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

Status: Not Logged In; Sign In

I'm going to send DOGE after Elon." -Trump

This is the America I grew up in. We need to bring it back

MD State Employee may get Arrested by Sheriff for reporting an Illegal Alien to ICE

RFK Jr: DTaP vaccine was found to have link to Autism

FBI Agents found that the Chinese manufactured fake driver’s licenses and shipped them to the U.S. to help Biden...

Love & Real Estate: China’s new romance scam

Huge Democrat shift against Israel stuns CNN

McCarthy Was Right. They Lied About Everything.

How Romans Built Domes

My 7 day suspension on X was lifted today.

They Just Revealed EVERYTHING... [Project 2029]

Trump ACCUSED Of MASS EXECUTING Illegals By DUMPING Them In The Ocean

The Siege (1998)

Trump Admin To BAN Pride Rainbow Crosswalks, DoT Orders ALL Distractions REMOVED

Elon Musk Backing Thomas Massie Against Trump-AIPAC Challenger

Skateboarding Dog

Israel's Plans for Jordan

Daily Vitamin D Supplementation Slows Cellular Aging:

Hepatitis E Virus in Pork

Hospital Executives Arrested After Nurse Convicted of Killing Seven Newborns, Trying to Kill Eight More

The Explosion of Jewish Fatigue Syndrome

Tucker Carlson: RFK Jr's Mission to End Skyrocketing Autism, Declassifying Kennedy Files

Israel has killed 1,000 Palestinians in the West Bank since October 7, 2023

100m Americans live in areas with cancer-causing 'forever chemicals' in their water

Scientists discover cancer-fighting bacteria that "soak up" forever chemicals in the body

Israel limits entry of baby formula in Gaza as infants die of hunger

17 Ways mRNA Shots May CAUSE CANCER, According to Over 100 STUDIES

Report: Pentagon Halts Some Munitions Shipments To Ukraine Over Concerns That US Stockpiles Are Too Low

Locals Fear Demolitions as Israeli Troops Set Up New Base in Syrias Quneitra

Russian forces discover cache of Ukrainian chemical drone munitions FSB


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: 958
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 # 73.

#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  


#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   3:40:38 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


Replies to Comment # 73.

        There are no replies to Comment # 73.


End Trace Mode for Comment # 73.

TopPage UpFull ThreadPage DownBottom/Latest


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