Ben Stein's new movie about Intelligent Design (tm)

[zxcvbnm]

Their religion has crossbred with others, separated by geography, evolved on the basis of the survival of fittest and then they say: Evolution is from the Devil! without realising that if so, their own religion is from the devil too.

You mean intelligent social reform at the hand of god.

They're fundies: bible only is true. Only we may tell what it says. The original church was the only true outside ours.

 

[Smidlee]

Even the most fundamental of Biblical creationist not only believes but depends on evolution. That is common descent is without question. It universal common descent that is being questioned?

Also ID is not anti-evolution. When it comes down to the only real engine (with it's many names) evolution has is the good old "trial and error". It has been shown that "trial and error" is a lot more effective when you add more speed and a better information. (Bacteria benefits the most, because of they speed to multiply, from "trail and error"... thus evolution )
For example a computer program can easily crack someone's password when the password is a common word. The reason is the CPU speed allows it to "try" thousands of combination a second as well the computer program already has the information (a list of words) already built in. If you uses a password like "9*hDR@ft%6Lfz84$hiy&esmh" the program will have trouble cracking it since the program is short of any "built in" information so it has to rely on it's speed alone.
Even Dawkins point this out clearly with his "METHINKS IT IS LIKE A WEASEL" example.

 

[demokratickid]

Also ID is not anti-evolution.

Then why is this movie being made about ID that is anti-evolution?

 

[Holycannoli]

Ziggy, Intelligent Design basically posits that evolution is really happening, but it works because God intended it that way. Then they try to "scientifically" show that evolution would be impossible if God didn't make it that way. There are countless different variations on this though, some with more evolution and less God, some that are almost exclusively Creationist.

Considering that there is scientific proof that evolution exists, it should be taught. There is no proof that ID is real, so it should not be taught as science. I have no problem with parents teaching this to their children if they wish, or even schools mentioning; "Now some people believe in ID, which is..." My problem is with trying to pass this off as a scientifically proven fact, which it simply is not.

Correct on both counts. ID is not science and it doesn't deny evolution. It tries to answer the "why" question. The big question: "Why" does life exist? Evolution doesn't give us all the answers It shows us the blueprints and methods of creation but that's it.

The problem is that most pure evolutionists -the people who will never believe in any sort of ID- assume that IDers are all fundamentalists who take the book of Genesis literally. I have friends like that. They really do believe that Adam was created out of sand, that Eve was created from his rib, and that a talking snake convinced her to eat a magical apple. Fundamentalists don't understand the big picture, and deny the validity of science if it ever seems to disprove something biblical (which it never does btw if you aren't a fundamentalist and really understand things). That's what they do with evolution: It contradicts the book of Genesis and so cannot be correct.

I haven't seen this movie, but I do hope it's more about showing how ID and evolution exist side-by-side rather than denying evolution entirely. The sciences and mathematics we explore every day are his blueprints. There's no denying them, but accepting them doesn't mean there is no God either (why do some people insist on saying that science disproves God? Because of the misguided fundamentalists I bet)

You might be interested in knowing that the Catholic church supports the evolution of humans, and of life in general. But it also doesn't take Genesis literally. It's called theistic evolution, and here's a Wikipedia article on it. Here's another interesting article on the subject. The whole world is opening it's eyes to the truth, including the church.

I really hope for the best from this movie, and really hope it doesn't try to appease the fundamentalists because then it just gets the subject all wrong.

 

[BasketCase]

They're fundies: bible only is true. Only we may tell what it says. The original church was the only true outside ours.

Heheheh. Divinely inspired or not, all Bibles are written by people, and when you let people get their hands on something, they will find a way to screw it up.

 

[Holycannoli]

Heheheh. Divinely inspired or not, all Bibles are written by people, and when you let people get their hands on something, they will find a way to screw it up.

Yeah. Look how many different ways it's been interpreted over the years. Even tiny alterations in wording here and there can drastically alter the interpretation of a passage. Fundies simply don't realize that.

 

[Eran of Arcadia]

Theistic evolution and ID as it is described by its supporters are very different things.

 

[Smidlee]

Then why is this movie being made about ID that is anti-evolution?

According to the interviews from Ben the movies is more about those who uses evolution to force (religiously) their political views which is why he bring up Nazis. That's not to say evolution is evil or wrong as there are many examples of those who uses the church to force their political view as well.
Here is someone else who thinks these "uber-Darwinists" does more harm to science than creationists.

We dino-scientists have a great responsibility: our subject matter attracts kids better than any other, except rocket-science. What's the greatest enemy of science education in the U.S.?

Militant Creationism?

No way. It's the loud, strident, elitist anti-creationists. The likes of Richard Dawkins and his colleagues.

These shrill uber-Darwinists come across as insultingly dismissive of any and all religious traditions. If you're not an atheist, then you must be illiterate or stupid and, possibly, a danger to yourself and others.

http://scienceblogs.com/laelaps/2008/04/paleontological_profiles_rober.php

 

[Cu Chulainn]

According to the interviews from Ben the movies is more about those who uses evolution to force (religiously) their political views which is why he bring up Nazis. That's not to say evolution is evil or wrong as there are many examples of those who uses the church to force their political view as well.
Here is someone else who thinks these "uber-Darwinists" does more harm to science than creationists.

I don't see that there's any other way to go about it. ID is not Science. It makes no predictions, it has not tests, it is not falsifiable, and its truth or falsehood is of absolutely no consequence to anything scientific. We will not pretend it is science just so some fundies can feel good about themselves.

 

[Sharwood]

I don't see that there's any other way to go about it. ID is not Science. It makes no predictions, it has not tests, it is not falsifiable, and its truth or falsehood is of absolutely no consequence to anything scientific. We will not pretend it is science just so some fundies can feel good about themselves.

We will if it wins votes. That's the problem. Sooner or later, some idiot is likely to get elected on a platform of forcing this on schools.

 

[zxcvbnm]

I don't see that there's any other way to go about it. ID is not Science. It makes no predictions, it has not tests, it is not falsifiable, and its truth or falsehood is of absolutely no consequence to anything scientific. We will not pretend it is science just so some fundies can feel good about themselves.

Evolution-creation-ID-"joke"

Three people see shards of porcelain on the floor. There are stains of coffee around them, looking one hour old. There is a table, one meter high, next to the shards and stains. There is also a note on the floor, stained with coffee, so that it looks like having been there for five minutes.

They all take a lot of pictures and measurements about the place of the incident.

No. 1 says: "The coffee stains show that the coffee has been on the floor for an hour or so. I put the shards together and it looks remarkably like a cup. As we know, things tend to fall down, and I am positive that thus the shards and stains were caused by a cup of coffee falling from the table an hour ago."

No. 2 says: "The note says that there hasn't been a cup of coffee falling down, but someone placed shards of porcelain there and poured coffee on them, and made it look like it happened an hour ago, but he really did it six minutes ago."

No. 3 says: "I tried to put the shards together and saw that the alleged cup had some small holes in it, the pieces fitting into which we haven't found, and the probability that the falling cup of coffee would make exactly this pattern is 1.2386732*10^-52 so there must have been an intelligence guiding the cup as it fell down."

 

[Phlegmak]

I saw the movie.

Basically, every negative review of the movie is true. That's my summary. I can write much more later. I feel like doing something else now.

I do not recommend anyone go see the movie. Eran of Arcadia predicted the movie would be gut bustingly hilarious. Unfortunately, it's not gut bustingly hilarious. Overall, it's very sad.

 

[BasketCase]

I reached that conclusion long ago, Phleg.

If a film even sounds like it has any kind of serious political material in it, I avoid it the way I avoid rap music. If I want real-world politics I'll flip on the TV, tune it to Hannity & Colmes, and watch it for FREE.

Edit: On the other hand, films such as "The Second Civil War" which make fun of politics and are purposefully silly and stupid? That kind of film is lots of fun.

 

[Phlegmak]

A few thoughts:

* The production value of the movie was atrocious. There was an omnipresent background music which was horrible quality and it just made the dialogue hard to hear.
* Ben Stein is among the worst of humanity and that is the deliberately ignorant. He knows he's ignorant and chooses to remain so. The reason I say this is because there is NO WAY he can repeat that Darwinism doesn't explain gravity and nobody around him didn't tell him, "Uh, it's not supposed to explain gravity." He MUST have been repeatedly told it doesn't explain gravity yet he keeps saying it. He's the George Bush of creationism. Actually, he didn't mention gravity in the movie but he's repeated it during interviews about the movie.
* The movie doesn't explain what Intelligent Design is. It made me think that if I didn't already know what Intelligent Design is, it would be like seeing a sequel to a movie without seeing the predecessor, and the rest of the audience knows what's going on, but I don't.
* The movie was a Moorian propaganda piece, but much worse. The director should have consulted Moore more if he wanted to emulate him.
* The stock footage of the Berlin Wall being built was pretty good.
* The comparisons of opponents of Intelligent Design to communists and Nazis was everpresent in the film. The film took every opportunity to make that comparison.
* The film was boring.
* The film didn't even try to say Intelligent Design was correct. It did try to say that "Darwinism" is heavily flawed. It focused mostly on the negative effects of "Darwinism" and the fact that teachers aren't allowed to talk about Intelligent Design. Basically, it was trying to muddy the waters by saying, "Why can't we talk about it? Let's talk about Intelligent Design in schools." (I used "Darwinism" in quotes because the way Stein uses the word "Darwinism", I lost the understanding of what he meant by "Darwinism".) That was the same crap that George Bush said. It's a logically dead argument.
* It became obvious that some of the opponents of Intelligent Design were taken out of context and that they could have spoken on their topics at a much greater length to become clearly understood.
* When Stein asked Dawkins to put a number on the probability that there is no god, and Dawkins started by saying, "It's not possible to put a number on it, but if I had to, I would say it's 99% probable that there is no god." Then Stein immediately questioned him about his number. That was so stupid it was painful to watch. Dawkins just told him it's unquantifiable, and Stein asked why would Dawkins choose one number over another.
* The movie was a Fox "news" story on Intelligent Design and "Darwinism", essentially. That is, you have the belief first, then you try to find facts that support your belief. It was an intellectually dead movie. Not only that, but they knew that this was what they were doing, so it's also deliberately ignorant and thus, morally bankrupt.

Overall, the movie will convince no one that doesn't already believe in Intelligent Design, except for this pastor:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mJeFOX0l7RY
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6ZI6iLves2I

Only people dumb enough to think that way would be swayed.

 

[Phlegmak]

I know I've beaten this subject to death, but there's more.

http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=NWRmOTU2YzZlN2RhMzhjNzEwNzQ3MzFiZDE2NjM3NWE=

Stein: When we just saw that man, I think it was Mr. Myers [i.e. biologist P.Z. Myers], talking about how great scientists were, I was thinking to myself the last time any of my relatives saw scientists telling them what to do they were telling them to go to the showers to get gassed … that was horrifying beyond words, and that’s where science — in my opinion, this is just an opinion — that’s where science leads you.

Crouch: That’s right.

Stein: …Love of God and compassion and empathy leads you to a very glorious place, and science leads you to killing people.

Crouch: Good word, good word.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k216F3HJt84

I don't have the entire interview on video. It would be awesome if I could watch it.

 

[Harbringer]

I havnt seen it, but from the transcripts and snippets I have seen, Ben Stein is a lot like my dad. He think Christians are persecuted, and the entire pigeon holed collective of the world that are not Christians(and yes, in his eyes there are only Christians and then "the world") have some kind of incredible conspiracy against the entire Christian population. This is what Ben stein reminds me off, science bad, god good.

 

[Sharwood]

Stein: When we just saw that man, I think it was Mr. Myers [i.e. biologist P.Z. Myers], talking about how great scientists were, I was thinking to myself the last time any of my relatives saw scientists telling them what to do they were telling them to go to the showers to get gassed … that was horrifying beyond words, and that’s where science — in my opinion, this is just an opinion — that’s where science leads you.

Crouch: That’s right.

Stein: …Love of God and compassion and empathy leads you to a very glorious place, and science leads you to killing people.

Crouch: Good word, good word.

Wow. Just wow. Because, you know, no-one's ever killed over religion.

 

[Harbringer]

Wow. Just wow. Because, you know, no-one's ever killed over religion.

Religion is not a person, science is not a person, people kill people, period.

 

[Cu Chulainn]

"Religion is an insult to human dignity. Without it, you'd have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, it takes religion."
- Stephen Weinberg

 

[Harbringer]

"Religion is an insult to human dignity. Without it, you'd have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, it takes religion."
- Stephen Weinberg

Ok Swein Forkbrand