How could this happen? (Ironica endorcement of irrationality...)

[mooeypoo]

I swear, I didn't photoshop this

 

 

To all of you who don't know, "Expelled" is a new movie by Ben Stein, promoting Creation *against* science, and claiming Creationism is suppressed by 'mainstream science' as a sort of conspiracy against freedom of speech and the truth.

 

Ironic, ain't it?

 

So... how does this happen in a *science* forum?

 

~moo

[Mr Skeptic]

Random ads. Think of it as Ben Stein donating to our forum.

[mooeypoo]

Or us donating to his movie's popularity

[ydoaPs]

We're still only supposed to have text ads. But Ben and a few others get around it.

[mooeypoo]

maybe it's "the hand of god"...

 

 

anyhoo, I'm not REALLY worried, I just found it really ironic and quite funny.

 

"Kodak Moment" of the SFN.

 

~moo

[ydoaPs]

I've been seeing them for a while now.

[mooeypoo]

Maybe we should open a thread just for that

[iNow]

No. That would give it more strength. Google ads search text, and our text being science oriented is what prompts the ad on our threads. Another thread which referenced this crap specifically would benefit the movie further.... i.e. go against the intention of the thread itself.

[Royston]

No. That would give it more strength. Google ads search text, and our text being science oriented is what prompts the ad on our threads.

 

I guess we could use acronyms or code for keywords that would prompt such ads to SFN. For example Ben Stein = BS very apt.

[revprez]

I don't see what the problem is here. The narrative of this film seems to be focused on Sternberg peer review controversy, specifically in which a House committee staff report found that there were measures taken by public officials at the Smithsonian to discriminate against a research associate who held views critical of Darwinian evolution. I'm pretty sure a discussion of science policy rather than evangelism of a particular view is entirely within SFN's purview; so how is it inconsistent with SFN's mission to shill for this film?

[CDarwin]

I posted a screenshot of that in the other thread earlier that didn't work. It was over the evolution forum, oh ho ho.

 

Is anyone planning on seeing this thing? Part of me feels guilty for really not wanting to. Stare into the abyss and the abyss stares back?

[iNow]

I guess we could use acronyms or code for keywords that would prompt such ads to SFN. For example Ben Stein = BS very apt.

 

Ooohh.. I like that.

 

 

Is anyone planning on seeing this thing? Part of me feels guilty for really not wanting to. Stare into the abyss and the abyss stares back?

 

Yes. I don't plan to pay for it in the theater, but I will be watching it as soon as I get a copy to see more clearly for myself what is being fed to the sheep.

[revprez]

Yes. I don't plan to pay for it in the theater, but I will be watching it as soon as I get a copy to see more clearly for myself what is being fed to the sheep.

 

Considering Ben Stein's demographic for the past 10 years has principally been the 18-30 demographic, college educated audience that tunes into to night-time Comedy Central and cable financial news, shouldn't you be worried that you're not all that much more discerning than the sheep?

[swansont]

Random ads. Think of it as Ben Stein donating to our forum.

 

 

Not random, targeted. Mention of "Expelled" or "Ben Stein" would increase the chances of the ad appearing. Many sites mentioning those terms might be endorsing the movie or casting it in a positive light, rather than trashing it as antiscience crap. Irony factor = high.

[iNow]

Considering Ben Stein's demographic for the past 10 years has principally been the 18-30 demographic, college educated audience that tunes into to night-time Comedy Central and cable financial news, shouldn't you be worried that you're not all that much more discerning than the sheep?

 

Can't say I'm really worried about that, but I appreciate your concern.

[revprez]

Not random, targeted. Mention of "Expelled" or "Ben Stein" would increase the chances of the ad appearing. Many sites mentioning those terms might be endorsing the movie or casting it in a positive light, rather than trashing it as antiscience crap. Irony factor = high.

 

Since when is Expelled anti-science crap?

 

Can't say I'm really worried about that, but I appreciate your concern.

 

So you seriously believe you're more discerning than Ben Stein's typical audience?

[iNow]

So you seriously believe you're more discerning than Ben Stein's typical audience?

 

Please provide an adequate metric on a) BS's typical audience, and b) their level of discernment and how that is measured. Once you have, I will consider addressing your question. Last, it would be nice if you could show that the prospective audience for this film will align completely with his previous demographic.

 

To make things easier, though, all I said was that I wasn't worried about that, so you really have no need to trouble yourself.

[revprez]

Please provide an adequate metric on a) BS's typical audience...

 

The demographic data for Your World with Neil Cavuto, the Fox Business Block and Win Ben Stein's Money. You should be able to purchase it yourself, or find a friend to show you the data.

 

...and b) their level of discernment and how that is measured.

 

I use their age and level of education as to measure how discriminating they are in their taste.

 

Once you have, I will consider addressing your question.

 

You can go ahead, now.

 

Last, it would be nice if you could show that the prospective audience for this film will align completely with his previous demographic.

 

Is there a reason to suspect Ben Stein is reaching a new audience?

[swansont]

Since when is Expelled anti-science crap?

 

 

I don't know. When did they start work on it? That would tell you.

[mooeypoo]

I don't see what the problem is here. The narrative of this film seems to be focused on Sternberg peer review controversy, specifically in which a House committee staff report found that there were measures taken by public officials at the Smithsonian to discriminate against a research associate who held views critical of Darwinian evolution. I'm pretty sure a discussion of science policy rather than evangelism of a particular view is entirely within SFN's purview; so how is it inconsistent with SFN's mission to shill for this film?

 

I disagree.

 

Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed is a controversial documentary film about intelligent design. Starring Ben Stein' date=' it is due to be released in February 2008. The film claims that intelligent design proponents are discriminated against by the scientific community, repeats the creationist claim that evolution is a belief-system rooted in dogma, and resurrects the Sternberg peer review controversy.[1]

 

 

This is about intelligent design, and some very large and extravagant claims (according to reviews and the trailer) about the 'fact' scientists ignore a 'significant' scientific theory for their own benefit.

 

Intelligence Design, whatever anyone's RELIGIOUS beliefs are, is NOT SCIENCE. Under *any* definition, it's NOT SCIENCE.

 

Not. Science.

 

Making a movie saying "science shuts me up" (which ISN'T quite true, is it? If anything, ID movement is attempting to undermine true science, IE dover case et al) because they aren't comfortable by this scientific theory is untrue, unfair, misleading and biased.

 

So yeah, I don't see any problem at all in criticizing this movie.

 

Making a movie as an attempt to convince the laymen that ID is true and evolution isn't, and that he's being mislead by the entire scientific community, is AGAINST rationality, against PROGRESS and against everything I believe is good in this world. In fact, promoting ID on the expense of science is something I find EXTREMELY harmful, to the level of calling it a true danger for the next generation.

 

I see no problems is criticizing this movie.

 

None at all.

 

~moo

 

p.s: For this claim, we will probably have to wait until the movie is released (and download it. I refuse to give it money), but it is still an important point:

 

Claims of deception by interviewees

 

The movie has been criticized by several of the interviewees' date=' including biologists PZ Myers and Richard Dawkins and anthropologist Eugenie Scott, who were asked to be interviewed for a film named "Crossroads" on the "intersection of science and religion", with a blurb[5'] which described the strong support that had been accumulated for evolution, and contrasted this with the religious who rejected it, and the controversy this caused.[6][7]

 

On learning of the pro-intelligent design stance of the real film, Myers said "not telling one of the sides in a debate about what the subject might be and then leading him around randomly to various topics, with the intent of later editing it down to the parts that just make the points you want, is the video version of quote-mining and is fundamentally dishonest."[6] Richard Dawkins said "At no time was I given the slightest clue that these people were a creationist front"; and Eugenie Scott, of the National Center for Science Education, said "I just expect people to be honest with me, and they weren’t."[8]

 

These criticisms however are defended as being hypocritical in nature - "I've never seen a bigger bunch of hypocrites in my life," said Mathis, who set up the interviews for EXPELLED. "I went over all of the questions with these folks before the interviews and I e-mailed the questions to many of them days in advance. The lady (and gentleman) doth protest too much, methinks." It has also been pointed out that Dawkins himself participated in the documentary "A War on Science" which is an attack on Intelligent Design. Producers of that film presented themselves to the Discovery Institute as objective filmmakers and then portrayed the organization as religiously-motivated and anti-scientific.[9]

 

Defending the movie, the producer, Walt Ruloff, said that scientists like prominent geneticist Francis Collins keep their religion and science separate only because they are "toeing the party line". Collins, who was not asked to be interviewed for the film in any of its incarnations, said that Ruloff's claims were "ludicrous".[8]

 

This movie *needs* to be criticized.

 

Quoting the trailer:

 

 

"Like most people I also have questions. Very big questions like 'how did we get here', 'where are we going', 'is there a meaning and purpose in life, or are we, the universe, and everything in it, merely the result of pure dumb fate and chance.

 

For most of my life I believed the answers to these questiosn are fairly straight forward: Everything was created by a loving God. That includes rocks, trees animals, people, really everything.

 

All along I've been well aware that other people - very smart people - believe otherwise. Rather than God's handy work, they see the universe as the product of random particle collisions and chemical reactions. And rather than regard the human kind as carrying a spark of the divine, they believe we're nothing more than mud animated by lightening.."

 

 

There's no need to quote forward. Just watch the trailer. In 3 minutes, he manages to fill the air with more straw-men and ridicule than actual words.

 

QED.

[iNow]

Anyone who hasn't already, go to the link below and click "Play."

 

http://www.expelledthemovie.com/playground.php

 

 

It's all appeal to authority, strawman, and appeal to conspiracy. Much of what the argument entails is (thank you SFN member swansont for illustrating this term to me recently) basically the Galileo Gambit. In essence, instead of supporting their own assertions, instead of showing where existing approaches are incorrect,they appeal to some ethereal censor who is preventing them from speaking.

 

I've got news for you. They have the floor. They've always had a method of expression, and an avenue for doing so. The reason it's not accepted is because it's wrong. If some scientist was shot down because he claimed there was no gravity, he'd be shot down due to contradictory evidence and lack of support for his claim, not some dogma about gravity itself.

 

It's fu(king ludicrous, people. Prove you're right. Stop appealing to the aliens at area 52 crowd that the man is keeping you down. Prove you're right, and science ALWAYS listens.

 

Just check out the preview. It'll reaffirm what I've posted here.

 

 

 

 

 

EDIT: Interestingly, I posted the above prior to seeing Moo's objections in her merged post.

[CDarwin]

Intelligence Design, whatever anyone's RELIGIOUS beliefs are, is NOT SCIENCE. Under *any* definition, it's NOT SCIENCE.

 

Not. Science.[/Quote]

 

My teensy, weensy caveat: I think parts of ID could be considered "science." Irreducible complexity really does make a testable prediction. It's wrong, just like if I said that the sky is green would be wrong, but it's still a "scientific statement." Just a stupid one.

 

Now, the religion issue is important, because that's the real reason that IDiots do what they do and that's the real reason that the theory as a whole could properly be called "religious." Not that its based on particularly intelligent theology anyway. As a Christian, I think ID is as big a threat to religion as it is to science actually, because it makes religion look exceedingly foolish. Take the Bible literally and it just becomes a laughing stock.

 

Let's see if I have a different opinion in the morning.

 

And rather than regard the human kind as carrying a spark of the divine, they believe we're nothing more than mud animated by lightening.."

 

As opposed to mud animated by... God?

[mooeypoo]

My teensy, weensy caveat: I think parts of ID could be considered "science." Irreducible complexity really does make a testable prediction. It's wrong, just like if I said that the sky is green would be wrong, but it's still a "scientific statement." Just a stupid one.

Irreducible complexity was dismissed about two years ago by evolutionary biologists studying the claim.

 

Behe (who coined the term) stated two main things that fall under it: Bacterium Flagelum (sp?) and the Immune System.

 

They are BOTH perfectly explained through step-by-step evolution through natural selection (check out the Nova website for the show about the Dover trial, they talk about it quite a lot).

 

It's not making any predictable statements -- actually, it makes *one* (that it is IRREDUCIBLY complex) and that was *proven* wrong.

 

Now, the religion issue is important, because that's the real reason that IDiots do what they do and that's the real reason that the theory as a whole could properly be called "religious." Not that its based on particularly intelligent theology anyway. As a Christian, I think ID is as big a threat to religion as it is to science actually, because it makes religion look exceedingly foolish. Take the Bible literally and it just becomes a laughing stock.

agreed, but the people who take it literally seem to also take very very strongly the battle to insert themselves and their unscientific claims into science classes.

 

It's a war against reason. Not a violent one, but a war nonetheless.

 

 

 

~moo