watch it. In the meantime, I HAVE read many, many reviews of the movie, from opponents and proponents of it. The vast majority of them say the same thing. While you ask me if I've seen what's clearly agreed upon even by Fox News as a bag of s**t with a pretty wrapping, why don't you do the research I did? Instead of trying to refute people on Gaia who are presenting you with a world of facts, why don't you go read this website we keep linking to? expelledexposed.com If that's not enough to prove our point, you can verify the information found on that website in any number of scholarly sources.

I have already been to that dot com site last week when Voija gave it to me. Dot com sites are not sources. I don't care who is refuting the film. I enjoyed it. I am here to state that the film was excellent; had superb art direction; I learned a lot about cell biology from it and felt I had brushed elbows with a number of prestigious scientists on both sides of the issue. I enjoyed seeing Dawkins as he is a charming man. I didn't feel that he was being ridiculed so badly. It was a happy laugh, not a scornful one. Ben Stein did a good job and I liked him in the film. There is a lot of things to talk about from this film and I am glad that I viewed it today with my 13 year old son. Also my daughter saw the film today. It was a good experience and I am here to recommend that anyone see it, even those who have read skeptical reviews and refutations of the film. Why? Because it is best to get information from the horses mouth rather than to rely on second hand sources. This reminds me of the Golden Compass film when people were asked if they had ever read the book.

Have you ever read On Origin of Species?

You haven't heard a ******** word anyone's said have you? You've said the same ******** things everyone here has denied, argued, and refuted and I'm getting ******** tired of it. It's not a ******** good movie, it has no semblance of ******** science within it, and the only thing Ben Stein was ******** good at is comparing science to ******** Nazis. This goes beyond not ******** comprehending what others have said; you haven't done anything to convince me you've even ******** read anything here.

No I actually haven't heard a word. I am reading posts. If this is getting tedious for you, then do rest! I am not demanding you remain here.

The part that gets me the most isn't that you completely ignore anything that goes against what you believe, it's your faux-sincerity with a hint of superiority complex.

mrsculedhel

You have not viewed the film so you cannot state this infallibly.

Can't I? Would you finally listen if I did somehow see this farce of a documentary?

mrsculedhel

This is your personal opinion about the film and you are entitled to your opinion. Ben Stein doesn' compare science to Nazi's and if you think that then you have been mislead.

You're right, just "evolutionists."

Until now I have read your posts. If you are running low on vocabulary words and are getting wrathful then I think I will pass on your future posts however. mrgreen My gratuitous usage of the word ******** does not in any way hinder my message and if you can't handle a little bad language I suggest you leave the internet; I hear there's a lot more people out there who use bad language on the internet.

[Katherine1]

There is no room for ID in science. Why? Because ID is fundamentally untestable and unfalsifiable. There is no room in science for anything that is not falsifiable or even testable. This is one of the key concepts being argued. Either show how ID is testable or falsifiable, or concede the point.

[Lady_Imrahil]

Katherine1

There is no room for ID in science. Why? Because ID is fundamentally untestable and unfalsifiable. There is no room in science for anything that is not falsifiable or even testable. This is one of the key concepts being argued. Either show how ID is testable or falsifiable, or concede the point.

But that is not the point of Expelled. The documentary shows that academic freedom is very limited, it is not arguing the case for intelligent design. Anyone who has actually seen the movie knows this.

What is the current headcount of people who've seen it vs people who haven't? confused

[Trorbes]

Lady_Imrahil

Katherine1

There is no room for ID in science. Why? Because ID is fundamentally untestable and unfalsifiable. There is no room in science for anything that is not falsifiable or even testable. This is one of the key concepts being argued. Either show how ID is testable or falsifiable, or concede the point.

But that is not the point of Expelled. The documentary shows that academic freedom is very limited, it is not arguing the case for intelligent design. Anyone who has actually seen the movie knows this.

What exactly is wrong with having standards? Should they let any crackpot idea with no basis in reality be considered equal to real science?

[Katherine1]

Lady_Imrahil

Katherine1

There is no room for ID in science. Why? Because ID is fundamentally untestable and unfalsifiable. There is no room in science for anything that is not falsifiable or even testable. This is one of the key concepts being argued. Either show how ID is testable or falsifiable, or concede the point.

But that is not the point of Expelled. The documentary shows that academic freedom is very limited, it is not arguing the case for intelligent design. Anyone who has actually seen the movie knows this.

Why should someone be allowed to bring something that is not science into a science class, or to cast science in a negative light in favor of non-science in a science class?

Have you even examined any of the cases presented in the movie? Any research shows that the movie did not in any way present the whole truth. Look into it.

[Feyre]

Lady_Imrahil

Katherine1

There is no room for ID in science. Why? Because ID is fundamentally untestable and unfalsifiable. There is no room in science for anything that is not falsifiable or even testable. This is one of the key concepts being argued. Either show how ID is testable or falsifiable, or concede the point.

But that is not the point of Expelled. The documentary shows that academic freedom is very limited, it is not arguing the case for intelligent design. Anyone who has actually seen the movie knows this.

What is the current headcount of people who've seen it vs people who haven't? confused

Usually to be accepted for a post related to biology you have to have some insight in it.
Not to mention that if you support ID it shows that you follow logical fallacies and are incapable of understanding the fundamental structure of science. And that is very much a ground for not being hired for any scientific job.

[Azazen]

It was the late 70's I believe that "Creation Science" started being pushed towards being taught in schools, it was a big thing back then and it was in the Supreme Court I believe that it took just a matter of minutes for the judge to see that it was not science in any way, shape or form and rule against teaching it in schools. Now these Creation Science books have been reintroduced as "Intelligent Design", they replaced the word God for the phrase Intelligent Designer and the word create/creation with Intelligent Design. They are literally using the exact same books with these few words changed and trying to force it into schools today.

If you believe that evolution is just a theory then you need to go back to school. They have done experiments in which RNA was created from nothing but a few chemicals. They have done experiments showing that RNA can turn into DNA under the correct conditions, conditions that were believed to be the way the world was long ago. They've also done experiments in which these things come together to form primitive living cells. So to sum it up, they've already proven in labs that non-living chemicals can create life. Science wins, god fails again.

Please don't make me dredge up all the proof there is that intelligent design can't even be considered elementary school science.

[Katana no Kisaki]

This reminds me about Grover S. Krantz who is an anthropolgist at Washington State University. He showed pictures of cave paintings from the Columbia River area at a conference of scientists, and then noted that the ones who didn't know where it came from said the pictures looked like apes but the ones who did know insisted they had to be something else.

I think its fairly obvious that the scientific community is over-protective of Darwin, and that they don't allow anyone to challenge him even as they laud his bravery for challenging the theories of his own day.

[Lady_Imrahil]

The Final Plantagenet

SUCK_I crying REBEK

I lost a lot of respect for stein for this film. I do think that Creationism should be taught in science (maybe) but saying that it's the soul reason of life is (to quote Penn & Teller) BULLSHIT. After learning that Stein was a speech writer for Nixon and that he is a Nixon sympathizer, I now don't care what he says EVER.

Yes, a speech writer for the president of the United States. Meaning, he's a hell of a lot smarter than you are. Who cares if he sympathized with Nixon? I'm seriously doubting you were even alive when Nixon was president, so really all you know about Nixon is whatever you learned in a general history book.

Not to mention Stein is NOT advocating Creationism. He's just saying the academic community needs to be a little more open-minded when it comes to their beloved Darwin. 3nodding

[Feyre]

Lady_Imrahil

The Final Plantagenet

SUCK_I crying REBEK

I lost a lot of respect for stein for this film. I do think that Creationism should be taught in science (maybe) but saying that it's the soul reason of life is (to quote Penn & Teller) BULLSHIT. After learning that Stein was a speech writer for Nixon and that he is a Nixon sympathizer, I now don't care what he says EVER.

Yes, a speech writer for the president of the United States. Meaning, he's a hell of a lot smarter than you are. Who cares if he sympathized with Nixon? I'm seriously doubting you were even alive when Nixon was president, so really all you know about Nixon is whatever you learned in a general history book.

Not to mention Stein is NOT advocating Creationism. He's just saying the academic community needs to be a little more open-minded when it comes to their beloved Darwin. 3nodding

It shouldn't, Evolution is exemplary for the scientific process. People who do still do not follow evolution are obviously incapable of understanding the way science works.

[Katherine1]

Lady_Imrahil

The Final Plantagenet

SUCK_I crying REBEK

I lost a lot of respect for stein for this film. I do think that Creationism should be taught in science (maybe) but saying that it's the soul reason of life is (to quote Penn & Teller) BULLSHIT. After learning that Stein was a speech writer for Nixon and that he is a Nixon sympathizer, I now don't care what he says EVER.

Yes, a speech writer for the president of the United States. Meaning, he's a hell of a lot smarter than you are. Who cares if he sympathized with Nixon? I'm seriously doubting you were even alive when Nixon was president, so really all you know about Nixon is whatever you learned in a general history book.

Not to mention Stein is NOT advocating Creationism. He's just saying the academic community needs to be a little more open-minded when it comes to their beloved Darwin. 3nodding

Once again, science is open to anything with EVIDENCE

Please, give positive empirical evidence for ID, or any other competing theory. This is the point. Science doesn't accept claims, only evidence.

[AquaRegia]

Lady_Imrahil

Katherine1

There is no room for ID in science. Why? Because ID is fundamentally untestable and unfalsifiable. There is no room in science for anything that is not falsifiable or even testable. This is one of the key concepts being argued. Either show how ID is testable or falsifiable, or concede the point.

But that is not the point of Expelled. The documentary shows that academic freedom is very limited, it is not arguing the case for intelligent design. Anyone who has actually seen the movie knows this.

What is the current headcount of people who've seen it vs people who haven't? confused

Did the movie use any non ID related incidents to prove their point of lack of academic freedom. For example "I got fired from my teaching job because I am against quantative literacy as a form of math." Sorry for the bad example.

Just out of curosity, because all I hear about is people being mad about not being able to teach id in science classes. I haven't heard of any cases for any other material being refused.

[N3bu]

Lady_Imrahil

I Director

I saw it an hour ago or so, mainly because my dad wanted me to see it.

And I... just can't seem to care about our origins at this point. Some would call me extremely dense for asking this, most likely, but I never understood why our origins were so critical.

Maybe someone would like to explain it to me. Because I've yet to find any significance with regards to life today.

The movie wasn't about our origins -- it is about having the academic freedom to search scientifically any theory you want to explore. Remember the people he interviewed at the beginning who were fired? Or the comparison to the Berlin Wall?

If I remeber correctly, that was already addressed as bullshit. They wern't fired because of their beliefs, they were fired because they wern't being competent.