Expelled: Is Ben Stein Serious? (by Becky Garrison)
Motive Entertainment, the maverick marketers behind The Passion of the Christ and The Chronicles of Narnia bills Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed as" a controversial new satirical documentary [in which] author, former presidential speechwriter, economist, lawyer and actor Ben Stein travels the world, looking to some of the best scientific minds of our generation for the answer to the biggest question facing all Americans today."
My interest in this flick was piqued when I learned that PZ Myers, a scientist interviewed for this flick, was denied entrance following a confrontation of sorts when he tried to attend an advance screening. The irony of naming a movie "Expelled" only to eject one of your own interviewees struck me as a rather novel albeit bizarre marketing move. The onslaught of negative publicity from outraged scientists represents a publicist's dream. You can't buy this kind of buzz prior to the movie's release on April 18.
As an unexpected PR bonus of sorts, Richard Dawkins was at the above mentioned screening. Even though he was also interviewed for this documentary, for some unexplained reason, he was not given the boot. Anyway, after viewing Expelled, Dawkins blasted the filmmakers for how he felt he was misrepresented by the filmmakers. Oh, come on. Gimme a break. As reported by John Bloom on The Wittenburg Door's web site, "How could you grant an interview to Ben Stein, longtime friend of James Dobson, Pat Robertson, and others on the far religious right, and not know what you were getting into?" (Yes, I know Dawkins claims not to know who Ben Stein is but a man of his stature should have the means to hire an assistant to properly screen his interview requests.)
This film's tagline promotes Stein as the Ferris Bueller of the Intelligent Design community: "Big science has expelled smart new ideas from the classroom. ... What they forgot is that every generation has its Rebel." Hmmm, methinks Stein looks more like Jimmy Dean than James Dean, but perhaps the rebel tag represents a satirical twist of sorts.
This satirical slant continued with clips of a very Jewish looking Stein walking on to the campus of Biola University, as "Personal Jesus" blares in the background. Sounds like the perfect setting for a Ferris Bueller sequel with Stein reprising the role of the droning high school teacher that made him famous. For those who aren't steeped in the history of American fundamentalism, Craig Detweiler, director of the comedic documentary, Purple State of Mind, explains the humor behind this footage. "Biola University was founded upon the same oil money that commissioned, 'The Fundamentals of the Faith,' the turn of the 20th century pamphlets that sparked a Christian religious movement. Ben Stein's appearance at Biola may put the 'fun' back in, take the 'duh' out, and restore the 'mental' in 'Fundamentalism.'"
While Expelled set its sights on disarming their enemy - the "neo-Darwinists" who have ostracized scientists who dare give credence to intelligent design - more often than not they ended up shooting biblical blanks. Unfortunately, the nuances of the evolution versus intelligent design debate were left on the cutting floor in favor of more provocative soundbites that one might expect from say an NBC Dateline "Catch an Evolutionist!"-type special.
For example, juxtaposing Reagan's famous quote - "Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall" - against Stein's clarion call for academia to tear down its resistance to intelligent design" served only to insult my intelligence. Having been to Yale Divinity School during the height of the political correctness movement in the 1990s, I can attest that there are consequences to raising one's voice against certain tenured titans. Fortunately, in my case, over-exposure to those with differing and at times extreme ideologies forced me hone my beliefs and gave me the tools that eventually led to my becoming a religious satirist. However, I am aware that others had their careers cut short because they chose not to kow-tow to the party line promulgated by a particular academic institution. Still, unlike those who were trapped literally behind the Berlin Wall, students and faculty remain free to exercise their full rights as citizens of the U.S.
The cheesy black and white clips interspersed to simulate persecution - such as a guillotine to illustrate why a professor got fired for mentioning ID in the classroom, or playing the John Lennon classic "Imagine" over footage of Stalin overseeing his troops - struck me as crude attempts at humor that lacked the biting quality of political satires like Dr. Strangelove or Wag the Dog.
Towards the end of the movie, when Stein takes the audience on a tour of Dachau that implied Darwin would have approved of Hitler's tactics, my stomach churned. This admittedly gruesome display of Holocaust stock footage cries out for the voice of reason that could lend a much needed historical analysis into the socio-political milieu of Victorian England that informed Darwin's discoveries. At the very least, I would expect a timeline of Darwin's discoveries, noting when a few players chose to misused his theories in the name of Social Darwinism. (In the same token, the Bible has been used far too often as a proof to justify some horrendous actions that bear no resemblance whatsoever to Jesus' teachings.)
In fairness to Stein, this film wasn't as biased as The God Who Wasn't There, a pseudo-documentary that pitted Ph.D. level scientists against the webmaster for raptureletters.com. Still, the editing left me with the clear impression that practicing scientists who are people of faith subscribe wholeheartedly to intelligent design. Where were the voices of leading evolutionary biologists who are also practicing Christians, such as Francis Collins, Joan Roughgarden, and Kenneth Miller? Furthermore, leading Christian thinkers such as Alister McGrath, John Lennox, and John Polkinghome were presented in a manner that one could think they are in full agreement with Intelligent Design, when in fact, they have written material critical of this movement. (See Intelligent Design: William A. Dembski & Michael Ruse in Dialogue
At last year's Tribeca Film Festival , I attended a panel titled "Prodigies, Nobelists and Penguins: Science and Stereotypes in the Movies." Here, I found a group of filmmakers and scientists who were able to engage in a healthy and sane debate with those of differing beliefs. Here's hoping for the day when a documentary can be made with the degree of humor and intellect that was present both in that conversation, as well as my subsequent discussions with people like Greg Epstein, Humanist Chaplain at Harvard, and other like-minded souls. One can hope.
Becky Garrison's discussion of her book, The New Atheist Crusaders and Their Unholy Grail: The Misguided Quest to Destroy Your Faith,
Add to Del.icio.us
Add to Technorati
Add to Digg
Add to Newsvine
Comments
Thanks for your review (preview?). I think you said you wanted it to be more "mental" and less humorous, am I correct? It seems I ought to see the film before saying more!
Blessings,
Witness for Peace
Posted by: Witness for Peace | April 17, 2008 3:22 PM
Upon reflection, I definitely want to see it! I was fortunate to have a HS Biology teacher who taught both theories side by side. With a minimum of defensiveness, he stated why he thought evolution was superior. Since then, I’ve found few people as genuinely "liberal" as he. I’ve also heaped some scorn on traditional Creationism, noting that Days 1 2 and 3 could hardly have been 24 hours long without the sun, created on the 4th day! But recently I’ve been fascinated by the origins of social Darwinism, to which your quote below refers. It seems that if a theory is truly universal, it ought to apply to humans in the social sphere. I think the implications of Darwinism for society have been ignored--deliberately--because of the obvious repugnance of the obvious conclusion. I also have yet to see a satisfactory explanation of the 1,000 monkeys at 1,000 typewriters for 1,000 days, and a calculation of how many phrases from "Hamlet" they might type. All I’ve heard is "since the universe is infinite anything can happen." That’s fine for a High School debate comeback, but it’s not science. It seems those promoting evolution should be eager to answer simle questions such as mine, instead of denouncing me as ignorant and biased (as if they were neither!)
In the quote below, you compare Darwinism with the Bible. Do you mean to agree with me that Darwinism is essentially a religion for many people?
Finally, thanks for the names of people of faith who differ with me on this issue. At least they are willing to discuss it! Thanks also to those in Dembski’s latest book.
... This admittedly gruesome display of Holocaust stock footage cries out for the voice of reason that could lend a much needed historical analysis into the socio-political milieu of Victorian England that informed Darwin's discoveries. At the very least, I would expect a timeline of Darwin's discoveries, noting when a few players chose to misused his theories in the name of Social Darwinism. (In the same token, the Bible has been used far too often as a proof to justify some horrendous actions that bear no resemblance whatsoever to Jesus' teachings.)
Posted by: Witness for Peace | April 17, 2008 3:48 PM
I haven't seen the film, and probably won't, but from Becky's discription it sounds like a Michael Moore-esque "documentary" for creationists.
Posted by: Eric | April 17, 2008 3:56 PM
It does sound like that. I think the thoughtful Becky Harrison was telling us the topic deserves better.
Blessings,
Witness for Peace
Posted by: Witness for Peace | April 17, 2008 4:08 PM
I was fortunate to have a HS Biology teacher who taught both theories side by side.
ID has a theory?
Posted by: aaron | April 17, 2008 4:22 PM
I liked the article, but it could have been run by an editor. Examples include cow-tow instead of kow-tow and Hitter instead of Hitler.
Posted by: Ben | April 17, 2008 5:11 PM
My beef with this docu-movie was more as a viewer. It felt like I was there a long time, never a good thing for a film. My biggest disappointment is that the yawn aspect of the film will keep it out of the minds of the people it was meant to reach.
Posted by: Jack | April 17, 2008 5:33 PM
Having read this article -- I have no idea what the movie is about. I don't get if I'm supposed to laugh at the fact that Biola was founded by an oil man or not.
If Becky doesn't agree with the movie, that's her right, but her review isn't objective either. Her pot shots at "Fundamentalists" made my stomach turn too.
Show me a documentary that isn't biased. No one would pay to make it.
Posted by: frankie | April 17, 2008 5:50 PM
"Wag the Dog" sucked. To utter it alongside Dr. Strangelove is preposterous.
I don't have anything else to add.
Posted by: kevin s. | April 17, 2008 6:18 PM
Please tell me that we don't have to all be James Dean to rebel!
So, basically, you're ticked off that someone else put together the documentary you wanted to put together, and they didn't say it the same way you would have.
This Christian army really should keep shooting away at their own side, it's much more effective that way.
Posted by: Connie | April 17, 2008 6:31 PM
I fully expect this film to be roundly criticized, largely by the evolutionists and perhaps more strongly by the progressive Christians. Go figure.
Posted by: Dan | April 17, 2008 7:20 PM
I fully expect this film to be roundly criticized, largely by the scientists. Go figure.
Posted by: aaron | April 17, 2008 7:32 PM
Is comment about a "Christian army shooting away at their own side" another way of saying that those who disagree with you are not Christians?
Go start a crusade why don't you? Or if you lack the guts to do that, go send out some mushy pro-life e-mail forwards that say "if you don't forward this, you don't love Jesus." You will surely win some converts.
While you are doing that, the rest of us will have a scholarly discussion that takes the bible seriously, if not always literally.
Posted by: a lauer | April 17, 2008 7:36 PM
"While you are doing that, the rest of us will have a scholarly discussion that takes the bible seriously, if not always literally."
Nothing in your post signaled to me that scholarly discussion with you would be particularly fruitful.
Posted by: kevin s. | April 17, 2008 7:51 PM
Part of the reason why the producers were able to slip this by Dawkins and PZ is they did it under false pretenses- they gave the movie a different title (after internal documents showed they had at that point already chosen the title), and they implied that this was a balanced look at the issue.
Posted by: Jedidiah Palosaari | April 17, 2008 8:44 PM
Witness, I would encourage you to read up on these issues more. In the first place, your terms are confusing. There have been no Darwinists since the 30's. Darwinist Evolution has been dead since then. After that we entered the NeoDarwinian Synthesis, and others argue we are now in a new state of EvoDevo, encompassing Punk Eek and Cladistics.
Secondly, no scientist would argue that the 1000 monkeys response is simply because "given enough time". That smacks of Literal Creationists strawmen, arguing that evolutionsts state that everything happens by chance. We most emphatically do not, and never have. It is argued that evolution happened by a combination of chance and natural selection. Which, incidently, is how I believe everything happens- by a combination of chance and process, all under the omnipotence of God.
Lastly, I would agree with you tangentially, that the impacts of evolution truly have been ignored- in the realm of theology.
Posted by: Jedidiah Palosaari | April 17, 2008 8:52 PM
First..
The Theory of Evolution is no more 'universal' than the theory of Gravitation is to be applied universally.
It'd be like saying that one should apply the principle of size and attraction of bodies in the Theory of Gravitation to, say, politics and say that the larger the person, the more supporters they will have.
Secondly, there's a difference between 'knowing what you're getting into' by interviewing with someone with the opposing view, and realizing they will just plain lie and selectively edit the interview.
Are you saying Dawkins was somehow asking for it by expecting integrity from Ben Stein?
There is a section of the movie where it looks like Dawkins is seriously stating that he thinks aliens seeded life on the planet. What was missing was the actual question, and the rest of the answer.
The question was 'Is there ANY possible scenario you could come up with where life on this planet could've been intelligently designed'.
That was only a 'any possible scenario'. And even with that one, Dawkins noted (not in the movie, of course) that the aliens, themselves, wouldn't have been, so design can never be an ULTIMATE explanation for organized complexity.
Secondly, and most tellingly, the movie, as well as Ben Stein's interview, consistently pit ID against the Theory of Evolution as if they were in conflict with each other. The actual proposal of ID is ONLY that some 'intelligence', unnamed and with no qualities listed other than taking this role, planned how the universe would develop and the form it would take. It says nothing about who, or how this would happen.
It is no more in conflict with Evolution than Creationism, than aliens seeding the Universe. It is, however, a trademark of the 'Intelligence Design MOVEMENT', whose espoused purpose is to use ID as a 'wedge' to get Creationism taught in schools, to confuse the two.
Posted by: Karen Brown | April 17, 2008 9:19 PM
It appears that the Michael Moore comparison is apt. That said, I think a compelling case can be made that academia has been utterly obtuse with resorting to Moore's tactics.
Posted by: kevin s. | April 17, 2008 10:35 PM
Nothing in your post signaled to me that scholarly discussion with you would be particularly fruitful. Posted by: kevin s.
I agree with Kevin. He knows how to distinguish a scholarly post from a non-scholarly one. Just read his comments. They are all very scholarly.
Posted by: JamesMartin | April 17, 2008 10:47 PM
For example, juxtaposing Reagan's famous quote - "Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall" - against Stein's clarion call for academia to tear down its resistance to intelligent design" served only to insult my intelligence.
I was planning on seeing this movie this weekend. I sat through Moore's 911 twice to make sure that I understood what he was promoting. I like documentaries anyway. BUT - if this 'insult my intelligence' of Ms. BB - I have got to see it!
Having been to Yale Divinity School during the height of the political correctness movement in the 1990s, I can attest that there are consequences to raising one's voice against certain tenured titans.
So - no one argues with the landlord?
Blessings -
.
Posted by: Moderatelad | April 18, 2008 8:16 AM
"Just read his comments. They are all very scholarly."
I didn't not the one claiming to be scholarly. Moreso, his statements (e.g. telling someone to go write a chain letter) do not even rise to the level of adult.
Posted by: kevin s. | April 18, 2008 10:33 AM
Saddly - in education for the most part - the agenda is more important that scholarly discussion. If in fact there were no 'facts' in the theory of intellengent design. I believe that most teachers would be lining up to debate it and reveil its flaws. But the agenda is paramount not scholarly discussion.
I personally am tired of talking with my sons, one in high school and the other in college and hearing them tell me about how their teachers in several of their classes blast the current adm and the war in Iraq during class time.
Literature of the 18th Century and Bush is part of the lecture? Anatomy 101 and Iraq is part of the curriculium?
I went as far as challenging one of the high school teacher when I was there for parent - teacher conferences. I asked if they would be willing to discuss in open forum the war is Iraq and terror in the 21st century. We would do it in the evening in the school auditorium and the students would be allow to ask questions. They declined. (personally - this person has no guts in my never to be humble opinion)
Blessings -
.
Posted by: Moderatelad | April 18, 2008 10:51 AM
a lauer --
Absolutely not! I feel her bashing the movie is Christians beating up Christians for trying to explain their views. So she’s not on the side of Intelligent Design – then don’t advertise it and let it die it’s own death.
Where do you get off assuming I’m pro-life? Because my view doesn’t agree with yours? Her review was not an intelligent or objective discussion. The makers of this film take the Bible seriously too – they just don’t view it as you do. I believe it was Dobson my pastor quoted several years ago – who did a study that showed about 75% of Christian men (I don’t remember the exact numbers, it was a long time ago) don’t believe it was a literal 7 day creation, while women tended to believe it was literal.
Yeesh – this is not a sine qua non issue of our faith. It’s open to discussion, the movie opens discussions, but she was picking apart everything but the arguments in it.
Posted by: Connie | April 18, 2008 11:20 AM
Ms DBB
You could change Stein to Moore and Expelled to 911 or Sicko and this review would work just fine. I am going to see this one just because of your accessment of it. I know that I will like it - and I like Stein and his humor.
I have loved watching documentaries all my life. I have look and found some that I thought had been lost. I have even spent money and watched several Moore Docs. If aproach to donumentry is classic, very much life that of Riefenstahl. The only difference between Riefenstahl and Moore is that Riefenstahl told the truth.
Blessings -
.
Posted by: Moderatelad | April 18, 2008 11:50 AM
I didn't not the one claiming to be scholarly. Moreso, his statements (e.g. telling someone to go write a chain letter) do not even rise to the level of adult. Posted by: kevin s. |
I agree. Your comments are both scholarly and they rise to the level of an adult. His do not. Thanks for the clarification. Keep up the good work.
Posted by: JamesMartin | April 18, 2008 12:24 PM
"If aproach to donumentry is classic, very much life that of Riefenstahl. The only difference between Riefenstahl and Moore is that Riefenstahl told the truth."
So you agree with Riefenstahl that Hitler was the One True Leader who sought to restore the glory of the German nation? Certainly that was her story in "Triumph of the Will."
Posted by: carl copas | April 18, 2008 12:24 PM
Posted by: carl copas | April 18, 2008 12:24 PM
No - I do not believe in the garbage that the Nazi's promoted. But - Riefenstahl did truthfully tell you about the Nazi movement and what they believed. She did not color anything or misrepresent the Nazi doctrine. She told the story that they Nazi's believed to be true and did it in a classical manner. Moore doesn't.
I believe that Stein will be truthful in his content compaired to Moore. Stein has done more to change my mind on Health Care in America than Wallis - DBB or other liberals in the US at this time. Wallis and Co. promote a takeover of the health care system and having the gov't run it for all of us. (working with my mother and the SS system - if they do to health care what they have done to SS - I'm drinking the Kool-Aid)
Things can be improved - fixed without being taken over.
Blessings -
.
Posted by: Moderatelad | April 18, 2008 12:34 PM
So many of the far right do ascribe to Social Darwinism. It is what they seek to practice everyday. So many good Republicans and self-proclaimed Christians believe the writings of Ayn Rand were the greatest ever. Ayn Rand was the great ATHEIST, philosopher/novelist of the twentieth century. Her books are illustrative of Social Darwinism. I work in a law firm of wealthy Republicans who will tell you very quickly that some people are worth more than others. The sickest part of that is that many of them are Jewish.
I remember a very wise individual said something very simple and profound about evolution: "The Bible tells you that God did it. Evolution tells you how he did it."
People need to become followers of Christ instead of Christians and start worrying about the real problems of the world.
Posted by: Nancy Overholtzer | April 18, 2008 12:49 PM
"I believe that Stein will be truthful in his content compaired to Moore. "
So how did Moore lie?
Posted by: JamesMartin | April 18, 2008 1:10 PM
Posted by: JamesMartin | April 18, 2008 1:10 PM
So how did Moore lie?
Sojo did an article awhile ago about this and it was chatt out to the point I believe everyone was done with it. I have seen 911 and parts of SICKO. Riefenstahl is more entertaining and truthful than Moore. I look forward to seeing how Stein handles the topic. Most of the time he will present the info/facts and allow you to draw your own conclusions. Moore cannot.
Blessings -
.
Posted by: Moderatelad | April 18, 2008 1:52 PM
"So many good Republicans and self-proclaimed Christians believe the writings of Ayn Rand were the greatest ever. "
"Many" is a vague term. I have yet to encounter one yet. If you are claiming that our politics stem from Social Darwinism, then you are crediting governmental intervention as divine.
Libertarians more readily embrace Rand, but that does not resonate with your insinuation of hypocrisy.
"I work in a law firm of wealthy Republicans who will tell you very quickly that some people are worth more than others."
How do you know they are Republicans? Most lawyers are not.
"The sickest part of that is that many of them are Jewish."
I don't understand how their Jewishness impacts the sickness level.
"I remember a very wise individual said something very simple and profound about evolution: "The Bible tells you that God did it. Evolution tells you how he did it."
Except that the Bible also tells you how he did it, and evolution contradicts the Bible's account... Evolution also doesn't explain how God created something out of nothing to make the universe. Science has no explanation for that. Making something out of nothing is not explicable in scientific terms.
Posted by: kevin s. | April 18, 2008 2:17 PM
I await Becky's take on "A Plumm Summer".
Posted by: kevin s. | April 18, 2008 2:29 PM
I didn't see SICKO, but when my friends talked about it, I mentioned that cost is a huge factor under socialist medicine. (I am totally for revamping our healthcare system.) However, SICKO didn't paint the whole picture.
My sister lives in Denmark and few years ago when I was visiting, the young teenage girls in Denmark were fighting to keep their babies. Denmark's stand is to limit abortions as much as possible, but made abortions standard for teen pregnancies because frankly -- it's cheaper than adding a baby to welfare.
I also know a doctor from England who explained that there they only do mammograms every two years because it only saves about 3% more lives to do it every year. The expense of annual mammograms doesn't outweigh the risks for them.
While I'm not even sure I disagree with these policies, it is very different from what we are used to -- and hard decisions will still have to be made. Everyone does not get the exact health care they want -- or that those in America who can afford it can get -- but I still think they leave less people out than we do.
While I'm not willing to say that Moore lied in that documentary, it is one sided.
I did see 9/11 and that was one-sided too.
Posted by: frankie | April 18, 2008 3:05 PM
Kevin S.:
My neighbors are the rich Republicans you folks are arguing about. Except this is an overwhelmingly liberal state, so they are Democrats. Their houses and cars scream social Darwinism. I've been warned more than once about hanging out laundry on the porch of my apartment!
Karen Brown:
I respectfully disagree. In the animal world, the strong rule over the weak. While this doesn’t translate into intentional extermination, necessarily, it certainly leaves no place for weaklings or for compassion among the strong. Whether maladapted to resist disease, or to find food, or to endure periods of near starvation, the same mechanisms of natural selection must operate among higher primates if they operate at all. If it’s a bit of a jump from Darwin to Hitler, it’s no jump at all from Darwin to "let them starve while I practice global triage, passively or otherwise." Only a knowledge that the poor exist in God’s image gives a sure motivation for compassion. So I agree with the poster [Jedidiah Palosaari ]who agreed with me that the primary problem is theological. There is no compassion, and no mystery, in Darwinism, neo-Darwinism, or Dawkinism. Common grace can operate in any individual, but the source of that is God, not an ideology, however self consciously "scientific."
Posted by: Witness for Peace | April 18, 2008 3:09 PM
Actually, again, in Evolution, they are talking about SPECIES. Not 'animals as a whole'.
Nature, not animals, determine that the most fit (which is not necessarily the most strong) survives. And fit is determined by how well they fit within their environment.
Most think 'fit' means 'big, aggressive, strong, fast', etc. It varies tremendously from animal to animal.
A fast and aggressive sloth would be a dead sloth, since their diet simply doesn't support that level of activity.
A big and mean rabbit would be a dead rabbit, since they would face off with the fox rather than run.
And in the case of social species, they DO take care of each other, and a big, mean, strong, individualistic wolf' who won't take the assigned role in the pack will be thrown OUT of the pack. And that big, mean wolf won't find a mate, and will die.
Hardly the formula for species success.
Animals have shown they can cooperate, that they take care of their weaker members (what is weaker than their young, or the parents who are tied to caring for them?) It depends on species.
The scenario you laid out is very true.. if you're talking about spiders, or snakes, or bacteria.
Not all species fit into that category.
Posted by: Karen Brown | April 18, 2008 3:39 PM
I think the worst thing that Moore did was mock a man suffering the onset of Alzheimer's Disease. Sadly, that same spirit of mocking is what we find in Expelled. I'd rather see a spirit of love and grace.
Posted by: Jedidiah Palosaari | April 18, 2008 3:42 PM
Kevin, you stated, "Evolution also doesn't explain how God created something out of nothing to make the universe."
Of course it doesn't. Evolution can't explain it, and has never suggested it could. Frankly, as a biologist, I don't even care about the beginnings. Abiogenisis is part of the field of chemistry, not biology and evolution, and is for other people to look at. Sure, we've got a lot of good hypothesis on it and good experiments done, but they're done in a different field than mine.
Posted by: Jedidiah Palosaari | April 18, 2008 3:45 PM
It is revealing, in a way, that most opponents seem to automatically categorize 'fittest' as in 'Survival of' as some kind of mean, anti-social brute.
That isn't exactly all that successful even in the mundane world. Even brutal dictators have to at least put on the mask of charisma and caring, even if they don't actually follow through. (At least on the way up to power.)
And when you consider that 'fittest' also includes reproduction.. the richest, most able, most handsome man who also happens to be a socially inept jerk and therefore doesn't find anyone willing to bear his children, (mistresses typically don't, nor do gold digging arm candy), or assist directly in the ability of others to raise theirs (the way the support staff in a wolf pack aids the alpha breeding pair), he is a failure.
And in most social species, that means being able to 'play well with others'. Because no matter how big, how mean, how strong you are, ESPECIALLY humans, kick them out of all human company, cut them all from all human traffic and trade and goods not made by their own hands, and they don't last long.
Posted by: Karen Brown | April 18, 2008 3:46 PM
Oh, and Kevin S. If you think evolution should be dismissed for not providing where life originated, then I'm assuming you are also dismissing the Theory of Gravitation, since it doesn't even attempt to say where Gravity originated. Only how it works.
Same goes with a great many theories.
Posted by: Karen Brown | April 18, 2008 3:48 PM
Witness- you stated that in the animal world, the strong rule over the weak. Who told you that? Evolutionary Theory states that those who are more adapted reproduce more, but those adaptions most often do not relate to strength. Additionally, cooperation, such as the formation of the mitochondria within our cells, leads to greater protection as well- and I think that's something that Jesus came to teach us about more. Regardless of what our DNA says, we shouldn't let sin rule us. Those tendencies towards sin meant nothing when we were without knowledge of good and evil, but once we were able to differentiate between the two, we became morally culpable for our previous innocent actions. I feel no anger towards the Ichonemia Wasp laying it's eggs in a live caterpillar to digest them from the inside-out. I feel great moral outrage if a human attempts the same thing.
Posted by: Jedidiah Palosaari | April 18, 2008 3:48 PM
"Except that the Bible also tells you how he did it, and evolution contradicts the Bible's account... Evolution also doesn't explain how God created something out of nothing to make the universe. Science has no explanation for that. Making something out of nothing is not explicable in scientific terms."
Well to be fair the bible contradicts its own accounts. Your right about science not being able to explain how everything was created. Jesus explains that or John does that too talking about Jesus. But that doesn't mean that one should throw out science because it contradicts the bible. The bible contradicts itself in details, in story in origin... It's a complicated book full of myth, poetry, literal history, theophanies, fables, parables and a bunch of other stuff. To make it literal explanation of the universe misses the mark and turns the bible into something it's not. The bible is a book about God teaching mankind how to relate to him, in addition to a book that reveals the majesty of God and the depths of his love for mankind. I am fine with that. I don't need it to be an actual explanation of how the universe was formed. You do and I don't understand why?
p
Posted by: Payshun | April 18, 2008 4:11 PM
"Sojo did an article awhile ago about this and it was chatt out to the point I believe everyone was done with it." Moderatelad
That tells me precious little about how he lied. I guess I'm supposed to take your word for it. But that is kind of hard when you make statements like:
"Riefenstahl is more entertaining and truthful than Moore." Moderatelad
Somehow I find that statement lacking in credibility when Reifenstahl denied until the day she died that she knew anything about the holocaust while it happening. Somehow that stretches credibility. Also, when the premise of an entire documentary is premised on a lie, I find it hard to say that she was in any way truthful. Maybe you can reconcile that in your mind. I cannot reconcile it my mind.
Posted by: JamesMartin | April 18, 2008 5:29 PM
P --
I can't speak for Kevin, but I'm one of those who takes the Bible literally. Since you said you don't understand why, I will say because of how I understand God to be. I believe He gave us the Bible as His Word so we can get to know Him. In my perception, that doesn't make the Bible something it's not, it makes the Bible what it is.
I fully appreciate that you don't take my same view. While I'm sure it means you percieve God a little differently because, I'm sure there's more we agree on about His character than not.
I believe in science. I believe evolution happens within the species. I don't believe every theory, but I don't know of anyone who does. I know we don't know all that much about most of science, but I love listening to the theories -- they generally have a lot of good information in them. Another huge portion of it is just over my head.
I wonder all the time about the assumptions science makes. I always wonder what people 100 years from now will say we had primitive notions about or limited understanding.
Posted by: Connie | April 18, 2008 6:19 PM
Connie,
You're right. I believe in Jesus, his death, resurection and the Holy Spirit. I believe those are real historical events. But I don't take much of Genesis seriously or part of the old testament literally. I have a more Hebrew approach to the Genesis stories. The majority of Jews see Genesis as an origin story designed to reveal God's character instead of literal list of how God created the world.
So I really don't understand why there needs to be an actual literal interpretation of both Genesis creation stories. Thanks for explaining that. What does believing in the literal approach to Genesis reveal about God?
p
Posted by: Payshun | April 18, 2008 7:37 PM
Posted by: JamesMartin | April 18, 2008 5:29 PM
I never said that Riefenstahl was truthful. I said that she told the truth according to what the Nazi's were saying. Moore lacks entertainment quality. Moore writes and edits so that he tells you what and how to think. I believe Stein with lay out the facts as he has researched them and allow the viewer to come to their own conclusion.
Blessings -
.
Posted by: Moderatelad | April 19, 2008 1:28 AM
Connie-
You were stating that you don't know anyone who believes every theory. I would submit you don't know any scientists. All scientists believe every theory. By defintion. A theory is an overarching explanation of reality that is so filled with evidence and facts to support it that it has become the scientific explanation of our times.
Now, if you were speaking of the popular use of the word theory, as in "geuss", well, then, you have a point. But you are also rather radically mixing your terms, for no scientist would use that definition of a theory in regards to something scientific, like evolution.
Posted by: Jedidiah Palosaari | April 19, 2008 2:33 AM
"I said that she told the truth according to what the Nazi's were saying." Moderatelad
Your distinction is meaningless. The same could be said about Moore. He "told the truth according to what Progressives were saying." So what? Was what he (Moore) or she (Riefenstahl) telling the truth? That is the way it should be analyzed. The fact that you accord more deference to a Nazi than to Michael Moore speaks volumes of your analytical paradigm and I would dare say does not cast it in a favorable light.
"Blessings"
Posted by: JamesMartin | April 19, 2008 9:00 AM
Posted by: JamesMartin | April 19, 2008 9:00 AM
I think it is a good compairson - you may not agree and that is fine. I think that Riefenstahl was more of an 'artist' than Moore. Her camera work - editing and music brought you into the production/story. Moore's film was about 40% CNN footage, hard on slapping you with the story/agenda but little when it comes to artistry that would bring the viewer to contemplate the message. I believe that Stein will present the facts/info and allow the viewer to draw their own conclusions and expectation. Moore just told you what to think and who the enemy is in the world.
(his music sucked too)
It will be interesting to see how successful Stein is in the theater as to Moore. Personally - I believe that Moore with 911 and SICKO will have done better in the theater but Stein will do better in video sales. I can't wait to show EXPELLED to my video club at school - we are scheduled to view 911 in May sometime. I don't talk about the message to the students unless they bring the subject up. But I will have fun pointing out the flaws and shortcomings of the production and style.
Blessings -
.
Posted by: Moderatelad | April 19, 2008 11:31 AM
Witness
"It seems that if a theory is truly universal, it ought to apply to humans in the social sphere."
Scientists don't claim that evolution is a universal theory applicable to all other disciplines. Those who have tried to make that leap have tried to use the idea of "survival of the fittest" to human social sphere with horrible results, including the holocaust. This does not say that the science is evil--it says that humans are evil. Worse, these actions stem from a fundamental misunderstanding of evolution. It is not "survival of the fittest". It is "survival of the most well-adapted."
To say that evolution is evil because it has been misapplied is like saying that nuclear physics is evil because of the bombing of Hiroshima. Yes, our understanding of nuclear physics led to the development of the most devastating weapon known to humankind. But it has also led to incredible advancements in energy and medical technology. In the same way, evolution has been misapplied to cause unspeakable horrors, but it has also been applied to benefit mankind in areas of food production and medicine--advancements that greatly enhance our lives.
And one last thing--the misapplication of evolution as a motivation for enacting unspeakable horrors throws into stark contrast the disconnect between the Kingdom of This World and the Kingdom of God. The Kingdom of This World does not value the poor and infirm. In contrast, the Kingdom of God elevates such people above the rich and powerful.
To say that evolution allowed such horrors of the holocaust ignores thousands of years of human history, as humans have been living by those rules since the beginning. In short, the Nazis didn't need Darwin to justify their actions. They just needed their human nature and their devaluing of the Kingdom of God, something humans have been doing forever. There is nothing new under the sun.
Posted by: squeaky | April 19, 2008 1:29 PM
Karen--
"The actual proposal of ID is ONLY that some 'intelligence', unnamed and with no qualities listed other than taking this role, planned how the universe would develop and the form it would take. "
You have hit upon a great irony about Intelligent Design and those creationists who are pushing so hard for it. Those scientists who promote ID, such as Michael Behe, believe fully in evolution and in an old earth. Creationists who jump on the ID band wagon don't seem to make that connection.
Posted by: squeaky | April 19, 2008 1:34 PM
Payshun
Payshun
"But that doesn't mean that one should throw out science because it contradicts the bible. "
I actually don't think science contradicts the Bible. I'll spare the huge post explaining those views, but suffice it to say I think God's creation informs His Word and that we don't clearly understand the Bible.
Hugh Ross has an interesting take on it, as does Gerard Schroeder. Also check out the Framework Hypothesis" as a literary interpretation of Genesis.
Posted by: squeaky | April 19, 2008 1:40 PM
Squeaky,
It all depends on how you read the bible. If the opening chapter and a half are a literal checklist of how everything was created then yes it contradicts science and literally makes no sense. For example Genesis says the stars were created after the Earth. That can't work because scientifically we know that stars were formed first.
That's just one example.
p
Posted by: Payshun | April 19, 2008 5:08 PM
The other thing is that the first chapter and a half of Genesis is Hebrew Poetry. It was never designed to do what creationists say it does.
p
Posted by: Payshun | April 19, 2008 5:13 PM
P--
I was really hoping you would just check out my suggestions, because I can go on and on about this, and it doesn't take much to get me going. But, you said the magic words, and off I go!
Hugh Ross' answer to your first point is that the Bible was written from a specific point of view--that being what a person would have seen had they been on the surface of the earth as it was created.
Scientifically, we understand that the Earth formed from accretion of material while the solar system was forming. In the early stages of formation, the Earth was undergoing far more volcanism than it is today from the rapid release of heat right after a major collision occurred with a large, Mars-sized object.
Also, the atmosphere was not fully formed, meaning that Earth was more vulnerable to meteorite impact. Both activities throw huge amounts of debris into the atmosphere, clouding out the sun. What a person would see from this vantage point is light passing through this haze of debris, but no sun, moon, or stars. Just as we see on cloudy days.
So, in the first ages of creation, the debris had not cleared. The 4th age signals that the atmosphere was clear enough so a person on earth could see them.
The word for "day" can be interpreted as literal 24 hour period, but it can also be interpreted as an age of unspecified length. Taking the latter interpretation matches best with what scientists actually observe about the ages of rocks on Earth. Here is an example of His creation informing His word. It takes far more mental gymnastics to defend the former interpretation, although creationists try very hard to do so. I'm not sure why they are so threatened by the latter interpretation, although I have my ideas (don't ask, I don't want to be writing all night! =))
There was a point when I was really studying Genesis and trying to understand it, and although I attribute these arguments to Hugh Ross, I also had formulated them independently of him before I read his books. I'm actually surprised more scientists haven't made these connections.
The Framework Hypothesis is one literary interpretation of the Hebrew Poetry you speak of. Check it out--it's pretty interesting. It links days 1 and 4, 2 and 5, 3 and 6 as grouping similar aspects of creation. 1 and 4=light, sun, moon, stars; 2 and 5 = oceans and ocean creatures; 3 and 6 = land and land creatures.
We keep trying to take this western interpretation of Hebrew literature as being in perfect temporal order (this gets us into trouble in other parts of the Bible as well), whereas Hebrews didn't always write like that. Sometimes they grouped events thematically, rather than by what happened first and when. Certainly, the OT itself is not organized temporally.
In either case, the order of creation is in complete agreement with the order of the formation of Earth and life on Earth as science knows it. In either case, both these interpretations are in complete agreement that God created the Heavens and the Earth.
Posted by: squeaky | April 19, 2008 5:42 PM
The Michael Moore comparison is inept. MM has the talent to get people to watch his movies. All the fuming jealousy that a fat lefty is funnier, more successful, more thought provoking and more entertaining than than any of his critics is, however , a great pleasure to watch. I will hold out for the next Michael Moore Movie.
I also thought Wag the Dog was sharp, witty , and very entertaining, though not in the same artistic class as Dr. Strangelove. Wag the Dog was written by Larry Beinhart who along with the novel The Librarian, also has written several excellent political essays and a political Book call Fog Facts. I encourage anyone to read his political essays.
By the way I too would love to see a collaborative documentary by good scientists etc. which digs deeply into the flaws and question marks of evolutionary theory, but I won't spend a penny on a movie that blames Fascism on Darwin.
Anyway, if humans didn't evolve, we better start soon.
Posted by: jonabark | April 20, 2008 12:52 AM
OK -
I saw the movie.
If Becky was insulted by this one - she must have really had a kink in her colon after watching F-911.
Stein does not tell you what to think or believe like MM. Stein presents the issue, facts, beliefs and convictions of many people on both sides of the issue. Stein gave about 12 minutes to Mr Dawkins, a person that does not believe in God. (big G or little g) Mr. Dawkins is a total evolutionist and very articulate. I was impressed by what he said and he defended his argument very well. No one was asking that 'creationism' be taught in the classroom. In fact there are Christians, Jews, Muslims, Atheists that say ID is worthy of open and honest discussion in education and science today. The establishment will not allow it.
It has been interesting to read on this site how some what been to horrorfied at people being released from employment from a 'private' institution of education for presenting or promoting issues that they know that the faith/denomination that supports the college/university believes to be worng or at odds with the faith. But these are public institutions that get tax dollors from all of us and therefore should be more open to intellectual discussion - but they are not.
One fact put forth from a person that was not a 'Christian'. When asked the question...if what Darwin and the people at that time knew about the single cell was like a mud hut. What would it be today with what we know about the single cell. The answer - a galaxcy. So if the knowledge of one thing has changed so much over the years - shouldn't the theory also be open to discussion and change?
I walked out of the movie with more info about evolution and ID than when I walked in. I had questions answered and convictions reinforced. I also had more questions that I need to deal with because of what I heard.
F-911 - all I learned is that he believes that Bush lied people died and the world would be better if conservatives would just drink the Kool-Aid and disappear from the face of the earth. MM communicated that if we would all just become collective, non-thinking individuals and let the Gov't dictate how our lives would be - the world would be a better place. F-451 was more about not letting gov't have the control because we would loose our individualism. F-911 and SICKO are just the opposite - gov't is the savior.
Blessings -
.
Posted by: Moderatelad | April 20, 2008 2:41 PM
"Abiogenisis is part of the field of chemistry, not biology and evolution, and is for other people to look at."
Abiogenesis is similarly unable to explain how something came of nothing. Physicists have proffered explanations as well. My point stands.
"Oh, and Kevin S. If you think evolution should be dismissed for not providing where life originated,"
I didn't say it could be dismissed on those grounds. Someone claimed that it explained how creation happened. I disagree that this is the case.
"Well to be fair the bible contradicts its own accounts."
They are differing accounts, not contradicting accounts.
Posted by: kevin s. | April 20, 2008 9:14 PM
"The Michael Moore comparison is inept. MM has the talent to get people to watch his movies. "
I could be unfair and point out the Stein's movie made more in one week than "Roger & Me" did in it's first six. But Moore's first movie was genuinely good, and exhibits the talent you describe.
That Stein's first film parrots Moore's latter works (or seems to, I haven't seen "Expelled") is disappointing.
To the rest, I think it absurd that an almighty God would give us a Bible that is simply fiction. I am also disappointed the Rick, conservative theologian as he claims to be, doesn't weigh in here.
Posted by: kevin s. | April 20, 2008 9:26 PM
Squeaky said:
We keep trying to take this western interpretation of Hebrew literature as being in perfect temporal order (this gets us into trouble in other parts of the Bible as well), whereas Hebrews didn't always write like that. Sometimes they grouped events thematically, rather than by what happened first and when. Certainly, the OT itself is not organized temporally.
Me:
I don't read Genesis or the old testament in a western way. I don't read the New in a western format either. I stopped doing that nearly 12 years ago.
I agree with your point. But many evangelicals read Genesis as a laundry list of how God created the universe. That's my biggest critique. Many evangelicals superimpose their world view on a book that is far more complex than they think.
It should not be read like that. Many Hebrew folks understand the importance of myth and epic poetry (think Gilgamesh) and it's ability to portray deeper truths than can not be conveyed by direct speech. They used myth as poetry to show how El aka Yaweh was different than any other god.
It shows that God is good, magnicifent and everything Mingo said.The gift is that there are two different stories and each one has more to add about God's magnificence.
p
Posted by: Payshun | April 20, 2008 11:18 PM
"The Michael Moore comparison is inept. MM has the talent to get people to watch his movies. "
More could do a remake of Birth of a Nation and people that like MM would go see it. MM is talented - I don't think that anyone will disagree with that. But his style is flawed in my opinion. If you look at 'how' they, Stein and MM handle the topic of their documentaries. MM told you what he wanted you to know and how you should think. MM gave very little time on screen to people that were on the other side of the topic from him. He 'quoted' then and sumerized them - the MM way. Stein gave as far as I can remember about 10 to 12 minutes to Dawkins. (something MM would never have done) Allowed Dawkins to fully express his views openly. Like I said earlier - I walked out of the theater after seeing EXPELLED with some questions answered - some convictions reinforced - and other questions that I need to find the answers.
MM is Riefenstahl
Blessings -
.
Posted by: Moderatelad | April 21, 2008 8:16 AM
"I don't read Genesis or the old testament in a western way. I don't read the New in a western format either. I stopped doing that nearly 12 years ago. "
By "we" I meant the collective Western, Christian, "we" in general--not you in particular. I know you don't do that.
"Many evangelicals superimpose their world view on a book that is far more complex than they think. "
Exactly. what I find interesting is that in response to the poetic interpretation of Genesis, some creationists have countered that it makes the story too complex for a child to understand. Therefore, because it must be a simple account, the complex understanding of it can't possibly be correct. That argument might make sense if the entire Bible had been written specifically for Kindergartners...why should one part of it be simple while the rest of it is so complex?
Hmm--I guess my belief that Mick and Mingo are the same person is wrong?
Posted by: squeaky | April 21, 2008 9:58 AM
I would note that Stein's intention is not to make a case for ID, but rather to illuminate academias absurd aversion to ideas that do not line up with the status quo. Even Garrison concedes that such aversion exists.
Posted by: kevin s. | April 21, 2008 10:13 AM
P --
What's it say about God? That He can do that, that He was before creation, that He designed it. Even that He knows the beginning. That He's omnipotent is a big deal to us literalists. While I admit that it's nearly impossible for us to not interpret Scripture from our own frame of reference, I do my best to let Scripture form my frame of reference. I don't particularly care for many of the 'rules' that come out of Scripture, but since I believe it to be true, it forces me to live with it.
Many passages in the New Testament point to the first chapter of Genesis and take it literally, so that's another reason. For what it's worth, I personally believe God also designed the decay and evolution that we see today -- so even though the stars may appear older than the earth, that doesn't mean they weren't created a day later. (So that He created some young stars and some older ones and everything in between.)But I will spare you the apologetics -- I am not trying to win anyone over -- I'm just letting you in on the thought process.
I don't believe that eventually, all things will point to my understanding being the correct one. I look forward to the day when learning the exact reality of how it actually happened blows my mind. My guess is that we'll all be plesantly surprised.
I appreciate your openness.
Jedidiah--
While it has been a while since I've had dinner with a scientist, the most recent was a geologist. He was older and discussed how he remembered how everyone laughed at the theory that a meteor did in the dinasours. (I live in Colorado, so we get a lot of geologist out this way.) Now -- if he was using the term incorrectly, I beg your pardon. Perhaps he was talking down to me. But within the greater theories of science, like evolution, there are a bunch of smaller ones -- and that is where you get a lot of fun scholarly disagreement.
Posted by: Connie | April 21, 2008 11:11 AM
"The only difference between Riefenstahl and Moore is that Riefenstahl told the truth."
Immoderatelad
"Riefenstahl is more entertaining and truthful than Moore."
Immoderatelad
"MM is Riefenstahl"
Immoderatelad
"I can't wait to show EXPELLED to my video club at school - we are scheduled to view 911 in May sometime."
Immoderatelad
Moddieladdie in front of a class? Terrifying, AB-SO-LUTE-LY terrifying. It may take years to undo the damage. Lord help us all.
Posted by: lloyd crump | April 21, 2008 12:06 PM
lloyd crump: "Moddieladdie in front of a class? Terrifying, AB-SO-LUTE-LY terrifying. It may take years to undo the damage. Lord help us all."
Uncalled for, Lloyd. I disagree with almost every thing Moderatelad posts on here. But at least he's willing to engage in exchange of views. The only thing you ever do is post childish insults.
kevin s: "I would note that Stein's intention is not to make a case for ID, but rather to illuminate academia[']s absurd aversion to ideas that do not line up with the status quo. Even Garrison concedes that such aversion exists."
Pomona being the one exception I suppose?
Part of the problem with the discussion is that young earth creationists get conflated with IDers, some of whom believe in a very old universe and earth. When I read Dawkins and Dennett, they often refer to the two schools of thought interchangeably. Moreover, within the ID camp, there are differing views on precisely how much divine design and intervention has taken place.
payshun: "But that doesn't mean that one should throw out science because it contradicts the bible. The bible contradicts itself in details, in story in origin... It's a complicated book full of myth, poetry, literal history, theophanies, fables, parables and a bunch of other stuff. To make it literal explanation of the universe misses the mark and turns the bible into something it's not."
Well said. I don't see why this threatens some people's faith but clearly it does.
Posted by: carl copas | April 21, 2008 12:18 PM
I just had to address the whole 'gave time to the other side'.
No, he didn't. Not 'explain their positions fully'.
First, he lied to them. He told them that the interviews were for a film called 'Crossroads', which was supposed to be a scholarly work on all sides of the issue. This was despite the fact that 'Expelledthemovie.com' site was already bought, and had been for a while, by the film makers.
Secondly, the interviews were HIGHLY edited. In one case alone, there were 21 obvious clips and cuts. (If you're watching, you can tell where it happens.) And, of course, in ways to attempt to ridicule or change the answers of those interviewed.
In the most obvious example, with Dawkins... It is made to appear that Dawkins personally supports a proposition that life on Earth originated when aliens seeded the original materials with their ship.
This NOT the case. The important parts missing (so, no, hardly 'fully') from the interview are both the actual question being posed, and the 'rest' of the answer.
Quoting Dawkins on this, the way the interview actually went was...
Toward the end of his interview with me, Stein asked whether I could think of any circumstances whatsoever under which intelligent design might have occurred. It's the kind of challenge I relish, and I set myself the task of imagining the most plausible scenario I could...
Like Michael Ruse (as I surmise) I still hadn't rumbled Stein, and I was charitable enough to think he was an honestly stupid man, sincerely seeking enlightenment from a scientist.
I patiently explained to him that life could conceivably have been seeded on Earth by an alien intelligence from another planet (Francis Crick and Leslie Orgel suggested something similar — semi tongue-in-cheek). The conclusion I was heading towards was that, even in the highly unlikely event that some such 'Directed Panspermia' was responsible for designing life on this planet, the alien beings would THEMSELVES have to have evolved, if not by Darwinian selection, by some equivalent 'crane' (to quote Dan Dennett). My point here was that design can never be an ULTIMATE explanation for organized complexity...
Well, you will have guessed how Mathis/Stein handled this. I won't get the exact words right (we were forbidden to bring in recording devices on pain of a $250,000 fine, chillingly announced by some unnamed Gauleiter before the film began), but Stein said something like this. "What? Richard Dawkins BELIEVES IN INTELLIGENT DESIGN." "Richard Dawkins BELIEVES IN ALIENS FROM OUTER SPACE." I can't remember whether this was the moment in the film where we were regaled with another Lord Privy Seal cut to an old science fiction movie with some kind of android figure – that may have been used in the service of trying to ridicule Francis Crick (again, dutiful titters from the partisan audience).
http://richarddawkins.net/article,2394,Lying-for-Jesus,Richard-Dawkins
Now, to use an example on who that might be their full views in the way that editing a preacher's comments that go..
Interviewer- Do you know of any Bible verses that deal with those who do not believe in God?
Preacher- There is one that states, 'A fool says in his heart 'There is no God'.
And it being edited to say..
Interviewer- Do you.. believe in God?
Preacher- 'There is no God'.
Now, would this truly represent his FULL VIEWS?
Posted by: Karen Brown | April 21, 2008 12:25 PM
"The only thing you ever do is post childish insults."
carl croakus
And the only thing you ever do is post tendentious, pedantic, and pretentious pronouncements that are of no interest to anyone.
You need the same advice I gave to Wolverine: refrain from posting for awhile. Read and learn from mature, grown-up minds on here.
Posted by: lloyd crump | April 21, 2008 12:35 PM
Ms. Garrison:
I think the most important part of the movie is what it says about academic freedom. Even those whom you say are opposed to ID are fairly quoted in the movie as favoring debate, not censorship and punitive dismissals.
Karen Brown:
I think we should obey God’s laws out of gratitude and creaturely humility, not because we think we, or the species, will advance if we are "nice." I wonder if you secretly believe in a sort of "health and wealth gospel of behavior" that says "Nice guys finish first." Contrast that naïve idea with this, from a WSJ article entitled "Why jerks get ahead":
_____________
Jerks are successful and prevalent in the office world, since they "… are just normal people carried to extremes" says Gloria Elliott, an organizational development consultant in Roanoke, VA, who has given over 100 Jerk Training Seminars. Avoid "jerks" she advises, since "Nice is not contagious."
__________
Furthermore, the statistics on spouse abuse and child abuse are tragic testimony that jerks are breeding, and profusely.
Posted by: Witness for Peace | April 21, 2008 1:02 PM
Posted by: lloyd crump | April 21, 2008 12:06 PM
Moddieladdie in front of a class? Terrifying, AB-SO-LUTE-LY terrifying.
Me in front of a class - even I believe that it is terrifying. (LOL) It is a video club that I am starting at a local high school. I could not get any money to start it so I am pouring my own resources into it at this time. I have friends int he industry that are willing to come in and in open forum talk about the process of film making and video editing as well as script writing.
It may take years to undo the damage. Lord help us all.
Damage - not much. My motto to the students has always been 'Don't let your schooling get in the way of your education'.
By the way - it's Moderatelad - period.
Blessings-
.
Posted by: moderatelad | April 21, 2008 1:45 PM
Posted by: carl copas | April 21, 2008 12:18 PM
'...much divine design and intervention...'
The word 'devine' should not be used with ID. There is no talk about a 'God' big G or little g. There are atheists that are ID people. Young vs Old universe - not sure that makes a difference.
'...bible contradicts itself in details...'
I don't believe that the Bible contradicts itself. There are different perspectives and points of view but not contradictions.
I don't see why this threatens some people's faith but clearly it does.
I have never been threatened. I have been PO's when they will make comments and then not allow the Christian community to offer a rebuttle - but it happens - more on. I have found where the Bible has supported science - but that will never get press because if they would say 'oh look - here the Bible does support science'. Then what would they do when asked about other events or issues between the Bible and Science - they will not open that Pandora's Box.
Blessings -
.
Posted by: Moderatelad | April 21, 2008 1:59 PM
Posted by: Karen Brown | April 21, 2008 12:25 PM
'...film called 'Crossroads', which was supposed...'
There are many times that the script or project has one name and the final product has a totally different name. This happens a lot.
And it being edited to say..
Are you talking about MM and F-911?
Editing Dawkins - yes there were some edits. But Stein allow Dawkins to talk and the viewer knew that Dawkins did not believe that ID was viable theory. Dawkins looked very scholarly and articulate. MM edits to make people that disagree with him look like bafoons at best. No Stein is not going to let Dawkins talk for an hour - this is Steins work and he only has 90 mins to tell the story. No conservative was given as much time in MM productions as Stein gave to Dawkins alone.
'...recording devices on pain of a $250,000 fine, chillingly announced by some unnamed Gauleiter before...'
It is called copyright law. You want a quote from Stein - ask for an interview. You want footage to use for your own personal or professonal use. Purchase it like everyone else does. This is their work and you have no right to take it for your use without permission. Try taking a recording device into the next Harrison Ford premiere. If you get caught, let me know where to send a box of cookies to for you to share.
All the footage that you made fun of in Steins movie - he more than likely purchased it for somewhere around $300.00 to $1200.00 a second. You are not only stealing from Mr Stein but from all the crew that is looking forward residuales from this movie. They have families and house payments too.
Blessings -
.
Posted by: Moderate.ad | April 21, 2008 2:21 PM
Posted by: lloyd crump | April 21, 2008 12:06 PM
Why don't you tell me where you believe that I an in error with the MM / Riefenstahl comparison rather than mocking me for working with students that are interested in film and video. There isn't a class in school that addresses film and video and I am willing to put my own money into this venture so that they can learn from professional and people that have worked in the industry.
Just a thought
Blessings -
.
Posted by: Moderatelad | April 21, 2008 2:26 PM
Posted by: lloyd crump | April 21, 2008 12:35 PM
You need the same advice I gave to Wolverine: refrain from posting for awhile. Read and learn from mature, grown-up minds on here.
Right now I am not sure that you would be on the 'mature' list with how you have handled people on this site. You seem to be king of the one liners - sarcassim is easy, scholarly discord is hard.
Blessings -
.
Posted by: Moderatelad | April 21, 2008 2:31 PM
lloyd crump: "And the only thing you ever do is post tendentious, pedantic, and pretentious pronouncements that are of no interest to anyone."
Well, well, I see someone has acquired a thesaurus. "Tendentious and pedantic"--guilty as charged, at least some of the time. An occupational hazard, I think, for those of us who make a living by teaching. And for many of us, it gets worse as we age: the bloviating grows in quantity and declines in quality.
lloyd crump: "You need the same advice I gave to Wolverine: refrain from posting for awhile. Read and learn from mature, grown-up minds on here."
Wolverine is an attorney with one of the sharpest minds on this blog. (Too bad he's so darned conservative!) And I'm a middle-aged college professor(hence stems the "pretentious," no doubt) in American history.
But you're right about one thing, Lloyd: as someone who is old in years but young in Christ, I've learned a lot from both the articles posted on Sojo and the Comments section.
And now Johnny Storm, er Lloyd, no doubt you'll flame on.
Posted by: carl copas | April 21, 2008 2:57 PM
"There are many times that the script or project has one name and the final product has a totally different name. This happens a lot."
As it clearly noted, the domain name of 'expelledthemovie' had already been purchased. If Crossroads ever had been a working title, that point had already passed by the time of the interview.
"Are you talking about MM and F-911?
Editing Dawkins - yes there were some edits. But Stein allow Dawkins to talk and the viewer knew that Dawkins did not believe that ID was viable theory. Dawkins looked very scholarly and articulate. MM edits to make people that disagree with him look like bafoons at best. No Stein is not going to let Dawkins talk for an hour - this is Steins work and he only has 90 mins to tell the story. No conservative was given as much time in MM productions as Stein gave to Dawkins alone."
First, who the heck cares about Michael Moore. Just like conversations about ID inevitably come back to 'Evolution is bad' (as if even if Evolution WERE proved to be bad, this would prove ID were valid), conversation about THIS MOVIE seems to inevitably come back to Michael Moore with you. Given your opinion OF Michael Moore, if the tactics used in this movie are comparable enough to be brought up so often, this reflects very badly on.. this movie. Secondly, we aren't talking about removing 'filler'. We are talking about removing (a word you should be very familiar with), 'context'. Indeed, and keeping the statement by Stein that absolutely contradicts that context.
They removed the QUESTION that was asked, and they removed the sections that note that A. This was NOT his view of how it happened and B. That even if it had happened that way, it ultimately does not support ID.
And ADDS Stein's gleeful proclamation that Dawkins supports ID, and cuts to cheesy sci fi movies.
I think, given the choice between keeping in important information, and filling that space with scenes from, say, 'Mars Needs Women', I'd keep the information. But that's just me.
Does Dawkins 'look scholarly'? Well, barring making him foam at the mouth, be hard to make him look otherwise. But the intent is precisely to 'make him look like a bafoon(sic)' by directly declaring (not even intimating) that the hypothetical he discusses is his actual hypothesis about the development of life on Earth.
"It is called copyright law. You want a quote from Stein - ask for an interview. You want footage to use for your own personal or professonal use. Purchase it like everyone else does. This is their work and you have no right to take it for your use without permission. Try taking a recording device into the next Harrison Ford premiere. If you get caught, let me know where to send a box of cookies to for you to share."
He was noting why he couldn't quote exactly what was in the interview.
"All the footage that you made fun of in Steins movie - he more than likely purchased it for somewhere around $300.00 to $1200.00 a second. You are not only stealing from Mr Stein but from all the crew that is looking forward residuales from this movie. They have families and house payments too."
Who is stealing from whom? There was no footage shown, and the quotes are from a review by Dawkins of the movie. As there is no footage, I have no idea what you are talking about.
Posted by: Karen Brown | April 21, 2008 3:09 PM
Posted by: Karen Brown | April 21, 2008 3:09 PM
'...name of 'expelledthemovie' had already been purchased.'
But the project may have been started years ago - so the name change just happends. We purchased several address for our movies just to reserve them if we decided to use them.
The type of editing you are talking about I did not see in this film. You have to do some visual gymnastics to make the cuts look seamless and Stein tended to keep the camera on Dawkins a lot of the time. Stein was not trying to say Evolution bad - ID good. He was trying to show why it is almost impossible for scholarly discussion in academia on the two topics. There are flaws and short comings with both theories and they are 'theories'. But when one has the upper hand - they will slap down the otherside inorder to maintain dominance.
Blessings -
.
Posted by: Moderatelad | April 21, 2008 3:36 PM
Posted by: Karen Brown | April 21, 2008 3:09 PM
'...on pain of a $250,000 fine, chillingly announced by some unnamed...'
I read this as you when to a screening of the movie and were refused enterence with a recording device. If that was the case - I would not allow you into one of my screenings with a recording device.
If I am wrong - I'm sorry.
Blessings -
.
Posted by: Moderatelad | April 21, 2008 3:42 PM
"The word 'devine' should not be used with ID. There is no talk about a 'God' big G or little g. There are atheists that are ID people. Young vs Old universe - not sure that makes a difference."
I know that the ID people try to avoid talking about "god" or "God." That's how they claim to be genuine science. But the fact is that if you postulate "intelligent" design you simply can't get around a super-natural being who did the designing. It's inherent in the label "intelligent design."
"There are atheists that are ID people."
Who? I'd like to read what they have to say.
Posted by: carl copas | April 21, 2008 3:58 PM
Carl Copas -
This whole thread is an illustration of why I've been spending less and less time on this blog lately. Trust me, though - one middle aged college professor to another - that your contributions are one of the things that keep me reading. I'll try to stick with it if you do.
Posted by: Another nonymous | April 21, 2008 4:12 PM
Posted by: carl copas | April 21, 2008 3:58 PM
"There are atheists that are ID people."
Who? I'd like to read what they have to say.
I will have to see if I can find their names. I believe that they are referenced in the Stein movie. ID is not limited to Christians - they are Jewish, Islamic, Atheists, etc.
'...genuine science...'
I as a believer do not put the two together because if I am going to talk about Creation - their is a God. He spoke it into exsistance. He brought forth... - He caused the... - He just made the whole fricken thing. ID does not reference a 'creator' but a 'designer'. Someone that took some stuff and made it into something. There was a mental process and might I say they did not get the 'design' correct the first time.
To me it is the theory of evolution and maybe it did start on a crystal. (I want to laugh but this is discussion and therefore we will be respectful...) Just like it is the theory of ID.
Blessings -
.
Posted by: Moderatelad | April 21, 2008 4:22 PM
Posted by: Another nonymous | April 21, 2008 4:12 PM
DITTO - Carl is great reading and I enjoy thinking about what he has to say. You too for that matter. I am getting to middle age but am far from a college prof.
Blessings -
.
Posted by: Moderatelad | April 21, 2008 4:25 PM
Well gee, thanks, Moderatelad. Middle age catches up with all of us, but it's really not as bad as it sounds. In fact, they used to consider it the prime of life. Hope you find it that way. :-)
Posted by: Another nonymous | April 21, 2008 4:39 PM
*shucks*
In all seriousness, thanks to Another nonymous and Moderatelad for the compliments.
And now, back to grading (badly-written) papers.
Posted by: carl copas | April 21, 2008 4:47 PM
Carl -
Amazing! You managed to hit on the other main reason I spend time posting here.
Posted by: Another nonymous | April 21, 2008 4:51 PM
Another nonymous, if you ever want to chat in a different kind of setting, you can reach me at bhikku_bum@yahoo.com.
Posted by: carl copas | April 21, 2008 4:55 PM
"But the project may have been started years ago - so the name change just happends. We purchased several address for our movies just to reserve them if we decided to use them."
He knew the date of the interview, and the date the website was bought. And we aren't talking years.
Considering some of the 'expelled' had it done in 2007, we aren't talking about this move taking years to make
"The type of editing you are talking about I did not see in this film. You have to do some visual gymnastics to make the cuts look seamless and Stein tended to keep the camera on Dawkins a lot of the time."
Given the cuts were at the very beginning, and the very end, no, it wouldn't be difficult at all. They cut the question being asked, and the END of the answer. That's not hard to do at all.
"Stein was not trying to say Evolution bad - ID good. He was trying to show why it is almost impossible for scholarly discussion in academia on the two topics. There are flaws and short comings with both theories and they are 'theories'. But when one has the upper hand - they will slap down the otherside inorder to maintain dominance."
You do know what 'theory' means in scientific circles, right? I would guess the 'quotes' would mean you are using the popular version of 'wild @ss guess', rather than the process of collection of data, testing with studies and experimentation, peer review and publication in scholarly journals.
NONE of which ID has gone through.
And no, they don't 'slap each other down'. Indeed, the experimental process is exactly opposite. The point is to try to prove a hypothesis wrong. Then, if it survives the process, it is handed to your competitors, who then do the exact same thing to see if they get the same results, including anything you might've missed, again, in the effort to prove it WRONG. And if at any time that succeeds, the hypothesis has to be dropped, changed or adapted to the new information.. then goes through the whole thing again.
.
'...on pain of a $250,000 fine, chillingly announced by some unnamed...'
I read this as you when to a screening of the movie and were refused enterence with a recording device. If that was the case - I would not allow you into one of my screenings with a recording device.
If I am wrong - I'm sorry.
Blessings -
.
Had nothing to do with that. He was talking about his INTERVIEW. And why his INTERVIEW was different from what was seen in the movie. Why would he talk about not being allowed to bring a device into the movie when his point was verifying what was NOT seen in it?
He was talking about not being able to record an interview that HE was participating in.
Posted by: Karen Brown | April 21, 2008 5:03 PM
Mick:
This statement much has to do with the reason of Mr. Stein's film . Mr Stein is a Jew .
Me:
and hardly a rabbi. Talk to them. See what the majority of Hebrew rabbi say on the subject of it.
Mick also said:
Where you have gone off track in your imposing the thoughts of Evangelicals , is by the account of Genesis . What has given many Evangelicals their world view is FROM reading Genesis . In fact western Civilization .
Much of the left , even mainstream Religion has fallen unfortunately much to the Eastern Philospies , Mysticism , etc and of course the ORIGINAL SIN , the belief tht the road to God is in their hands , not In God's hands as Genesis teaches
Me:
Original sin's real sin was the lie that you can be god. It was not that there were many roads to God. The truth is that God listens to the prayers of people that are neither Muslim, Jews, or Christians. He always has and he always will.
Mysticism is not a bad thing. When used correctly it's actually wonderful.
Connie said:
What's it say about God? That He can do that, that He was before creation, that He designed it. Even that He knows the beginning. That He's omnipotent is a big deal to us literalists. While I admit that it's nearly impossible for us to not interpret Scripture from our own frame of reference, I do my best to let Scripture form my frame of reference. I don't particularly care for many of the 'rules' that come out of Scripture, but since I believe it to be true, it forces me to live with it.
Me:
Yes it does and that's the tricky part because you and Mick and other literalists believe it to be true because the bible says so. But many times I find that literalists (whether Jew, Christian or Muslim) don't look at the poetic nature of the text and study it from a more rabbinical perspective. they have thousands of years of study of the text. They know more about the text and it's formation and if they can say it's only poetry than I won't disagree with them.
Connie said:
Many passages in the New Testament point to the first chapter of Genesis and take it literally, so that's another reason.
Me:
I respect your right to believe that. I am not here to convince that you should adopt my view. But I am going to point out inaccuracies about how the text itself actually works. I don't agree with your reading of the text but I do think that the new testament writers believed myth to be true, like the book of Enoch and a whole host of other texts. Look at Jude and the story of the Assumption of Moses as a perfect example. That story is a myth thousands of years old. But Jude (possibly our Lord's brother) believed that Michael the Archangel fought Satan over Moses' body. That story is a folk tale.
My disagreement centers on the actual creation itself. the story of Adam speaks to a historical story. It's a narrative but it's no longer poetry. Not only that but one can believe in myth and still be true. I believe God is omnipotent but I also believe he tempers that omnipotence with mercy and grace. I learned that from the myth of Genesis. If he did not he would be a tyrant which he's not.
Connie said:
For what it's worth, I personally believe God also designed the decay and evolution that we see today -- so even though the stars may appear older than the earth, that doesn't mean they weren't created a day later. (So that He created some young stars and some older ones and everything in between.)But I will spare you the apologetics -- I am not trying to win anyone over -- I'm just letting you in on the thought process.
Me:
Thank you for having the guts to do so. That is an amazing trait. Many of the stars are older than the earth. Science has made that very clear. The Sun is 4.57 billion years old. The Earth is 4.55 billion years old. That's where we disagree. The earth was created second. I don't have a problem with the poetry of the old testament saying the opposite. It can do that. Thanks for sparing me the apologetics. I heard them all before and I find them tiring.
Connie said:
I don't believe that eventually, all things will point to my understanding being the correct one. I look forward to the day when learning the exact reality of how it actually happened blows my mind. My guess is that we'll all be plesantly surprised.
Me:
I could not agree more.
p
Posted by: Payshun | April 21, 2008 5:30 PM
I forgot to say one point while I was addressing Mick's comment. "What has given many Evangelicals their world view is FROM reading Genesis." Actually it's from your interpretation of reading Genesis not from how the text was composed. It was composed as song, as poetry. It used to be sung. You and Connie believe that poetry to be literal. Poetry by its very nature is metaphor. It's designed to convey a deeper meaning without being taken literally.
p
Posted by: Payshun | April 21, 2008 5:36 PM
What exactly do you mean "a very Jewish-looking Ben Stein?" Judaism is a religion, not a race or ethnographic group.
I agree with your assessment of the film. It is not really about ID vs. evolution as it is about religion vs. science. No one can win that argument; they are two entirely different subjects with different vocabularies and standards of merit.
Posted by: Nell Minow | April 21, 2008 5:39 PM
"It's designed to convey a deeper meaning without being taken literally. "
Amen--and I would add that some truths just can't be expressed without metaphor and poetry because there are no words that adequately express them.
God has been described as a rock, as a fortress, as a strong foundation, as a mighty rushing wind, as a hen that broods over her chicks, etc. Obviously He is not literally any of those things, but the metaphorical picture we receive gives us a much clearer picture of God than any literal description could even come close to attaining.
In truth, we all recognize some passages of the Bible as poetry, and yet some people get very upset at the suggestion that the creation story is poetry. I think they think anything less than a literal truth is not truth, or is less valuable than literal truth.
This is a cultural viewpoint--we in the western culture are taught from a very young age to value literal truth based on evidence and science as more important than the truth poets speak to us through metaphor. It's the old battle of science vs. the humanities again, and this notion that one way of knowing is superior to another (as a musician and one who has been around artists of every stripe, it is clear to me that the artists in our culture are not highly valued--more than once I have seen the eye rolls when people speak of various artists). It is not. Therefore a poetic interpretation of the Bible is no less truthful than a literal interpretation. And the beautiful thing is, the poetic interpretation brings about the deeper meaning that Payshun speaks of.
Posted by: squeaky | April 21, 2008 5:56 PM
Actually, Neil, being Jewish is both.
It is an ethnic group. A person is considered ethnically Jewish because their mother is Jewish, without ever practicing the religion of Judaism.
It is also a religion. A person whose family isn't Jewish can convert to Judaism.
Yes, confusing, but yes, it is both. One can be either, or both, or neither.
Posted by: Karen Brown | April 21, 2008 6:47 PM
Posted by: Karen Brown | April 21, 2008 5:03 PM
He was talking about not being able to record an interview that HE was participating in.
If you are the one conducting the interview - you are doing the recording. The person being interviewed is not allow to have their equipment in the room. CNN - ABC - CBS and all have done this for years. Of all the interviews that I have known Rush to do - I have never heard him talk about recording it himself. He has asked for a copy and most of the time he got the edited version. That is why many will only do life interviews with some people or networks. How do you think Connie Chung got Newts Mom to say Hillary was a B***h. The shut off one of the camera to 'reload' but kept the other one rolling and were talking 'off the record'. There is no 'off the record' in this day and age.
Blessings -
.
Posted by: Moderatelad | April 21, 2008 7:26 PM
Posted by: Karen Brown | April 21, 2008 5:03 PM
Considering some of the 'expelled' had it done in 2007, we aren't talking about this move taking years to make.
A production with this kind of value was more than likely 4+ years in planning. The travel - interviewing - etc. I could take up to a year for editing and securing additional footage to use in the movie.
NONE of which ID has gone through.
Well - when people are loosing their jobs over mentioning ID and the grants dry up or are taken away. Little hard to do any work on your 'theory' and no I know it is not a wild @ss guess - please.
In many ways I am not surprized as to how things have gone with ID. The way education works is that there is only so much money available to allow further study in any area. So if you are going to protect your ability to fund your project(s) - you will say and do anything to discredit someone elses project or theory from getting the funding. I have seen it happen so many times in K-12 education - it has to be even more nasty at the college - university level.
Blessings-
.
Posted by: Moderatelad | April 21, 2008 7:42 PM
"He was talking about not being able to record an interview that HE was participating in.
If you are the one conducting the interview - you are doing the recording. The person being interviewed is not allow to have their equipment in the room. CNN - ABC - CBS and all have done this for years. Of all the interviews that I have known Rush to do - I have never heard him talk about recording it himself. He has asked for a copy and most of the time he got the edited version. That is why many will only do life interviews with some people or networks. How do you think Connie Chung got Newts Mom to say Hillary was a B***h. The shut off one of the camera to 'reload' but kept the other one rolling and were talking 'off the record'. There is no 'off the record' in this day and age."
I didn't say it was right or wrong, I said that's what was meant by recording equipment. Not that (I have no idea where you got this idea) I was carrying some into the theater.
If you are saying that he should have realized that they would like and distort and creatively edit his words, perhaps. Though not being sufficiently suspicious is hardly a matter that makes the one who was distorted 'at fault'.
However, that's why he put out the rest of the information that was.. missed. Simple as that.
It wasn't a matter of getting something he didn't want said. It was about cutting out the context of what WAS said to give it a different meaning that was clearly stated.
But, if you feel this is a legitimate tactic for a movie maker to take.. I suggest you probably need to quit complaining about Michael Moore.
.
"Posted by: Moderatelad | April 21, 2008 7:26 PM
Posted by: Karen Brown | April 21, 2008 5:03 PM
Considering some of the 'expelled' had it done in 2007, we aren't talking about this move taking years to make.
A production with this kind of value was more than likely 4+ years in planning. The travel - interviewing - etc. I could take up to a year for editing and securing additional footage to use in the movie.
NONE of which ID has gone through.
Well - when people are loosing their jobs over mentioning ID and the grants dry up or are taken away. Little hard to do any work on your 'theory' and no I know it is not a wild @ss guess - please.
In many ways I am not surprized as to how things have gone with ID. The way education works is that there is only so much money available to allow further study in any area. So if you are going to protect your ability to fund your project(s) - you will say and do anything to discredit someone elses project or theory from getting the funding. I have seen it happen so many times in K-12 education - it has to be even more nasty at the college - university level."
Moderatelad, then tell me. Remembering that discrediting one theory does not prove the other.. exactly HOW does one go about running a scientific study regarding the actual, non-creationist form of ID?
All ID says is 'The assertion or belief that physical and biological systems observed in the universe result from purposeful design by an intelligent being rather than from chance or undirected natural processes.'
Note, it does not say who or what this designer is, what sort of design, to what end, how it was designed, or what the design WAS.
So, explain exactly how the experiment would work.
Posted by: Karen Brown | April 21, 2008 9:41 PM
BTW, ID, as defined above, isn't even a /competing/ theory with Evolution.
Nothing in there conflicts with Evolution whatsoever. One could say that Evolution says 'how', and ID, which says NOTHING about 'how', says that there's a who.
The only form of ID which IS in conflict with Evolution is what is known as the 'Intelligent Design Movement'. They have what is known as the 'Wedge Document', which clearly states that they view ID as a sort of 'Trojan Horse'. The whole purpose, the only purpose of getting ID taught in schools is as a 'wedge' to try and push Creationism.
And Creationism IS in direct conflict with Evolution.
A treatise on the viability of ID wouldn't have to touch Evolution at all. Only a propaganda piece for the rather deceptive 'ID Movement' would.
Posted by: Karen Brown | April 21, 2008 10:55 PM
It's Nell, not Neil, Karen. And Judaism is a religion. A person born of a Jewish mother who converts to another religion is no longer a Jew, but is still of whatever ethnic heritage he or she was born into, just as an Italian Catholic who converts is no longer Catholic but is still Italian. The point is that there is no such thing as "looking Jewish." There are Jews of all nationalities and races. I don't like to see stereotypes perpetuated.
Posted by: Nell Minow | April 21, 2008 11:31 PM
Yes, there are religious Jews.
Are you saying there is no such thing as an ethnic Jew?
Which would be odd, since most Jews I have ever met have been the ones to tell ME there are both.
I was the one who noted that the RELIGION of Judaism could have converts.
There are religious Jews of all nationalities.
There are also Jewish atheists and humanists. They are Jewish because their parents were Jewish.
It isn't about stereotypes. It is about an actual distinction.
It is a stereotype that the only Jews are those who practice Judaism, as well as that the only people who practice Judaism are of Jewish ethnic ancestry.
Here is a list from a Jewish site that explains 'Who is a Jew'. (Important, given they list famous people who are Jewish.)
There are different categories.
* Maternal (Jewishness passes from mother to child). This is the view prevalent among modern-day orthodox religious Jews of most varieties. Most allow for the possibility of conversion, but such instances are relatively rare, and the conversion is not always recognized by other religious sects or by the secular majority. Many historians think that this law started with Ezra in order to reduce the number of Jewish men (returnees from Babylon, the vast majority of whom were men) marrying Samaritan women. Prior to that, Jewish transmission was tribal and paternal. Some feel the practice was continued during the Diaspora in order to ensure that the blood line was not broken, as one could always be certain of a baby's mother, but not its father. In both cases, blood was the central consideration, not faith.
* Faith (Jewishness belongs only to those who believe in the one G-d as related in the Torah). This view advocates conversion and denies heritability in those who do not believe. This view is rare among identifying Jews, although it is the perception of certain ignorant gentiles and among 'self-hating' Jews.
* Cultural (Jewishness belongs to those who practice Jewish customs and maintain Jewish traditions). This view allows conversion in principle, allows for heritable transmission from both the mother and father. This view is predominant among American Jewry, even among those who practice no Jewish customs.
* Personal (Jewishness exists in those who declare themselves Jewish). This view places the identity of the individual above all things, even the majority view of the group. Jewishness is as available an identity as declaring one's favorite brand of cola.
* Ethnic (Jewishness passes from parent to child) This view holds that the central element of Jewish identity is ancestry. Secondarily, but important nonetheless, is culture (including, but not requiring, religious faith and practice) and homeland.
http://famous.heebz.com/
You would be, by declaring only the religion matters, pretty much declaring a whole slew of people as 'Not Jews'. It is less inclusive, not more, to dismiss those of Jewish culture, ancestry and heritage, though not practice as 'not Jews'.
Posted by: karen brown | April 22, 2008 1:15 AM
Even if we accept your characterization -- though famousheebz is not what I would consider an authority -- it is a stereotype to say that there is such a thing as "looking Jewish." That is what I am objecting to.
Your comment about inclusion makes my point that there is no such thing as "looking Jewish." There are Ethiopian Jews and Syrian Jews and Spanish Jews and even Chinese Jews. Not all Jews are from Eastern Europe, which is usually what people mean when they write, as Becky Garrison did, that Stein is "very Jewish looking." What is that supposed to mean? It perpetuates prejudice. Anyone can become a Jew -- as Ruth did in the Bible. And so by definition there is no such thing as "looking Jewish."
Posted by: Nell Minow | April 22, 2008 7:33 AM
Posted by: Karen Brown | April 21, 2008 9:41 PM
So, explain exactly how the experiment would work.
I am not sure? How would you test the theory of the single cell happening from mud on a crystal? There are theories out there that can not be tested with the equipment we have today. Much of Einstein theories were untried in his life time. There is no way to test the theory of getting from the single cell to complex life form and no evidence either - but it is a viable theory.
"...feel this is a legitimate tactic for a movie maker to take...'
It is a tactic - but not lefitimate.
I would love to sit with you and take the footage MM had for F-911 and what Stein had for Expelled and make a compairson. My take (bais) is that Stein edited for time, allowing the person to say what they wanted to say but edited so that it was shorter and not so repetitive. I have done this in some of the productions that I worked on. I did not change the message - just condensed it. MM I believe and in some cases know that he edited the message, changing it to fit his agenda.
One of the most glaring examples of liberals editing for message was the 2000 election in FL. CNN - ABC - CBS - NBC all ran this old woman that was in tears about not being allowed to vote. She told the cameras that she made a mistake and when she went to the election judge she was refused another ballot. Even I was PO'd that this happened and could be happening all over FL. It was only FOX news that when talking to the woman the interviewer asked her, 'you made a mistake and took your ballot to the judge and asked for a new ballot and were refused?' The woman answered - 'no, I but my ballot in the box. Went outside to talk with my friends and realized I made a mistake in voting and went back and asked for another so that I could make the correction'. To his credit the FOX person explained to the lady that once a ballot is 'casted' - put in the box, it is a vote.
Now this happens on the big four more than we care to believe.
Blessings -
.
Posted by: Moderatelad | April 22, 2008 8:10 AM
Posted by: Karen Brown | April 21, 2008 10:55 PM
The whole purpose, the only purpose of getting ID taught in schools is as a 'wedge' to try and push Creationism.
Not true with people that just believe ID should be given a chance. ID people are not 'creationists' nor are they fundamental right wing Christians. They are made up of a number of faiths or non-faith.
And Creationism IS in direct conflict with Evolution.
Duh - but even those of us who believe in Creation - seperate ID from Creationism because it lacks reference to a 'Creator God'.
A treatise on the viability of ID wouldn't have to touch Evolution at all. Only a propaganda piece for the rather deceptive 'ID Movement' would.
Deceptive ID Movement - please. What - are there a lot of people that are afraid that we might take a page out of the liberal playbook that shows how to build the Trojan Horse.
I never expected this kind of accessment from you - I thought you were above this.
Blessings -
.
Posted by: Moderatelad | April 22, 2008 9:12 AM
Even if we accept your characterization -- though famousheebz is not what I would consider an authority -- it is a stereotype to say that there is such a thing as "looking Jewish." That is what I am objecting to.
Then you need to be clear that it was merely 'looking Jewish' that you objected to.
That part I would agree with.
But not that a non-practicing Jew somehow becomes not a Jew because Jewishness is solely about religion.
It simply isn't.
Posted by: karen brown | April 22, 2008 10:56 AM
Nell and Karen -
I see what you're both getting at. I am Jewish - it comes from my mother. I am also a practicing Christian. I don't see any contradiction there. I also don't look particularly Jewish, and I found the comment about "a Jewish looking Ben Stein" rather offensive too - precisely *because* I would never want to disavow the Jewish side of my identity, despite the fact that I don't practice the religion.
Posted by: Another nonymous | April 22, 2008 11:03 AM
So, explain exactly how the experiment would work.
I am not sure? How would you test the theory of the single cell happening from mud on a crystal? There are theories out there that can not be tested with the equipment we have today. Much of Einstein theories were untried in his life time. There is no way to test the theory of getting from the single cell to complex life form and no evidence either - but it is a viable theory.
"...feel this is a legitimate tactic for a movie maker to take...'
It is a tactic - but not lefitimate.
I would love to sit with you and take the footage MM had for F-911 and what Stein had for Expelled and make a compairson. My take (bais) is that Stein edited for time, allowing the person to say what they wanted to say but edited so that it was shorter and not so repetitive. I have done this in some of the productions that I worked on. I did not change the message - just condensed it. MM I believe and in some cases know that he edited the message, changing it to fit his agenda."
Except that THIS edit changed the message. By not including the question, and removing the rest of the answer (a process that might've reduced a maximum of a minute, maybe, to the running time), he removed the entire context. AND, most damningly, his own comments, which ARE part of the movie (adding to the time), as well as the clips he introduces (again adding to the time, and the two together probably more than make up for the cuts that were made) support the wrong message caused by the edit.
He says, in the movie, right after the interview, 'Dawkins supports Intelligent Design!' Which is NOT what Dawkins said at all, indeed, in the part cut out, Dawkins specifically states that even in the event of that UNLIKELY scenario (which also points out that Dawkins doesn't personally support the example he gives, only that it is the only hypothetical he could come up with that was a possible means of intelligent design leading to life on this planet), Intelligent Design is NOT an ultimate answer to the level of complexity, since the aliens, themselves, would've developed through some form of natural selection.
Now, I'm sure you find some way to believe that a single line of dialog was cut for time, while still having time for several minutes of Stein's response and B-Movie clips to be added, and there was no intent to distort Dawkins' answer, even though that response, and the clips support, and suggest that very distortion.
For some reason, I don't buy it. Go figure.
The rest of the post deal with how bad it is to distort things, so, I would assume that to do so makes one as bad as that 'liberal media' or Michael Moore, and therefore, I would think you wouldn't support one who did so, even if you supported the message they were attempting to convey.
At least.. I would hope so.
Posted by: karen brown | April 22, 2008 11:06 AM
"Not true with people that just believe ID should be given a chance."
Then they should be taking their chances, like this movie, and using it to, oh, advance the cause of, and show the validity of INTELLIGENT DESIGN, rather than using it to whinge about Evolution, which, even if utterly debunked, would not only not prove that validity of, but has NOTHING TO DO WITH INTELLIGENT DESIGN.
Constantly obsessing over 'evil Evolution', which only conflicts with Creationism, not ID, they continue to make the case that ID is 'Creationism in a labcoat'.
"ID people are not 'creationists' nor are they fundamental right wing Christians. They are made up of a number of faiths or non-faith."
Then the connection with various political movements, the inference of connection to atrocities, all references to Evolution whatsoever shouldn't be in the movie. As well as in these arguments. Did you READ the posts by people in the 'win some movie tickets' where they were supposed to be giving their opinion of ID?
Even when I explained what ID was, and how it had nothing to do with either Evolution or Creationism, and even pointed out the FAQ that did the same, almost EVERY post was about either how bad evolution was, or about how valid CREATIONISM (even using the word) was, or how this film advanced their faith. And I guarantee, there wasn't a single person of a faith that didn't originate from the Bible who said that one.
The apologists (and yes, they are apologists until they have data) then need to sit down with their supporters, because I KNOW what it isn't about, but I also know what both the makers of this movie and most of the viewers think it is.
"And Creationism IS in direct conflict with Evolution.
Duh - but even those of us who believe in Creation - seperate ID from Creationism because it lacks reference to a 'Creator God'."
Tell that to the 'Wedge' people. Did you know that one of the pieces of evidence for that trial in Pennsylvania was the ID textbook? And the ID textbook was shown to be only Creationist textbook with literally only two word exchanges?
Intelligent design for 'Creationism', and 'Designer' for 'God'.
"A treatise on the viability of ID wouldn't have to touch Evolution at all. Only a propaganda piece for the rather deceptive 'ID Movement' would.
Deceptive ID Movement - please. What - are there a lot of people that are afraid that we might take a page out of the liberal playbook that shows how to build the Trojan Horse."
Because of the example above.
"I never expected this kind of accessment from you - I thought you were above this."
Above what? I didn't say all the supporters did this? I specifically separate the ID hypothesis from the ID Movement. I have no idea which side you are on. But I will say that the funders of this movie ARE about the Movement, specifically because this movie really ends up saying almost NOTHING about the theory of ID..
You saw it. FROM THE MOVIE, tell me the definition of 'Intelligent Design', the one supporters. Tell me how a grant proposal that proposes to test ID would so much as DEFINE what it was they were testing FOR? Tell me, from the movie, who came up with the term, and the names of its chief or any of the research even proposed to support it?
Now, FROM THE MOVIE, tell me all those things from the Theory of Evolution.
For a movie supposedly supporting ID, they sure spend a LOT of time talking about a theory that isn't even competing with it.
Posted by: karen brown | April 22, 2008 11:18 AM
And almost no time actually talking about ID itself.
Posted by: karen brown | April 22, 2008 11:20 AM
The statement about Aliens between Dawkins and Stein was a joke - they both laughed and when Stein said, 'you do believe in ID'. They both laughed because it was a joke. ANYONE that comes out of that movie believing that Dawkins believes in ID or that Stein made him say he did through trickie editing. I have a bridge in Minnsapolis that they can but cheap.
Yes - there is a lot about ID that has not been proven, that is why it is still a theory. There is a lot about Evolution that has not been proven, that is why it is still a theory. We have crystals and we have mud - when are they going to try to prove that one.
Yes - there have been editing done to advance an agenda and anyone that does that should be suspect. You are holding Stein to a standard of editing that if MM was held to the same - he would come out to be a charlatain. MM never gave anyone the time on screen like Stein did Dawkins. There both presented evidence, they both lead you through their story. MM drew the conclusion and told you how and what to think. Stein does not. He leaves the subject open and asks the question 'why'? Now - F-911 has been talk and written about and some of MM evidence has been proven wrong and some correct. I look forward to reading about what people have to say about Steins Expelled.
Blessings -
.
Posted by: Moderatelad | April 22, 2008 12:03 PM
"The statement about Aliens between Dawkins and Stein was a joke - they both laughed and when Stein said, 'you do believe in ID'. They both laughed because it was a joke. ANYONE that comes out of that movie believing that Dawkins believes in ID or that Stein made him say he did through trickie editing. I have a bridge in Minnsapolis that they can but cheap."
Odd, because that is EXACTLY what the reviewer on this very site believed, for example. Best to get that bridge tied with a bow.
This is from 'Idol Chatter', you have to look in the previous week's posts, though.
"There's a wonderful moment toward the end of "Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed," Ben Stein's new documentary on the intelligent design controversy, where Oxford zoologist and outspoken atheist Richard Dawkins speculates on how life came to be. Beings from somewhere else in the universe, he says, may have developed self-replicating molecules and planted them in the primordial ooze, giving birth to the first single-celled organisms and the great chain of evolution. Even cold-eyed rationalists, it seems, have their creation myths. To see Dawkins pitch his, hedging and hemming as he goes, is more than odd; it's daffily sweet."
Given that the cuts included the question about 'is there any possible way', and that it does NOT include the part where Dawkins says that 'even in this unlikely scenario', and then IMMEDIATELY cuts to where Stein says 'Believes in Intelligent Design'.. why would it be such a stupid thing to buy?
Lots of review sites, both in the reviews (unless they did their research, in which case they note, instead, that it was the impression intended but not true), and in the amateur viewer responses, the 'Dawkins believes in ALIENS', and 'Dawkins believes in ID' is stated again and again.
"Yes - there is a lot about ID that has not been proven, that is why it is still a theory."
ARRGH. That is why it is a HYPOTHESIS. 'Just a theory' is a POPULAR use of the word theory. It has NOTHING to do with scientific circles.
A THEORY (in the scientific sense) is something that DOES have a great deal of things that have been tested and shown to conform to the proposal. That has undergone peer review, and publication.
"There is a lot about Evolution that has not been proven, that is why it is still a theory. We have crystals and we have mud - when are they going to try to prove that one."
Actually, most of what people claim has not been 'proven' about Evolution is not part of Evolution at all. (Such as where life came from.) And its gone through 150 years of having its basic propositions validated in scientific circles.
Comparing the two, one which hasn't gone through one peer reviewed study, and one that has gone through nothing BUT such studies for more than a century, then using 'only a theory'... You do know that this is about science, right? And in Science, there are procedures and protocols and things have actual definitions.
"Yes - there have been editing done to advance an agenda and anyone that does that should be suspect. You are holding Stein to a standard of editing that if MM was held to the same - he would come out to be a charlatain. MM never gave anyone the time on screen like Stein did Dawkins. There both presented evidence, they both lead you through their story. MM drew the conclusion and told you how and what to think. Stein does not. He leaves the subject open and asks the question 'why'? Now - F-911 has been talk and written about and some of MM evidence has been proven wrong and some correct. I look forward to reading about what people have to say about Steins Expelled."
I don't CARE about Michael Moore. This thread isn't about MICHAEL MOORE. Comparisons to Michael Moore have about as much a place in this thread as the theory of Evolution has in a movie about INTELLIGENT DESIGN.
And yes, they have a whole site of debunking information about what little actual information is in Expelled, regarding the careers of those academics supposedly ruined (many of which both worked after they were supposedly 'expelled', and got other jobs in the same field, and still work in it), about the interviews, and what was 'creatively edited', etc.
When you keep bringing up MM, as you call him, it sounds like a diversionary tactic and, at best, a 'tu quoque' argument. (Which pretty much means 'you too'.)
Stein, if anything, gave TOO much time to 'critics', given that 'critics' exclusively meant people in the field of Evolution and, once again, Evolution is NOT in conflict with ID. ONLY with Creationism.
The purpose of this movie seems more to attempt to debunk and detract from Evolution than it has anything to do with ID.
Again.. from the movie, a movie ABOUT ID...
What is the definition of ID, what does it actually propose, what would a grant proposal for a study about ID be studying?
Was ANY of that in this movie about ID?
If not, why not?
Posted by: karen brown | April 22, 2008 12:28 PM
Posted by: karen brown | April 22, 2008 12:28 PM
HYPOTHESIS
I know what a Hypothesis is. (and 'is' just means is) I believe that ID is at the point of being a Theory. But will anyone ever get funding since those in charge of giving out the grants seem to only fund 'evolution'?
The big question is will the scientific and academic institutions allow ID to have their time at the podium and the funding that will allow them to prove or disprove their asumptions? (something about a snowball in hell comes to mind)
The purpose of this movie seems more to attempt to debunk and detract from Evolution than it has anything to do with ID.
In a word - BULL!
No one was trying to 'debunk' anything - it was about why there can't be an honest and open discussion about ID and EVOLUTION. Why can't there be discussion about getting from Mud to the Single Cell much less from the single cell to complex multi celled animals.
Well this thread has made it to bottom is almost record time so I believe our time to talk about this is over.
Blessings -
.
Posted by: Moderatelad | April 22, 2008 2:01 PM
Moderatelad,
How would one prove or disprove ID?
Posted by: carl copas | April 22, 2008 2:47 PM
Moderatelad
"Yes - there is a lot about ID that has not been proven, that is why it is still a theory. There is a lot about Evolution that has not been proven, that is why it is still a theory. "
Please explain, in your own words, the difference between a theory and a hypothesis. Your above statement indicates to me you don't know the difference, so please show me that you do.
How, specifically, does ID fit with the definition of a theory, as scientists understand the word?
Posted by: squeaky | April 22, 2008 2:51 PM
It's not surprising that oil money funded the fundamentalist Biola University. Oil money has also allowed Saudi Arabia to spread ultra-fundamentalist Wahabi Islam all over the world, and helped put George W. Bush in the White House, among other things. In addition to wrecking our environment...
Posted by: Alicia | April 22, 2008 3:34 PM
Moderatelad..
A theory is established through undergoing the scientific method.
The scientific method involves..
1. Define the question
2. Gather information and resources (observe)
3. Form hypothesis
4. Perform experiment and collect data
5. Analyze data
6. Interpret data and draw conclusions that serve as a starting point for new hypothesis
7. Publish results
8. Retest (frequently done by other scientists)
Now, ALL of this must be done (no skipping steps) in order for anything to even approach being a theory.
Evolution accomplished most of this over the past 150 all without any government funding throughout most of it, and with distinct government and societal disapproval through most of it.
Which part of this has been done for ID?
And if this isn't about Evolution, and just about giving ID a 'fair shake', then the only place Evolution should've been mentioned is in how it receives said funding. PERIOD.
Hamhanded walks through concentration camps, staring contests with statues of Darwin, and comparisons with both Nazism AND Communism have NO BEARING on that point.
As for the whole..
Why can't there be discussion about getting from Mud to the Single Cell much less from the single cell to complex multi celled animals.
THAT has NOTHING to do with ID. ID answers NONE of that at all, even in its premises, which ONLY talk about there being an Intelligent Designer.
It says NOTHING about how or who, or when, or to what end it was designed. And therefore, ID answers not one of those questions above.
That's where 'Creationism' comes in, and yes, that's what most of those claiming to be about ID are actually talking about.
Posted by: karen brown | April 22, 2008 4:26 PM
Praise God for Google bots, who inform you when you've been quote-mined.
Kevin stated, "So I agree with the poster [Jedidiah Palosaari ]who agreed with me that the primary problem is theological."
What I actually said was I agreed tangentially. There is a long record of taking quotes out of context in ID. There's no need to recapitulate that here.
And I never said a problem- I said the impact. Using theology in the true sense of the word- what can we learn of God by studying evolution? This is the real cutting edge that has been ignored.
Posted by: Jedidiah Palosaari | April 22, 2008 5:08 PM
Is there anything wrong with being both? I don't think so! Charles Darwin was the son of an English vicar and *NEVER* denounced his religious upbringing or made a claim that God didn't exist. The whole point of Darwin's theory is simply that life does not happen with a snap of the fingers, it takes time and grows over a course of years, "evolving" with nature. If anything, I think the theory of evolution *enhances* God's existance! I can't stand people on both sides who refuse to see this, who deny the possibility of evolution, or who deny the possibility of a Creator. Sadly, Darwin's name and theory has been dragged through the mud thanks to Hitler and others who have used his work as means to justify the Holocaust and other hateful actions where they can feel "superior" over another group of people. I am a proud Creation-Evolutionist: a person who believes in the creation of the universe by God, but who also believes that God's time is different to earth time (2 Peter:8) and that evolution is a part of God's plan for creation. God never stopped creating! God continues to create just as we continue to grow. I actually abhor the term "intelligent-design"; mainly because the people who spout it are not exactly intelligent, and for some reason, to me, it sounds demeaning to God. People who believe both (and I really truly believe that they both fit together so well!) shouldn't be afraid of the word "creation" or "evolution"...these are NOT evil words!
Anyway, that was my soap box moment, and I hope I didn't offend anyone, that wasn't my point, I just believe there are others out there, like myself, who happily believe both and see both working together, I wanted to give voice to those beliefs. In the end, I doubt I will see Stein's film, at least not in theaters, but I always appreciate and enjoy Becky's articles, so thank you for the post!
Posted by: Sharon | April 25, 2008 3:06 PM
Thanks, Sharon. The two need not be incompatible, but many use them that way.
I'd encourage you to see the film, though. Its best points were just that: the dialogue on this subject has been cut off by firing and censuring those who even MENTION intelligent design. You will appreciate that part of the film in particular.
Blessings,
Posted by: Witness for Peace | April 26, 2008 4:33 PM
Most of those incidents are filled with mistakes, exaggerations, often not even getting the research topics right.
For more information, I'd suggest..
http://www.expelledexposed.com/index.php/the-truth/marks
Posted by: Karen Brown | April 30, 2008 12:59 AM
Post a Comment
Are you aware of our Rules of Conduct?