[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Sign-in]  [Mail]  [Setup]  [Help] 

Status: Not Logged In; Sign In

“The government wants to make sure that that does not come out. A huge part of our political system is predicated on blackmail,”

You Know What Happens Next

Cash Jordan: Half-Built Tower Abandoned… as ICE Deports Entire ‘Migrant Workforce’

Heavy rainfall causes flash flooding Tuesday night, some cars stuck in high water on Chicago's West

Biden Doctor PLEADS THE FIFTH, Refuses To Testify To Congress, Biden Pardons ARE VOID

Joe Rogan says FBI director Kash Patel played him for a fool and maga for fools with the Jeff Epstein files

Elon's AI System "Grok" Went Rogue And Has Been SHUT DOWN in an Emergency!

Earthquake Swarms at One of the MOST DANGEROUS Volcanoes in the USA

Ben Shapiro Declares Epstein Case CLOSED: ‘Facts on the Ground Have Changed’

Iran receives 40 Chinese J10-C Fighter Jets

China’s Railgun Is Now Battle-Ready, Thanks to Nuclear Power

Chinese Hypersonic Advancements! Deadly new missile could decimate entire US fleet in 20 minutes

Iran Confirms Massive Chinese HQ 9 B Missile Deal

Why Is Europe Hitting 114°F And Still Rising?

The INCREDIBLE Impacts of Methylene Blue

The LARGEST Eruptions since the Merapi Disaster in 2010 at Lewotobi Laki Laki in Indonesia

Feds ARREST 11 Leftists For AMBUSH On ICE, 2 Cops Shot, Organized Terror Cell Targeted ICE In Texas

What is quantum computing?

12 Important Questions We Should Be Asking About The Cover Up The Truth About Jeffrey Epstein

TSA quietly scraps security check that every passenger dreads

Iran Receives Emergency Airlift of Chinese Air Defence Systems as Israel Considers New Attacks

Russia reportedly used its new, inexpensive Chernika kamikaze drone in the Ukraine

Iran's President Says the US Pledged Israel Wouldn't Attack During Previous Nuclear Negotiations

Will Japan's Rice Price Shock Lead To Government Collapse And Spark A Global Bond Crisis

Beware The 'Omniwar': Catherine Austin Fitts Fears 'Weaponization Of Everything'

Roger Stone: AG Pam Bondi Must Answer For 14 Terabytes Claim Of Child Torture Videos!

'Hit Us, Please' - America's Left Issues A 'Broken Arrow' Signal To Europe

Cash Jordan Trump Deports ‘Thousands of Migrants’ to Africa… on Purpose

Gunman Ambushes Border Patrol Agents In Texas Amid Anti-ICE Rhetoric From Democrats

Texas Flood


Editorial
See other Editorial Articles

Title: Smear Of Ben Stein's Film 'Expelled' Already Begun
Source: News With Views
URL Source: http://www.rense.com/general81/conven.htm
Published: Apr 9, 2008
Author: Devvy Kidd
Post Date: 2008-04-09 19:49:47 by Horse
Keywords: None
Views: 994
Comments: 74

The big guns are coming out already.

This scorching is by Roger Friedman. Notice how he puts his own beliefs in wrapped up as "conventionally accepted Darwinism. "

Ben Stein: Win His Career By Roger Friedman

After seeing a new non-fiction film starring Comedy Central's Ben Stein, you may not only be able to win his money, but also his career.

Stein is that whiny little guy with the monotone voice that makes him seem funny and an unlikely "character" for TV appearances. But that career may be over come April 18 when a movie he co-wrote, narrates and appears in, called "Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed," is released.

Directed by one Nathan Frankowski, "Expelled" is a sloppy, all-over-the-place, poorly made (and not just a little boring) "expose" of the scientific community. It's not very exciting. But it does show that Stein, who's carved out a career selling eye drops in commercials and amusing us on sitcoms, is either completely nuts or so avaricious that he's abandoned all good sense to make a buck.

To wit: Stein, Frankowski and pals say in "Expelled" that perfectly good scientists and educators are being stigmatized for wanting to teach their students creationism and "intelligent design" - in other words, junk science - in addition to or instead of conventionally accepted Darwinism. You see, Stein, like some other celebrities, finally has shown his true colors and they aren't so pretty.

The gist of Stein's involvement is: He's outraged! He believes in God! God created the universe! How can we not avail our students of this theory? What do you mean we're just molecules?

What the producers of this film would love, love, love is a controversy. That's because it's being marketed by the same people who brought us "The Passion of the Christ." They're hoping someone will latch onto an anti-Semitism theme here since there's a visit to a concentration camp and the raised idea - apparently typical of the intelligent design community - that somehow the theory of evolution is so evil that it caused the Holocaust. Alas, this is such a warped premise that no one's biting.

The whole idea of Stein, a Jew, jumping on the intelligent design bandwagon of the theory of evolution begetting the Nazis is so distasteful you wonder what in - sorry - God's name - he was thinking when he got into this. Who cares, really, if "Expelled" is anti-Semitic? It will come and go without much fanfare.

But Stein is another matter. Can he really be amusing selling eye drops or acting like a nebbish on game shows if we now have this new insight into his thinking?

You know Ben Stein from his voice. He used it to intone Ferris Bueller's name iconically at the beginning of that 20-year-old Matthew Broderick movie. His laconic delivery and deadpan presence have given him a benign celebrity - until now.

But this is what he wrote last fall on the "Expelled" movie Web site:

"Darwinism is still very much alive, utterly dominating biology. Despite the fact that no one has ever been able to prove the creation of a single distinct species by Darwinist means, Darwinism dominates the academy and the media. Darwinism also has not one meaningful word to say on the origins of organic life, a striking lacuna in a theory supposedly explaining life.

"Alas, Darwinism has had a far bloodier life span than Imperialism. Darwinism, perhaps mixed with Imperialism, gave us Social Darwinism, a form of racism so vicious that it countenanced the Holocaust against the Jews and mass murder of many other groups in the name of speeding along the evolutionary process."

In a word: Urgggh. Suddenly Stein is not so amusing anymore. I want my eye drops from someone else.

PS: Following "The Passion" release pattern, "Expelled" will open wide on the 18th but mostly in rural and poor neighborhoods. It's got just one theater in all of New York City, in Times Square, none in places like Beverly Hills or wealthier, better-educated urban neighborhoods where more "evolved" people might live.

According to the film's Web site, the producers are in a whopping 45 theaters in North Carolina, and a mere seven in Massachusetts, 35 in Georgia, 11 in New Jersey, four in Connecticut and one in Vermont. And so on. There are huge numbers of screens in Florida and Texas taking the film, particularly seven in San Antonio. If I lived in the Deep South, I'd boycott the filmmakers for thinking of me as this gullible and unsophisticated.

www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,348468,00.html


Poster Comment:

Notice that this review from Friedman ran originally at FOX news which is supposed to be conservative. Actually, it is Zionist and changes sides when convenient. Currently, many conservatives are willing to kill Muslims for Israel so FOX is conservative.

Post Comment   Private Reply   Ignore Thread  


TopPage UpFull ThreadPage DownBottom/Latest

Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 48.

#1. To: Horse (#0)

If you want to make a Darwinist froth tell them you believe in evolution but could you please explain exactly how one species turned into another?

YertleTurtle  posted on  2008-04-09   19:53:24 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#6. To: YertleTurtle (#1)

If you want to make a Darwinist froth tell them you believe in evolution but could you please explain exactly how one species turned into another?

They don't froth, they simply go into the Cline theory and show how small genetic differences over an expanse of territory eventually keeps one member of the species at one edge of the Cline from breeding with another an the other end of the cline. From that point genetic differences eventually lead to a new but related species.

This argument went down at the same time that the argument that life doesn't violate the second law of thermodynamics went down in flames. And remember that that failure so discredited "Creationism" that it was necessary to replace the snake oil with "Intelligent Design".

...  posted on  2008-04-09   20:16:58 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#8. To: ... (#6) (Edited)

From that point genetic differences eventually lead to a new but related species.

Like I said, they froth.

Explain EXACTLY how one species turned into another.

You can't do it, only babble.

I'll make it easy: explain how squirrels evolved into flying squirrels. Richard Dawkins eternally made a fool out of himself over that one.

YertleTurtle  posted on  2008-04-09   20:25:14 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#12. To: YertleTurtle (#8)

I'll make it easy: explain how squirrels evolved into flying squirrels. Richard Dawkins eternally made a fool out of himself over that one.

Calm down. Your rage is showing. Mindless fundie hate never solved anything. Just ask Fred Phelps.

The basic theory says that there are a series of mutations in the gene pool. One gives the membrane between the arms and legs, which is quite common in many different species. Just as webbed toes are. Others give enhanced balance and other necessary components. Most of these mutations kill the individual. But when conditions confer a survival advantage for a combination of the mutations, they get passed on.

For a good example of this, look at the collection of intermediate fossils tracing the evolution of dynosauria to birds.

...  posted on  2008-04-09   20:31:50 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#13. To: ... (#12)

The basic theory says that there are a series of mutations in the gene pool

You're proving my point. You can't do it.

YertleTurtle  posted on  2008-04-09   20:34:04 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#15. To: YertleTurtle (#13)

You're proving my point. You can't do it.

I just did. But what you will do is keep asking for specifics until you ask for the exact date a normal squirrel emerged into a flying squirrel.

This sort of silly argument is your only defense.

But let's turn this around. Prove to me that an old man in the clouds snapped his fingers and created the flying squirrel. You can't do this. In fact, you have no objective proof that your particular creation myth is any better than that of the Church of Scientology.

And this is why the World Scientific community has dismissed you as a kook.

...  posted on  2008-04-09   20:37:54 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#21. To: ... (#15)

Prove to me that an old man in the clouds snapped his fingers and created the flying squirrel.

I never said a word about God or creationism. You did.

I also didn't ask for a date when a squirrel turned into a flying squirrel.

I want to know EXACTLY how one species turned into another. That's all I'm asking, and you keep avoiding the question, because you and every other evolutionist in the world don't have a clue, and you know it.

YertleTurtle  posted on  2008-04-09   20:44:37 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#29. To: YertleTurtle (#21) (Edited)

My position is that I don't buy the biblical creation myth, and I don't buy the one from church of Scientology either. I also don't buy the Zuni creation myth.

None of them are science and because of that, they don't belong in a science class.

Evolution is the currently accepted scientific theory and, as such, it does belong in a science class.

If you want it out, get a degree, become a researcher, publish a paper with appropriate support and initiate a Thomas Khun style scientific revolution. It happens all the time in all fields of science.

I do object to propaganda and legal gyrations that attempt to put that which is not science in a science class, i.e., cram somebody's religion down anther person's craw by means of politics or force of law. And that is what the film discussed above is trying to do.

...  posted on  2008-04-09   20:55:18 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#31. To: ... (#29) (Edited)

Not to put too fine a point on it, but natural selection is Darwin's theory of evolution.

Similar to gravity, vs. Einstein's theory of gravity, in that the phenomenon exists whether or not the theory explains/predicts everything the phenomenon does, the phenomenon of evolution is not a theory, it's a physical fact. It's also a well-recorded fact.

nobody  posted on  2008-04-09   21:03:32 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#33. To: nobody (#31)

I know that evolution is a fact, and I realize that it may not explain everything. I was just reading something interesting about the evolution of bees and other social insects that talked about other factors at play.

The point I was trying to make was that it was the accepted scientific model and, as such, that is what should be taught in a science class. If somebody wants to give a grad seminar on Intelligent Design and who facts might line up for it, that is fine - as long as its not being presented as the accepted theory.

Forcing creationism into a biology class is like forcing Hebrew into a French class because "It's the language of the Lord".

...  posted on  2008-04-09   21:15:24 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#35. To: ... (#33)

Intelligent Design is not a scientific theory, it's a conspiracy any more. It should be taught in a religious conspiracy study class.

nobody  posted on  2008-04-09   21:24:27 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#40. To: nobody (#35)

Intelligent Design is not a scientific theory, it's a conspiracy any more. It should be taught in a religious conspiracy study class.

I agree, but I don't think people should be silenced about it. If they want to try to make a case for it in a legitimate way, they should be allowed to do so. A philosophy of science class or a grad seminar on weird theories would be the place. It's fine to discuss it in the proper place as long as the source [agenda driven religious types] and the nature [not accepted science] of the theory are made clear.

The only reason the religious kooks want it in a main line science class is to discredit the accepted theories on evolution. They can teach Intelligent Design to their congregation during Sunday service - so teaching their people isn't the real objective here.

And there may be some validity to the idea, though not on the level that the religious kooks operate on. Sir Walter Penrose, the dean of mathematics at Oxford, has written some good stuff about how consciousness and life are intrinsic properties of matter - and that there may be other laws governing the evolution of life and consciousness that we haven't yet discovered. The "intelligence" in Intelligent Design could be a yet undiscovered law of physics.

...  posted on  2008-04-09   21:52:12 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#42. To: ... (#40)

A philosophy of science class

A philosophy of anti-science class.

nobody  posted on  2008-04-09   21:54:50 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#44. To: nobody (#42)

A philosophy of anti-science class.

Pseudo-science is a great topic for a philosophy of science class. My class used Scholasticism and Galileo as the bad example. Galileo asked the Schollastics to look through his telescope and tell him what they saw. They responded that it wasn't necessary to look through the telescope to know what was there.

A good teacher could get some fine points hammered home with a discussion of Intelligent Design as the fundies see it and push it.

...  posted on  2008-04-09   22:08:45 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#47. To: ... (#44) (Edited)

When theory comes up with an uncountable number of universes, mostly unsurvivable, I suggest that if the theory is supposed correct (always doubtful as that is) we either have intelligent design making the survivable choice, supposedly, or uncountable blind trials, or perhaps some crazy fun but maybe a little egotistical time-reversing quantum anthropic combination of the two. Which one appeals to you?

I say scientists should intellectually always prefer the second choice, make the choice clear but respectful, and make no apology for it.

nobody  posted on  2008-04-09   22:19:28 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#48. To: nobody (#47)

Which one appeals to you?

I'm not sure. I think there is probably a basic principle somewhere that isn't yet understood. And when it is understood, things like the multiverse theory won't be needed to explain things.

I once saw someone demonstrate how all the weirdness dropped out the the double slit experiment if one of the photons had a twin traveling back in time. Everything became very simple and mundane. Even the weird instantaneous Cramer quantum entanglement stuff falls apart when something can go back in time. I think he calls it retrocausality and all the Alice in Wonderland stuff stops when you accept it.

I'm have no idea if things go back in time or not, but the complexity and non-intuitiveness of the model, and the fact that it is getting more complex, makes me think there is something basic that is being missed.

...  posted on  2008-04-09   22:47:06 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


Replies to Comment # 48.

#50. To: ... (#48) (Edited)

all the weirdness dropped out the the double slit experiment if one of the photons had a twin traveling back in time

Wheeler-Feynman Absorber Theory is that way.

I tend to think there's a continuum of photon energy in space (an invisible photonic sea) and everything emits photons at low energy and exists in perhaps some sort of fundamental resonant equilibrium with virtual photons at higher energies, so the slits radiate continuous virtual photonic wakes that interact with the experiment's photon source at the time the experiment's photons are generated. The "sea" organizes the photon energy as dynamic boundary conditions on the slit surfaces and these boundary conditions conduct photon energy to the other side of the slits where it converges to emit the result detected. Maybe I'm missing something.

nobody  posted on  2008-04-10 00:37:06 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#70. To: ... (#48) (Edited)

all the weirdness dropped out the the double slit experiment if one of the photons had a twin traveling back in time

This reminds me of the dichotomy of semiconductor holes vs. electrons - is there a hole going one way or an electron going the other way? But they're the same event. It's the context - what all the other electrons (or holes, if you prefer) are doing in coordination - that makes the difference.

In effect, an electron and hole combine and the hole disappears only to become a corresponding new hole (a leap of sorts) where the electron once was and a (perhaps) different electron to fill it.

Applying this to photons in space is similar to viewing the vacuum as some sort of degenerate state of a quark lattice, perhaps. I get the same impression from so-called superluminal experiments using a cesium vapor vacuum chamber or the like - the chamber appears to form a stabilized excited macroscopic cesium (or rubidium, etc.) quantum state, a chamber-sized immobilized "superatom" tuned vacuum lattice of sorts where energy (of a specific photon frequency) entering one side is always accompanied by the same sort of energy leaving the other side, seemingly beforehand and thus so surprisingly when not assuming causality going from the chamber's supposed exit to the entry (what I won't suppose here), perhaps not simultaneously, but seemingly superluminally. I'm suggesting that the interface at the "exit" appears to attract a reverse-moving tuned "photon hole" to it from the chamber boundary, and does so practically simultaneously (but not necessarily superluminally in that direction) as it accepts a photon at the "entry," and source of photons positioned in front of the chamber is mediating with the front of the chamber in a similar manner. I would say here that the optically flat chamber front is apparently saturating the signal laser source with laserlike photonic holes and some are absorbed thus do not reflect back and return, while others reflected away would be indirectly replaced.

The average vacuum is not tuned to any one appreciable frequency of photon and maybe this is what governs the apparent velocities, energies and throughput rate of photons (or before/after photon twins, being "identical" twins in energy and velocity if there is no bias of gravity) entering and leaving it.

nobody  posted on  2008-04-10 11:46:09 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#72. To: ... (#48) (Edited)

all the weirdness dropped out the the double slit experiment if one of the photons had a twin traveling back in time

A photon is its own antiparticle, and going backward in time at light-speed is like going in the opposite direction at light-speed, I suppose.

I think the atoms in the cesium chamber vacuum are doing a sort of conga-line back and forth from one end to the other, maybe it looks like a double-helix, which is what I'd call a degenerate lattice. Anyway, it's like you hand one cesium atom a photon while it's reversing in a bounce of one end, and the atom hands a copy of the photon up the line to the next atom, etc, while they all move rapidly to the other side. The atoms then look like identical photonic holes when not holding on to an extra photon, except for a round-trip phase shift.

Just a wild guess. I don't mind guessing wrong.

nobody  posted on  2008-04-15 21:07:42 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#73. To: ... (#48)

FWIW (mostly just talking to myself at this point), I can't find anything on induced helical dynamics in cesium vapor/plasma. Cesium fascinates me. The chloride (very heavy and very salty) is used in plasmid centrifuge and there's a helical structure associated with a type of gramicidin associated with cesium, apparently (I don't know much about that at all). I do know it's extremely reactive and the ions are very large. The latter apparently gives one a longer range for a "leap" of the quantum variety.

nobody  posted on  2008-04-18 03:40:38 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#74. To: ... (#48) (Edited)

I have some notes on the Wheeler-Feynman model:

The Wheeler-Feynman model, called the “absorber theory of radiation” is a time- symmetric theory based partly on the assumption that every light wave emitted by an atom must be absorbed by another atom, and these two events should be considered as a single inseparable process. Another basis of the model is that atoms don’t interact with their own radiation, mass is presumed not to “self- interact” (when self-interaction is assumed, most reasonable models of the atom produce infinite self-interaction energy). So, by the model, the emitted wave has no recoil effect on the atom. Instead the atom’s recoil is caused by a light wave that travels backward in time from the atom that eventually absorbs the light. More specifically, atom A emits a half-sized wave without recoil, the wave hits atom B, which recoils, and atom B in turn emits a half-sized wave (without any resulting additional recoil) which travels backward in time to atom A, which recoils. ................................................

To my way of thinking, the half-wave going backward in time from B to A is no different from the half-wave going forward in time from A to B, so there’s really no need for an absorber.

Anyway, my source here is a book by Nick Herbert entitled "Faster than Light." The book also notes that most physicists accept the existence of self- interaction.

nobody  posted on  2008-04-19 01:42:21 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


End Trace Mode for Comment # 48.

TopPage UpFull ThreadPage DownBottom/Latest


[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Sign-in]  [Mail]  [Setup]  [Help]