Expelled!

[lucaspa]

It's the hypocrisy, dishonesty, and total lack of respect for my convictions in the power and worth of science that the Creationism movement displays that 'really grinds my gears,' as it were.

 

It's not your convictions that creationism insults. It's science. Creationism is a falsified scientific theory. Creationists don't respect science in that science has already falsified creationism. Remember, creationism was the accepted scientific theory before 1831. Scientists (all of whom were theists) showed it to be false.

 

Now, if you are using "convictions in the power and worth of science" as a means of justifying your belief that deity does not exist, then you aren't respecting science, either. Because science doesn't tell you that.

 

Just about my entire family are creationists. I used to be one, but I evolved.

 

Technically, you developed. Biological evolution applies to populations, not individuals.

 

We also have a bat in New Zealand that, before people arrived, was well on the way to evolving into the niche occupied by mice. It was losing its power of flight, and spending its time like a mouse scuttling around the forest floor going through leaf litter eating insects.

 

Alas, the change in environment, brought about by humans, has made those adaptations maladaptive in the new environment, and that bat is well on the road to extinction.

 

And I bet part of that "change in environment" is the importation of mice.

[PhDP]

Scientists (all of whom were theists) showed it to be false.

 

That again ?

[talitha00cumi]

wow. Funny. The guy must be a total jerk and was expected to disrupt the film. Dickie Dawkins can be a total jerk, but he's dignified enough to keep silent during a film, I'm sure.

 

Did anyone find out why the guy wasn't allowed in? Or are you all just guessing based on... knee-jerk reactions and empty heads?

 

Just a lil question.

[CDarwin]

wow. Funny. The guy must be a total jerk and was expected to disrupt the film. Dickie Dawkins can be a total jerk, but he's dignified enough to keep silent during a film, I'm sure.

 

Did anyone find out why the guy wasn't allowed in? Or are you all just guessing based on... knee-jerk reactions and empty heads?

 

Just a lil question.

 

According to the Expelled people, because it was a "private screening," which it wasn't. If we're not given a truthful explanation, then I don't see where we can go but assume this was a ham-handed attempt to keep early criticisms of the film to a minimum.

 

Did you actually gather any evidence that JZ Myers was a 'total jerk' before assuming it based on the impeccable judgment of Motive Media?

[Phi for All]

The guy must be a total jerk and was expected to disrupt the film.

 

<snip>

 

Did anyone find out why the guy wasn't allowed in? Or are you all just guessing based on... knee-jerk reactions and empty heads?

"Hello, Kettle? This is the Pot. You're black."

[iNow]

So, it's out on DVD. Yep. I know, it's hard to contain the excitement. </snicker>

 

 

Anyway, on their website they have a poll:

 

"Do you think Darwin's theories are OUTDATED? Yes, No, Maybe."

 

 

Seriously. Check it out.

http://www.expelledthemovie.com/

 

Now, here's the fun part. No matter how many people vote, the outcome will be "Yes 50%, No 25%, Maybe 25%."

 

Interestingly, when you then hit refresh on the page, the results change to "Yes 57%, No 14%, Maybe 29%."

 

 

They rigged their own poll. Ah... These guys understand TRUE science, and how the answers are just what we want them to be. Thank goodness they're here to point out the ignorance of disregarding ID and believing in evolution.

 

 

h/t ERT

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

I just checked this in Wireshark, which records network traffic from your PC to the Internet. Nothing happens when you click the poll. It's programmed into the Flash thing. It doesn't even hit the server at all.

 

edit: Never mind that. It actually does send data. It just doesn't appear to do anything with it.

Edited October 21, 2008 by Cap'n Refsmmat

[Pre4edgc]

Wanna hear the funniest thing? I just saw a commercial for it, maybe 5 minutes ago, and basically, it said this: "Watch the best hit of the summer where comedian Ben Stein goes back to school... and gets expelled!" and then pushes you to get the DVD. Honestly, that is probably the best ploy to get people to watch it, or at least look at the DVD cover. They don't say ANYTHING about the movie in the commercial; they just spout off something to get people to buy it without thinking, or thinking about buying it or something.

[iNow]

This is pretty cool. Somebody took the movie, and overlaid sub-titles which correct all of the inaccuracies and falsehoods.

 

Preview here:

 

 

 

It looks like you can download the whole thing per the directions here:

http://www.bogosity.tv/forum/index.php?topic=27.msg216#msg216

 

 

h/t PZ

[ydoaPs]

The bogosity link doesn't work

[iNow]

Roger Ebert finally got around to a review of this stellar masterpiece of a film. Let's just say that his take was both sincere and rather telling.

 

http://blogs.suntimes.com/ebert/2008/12/win_ben_steins_mind.html

 

That is simply one revealing fragment. This film is cheerfully ignorant, manipulative, slanted, cherry-picks quotations, draws unwarranted conclusions, makes outrageous juxtapositions (Soviet marching troops representing opponents of ID), pu$$y-foots around religion (not a single identified believer among the ID people), segues between quotes that are not about the same thing, tells bald-faced lies, and makes a completely baseless association between freedom of speech and freedom to teach religion in a university class that is not about religion.

 

And there is worse, much worse. Toward the end of the film, we find that Stein actually did want to title it "From Darwin to Hitler." <

more at the link

>

 

 

[Mr Skeptic]

You know, iNow, it might be a good idea to teach both theories and let the kids decide. Pretty soon they will be able to tell BS when they see it, a useful skill for the rest of their lives.

 

And maybe the adults will catch on as well.

Edited December 6, 2008 by Mr Skeptic
multiple post merged

[iNow]

I think while your intention is good, but you are mistaken in buying into their suggestion that there really are two sides. There is only one which works, the other is a work of fantasy.

 

Should we teach the story theory of childbirth, too?

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

We could teach the "weaknesses" in evolution and then explain the significantly more substantial weaknesses in intelligent design.

[Mr Skeptic]

Sure, and Santa Claus and Tooth Fairy as well. But don't forget I said both sides, so you'd also have to teach the parents-lying-to-you theory for these.

[SkepticLance]

Intelligent design/creationism should indeed be taught at school. It should be a part of the religious studies curriculum, since that is where it comes from. Students need to be made aware, in no uncertain terms, that ID is an aspect of religion, not science. Evolution should also be taught, but as part of the science curriculum, since evolution is not religion, but science.

[iNow]

Just FYI, Lance, most schools in the US don't have religion programs, so the concept under discussion here is specifically if creationism/ID should be presented as an alternative to evolution IN THE BIOLOGY CLASSROOM. It's sad, really.

[SkepticLance]

No problem, iNow.

If they do not have religious studies, they don't teach it. Simple really. Just like you don't teach DNA structure in history class. If you don't have a biology class, you don't teach DNA structure at all. Ditto ID and religious studies.

[Pangloss]

Roger Ebert for the win, once again. I've got several of his books here and he always does such a great job of telling us why we liked or hated this or that movie so much. That's the funny thing about movie reviews -- they can never entirely stay within the bounds of the entertainment industry, because whether or not we enjoy a movie IS entwined with our perceptions of (and reactions to) the world around us.

 

But at the same time I've never felt chastised for having a political view that Ebert doesn't share, or felt that he was using his position as a soapbox for some cause. That makes him a very effective, objective judge over a work like this. And that's incredibly valuable when it comes time to explain to certain people (especially people who don't know/care about scientific reasoning) why it's wrong.

 

Good for him, and thanks for passing that along.

[iNow]

They've admitted it now: the producers of Expelled lied to make their movie.

 

Expelled producer admits lying to atheist interviewees

 

 

Not only that, but neither he nor Stein want to "accept the blame" for the idea to do the film:

 

http://communities.canada.com/vancouversun/blogs/thesearch/archive/2009/01/03/no-apologies-allowed-producer-defends-anti-darwin-movie.aspx

The final version of Expelled includes chilling reels of the Berlin Wall, of soldiers, of machine-guns, of scolding school principals and of extermination camps where "inferior" people, the disabled and Jews, were slaughtered.

 

Ruloff admitted the black-and-white footage pumped up the movie's emotional impact. And focus groups liked the combative tone about social Darwinism (loosely defined as "survival of the fittest"), which Ruloff said would increase the chances the documentary would reach a mass audience.

 

In an interview this summer with the National Post newspaper, Stein is quoted saying it was Ruloff who initially "got in touch with me and said he wanted to do something about Darwinism and how it leads to social Darwinism, which leads to Nazism and the Holocaust."

 

But Ruloff said it was actually Stein. Because of his Jewish heritage, Ruloff said, Stein came up with the idea of linking scientific Darwinism to the concentration camps. "It was always Ben Stein. He was fascinated with the underlying scenarios for mass-scale eugenics."

 

Whatever the case, Ruloff does not hide that he "absolutely" agrees with many points Expelled makes linking Darwinism to abortion and eugenics and death camps. Darwinism does so, he said, because it does not accept "the sanctity of life."

 

 

But hey... the "truth" is whatever you want it to be, right?

 

 

 

h/t Evolving Thoughts

Always nice to find out that those who assert that only with faith in God can we have morals behave as if morals were an optional extra. Not surprising, but there it is. You can lie for your religion, to nonbelievers who do happen to behave morally and ethically.

[ydoaPs]

Anyone got a working link to a place to download the subtitled version?

[iNow]

The poster stated that he updated the file on December 11. Have you tried again since then? I'm not able to find it, myself.

 

There's also this short preview on YouTube:

 

 

... but I'd be curious if you can find more.

 

 

 

EDIT: Try here - http://www.mininova.org/tor/1969197

(You may need this VLC Media Player though)

[Mr Skeptic]

I watched it a few days ago. It was boring and, well, pathetic.

[ydoaPs]

I watched it a few days ago. It was boring and, well, pathetic.

 

Sounds about right.

[Pangloss]

Netflix has it on their "watch it now" feature, so you can watch it online for free if you have a subscription there.