Ben Stein's movie "Expelled" is coming out next week...

It's a documentary on how people who believe Intelligent Design should be part of the conversation about our beginnings, but get pushed aside by the scientist industry...

I just went through a search and see that both sides are gearing up for a nice little hatefest on it so I won't link anything unless I find an objective piece on the movie itself and not articles that are already on a side...

I'll "probably" come down on the side of this movie because I have a problem with the shunning of it...

PLEASE NOTE!! - I did not say I believe in Intelligent Design...In fact, I don't have a concrete belief in any present theory...

What I find offensive is the lack of inclusion...

"It's possible life started with lightning hitting a mud puddle"

Science's general response - "OK"

"It's possible life began with certain cell formations in water that created organisms."

Science's general response - "OK"

"It's possible life began when a comet crashed to earth with life forming molecules."

Science's general response - "OK"

"It's possible life began because it was created by a higher power."

Science's general response - "You're fired!!!!...Get out Darwinian heretic!!!...Believe Chuck's theory or die!!!!!!"

__________________
"You get the respect that you give" - cnredd

Isn't that a pity, cause we all know that religion is SOOOOO much more inclusive and tolerant of other ideas...
< end sarcasm >

Why intelligent design (ID) isn’t science (the corresponding points above are in parentheses):

ID leaves the designing intelligence unexplained in the same way as ID claims that "irreducible complexity" is left unexplained by Darwinian selective processes, but worse, since it offers no specific hypotheses or mechanisms. ID hasn’t produced an explanation, it simply pushes the demand for explanation back a step and so is otiose. Thus:

ID posits an extra entity unneeded for explanation, so violates parsimony and simplicity (1).

ID seeks explanations outside of well-substantiated, empirically-supported phenomena without fully investigating the adequacy of explanations which restrict themselves to such phenomena. ID is thus not conservative in its explanations, but is instead inflationary 2 (3, 8, 9).

ID doesn’t specify how design is carried out: no mechanism or process is proposed, and further, no means of discovering this mechanism is proposed. The mechanism remains unacceptably mysterious with no hope of being clarified (4).

ID supplies no observational or inferential evidence for a designer that specifies or predicts its specific characteristics. (5).

Since no mechanism or process is shown by which intelligent design works, the designer posited by ID is left unconnected to other phenomena (6).

Science

If science tried to insert its doctrine into religion, we would object.
But when religion tries to insert its doctrine into science, suddenly we need "tolerance"?

just read two reviews of the film

Time Magazine and the New Yorker both gave it a C-

had nothing to do with the politics - just said it was a boring, badly-assembled film

In the film Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed, narrator Ben Stein poses as a "rebel" willing to stand up to the scientific establishment in defense of freedom and honest, open discussion of controversial ideas like intelligent design (ID). But Expelled has some problems of its own with honest, open presentations of the facts about evolution, ID—and with its own agenda. Here are a few examples—add your own with a comment, and we may add it to another draft of this story. For our complete coverage, see "Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed—Scientific American's Take.

1) Expelled quotes Charles Darwin selectively to connect his ideas to eugenics and the Holocaust.
When the film is building its case that Darwin and the theory of evolution bear some responsibility for the Holocaust, Ben Stein's narration quotes from Darwin's The Descent of Man ...

(cut specifics for brevity... See full text at web-site)


Darwin explicitly rejected the idea of eliminating the "weak" as dehumanizing and evil. Those words falsify Expelled's argument. The filmmakers had to be aware of the full Darwin passage, but they chose to quote only the sections that suited their purposes.

2) Ben Stein's speech to a crowded auditorium in the film was a setup.
"Viewers of Expelled might think that Ben Stein has been giving speeches on college campuses and at other public venues in support of ID and against "big science." But if he has, the producers did not include one. The speech shown at the beginning and end was staged solely for the sake of the movie. Michael Shermer learned as much by speaking to officials at Pepperdine University, where those scenes were filmed. Only a few of the audience members were students; most were extras brought in by the producers. Judge the ovation Ben Stein receives accordingly.

3) Scientists in the film thought they were being interviewed for a different movie.
As Richard Dawkins, PZ Myers, Eugenie Scott, Michael Shermer and other proponents of evolution appearing in Expelled have publicly remarked, the producers first arranged to interview them for a film that was to be called Crossroads, which was allegedly a documentary on "the intersection of science and religion." They were subsequently surprised to learn that they were appearing in Expelled, which "exposes the widespread persecution of scientists and educators who are pursuing legitimate, opposing scientific views to the reigning orthodoxy," to quote from the film's press kit.

When exactly did Crossroads become Expelled? The producers have said that the shift in the film's title and message occurred after the interviews with the scientists, as the accumulating evidence gradually persuaded them that ID believers were oppressed. Yet as blogger Wesley Elsberry discovered when he searched domain registrations, the producers registered the URL "expelledthemovie.com" on March 1, 2007—more than a month (and in some cases, several months) before the scientists were interviewed. The producers never registered the URL "crossroadsthemovie.com". Those facts raise doubt that Crossroads was still the working title for the movie when the scientists were interviewed.

4) The ID-sympathetic researcher whom the film paints as having lost his job at the Smithsonian Institution was never an employee there.
One section of Expelled relates the case of Richard Sternberg, who was a researcher at the Smithsonian Institution's National Museum of Natural History and editor of the journal Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington. According to the film, after Sternberg approved the publication of a pro-ID paper by Stephen C. Meyer of the Discovery Institute, he lost his editorship, was demoted at the Smithsonian, was moved to a more remote office, and suffered other professional setbacks. The film mentions a 2006 House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform report prepared for Rep. Mark Souder (R–Ind.), "Intolerance and the Politicization of Science at the Smithsonian," that denounced Sternberg's mistreatment.

This selective retelling of the Sternberg affair omits details that are awkward for the movie's case, however. Sternberg was never an employee of the Smithsonian: his term as a research associate always had a limited duration, and when it ended he was offered a new position as a research collaborator. As editor, Sternberg's decision to "peer-review" and approve Meyer's paper by himself was highly questionable on several grounds, which was why the scientific society that published the journal later repudiated it. Sternberg had always been planning to step down as the journal's editor—the issue in which he published the paper was already scheduled to be his last.

The report prepared by Rep. Souder, who had previously expressed pro-ID views, was never officially accepted into the Congressional Record. Notwithstanding the report's conclusions, its appendix contains copies of e-mails and other documents in which Sternberg's superiors and others specifically argued against penalizing him for his ID views. (More detailed descriptions of the Sternberg case can be found on Ed Brayton's blog Dispatches from the Culture Wars and on Wikipedia.)

5) Science does not reject religious or "design-based" explanations because of dogmatic atheism.
Expelled frequently repeats that design-based explanations (not to mention religious ones) are "forbidden" by "big science." It never explains why, however. Evolution and the rest of "big science" are just described as having an atheistic preference.

Actually, science avoids design explanations for natural phenomena out of logical necessity. The scientific method involves rigorously observing and experimenting on the material world. It accepts as evidence only what can be measured or otherwise empirically validated (a requirement called methodological naturalism). That requirement prevents scientific theories from becoming untestable and overcomplicated.

By those standards, design-based explanations rapidly lose their rigor without independent scientific proof that validates and defines the nature of the designer. Without it, design-based explanations rapidly become unhelpful and tautological: "This looks like it was designed, so there must be a designer; we know there is a designer because this looks designed."

A major scientific problem with proposed ID explanations for life is that their proponents cannot suggest any good way to disprove them. ID "theories" are so vague that even if specific explanations are disproved, believers can simply search for new signs of design. Consequently, investigators do not generally consider ID to be a productive or useful approach to science.

6) Many evolutionary biologists are religious and many religious people accept evolution.
Expelled includes many clips of scientists such as Richard Dawkins, Daniel Dennett, William Provine and PZ Myers who are also well known as atheists. They talk about how their knowledge of science confirms their convictions and how in some cases science led them to atheism. And indeed, surveys do indicate that atheism is more common among scientists than in the general population.

Nevertheless, the film is wrong to imply that understanding of evolution inevitably or necessarily leads to a rejection of religious belief. Francisco Ayala of the University of California, Irvine, a leading neuroscientist who used to be a Dominican priest, continues to be a devout Catholic, as does the evolutionary biologist Ken Miller of Brown University. Thousands of other biologists across the U.S. who all know evolution to be true are also still religious. Moreover, billions of other people around the world simultaneously accept evolution and keep faith with their religion. The late Pope John Paul II said that evolution was compatible with Roman Catholicism as an explanation for mankind's physical origins.

During Scientific American's post-screening conversation with Expelled associate producer Mark Mathis, we asked him why Ken Miller was not included in the film. Mathis explained that his presence would have "confused" viewers. But the reality is that showing Miller would have invalidated the film's major premise that evolutionary biologists all reject God.

Inside and outside the scientific community, people will no doubt continue to debate rationalism and religion and disagree about who has the better part of that argument. Evidence from evolution will probably remain at most a small part of that conflict, however.
Six Things in Expelled That Ben Stein Doesn't Want You to Know...: Scientific American

I think the big bang is a good theory, but I believe something highher than a human made it happen. The writters of the bible could have no way to count that high heck they thought the stars we closer than we know today.
But no religion for me please, just the Way, Jesus taught. Works for me, thanks.
And I like Bin Stime amd george carlin and Lewis Black, Dinnis Miller and life to enjoy.

I swear.
It's like a never-ending rabbit hole, and the Crazy Queen is in charge...

There is a rich, deep kind of irony that must be shared. I'm blogging this from the Apple store in the Mall of America, because I'm too amused to want to wait until I get back to my hotel room.

I went to attend a screening of the creationist propaganda movie, Expelled, a few minutes ago. Well, I tried … but I was Expelled! It was kind of weird — I was standing in line, hadn't even gotten to the point where I had to sign in and show ID, and a policeman pulled me out of line and told me I could not go in. I asked why, of course, and he said that a producer of the film had specifically instructed him that I was not to be allowed to attend. The officer also told me that if I tried to go in, I would be arrested. I assured him that I wasn't going to cause any trouble.

I went back to my family and talked with them for a while, and then the officer came back with a theater manager, and I was told that not only wasn't I allowed in, but I had to leave the premises immediately. Like right that instant.

I complied.

I'm still laughing though. You don't know how hilarious this is. Not only is it the extreme hypocrisy of being expelled from their Expelled movie, but there's another layer of amusement. Deep, belly laugh funny. Yeah, I'd be rolling around on the floor right now, if I weren't so dang dignified.

You see … well, have you ever heard of a sabot? It's a kind of sleeve or lightweight carrier used to surround a piece of munition fired from a gun. It isn't the actually load intended to strike the target, but may even be discarded as it leaves the barrel.

I'm a kind of sabot right now.

They singled me out and evicted me, but they didn't notice my guest. They let him go in escorted by my wife and daughter. I guess they didn't recognize him. My guest was …

Richard Dawkins.

He's in the theater right now, watching their movie.

Tell me, are you laughing as hard as I am?

Pharyngula: EXPELLED!

PZ Meyer was evidently interviewed for the movie (although he thought it was something else). And he was refused to see it...

This is preceisely why I refused to link any articles on it until I found one that would look at this objectively...

The science community is in full offensive mode...

Whose this "we"?...And since when did the world revert back to the 16th century?...

As I've stated in the original post, I believe there should be an inclusion of a "possibility"...

Not a doctrine...Not something to be taken as fact...Just a possibility...

If you were to go up to ANY scientist from anytime between the 1930s and the 1990s and said "Pluto is not a planet", you would've been shunned by the community and treated as an outcast...(Much like ID proponents are now)...

But 2 years ago the International Astronomical Union decided that very thing...

__________________
"You get the respect that you give" - cnredd

Just how did the office rknow to pick out you? And why would the producer not want you to see it? I guess your great story has me wondering beyond it is a film, Nothing more or less to me. Awwif that wa syour site that cnredd poste dlast as a link I now understand.. lol

Quite frankly, the movie itself is taking "offensive mode", so complaining about the one and not noting the other isn't exactly fair...


Actually, I was talking about the opinion I presumed you would have, and myself.
Are you saying that if science tried to interject into religion, you would not object?

And what the heck does "16th century" have to do with anything?
Modern day, ID is based in religion. Period.
It is a religious attempt at scientific pretense.
Do you refute that?


That isn't how science works.
You have to have more than "possibility" to warrant competition with a theory.

Do we need to review what "theory" means in the scientific community, and how it steps well and beyond just the realm of "possibility"?


Without facts, SURE.
People need FACTS before making claims.

ID has no "facts".
Plenty of insinuations, but no facts.

When ID has some FACTS, then they can compete.

Funny just now saw Ugh.. Wolf a do an interview with Ben Stine and think higher of the man than before. What he wants from the movie is an intelligent discussion where none call each other names and we come together with words. Plus he believes in God! And stated evolution doesn't explain where gravity or matter comes from,
And he got into some politics, being a Republican he will vote for McCain but is very disappointed with th economy policy and spoke against Treasury Sec. Paulson idea of natural fprces being the cause. He said greed and non regulation were the causes. Smart man!