Posted: Mon Apr 14, 2008 12:34 pm Post subject: Ben Stein documentary: Expelled
I can't wait to see this. Unlike Michael Moore, Stein actually has credibility and intelligence, so it'll be a different kind of documentary to say the least. Stein brings up some interesting points in this 4 minute interview:
Joined: 31 Dec 1969 Posts: 2832 Location: Tacoma, WA USA
Posted: Mon Apr 14, 2008 5:19 pm Post subject:
It should be interesting, to say the least.
Darwinian theory IS just a theory, but one that is provable. Going into the ideas of HOW all of this started isn't provable at ALL. I agree that people should be able to talk about other theories, but when there's literally NOTHING to back up those theories, it just doesn't seem like something that should be taught in schools. Sure, people should be able to talk about it, but I think the biggest fear with this issue is that if people start believing that it was all just started by "God", then it leaves there to be NO reason to look into other theories that actually DO have some facts behind them. The strong belief that everything was started by a higher power is NOT SCIENCE, not by any stretch of the imagination.
I see both sides to this, but I agree with the aspect of leaving "creationism" out of science books because it has NO business there--it's a theory, but not a scientific one in any sense. _________________ Meow.
I agree there. It's not about that though. The documentary focuses on the fact that Ivy League scientists are being driven out based on their beliefs. By hypocrites. Exposing hypocrites = win + fun. _________________ The Democratic Anthem: The American Dream is okay! Until you make $250,000. Then you're the devil.
I can always count on message boards to consistently shatter my faith in humanity.
Darwinian theory IS just a theory, but one that is provable. Going into the ideas of HOW all of this started isn't provable at ALL. I agree that people should be able to talk about other theories, but when there's literally NOTHING to back up those theories, it just doesn't seem like something that should be taught in schools. Sure, people should be able to talk about it, but I think the biggest fear with this issue is that if people start believing that it was all just started by "God", then it leaves there to be NO reason to look into other theories that actually DO have some facts behind them. The strong belief that everything was started by a higher power is NOT SCIENCE, not by any stretch of the imagination.
I see both sides to this, but I agree with the aspect of leaving "creationism" out of science books because it has NO business there--it's a theory, but not a scientific one in any sense.
Meh, I didn't hear or see anything that should make someone defensive as to the motives of this. No one said ANYTHING about proving anything. The guy goes so far as to say that the God idea could be completely wrong. I also didn't hear anything that said creationism should be taught as a science, but only as another theory or potential helping cause. This is done in science based discussion all the time. I don't see AT ALL how this turns into the paranoid delusion of not talking about anything else that has some facts. I get the feeling that your answer is rooted in someone else's approach to this, maybe from somewhere else. Someone harsher maybe? Maybe Robertson? Your answer seems to respond to what sounds like an attack on science, nothing at all remotely like the video link I posted. _________________ The Democratic Anthem: The American Dream is okay! Until you make $250,000. Then you're the devil.
I can always count on message boards to consistently shatter my faith in humanity.
Joined: 31 Dec 1969 Posts: 2832 Location: Tacoma, WA USA
Posted: Tue Apr 15, 2008 12:10 am Post subject:
You're right. It isn't. I'm saying that that is what people are FEARING. Do you know why? Because there have been some places where they've PUT it into science curriculum.
The other part is that it's O'Reilly doing the interview. I have a hard time taking the guy seriously--I put him as being not too far off from Robertson, quite honestly. He believes that if men are able to hold hands (without being chastised), it will damage his little girl and all little girls, and that children shouldn't have to see something so "horrible". Like I said, it's hard for me to take the guy seriously. Ben Stein is someone I'll listen to, but the fact that he agreed with O'Reilly on so much--things that are subjects that O'Reilly talks about quite a bit and implies that it should be part of school curriculum. When Ben Stein agreed with so much of what O'Reilly was saying, I thought he might have really known the implications of what he's agreeing to, but I need to remember that Ben Stein probably doesn't really pay that much attention to O'Reilly normally, he has more important things to worry about.
People are afraid of religious extremists like Robertson (and O'Reilly) and people in some of the backwoods areas of the country pushing religion into the public schools. If they are allowed to do it in THOSE places, they'll be allowed to do it in MORE places as well, and I don't think the PUBLIC schools have any business teaching religion. People should go to a private school for if they want religion, and there are enough people who believe this way that ANY mention of this subject freaks people out. It freaks ME out.
Yes, I was jumping the gun there, and I'm sorry I did. I'll try to JUST look at what Ben Stein says and not what O'Reilly says (which, if you've seen him speak on this subject at other times, you'll know WHY I'm sort-of reading between the lines with him talking to Stein). _________________ Meow.
O'Reilly is a religious extremist?! No. Just no. Anyway, the public schools don't have any business teaching religion as "what's right". They absolutely have business educating kids on what religion is, and it's effects on history and is now affecting the modern world. People's fear of religion "taking over and destroying the world" certainly doesn't need to go so far as to pretend there is no such thing as religion from 8:30 to 2:00 everyday, especially when discussing theory. As far as mentioning the subject freaking people out, well, all kinds of things are mentioned daily that freak me out. The liberal slant of college professors trying to brainwash students freaks me out. Real life freaks people out. That doesn't mean that there shouldn't be "ANY mention of this subject" to prevent people freaking out. I don't see anything resembling what you accuse O'Reilly of in that video. Perhaps you're talking about a different interview? He points out that the state of Kansas has "ordered their teachers not to mention the the idea that THERE MIGHT BE a creationary aspect to the universe". O'Reilly wants to know why it can't be. I didn't get "implies that is should be a part of school curriculum" from that AT ALL. Again, what you're saying sounds like some serious defensiveness to an issue that doesn't seem to exist here. Like Stein said, "Einstein, Newton and Darwin all worked within the framework of believing that there was/could be a God. Why is it not okay to ask those questions now?! We just want to be able to talk and think." No thought police for me thanks. I say no to the watered down, PC approach to questions in science and theory because someone might get "freaked out". That's half of what's wrong with America today. _________________ The Democratic Anthem: The American Dream is okay! Until you make $250,000. Then you're the devil.
I can always count on message boards to consistently shatter my faith in humanity.
Joined: 31 Dec 1969 Posts: 2832 Location: Tacoma, WA USA
Posted: Tue Apr 15, 2008 6:35 pm Post subject:
I'll try to reiterate:
If you've watched O'Reilly on other occasions, you'd know what I'm talking about. Not on THIS clip, but on other showings he goes on in a very similar way to Pat Robertson does about the subject of gays and the subject of creationism. All the things I mentioned in my last post are things that O'Reilly has done on other shows of his. This particular instance, he did NOT do what he often does, and it my my false initial assumption that when Stein was agreeing with him wholeheartedly that he was somehow agreeing to what he has said on past shows, which is simply not the case.
Yes, I would label O'Reilly as a religious extremist. If you've ever heard him talk about the subject of gay people and creationism for any length of time beyond this clip, you'd know exactly what I'm saying. O'Reilly believes that gay people should not be able to seen in public life so we can "protect children" basically from "abominations" and seeing people practice "deviant" behavior like men holding hands.
O'Reilly is one of the primary reasons why Fox News is viewed as being the neocon channel. If O'Reilly isn't a dominionist neocon, I guess I really don't know what one is.
Sorry, but I only put O'Reilly just a step above Robertson. I "try" to listen to what he says, but my instincts usually kick in and I start going into defense mode every time I hear him speak. _________________ Meow.
Well, I'll certainly look into the charges against O'Reilly. I don't know either way. What of the plethora of other points I brought up in the last post? Those are really what I'm interested in. I'd hate to see this topic get derailed due to O'Reilly bashing. I don't care about any of that concerning the Stein interview and the points in that interview. Thanks! _________________ The Democratic Anthem: The American Dream is okay! Until you make $250,000. Then you're the devil.
I can always count on message boards to consistently shatter my faith in humanity.
Joined: 31 Dec 1969 Posts: 2832 Location: Tacoma, WA USA
Posted: Tue Apr 15, 2008 11:22 pm Post subject:
Totally. Again, sorry I got off on the wrong foot on this. It's a sensitive subject for me. I want to see the documentary as Stein made good points. _________________ Meow.
Yeah, I have to say, and with some pride; Ben Stein is someone that I REALLY admire for over-all intelligence, and I'm glad that he's a republican. It's nice to have some better representation that we sometimes have (I would think that LOTS of liberals feel this way as well with someone else). His accomplishments are great. I think it's funny that so MANY people see him as the teacher from Ferris Beuller and the Clear Eyes guy. Anyway, continuing my main points; I just don't see how a liberal (or anyone for that matter, not to single you out Kizzume) could take the approach of thought police and no tolerance for other ideas when that whole political viewpoint is supposedly based on such things being wrong. I did get a chance to youtube a bunch of clips searching for "O'Reilly gay" and "O'Reilly homosexual". I can see how the comments he has made could put people off. I disagree with many things he says on the matter. However, watching those clips only further strengthened my statement that he is in NO WAY a religious extremist. Everything he said came from his personal moral viewpoint. The problem I have with this is that people automatically categorize other people who have views based on personal morals with religion. This couldn't be much further from true in O'Reilly's case. He doesn't even go to church. He swears, he isn't even too sure about religion in general. He doesn't even really know what he believes. The only connection I see is that he says he believes in God. It's not fair to lump people into religious extremist status because they say they believe in God. This guy is nowhere near Robertson, and I don't want to draw conclusions about your reasoning, but all I can come up with is that either you say this out of fear, or a lack of understanding. Thoughts? _________________ The Democratic Anthem: The American Dream is okay! Until you make $250,000. Then you're the devil.
I can always count on message boards to consistently shatter my faith in humanity.
Joined: 31 Dec 1969 Posts: 2832 Location: Tacoma, WA USA
Posted: Wed Apr 16, 2008 11:29 am Post subject:
Ben Stein definitely is someone who is VERY intelligent, and I've seen him interviewed before on a number of subjects--he's got his head on his shoulders really well. _________________ Meow.
The movie was crap. It's little more than a propaganda film by a guy who dishonestly interviewed scientists and then did edit-work to make them seem biased, unfair, and unreasonable. The whole premise of the movie is silly. Science isn't a playground, a democracy, or a free for all. There are academic standards. Creationism is not respected (and ID is nothing more than Creationism in a clown costume), because it's false and unsupported. Any scientist seriously advocating it deserves to be stripped of his license and never allowed to practice again.
Intelligent Design is like Astrology, yet you don't see morons like Stein making movies about that, do you? No, you don't. Let's "teach the controversy?" Ok. I order that every school ought to replace time teaching Astronomy by having a segment on Astrology and the "controversy." I am sure you can find SOME people excluded from respected peer review and laughed at because they think the movements of the heavenly bodies predict your life and personality. Of course, to the contrary of what Stein says, that's not persecution. That's science in action. The scientific method is not friendly; it's highly competitive and weeds out the bullsquit. These people are just whiners who want people to pat them on the back for their faerietale beliefs. They would never give or expect the same treatment to be given to any other nonsense "theory" like phrenology or astrology. That just shows the wicked little bias in the film.
It's hilarious, though. One of the "scientists" he interviews in the film to demonstrate persecution is Behe, the guy who advocates "irreducible complexity." This guy's full of shit. He's not been barred at all. His ideas have been consistently refuted, yet he never gives up. He and they confuse persecution with a free for all. They want their ideas to be respected and allowed, even fi they are dead wrong, and that's not how science works. Period. _________________
I won't know absolutely sure until I see it, and I'm not going to pay $6-9 to see something that has this kind of review and says the exact thing that I was really HOPING Stein hadn't jumped on the bandwagon of. My respect points for Ben Stein have absolutely plummeted at reading these reviews.
My views on Ben Stein WERE based on how much he knows business and the stock market--he's VERY intelligent in those areas (and a number of other areas that never touch on science) and has done quite well, and I'm sure that in general he is very intelligent, but I did NOT ever really research his views, and I really should have researched it before I gave him a bunch of thumbs up. I'm so very very disappointed.
This whole issue of people getting fired for saying things--when they go around telling people that everything they're doing is rubbish when they have NO proof of their theories, none in the least, and they jump up and down about it, they're going to get fired or pushed out of the scientific community until they can offer at least a shred of evidence.
Sure, a LOT of scientists out there have a religious belief. It doesn't mean that their religious belief should qualify as science. If they can PROVE something in SOME way, THEN they have something to go by. Einstein had said "God does not play dice." Does that mean that he was trying to qualify that as some sort of scientific theory? NO, it made him want to prove what he sees even more, but he NEVER quantified it as being scientific until he had a way of proving it. If someone can mathematically PROVE the existence of a creator somehow, my how that would change things, but we have been unable to do such.
The last review of the movie contained this:
Quote:
By the time the camera zooms in on the word ''Creator'' in the Declaration of Independence, the whole debate seems less urgent than getting out of the theater.
That was by far the MOST disappointing part. He seems to be PART of that group of people that I fear.
We are living in a time when people no longer assume that everyone is a Christian, and it really scares Christians. In the past, this was not the case--it was a WEIRD and almost scary thing to run into someone who wasn't Christian--McCarthyism and what came out of the 1950's ensured that sort of thing, a period in which I sincerely hope we NEVER repeat. Change scares people, and being that life for white people has been the same for so many years, the idea that assumptions can no longer be made is an uncomfortable thing, and the idea that Christianity isn't going to be up on some pedestal any longer is very scary for Christians. It would definitely feel like it's being attacked, that's for sure. Removing the crown from a king WOULD make that person who has sat on a throne his whole life feel like he's being attacked, and that is what has been happening with Christianity. _________________ Meow.
The movie was crap. It's little more than a propaganda film by a guy who dishonestly interviewed scientists and then did edit-work to make them seem biased, unfair, and unreasonable.
LOL. So now he's Michael Moore?!
technocrat wrote:
The whole premise of the movie is silly. Science isn't a playground, a democracy, or a free for all. There are academic standards.
Science is very much about discovering new things, and is LITTERED with what were at the time, silly premises that are now known as true.
technocrat wrote:
Creationism is not respected (and ID is nothing more than Creationism in a clown costume), because it's false and unsupported.
You say Creationism is false as a fact. What kind of idiot would expect others to take what he cannot prove as fact, AND THEN HAVE ZERO TOLERANCE FOR WHAT OTHERS BRING UP AS CURIOSITY?! You are a disgrace to freedom of thought.
technocrat wrote:
Any scientist seriously advocating it deserves to be stripped of his license and never allowed to practice again.
Re-read that statement. And the truth comes out. Re-read that statement again. THIS is what's scary, not what Kizzume said was scary in the new thread that he made instead of identifying my many points in my earlier posts in this thread. Techno, you write smut like this and I have to be exposed to people crying about being afraid of religious extremists who want to be thought police and take away rights?!?! I love these weak minded liberals that like sheep, flock around the idea of freedom UNTIL it doesn't suit them. You sir are delusional.
technocrat wrote:
see morons like Stein
And, that's where I stopped reading. Seriously. How ignorant are you? I'm embarrassed.
And don't bother trying to decide I'm being venomous because I'm an offended Christian. Nothing anyone can say will offend me. It just makes me SICK to see SO MANY double standards with liberals.
@Kizzume: I've started looking into your reviews one at a time, and I'll respond to your post as soon as I have the chance. _________________ The Democratic Anthem: The American Dream is okay! Until you make $250,000. Then you're the devil.
I can always count on message boards to consistently shatter my faith in humanity.
All times are GMT - 8 Hours Goto page 1, 2, 3, 4Next
Page 1 of 4
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum You can attach files in this forum You can download files in this forum
