I hate this whole debate, much ado about nothing. And people, study physics, thermodynmanics, and chemistry, and then you will truely understand science, not this half assed bullshit.

Also, on Stein…the fascinating thing is that he’s very conservative but he uses what is a typclly lft wng crtcsm f scnc — that it is simply politics by another name. Stein argues on the documentary’s blog, for example, that Darwin’s theory was simply an extension and justification of British imperialism that can be largely dismissed as such.

Oh yeah, this is definitely a good day.

And really, Dawkins protesting a movie of this little stature would give it far more credibility than it deserves.

Review:
http://blogs.orlandosentinel.com/entertainment_movies_blog/2008/02/is-ben-stein-th.html

Follow-up:
http://blogs.orlandosentinel.com/entertainment_movies_blog/2008/03/expelledben-ste.html

The basic story of the documentary is that Darwinian evolution theory led to the Nazi concentration camps of WW2 and their Arian goals. That’s like saying that inventing metallurgy led to Columbine.

One of Dawkins’ and Myers’ main issues with the documentary is that they were mislead to the intent of the documentary, which is at least partially supported by some information people discovered on one of the forums (see TFA).

Damien

Not only is RD in it. The film they took of him was brutally edited to make him look bad. Ben Stein is a fool.

First of all, anyone who sees Intelligent Design as contradictory to evolution, doesn’t really know what it is. It’s not a replacement to evolution, but more of an addon, attempting to explain the things that evolution hasn’t(like the origin of life), while still keeping the key parts of evolution in mind(the more proven parts, like evolving). It is at it’s purist anyway, as actual creationists have unfortunately managed to get their hands on it, and warp it to fit their ideas, giving all of you this very ugly idea of it.

All it’s really doing is sort of highlighting the holes in evolution(again, not the evolving part, or the span of time, or anything like that). The entire long version of the actual theory of evolution is very inclusive of other bits and theories, building theory on top of theory(going against scientific method), while this theory sort of throws away the very unproven parts and attempts to add to the theory by examining evolution more objectively(if it weren’t for the bible, it would look a lot more plausible), admittedly, with more very unproven parts. Essentially it’s just replacing extremely unproven areas of evolution(or just areas with no explanation so far) with their own equally unproved theories. That’s all.

What the film was trying to do(all I’ve seen is the trailer) was attempt to talk about the extreme censorship believers of this theory have experienced(because of uneducated people like many of the ones here…) like many very well respected scientists. It also seemed to want to talk about the theory itself, and try to bring the real version of it to light, and not the crazy creationism associated version you all have in your head…

At least that was what I thought before reading this. Honestly, I doubt Myers wasn’t let in purely because of his views, since Dawkins was let in fine(as well as Myers’ family) so I’m assuming there is probably another element to it(especially if police were involved), however it would be pretty bad for a film against censorship of scientific views to actually do something like that(which I doubt they did, since they let Dawkins in). I am a little disappointed that Stein is in fact a right-to-lifer, but unlike some people I don’t immediately discount everything a smart person might have to say because of one personal belief(abortion is more of an ethics discussion that a scientific one), and will still try to watch the movie. It is a little crazy that Myers was forced off public property(which I can’t believe any good cop would do, unless there was another reason) but I still have a feeling that there is more to this.

Anyway, all we want is for people to view this theory as at least a possibility(so far an alternative to nothing, really) and let us speak about it and discuss it in the scientific community, objectively, and without any preconceived notions(as real scientists would do), instead of being threatened to lose our jobs. You all talk about not following scientific method, and approaching things with out own agenda in mind, somehow oppressing everyone else, but in the scientific community, it is actually you, the all-or-nothing evolutionists who are pushing your own agenda, not letting any other theories emerge. All we want is a right to speak and nothing else, regardless of this movie, or how it is handled(I had some high hopes after watching the trailer, but after hearing about this little debacle, I’m just hoping Stein really isn’t an undercover creationist after all). If it weren’t for radicals going against the community, many great things never would have happened, and we never know what proof we might find in a couple of years. Science is all about taking different ideas into consideration while trying to prove them right or wrong(or get some kind of result). Without any contesting, or any different ideas whatsoever, there will never be any results. We have all just seemed to agree about the entirety of evolution because all the other parts make so much sense. This doesn’t mean we must throw away every new idea, or stop examining this one and it is in fact during these stages of a theory that it must be really put to the test to prove it.

We just want a damn voice, any voice! Something to say “there is still room in evolution for new ideas!” instead of mindlessly approving of it. I know you are all smart, and that I am not very good at writing things like this, so I probably am not clear as I can be(and I don’t want to repeat myself endlessly, since I already did a bunch of times), so I’m really hoping I was clear enough, at least, to get my little point across. Remember, prejudice is bad, even of ideas.

I would also like to state that I am not some crazy Christian cook, nor am I very religious. I don’t believe in any omnipotent being, nor that the earth was not created in around 5 billion years, or that we didn’t evolved from apes, or that dinosaurs didn’t exist. I believe in all of that, I just think that looking at the gaps in the evolution of life, this theory alone doesn’t explain it all; some sort of unknown force affected this our development, intelligent or not. At the moment, Intelligent Design is the only theory that explores this(probably owing both it’s creation and survival thus far wholly to stubborn creationists who are too stupid to understand the difference), so I support it. I do in fact think that a different, more natural(so to speak) force is more probable, but there is nothing as rounded out as Intelligent Design, or one that explores anything like this beyond the creation of the first form of life.

As a huge nerd, I often see the parallels between our body and brain(and more importantly individual cells) to computers and machines, which we in fact created. That’s just me, and this is just my opinion and I can’t believe that in a community that claims to be open minded, and not hold any type of views besides those proven, I still have to defend such a simple, logical explanation of a single possibility(just one, little, possibility of something different) so much…

Mindy mentioned Sir Francis Galton, who interestingly was a cousin of Darwin’s. However, little in Darwin’s writings supports this superior vs. inferior dichotomy – it’s that common misconception that natural selection selects for the “best” or the “strongest.” Science, as its current popularizers often say, doesn’t kill (or sterilize) anyone (except in rare cases like Mengele). It’s its tools and technologies that do so, and so like theology, literature, philosophy and the rest, it’s all peachy and innocent until people get their hands on it.

That kind of stuff just pisses me off.

Also, crimeny – I beat Cory to the punch blogging this, for once, but I misspelled Myers’ name. That’s what I get for trying to blog in the wee hours.

All your distressingly long comment demonstrates is that you don’t understand evolution, intelligent design, or the Expelled movie particularly well.

Intelligent design was, from the outset, a tactic to wedge religious creationism into science classes. It has no scientific value whatsoever because it predicts nothing, explains nothing and can not be tested through observation or experimentation. It is the throwing up of hands and saying “it must be magic” the moment we encounter something we don’t understand.

It may indeed be magic, (I doubt it, though), but it is not science. Saying “we don’t know” and attributing some aspect of the universe to the supernatural does not in any way increase our understanding of the natural world.

ID is the cessation of rational inquiry, because it says that certain questions can not be answered. When ID looks at an eye, it says “irreducibly complex, obviously designed by an intelligent creator” and walks away. The scientist looks closer and discovers otherwise. Even if you allow ID and evolution to exist side by side, all ID becomes is the statement that “those things we do not know yet may be supernatural… until we can explain them through natural means.”

And while there are many things in the natural world we don’t know, we’re yet to find anything that definitively can not be known.

The movie “Expelled” is and always has been a propaganda vehicle. It was backed by religious groups and is being shown in closed screenings to legislators in order to promote “educational freedom” bills that are another attempt to shoe-horn ID back into the science curriculum. As such, it is the very definition of “religious propaganda” and deserves to be labeled as such at every opportunity.

If they think evolution is a flawed theory, then by extension they must think that the scientific method is equally flawed. Why they don’t reject science completely and go off to live in huts and hunt for game with spears is beyond me.

It makes no interesting predictions about the world, so it is not science, nor is it of use to scientists. But there are lots of aspects of religion that scientists live with quite happily, so why does Intelligent Design attract all this attention? It’s because ID is a grotesque distortion of science that devalues and insults the methodology at the heart of scientific efforts. It’s the old “God of the Gaps” fallacy dressed up to appeal to those with no understanding of the scientific methods or of the work of scientists.

p.s. “I am not some crazy Christian cook” – I’m glad to hear it!

Just having watched the online trailer, this film is such a steaming pile of blatant propaganda, that it makes Stein seem worse. It’s like having someone shove their festering skin rash right in your face. It’s stomach churning.

The ability to be cruel is not exclusive to any particular religious affiliation.

“Evolution”: Examined. Still examining.

Life is too short to waste on obvious dead ends, silliness,appeals to ignorance and ego etc. Besides “evolution” represents continuous learning and is more fun.

because of uneducated people like many of the ones here…

Well Metacore, that’s not going to win you any friends. I’d venture to say that many of the regular readers of BB are pretty well educated, and actually do understand evolutionary theory.

I’m not formally educated in science, but I’ve taken it upon myself to read as much as I can in quite diverse fields; sociology, evolution, maths theory, history of science, non-linear dynamics etc.

I’d say I have a pretty good grasp of evolution and natural selection, and also of the politics involved in these theories being the accepted ideas of our origins.

If ID employs the scientific method as you say it does, will it venture theories on “how” an intelligent designer may have achieved it’s work?
Is the ID camp looking into “how” matter was created, moulded into genes and sparked into life?
Has the ID camp done anything to prove where an intelligent designer came from (who created the creator)?
Does ID question whether the designer is super-natural or plain, old natural?

If ID was science, these are the questions I would assume were the important ones.

..also, I’d be interested in which parts of evolution you (and ID) think are inadequate, and if you support both theories; how you separate the creation from the evolution.

p.s. “I am not some crazy Christian cook” – I’m glad to hear it!

Ha! me too, it’s all just loaves and fishes usually, no?

Furthermore, “fittest” is localized to a set of environmental conditions. But environments are not constant over time — they’re really quite ephemeral (on a geologic timescale).

Gyaagh! This anti-science crowd must be ridiculously blissful in their stupidity. I’m almost envious.

It always pisses me off that people talk about Darwinism as “survival of the fittest.” Darwinism is all about survival of the adequate.

Like Mark, God is very fond of beetles. :D

Well, the producers of the movie had a very active website presence where they push nutty views, so it seems fair to assume that the same nutty views that are on the movie’s blog are likely to show up in the movie.