Ben Stein doesn’t want to give you money right now. He wants to give you some truth. What truth is that? That “Big Science has expelled smart new ideas from the classroom,” and are suppressing dissent, especially when it comes to evolution and intelligent design. Coming February 2008. Check out the Expelled trailer. You can also read the press release:
What freedom-loving student wouldn’t be outraged to discover that his high school science teacher is teaching a theory as indisputable fact, and that university professors unmercifully crush any fellow scientists who dare question the prevailing system of belief? This isn’t the latest Hollywood comedy; it’s a disturbing new documentary that will shock anyone who thinks all scientists are free to follow the evidence wherever it may lead.
Is Ben Stein a scientist?
Does he need to be? Is Al Gore?
My point is that this film is about politics not science.
Yes, just like Al Gore’s film!
What does Al Gore have to do with it? Don’t change the subject.
Al gore did a political film masquerading as science. Get it? Same difference. Al is no scientist either. Just comparing apples. If you reject Ben’s movie because he is not a scientist, why don’t you reject Al’s?
Maybe your contention that he is no scientist is really a red herring, since you probably accept Al’s movie despite this.
You and your assumptions! Why would you assume that?
Stein is no scientist. Rather, he is a spokesman for the religionist right.
Also, I see nothing wrong with attacking those purveyors of bad science. In the open market-place of ideas, let the best man win.
So, what point were you trying to make by asking if he was a scientist or not?
I suspected that you were insinuating that the film was probably incorrect because he was not a scientist – what else could I assume with such a cryptic comment?
So I responded that whether or not he is a scientist is worth discussing, but that doesn't disqualify his contentions a priori.
Well here it is:
From the trailer, it appears that Stein has produced a political film and not one discussing the actual science involved. He quotes scientists complaining of their alleged ill-treatment because they either question evolutionary theory or espouse intelligent design. They don’t actually discuss the science involved. And the giveaway is the scene wherein Stein addresses an audience bemoaning the fact that establishment scientists don’t “allow science to touch God.” On the fact of it, this is a political film with which takes a religious stance on the continuing battle between science and religion. There’s nothing wrong with that at all. However, it’s not a film that appears to take an approach which examines the science involved. Gore’s film certainly has a viewpoint, but its purpose is to examine the science around global warming. If Gore had taken Stein’s approach, he would have featured scientists complaining about how they’ve been persecuted for their beliefs (by the Bush administration, for example) and pictured himself speaking before a partisan audience denouncing anti-global warming critics. My question regarding Stein’s profession goes to the heart of his intent: political polemic not scientific treatise.
The two films are really up to two entirely different things.
OK, perhaps you are correct.
If you look closer at those who claim to have been persecuted for their thoughts about intelligent design, you will find, as I have, that they really haven’t suffered real loss. No one has been fired, no one has been imprisoned, and no one’s livelihood has been taken away. Yes, they have been criticized, and they have been ostracized. Well, that’s life!
For example, it seems that Sternberg actually solicited Meyers to submit his article for publishing in the journal that he (Sternberg) was editor of, after hearing Meyers present the information at a RAPID (intelligent design) conference. By the way, no non-intelligent design advocates were allowed to attend this conference. The paper should then have been assigned to an associate editor for review and peer review, but Sternberg appears to have railroaded the paper through peer review himself. The journal later repudiated the paper.
Further, Gonzales claims to have been denied tenure at Iowa State University for his views on intelligent design, but the President of ISU stated that since 2001 Gonzales has brought in only $21,000 in grant money, whereas the average for others seeking tenure have brought in an average of $1.2 million in grants. It seems to me that he was just a low producer.
These are facts that probably won’t be shown in this movie. Based on the trailer, it will probably be a horribly one-sided attempt to rally grass roots support for the teaching of intelligent design in our schools. This fits right into the Discovery Institute’s stated 20 year “wedge” plan, which desires more media attention to their cause. They wanted a PBS special on intelligent design, but apparently went with this movie route.
These people were not persecuted for wanting to bring god into science, but rather for bad science, and poor performance. We should not allow them to be portrayed as martyrs.
Similarly, we should not allow the teaching of intelligent design in science classes. As was shown clearly in the Katzmiller v. Dover case, ID is merely restated creationism, not science. As such, it should be taught, if taught at all, in a philosophy or comparative religion class, not a science class.
For decades now, the Discovery Institute has tried to push its agenda to the American public and its school systems through subterfuge, media misinformation and manipulation, and litigation, all without any penalty, backlash, or governmental intervention. What it has completely failed to do though, is present any hard, testable, and verifiable theories, proofs or examples to bring any support for their beliefs. And ultimately, that’s what real science is about.
These are facts that probably won't be shown in this movie. Based on the trailer, it will probably be a horribly one-sided attempt to rally grass roots support for the teaching of intelligent design in our schools. This fits right into the Discovery Institute's stated 20 year "wedge" plan, which desires more media attention to their cause. They wanted a PBS special on intelligent design, but apparently went with this movie route.
Yes, this may turn out to be a Michael Moore hit piece from the right. But I think that the wedge plan is perfectly reasonable in it's ends and means, even if such conscious strategies upset the orthodox hegemony of evolutionary priests.
As was shown clearly in the Katzmiller v. Dover case, ID is merely restated creationism, not science.
Yes, well, the irregularities, oversteps of the judge, and shoddiness of that kangaroo court's logic, fact finding, and decision have and will be debated for a while. Suffice it to say that many of us don't find that decision decisive or worthy of praise.
orthodox hegemony of evolutionary priests
LOL! You really are a kidder, seeker!
Glad you like my characterization.
Stein is taking the same approach with this film that he is taking with his defense of another creationist, Larry Craig. He’s distorting the actual facts in order to appeal to his client base, the Christian far right.
A characterization like “the orthodox hegemony of evolutionary priests” shows exactly why evolution deniers don’t get it. They see scientists as simply part of another religion — with a belief system, like any other faith, that is unprovable and immutable.
The problem with that, of course, is that it is exactly what science is NOT. Scientists use evidence to come to their consenus, they ‘peer review’ each others’ work — they don’t simply take the word of a leader or ancient text. And science is, most definitely, NOT immutable. In fact, you’re welcome to overturn the current theories or conventional wisdom. That is not only *not* discouraged, it is the most exciting time in science. You can make a whole career on doing that very thing. Of course, you need to do it in a testable (and repeatable) fashion – not just make a claim.
So, you can call scientists “priests” if you like, but all that does is betray your skewed perception of the differences between how they operate versus how your side does.
They see scientists as simply part of another religion
Actually, as a former scientist, I don’t consider ALL scientists as such priests – only the ones who are claiming that evolution is some kind of proven fact. Additionally, any scientist who denies the philosophical, ethical, and religious implications and impact of evolutionary theory are clearly not being honest with themselves or us, and are therefore obviously under the sway of the theory as part of their own world view, without being aware of it – hence my post Mass Delusion – 10 Reasons Why the Majority of Scientists Believe in Evolution
The problem with that, of course, is that it is exactly what science is NOT.
Actually, I think you are missing the problem. It is not a problem with science itself that modern “politically incorrect” thinkers have a problem with – it’s with the contemporary *practitioners* of science who are no longer being true to science, but instead, have confused their science with their philosophy of science, their operational science with historical sciences, and their assumptions with facts.
In fact, there are many reasons to be skeptical of modern science, despite it’s excellenct track record – it’s not that science has suddenly become unsound, but that the modern practitioners have succumbed to human nature and formed an “orthodox hegemony of evolutionary priests” – by confusing science with their belief (or unbelief) systems.
I have written a few posts on the subject of modern science, see these:
Separation of Science and State
Why I Trust Science in Principle, but not in Practice
How the Media Spins Science
The Politicization of Scientific Research
Science as Salvation – A Cautionary Tale
In fact, you’re welcome to overturn the current theories or conventional wisdom.
Actually, what we are contending is that this is NOT possible when you have a hegemony of insecure atheistic materialistic evolutionary believers who won’t hear of any questioning. The growing evidence of ridicule, loss of status, and other bullying is what we are complaining about.
I love it! Its hilarious when secularists make claims like the Dover case proved this or that about Intelligent Design and Creationism. First of all, the only group of people on the planet less prepared than scientists to discuss such metaphysical issues intelligibly are lawyers and/or judges. If you are relying on some Federal Judge for your reasoning then you are a true anti-intellectual. The courtroom has no bearing on rendering any verdict on metaphysical principles. Now if you want to believe so then by all means please feel free but then that is your religion and don’t go imposing your secularist religion on the rest of us rational citizens who don’t bow before some man-made BS.
Actually, Paul, I think that the courts SHOULD be able to discriminate between religion, philosophy, and science as they affect our school systems.
The problem is, such elementary discrimination is now so highly politicized, and atheistic secularists have now canonized their evolutionary philosophy and beliefs, and so judges are really unable, due to their own poor abilities and liberal biases, as well as the bamboozling of modern evolutionary believers, that we get such poor rulings as the oversteps and missteps of the Dover case.
But I believe that such cases, though they unfortunately create a type of precedent, can and should be re-examined, overturned, and replaced with better decisions down the road.
“What freedom-loving student wouldn’t be outraged to discover that his high school science teacher is teaching a theory as indisputable fact ….”
Anyone who writes such nonsense as the above quote from the “Expelled” press release needs to go back and learn the basics of science, particularly the definition of a scientific theory. Otherwise, we’ll be wasting our time challenging ideas like this: http://www.bringyou.to/apologetics/p67.htm
which are similarly “just a theory.”
Anyone who claims that evolution is as sure as gravity not only proves that they don’t understand the difference between operational and historic science, they show that they fail to understand the difference between real science and philosophy of science. IOW, they are duped shills, not people of reason. (see Mass Delusion – 10 Reasons Why the Majority of Scientists Believe in Evolution).