Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

We are sorry to see you leave - Beta is different and we value the time you took to try it out. Before you decide to go, please take a look at some value-adds for Beta and learn more about it. Thank you for reading Slashdot, and for making the site better!

Ben Stein's 'Expelled' - Evolution, Academia and Conformity

timothy posted more than 6 years ago | from the ben-stein-is-smarter-than-you dept.

Education 1766

eldavojohn writes "Painting the current scientific community as just as bad as the Spanish Inquisition, an extended trailer of Ben Stein's "Expelled" has a lot of people (at least that I know) talking. It looks like his movie plans to encourage people to speak out if they believe intelligent design or creationism to be correct. In the trailer he even warns you that if you are a scientist you may lose your job by watching 'Expelled.' Backlash to the movie has started popping up and this may force the creationism/evolutionist debate to a whole new level across the big screen and the internet." adholden points out a site called Expelled Exposed, which asserts that 'Expelled' "is simply an anti-science propaganda film aimed at creating controversy where none exists, while promoting poor science education that can and will severely handicap American students."

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Which do you believe? (4, Interesting)

Whiney Mac Fanboy (963289) | more than 6 years ago | (#23140860)

On one side we've got a bunch of scientists - who's philosophy espouses striving for neutrality, lack of bias, objectivity, etc.

On the other side, we've got.... an ex-Nixon speechwiter/game show host.

*sighs* - I bet he's skeptical about anthropomorphic climate change too (there seems to be an extraordinarily high overlap between the two groups).

Oh, and he Godwins himself at 2:40 in the linked video. Discussion over.

Re:Which do you believe? (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23140906)

For an interesting afterthought on his "godwin moment" see here [yahoo.com] . Funny indeed.

Re:Which do you believe? (5, Funny)

El Puerco Loco (31491) | more than 6 years ago | (#23140924)

*sighs* - I bet he's skeptical about anthropomorphic climate change too
yes, the climate is beginning to look more human isn't it? i thought i was the only one who noticed.

Re:Which do you believe? (1)

Whiney Mac Fanboy (963289) | more than 6 years ago | (#23141008)

yes, the climate is beginning to look more human isn't it?

Dammit - I've just read too many 'information doesn't want to be anthromorphisized' sigs recently :-)

Re:Which do you believe? (0)

Hal_Porter (817932) | more than 6 years ago | (#23141044)

Actually the weather does have free will.

No, hear me out.

Free will means that you are not bound to act in a particular way based on initial conditions and some laws. So an automaton that was programmed and had to follow its programming would not have free will. Naively, a Newtonian system is deterministic - give the initial conditions and the laws of motion we can predict its behaviour at any point in the future. For simple Newtonian systems like the solar system that is true. But for slightly less simple ones, chaos takes over and we cannot. The weather is complex enough to be chaotic. You can't determine the future state of the weather from the current state because of chaotic effects. Even if you understand the equations that govern it, any initial errors in the current state will cause the predictions to rapidly diverge from reality.

And hence it has free will like us, but not like the solar system or the automaton.

Curiosity... (4, Insightful)

Harin_Teb (1005123) | more than 6 years ago | (#23140930)

Isn't one of the points of the movie that while scientists espouse neutrality, lack of bias, objectivity, etc. that they are not actually following it?

(Disclaimer --> haven't seen the movie or any trailers, the above was a genuine question for anyone who has actually seen the movie, and not an attempt to troll. Also the question should not imply that I agree with or disagree with the movie. It really is JUST a question.)

Indeed, Scientific Zealotry Hurts the Cause ... (5, Insightful)

eldavojohn (898314) | more than 6 years ago | (#23141152)

Isn't one of the points of the movie that while scientists espouse neutrality, lack of bias, objectivity, etc. that they are not actually following it?
As one of the submitters (and evidently one of the few people who watched the extended trailer), you're pretty accurate there.

During the whole montage he's writing something over and over on the blackboard and it comes out to be something like "I will NOT question Darwinian Evolution." He interviews scientists and editors who have lost their jobs for printing/writing papers that claim our DNA has a 'code' with information that could not have happened in nature.

Disclaimer, I read a lot of Darwin/Dawkins/Gould so I'm pretty biased here ... but I fear that the ostracized members of the scientific community will make the evolutionists look just as much like religious zealots trying to purge their ranks of people with open minds. Which is why I likened his trailer to the Spanish Inquisition.

I think that even though it's 'a waste of time,' it's bad to write these people off or fire them. I'm sure there's sound criticism against these papers and authors but Ben Stein isn't showing that in his movie if there is.

If you have friends who believe in Creationism, respect them and provide for them sound arguments against it. It may be a waste of time to you but it's complete snobbery to write them off. Ben Stein is correct that you may lose friends if you watch that movie and become polarized by it--don't let that happen!

Like a Michael Moore movie, objectivity is raped, killed, gutted and donned over a rich man's face who then can safely tell you what to think.

Re:Which do you believe? (2, Informative)

Iftekhar25 (802052) | more than 6 years ago | (#23140936)

I bet he's skeptical about anthropomorphic climate change too
It's anthropogenic climate change. Man-made, not man-like.

Re:Which do you believe? (4, Funny)

Whiney Mac Fanboy (963289) | more than 6 years ago | (#23141040)

It's anthropogenic climate change. Man-made, not man-like.

Perhaps climate change wants to be man made?

(seriously, thanks for the correction).

Re:Which do you believe? (1)

Yvanhoe (564877) | more than 6 years ago | (#23141054)

You could consider the climate change with more respect than that. It hurts it to be negated that way, it wants to be heard !

Re:Which do you believe? (4, Interesting)

PortHaven (242123) | more than 6 years ago | (#23141022)

"who's philosophy espouses striving for neutrality, lack of bias, objectivity, etc."

Having worked with a great number of scientists in my life, I would not note them for lack of bias or neutrality. In fact, I'd say scientists are noted for their strong opinions and personal bias'.

Re:Which do you believe? (0, Troll)

DavidM01 (1123199) | more than 6 years ago | (#23141072)

How about, which do you believe: 1. A group of scientists with absolutely no explanation for any origin of life. These same scientists cannot make even the beginnings of abio-genesis occur in a lab. They also have absolutely no explanations of how life formed on this planet only 1 billion years after it formed. 2. Belief in a higher power, which actually makes much more logical sense than "it just happened" theory above. This is strongly confirmed in the one human who rose from the dead, and whose humble life changed the Roman empire and the rest of human history. The magic soup theory is funnier each time I hear it. If it is 'settled science' please post for me some lab reproducible examples of it.

Re:Which do you believe? (1)

jpellino (202698) | more than 6 years ago | (#23141144)

On the one hand, Ben Stein usually presents what seems to be a finely developed knack for insight. When I saw the hints of the trailer I figured he would come down on the side of rational thought and this would be an indictment of ID/CS. Then the trailer ran through to the end.

Yikes.

On the other hand, maybe he gets the debate on the front page in a popular vein. Could be time for him and Dawkins in a live MTV cage match.

You're 20 days too late... (0, Flamebait)

cosmicaug (150534) | more than 6 years ago | (#23140864)

You are 20 days too late to take these lying clowns seriously.

Overly Melodramatic (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23140876)

Even your summary is ripe with sensationalism. There's nothing particularly unique or surprising about Ben Stein's movie. It's what we've all known for some time, and have come to expect from the Church of Darwin and their acolytes. But, I suppose even vampires seeing their _true self_ in the mirror for the first time must be shocking.

Yawn...

A toast (3, Insightful)

Canosoup (1153521) | more than 6 years ago | (#23140892)

to Expelled, a movie full of ad hominems, half truths, non sequiturs and promoting ignorance!

Re:A toast (0, Flamebait)

macbuzz01 (1074795) | more than 6 years ago | (#23140940)

We are talking about 'Expelled' not 'An Inconvenient Truth'

Re:A toast (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23140990)

Has anyone actually watched it? I mean really.

I listened to an interview w/ Stein. He pointed that Scientists' are creating about a trillionth of a second after the big bang. The question is what about before? Stein simply argues for a discussion about ID. That there some inherent design vs. it is purely an accident. He does not point to some religious creationism.

Fundamentally the issue is a matter of philosophical issue. Was the big bang and succeeding events an accident or the product of some sort of design. Science really can't answer that. But, the issue should be open for discussion. Looking at the comments here already demonstrate what Stein was talking about in his interview.

Re:A toast (1)

oxidiser (1118877) | more than 6 years ago | (#23141158)

Well... what do you expect? This is a site for technophiles and scientists. Not a ton of people in ID's corner here. Scientists are naturally skeptic but being a scientist AND being open to the idea of ID is difficult at best.

Debate? (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23140894)

There was a debate? When?

Oh, right, in America. Oh you silly Americans. I guess the age of the American Empire is truly over. You're hell bent on driving your population into the next Christian Dark Age, while China is preparing to whip your ass. Good luck with that.

Monkey's uncle? (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23140902)

Why do people automatically assume Evolution is false just because they don't understand what the theory actually means (reference to all the "my uncle was not a monkey!" counter-arguments)?

Re:Monkey's uncle? (0, Troll)

bondsbw (888959) | more than 6 years ago | (#23140960)

Why do people automatically assume Evolution is true just because they don't understand what other theories actually mean?

Re:Monkey's uncle? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23141050)

dude, I find it far more frequent that people don't understand what *evolution* means.

Re:Monkey's uncle? (5, Insightful)

Dr. Manhattan (29720) | more than 6 years ago | (#23141062)

Why do people automatically assume Evolution is true just because they don't understand what other theories actually mean?

Because the evidence [talkorigins.org] for evolution is overwhelming [talkorigins.org] ?

Re:Monkey's uncle? (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23141134)

Umm... Stein is not discussing the Science. But, the Atheistic philosophy of Darwinism that says its all an accident and random. ID creationism. Stein points out this very attitude and those that use their power to silence opposition.

ex nihilo nihil fit

 

Re:Monkey's uncle? (0, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23141084)

People don't have to assume anything about Evolution, since there is more than enough empirical evidence at this point to support it.

Why do people automatically assume that whatever absurd idea they pull out of their ... bible ... should be afforded the title of "theory" when they meet none of the qualifications required to be one?

Re:Monkey's uncle? (5, Insightful)

cycik (1094159) | more than 6 years ago | (#23141116)

Why do people automatically assume Evolution is true just because they don't understand what other theories actually mean?
People do not automatically assume evolution is true. It is a well tested theory that provides a good explanation for the word and has made good and testable predictions. It does not explain everything and does not claim to and is working to find the answers. Intelligent Design (or as Christopher Hitchens has referred to it Ignorance Deified.) is not even a theory and provides not useful understanding in how life works. If the ID people want to be taken seriously. They can produce good research and put forward a good testable hypothesis that can better explain the world or the liars for Jesus can just STFU. Why do people assume a completely untested assertion is a legitimate competitor in the marketplace of ideas?

Re:Monkey's uncle? (5, Insightful)

caution live frogs (1196367) | more than 6 years ago | (#23141122)

Uh... because there is exactly zero evidence supporting other theories? Because other theories are largely unscientific, untestable, and not falsifiable? Because creationists still don't understand that evidence against one theory do NOT automatically equate to support for an alternate theory*? Because evidence from every branch of science, from astronomy to chemistry to geology to physics to zoology all support the currently accepted theory? You know, those sorts of things kind of tend to make people really, really tired of dealing with folks like Ben Stein, who remain obstinately and willfully ignorant.

(*e.g., if this fruit is not an orange, that does not mean it is automatically an apple... heck, could be a kumquat, for all you know).

Re:Monkey's uncle? (1)

PortHaven (242123) | more than 6 years ago | (#23141164)

"who's philosophy espouses striving for neutrality, lack of bias, objectivity, etc."

Or greed, ego, sorry...I meant EGO. The fact that so much in science is about competition rather then science.

I guess we can in part thank the National Geographic and the public education system for a large number of unconvinced. They're continued iconic use of artist illustrations of evolution of man from ape to homo sapien. Even after a fair number of list were proven to be frauds or at best honest but foolish mistakes.

Yes, people like to point out that science is about learning and change. However, our science is often more about EGO. And often an unwillingness to admit the mistakes of science. Science will deride religion for the same fallacies it makes daily.

One point... (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23140904)

If evolution or non-creationism is correct, and by having a dialogue people are convinced of this fact...then what is the problem? After watching the extended trailer that is the feeling I came away with. Ben's point is that discussion is not being permitted in academia, and in fact the opposite is happening, it is being suppressed.

Re:One point... (1)

bondsbw (888959) | more than 6 years ago | (#23141068)

Ben's point is that discussion is not being permitted in academia, and in fact the opposite is happening, it is being suppressed.
How is "being suppressed" the opposite of "not being permitted"?

If you claim to be an open-minded scientist, wouldn't this line of thought be contradictory? I'm not suggesting that you go so far as to change your beliefs at the first sound of something different, but don't claim to be open minded when you're not.

Re:One point... (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23141074)

Because a) there is no scientific merit to Creationism, thus there is no sensible or honest scientific debate to be had & b) the controversy over Evolution finished over a century ago, but has recently been dragged back up by Fundamentalist Christian groups to further their own political agenda. Even the Vatican accepts Evolution is perfectly compatible with Christian belief. It's only a minority of very loud people who happen to have money who even want a "debate". Everyone else is long over it.

Re:One point... (5, Insightful)

rainsford (803085) | more than 6 years ago | (#23141086)

Except there is a discussion in academia, Ben Stein just doesn't like the outcome of that debate so he claims it's "unfair". Scientific debate isn't the Skull and Bones society, anybody can join in if they have some good points to make and some good arguments to back them up. All I ever hear from folks like Ben Stein is how they are being unfairly excluded from the debate...yet rarely have I actually seen them making any attempt to join in. Since this is Slashdot, I can't end this post without an analogy...so here goes. Forget we're talking about science and think about the place where you work. Imagine there is someone who shows up late, leaves early and doesn't get a lot done while he's there. Now imagine that person spends basically all his time at the office complaining that it's unfair how he's not getting promoted and that the boss has it in for him. That's how I feel about Ben Stein here.

Re:One point... (1)

Oxy the moron (770724) | more than 6 years ago | (#23141166)

I think the argument you are going to get here is that it is futile to argue/debate something which cannot be proven in a scientific context.

As an example... I believe that 2 + 2 = 4. That can be rather easily proven by taking two cookies, adding two more cookies, and seeing that the result is four cookies. Why should we have arguments/debate over whether or not 2 + 2 = 5? You might believe it to be true, but it can't be proven and, to my knowledge, no proof for it exists. Teaching a different belief here does nothing.

Now going back to your point, let's compare Evolution and Creationism. There exists some degree of scientific proof of the existence of Evolution. Maybe not entirely convincing evidence going back to origins of man, but at least in a smaller context, such as the past 50 years. Compare that to evidence of Creationism, or the basis that everything was created by God. The majority of that evidence is anecdotal; it's one's interpretation of the world around you. The evidence isn't largely based on the scientific method, and I can't clearly describe why I thought plant X or animal Y was a part of God's creation aside from "that makes sense to me." While that is perfectly acceptable for some, it isn't for others. In my opinion, schools, as a whole, are to be places where the former (scientific evidence) is to be taught.

(I'm a Christian for FWIW. I just think that everything needs to have its place. If you desire a school where debate against Evolution is welcome, there are plenty of private schools that fit that mold.)

skepticality (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23140912)

I can recommend the recent Skepticality pod cast on this topic (#74). There are interviews with shermer and dawkins that give some insight to how this movie is constructed.

It is available at skepticality.com and reposted and richarddawkins.net

Bueller? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23140916)

Bueller? ...
Bueller? ...
Bueller?

Save Ferriss! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23140926)

Beuller? Beuller?

Controversy? (2, Funny)

neochubbz (937091) | more than 6 years ago | (#23140928)

Meh... As long as both are prefixed with "theory of", who cares?

Re:Controversy? (4, Insightful)

ScentCone (795499) | more than 6 years ago | (#23140956)

Meh... As long as both are prefixed with "theory of", who cares?

Um... because evolution can be observed, and any rational mind can understand the mechanisms by which it works, and the magic-man-in-the-sky "theory" make no provision for testing, cannot be evaluated as anything other than wishful thinking, and teaches kids not to engage in critical thinking.

Your willingness to tolerate creationism in school as long as they call it a theory is actually worse than the delusions of the people who put it forward in the first place, because - by themselves - they come across as ignorant loons. You're giving them credibility.

Re:Controversy? (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23141010)

People who understand what the word "theory" actually means.

(Un)Intelligent Design is a badly formed, unfalsifiable hypothesis, not a theory.

Re:Controversy? (1)

Dann25 (210278) | more than 6 years ago | (#23141060)

Thats exactly the problem. You are comparing apples and oranges. A scientific theory is one based on the scientific method and not just some wild opinion. The theory you speak of, is anything anyone wants to pull out of their ***. Would you want equal time given to my opinion that the earth is the center of the universe or the scientific theory (yes its a scientific theory) that the planets revolve around the sun?

Re:Controversy? (!= theory) (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23141168)

Unfortunately you are very wrong because you don't understand some science basics like what a theory is. If you want to suggest silly things at least understand what the other side (i.e. Science, I assume you're a kreationist troll) means when they use a word. Both are NOT theories. See the following video made which points out the error in your ways.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jdWMcMW54fA

Not the issue... (5, Insightful)

Pedrito (94783) | more than 6 years ago | (#23140932)

He's missing the issue. The truth is, I believe some form of "intelligent design." But whether or not I believe it or a billion people believe it is irrelevant. Intelligent design, as has been discussed here and elsewhere, ad infinitum, it's NOT SCIENCE and should not be taught as science or as an alternative to evolution.

On the other hand, if they want to teach it in a Religious Studies type class, I'm all for it. Go for it. That's precisely where it belongs.

Re:Not the issue... (4, Insightful)

Harin_Teb (1005123) | more than 6 years ago | (#23140962)

I would posit that Philosophy would be another class that it would be appropriate in (beyond the narrow religious studies classes). However I also don't see the harm in pointing out in the science class that "while evolution is the current leading scientific theory by a landslide, there are other non-scientific theories out there. If you want to learn about them take class X in the philosophy / theology course line."

Re:Not the issue... (1, Insightful)

Diomedes01 (173241) | more than 6 years ago | (#23141034)

I would posit that Philosophy would be another class that it would be appropriate in (beyond the narrow religious studies classes). However I also don't see the harm in pointing out in the science class that "while evolution is the current leading scientific theory by a landslide, there are other non-scientific theories out there. If you want to learn about them take class X in the philosophy / theology course line."

I posit that we should teach the theological alternative to the theory of gravity: "God's hand holds us down to the earth." Or an alternative to the Germ Theory of disease - Satan makes people sick who don't pray hard enough. Quantum Theory? Naw, those are just "god bits". We can have science teachers tell kids that they can explore these "alternative", "non-scientific" theories in philosophy class. That will ensure a wonderful education for them.

Re:Not the issue... (2, Insightful)

Harin_Teb (1005123) | more than 6 years ago | (#23141130)

1) I haven't heard any of those ideas prior to your post here.
2) How is it bad to teach people what a significant number of people believe? How can you argue against something you don't understand yourself?
3) You're essential argument boils down to (from what I read) "non-scientific = WRONG, therefore should not be taught in any capacity"

My View: by hiding the fact that other theories exist you only harm the credibility of the leading theory once the individual finds out about the other views. (as a general rule, not just to be applied to evolutionary biology / intelligent design) /damnit I fed the troll.

Re:Not the issue... (5, Interesting)

Diomedes01 (173241) | more than 6 years ago | (#23141206)

My View: by hiding the fact that other theories exist you only harm the credibility of the leading theory once the individual finds out about the other views. (as a general rule, not just to be applied to evolutionary biology / intelligent design) /damnit I fed the troll.

Your use of the term "theory" in this context shows that you have no idea what it means for something to be a scientific Theory. People who call intelligent design a "theory" are simply trying to convince your average Joe Sixpack that it is equally as plausible and on the some footing as the scientific Theory of Evolution. It is not. As far as I know, no other Theories currently exist to explain the diversity of life. No one is hiding other theories, because there aren't any. There are some fairy tales that were meant to try and explain it several thousand years ago, which in no way resemble a theory of any sort.

Great. (0, Offtopic)

pathological liar (659969) | more than 6 years ago | (#23140944)

It was bad enough when it was just Moore being a pompous blowhard, but now we get to look forward to this kind of drivel from both sides of the aisle?

Perhaps... (1)

Oxy the moron (770724) | more than 6 years ago | (#23140948)

... he should have just stuck to "Win Ben Stein's Money?"

Who the hell is Ben Stein ... (4, Interesting)

YeeHaW_Jelte (451855) | more than 6 years ago | (#23140952)

I though, and then googled him.

So he's a comedian, a writer, a white-house speech writer, a law professor and a believer in intelligent design.

Fine, another one of those scientist who think that being a scientist, they can have a scientific opinion on any subject out there.

He's a lawyer, he can have scientific stances on law (if that's possible anyway ... I've always wondered why law is considered a science), but his opinion on intelligent design and evolution means diddly squat.

Feel free to believe in an Old Man in the Sky, and to embrace ID. Just don't forget to mention that scientific evidence points the other way.

Re:Who the hell is Ben Stein ... (1)

Harin_Teb (1005123) | more than 6 years ago | (#23141028)

Law can, and should in my mind, be considered a science because it is inherently logical.

OK, the actual law itself may not be, but the application of it is. You take a rule or set of rules and then apply it using "If X is true, then Y must happen" type of logic. The wishy washy stuff happens and the science breaks down when you have conflicting rules... which unfortunately happens a LOT.

Re:Who the hell is Ben Stein ... (5, Insightful)

Laxitive (10360) | more than 6 years ago | (#23141194)

I don't agree with this. Ben Stein's opinions aren't worthless because he's not a scientist - they're wrong because they just don't have the necessary support.

Academic Oppression (5, Funny)

Woundweavr (37873) | more than 6 years ago | (#23140954)

Its not just "Darwinists" that force their anti-Jesus dogma on the education system. I had a similar experience in my childhood.

Given a circle with a radius of 10, whats the circumference? Some would say thats its 10 * 2 * "pi"!

But what is this pi? They can't even define it;its completely irrational! Meanwhile they suppress the controversy. When I put down a much more reasonable answer - 60, because the literal Bible tells me the circumference of a circle is 2*r*3 [biblegateway.com] , I was marked wrong! The Nazis used these numbers to build their war machine and concentration camps and its being taught to children far to young to understand its deceptiveness. Inquiring minds are led to a literally endless and patternless series of numbers intended to confuse and dull the mind.

Teach the controversy!

Re:Academic Oppression (1)

Atzanteol (99067) | more than 6 years ago | (#23140998)

If I ever wished I had mod points.... Well done!

Re:Academic Oppression (0)

ScentCone (795499) | more than 6 years ago | (#23141020)

So, Jesus was an integer-only sort of guy? No ability or willingness to grasp the importance of ratios?

You're either the best troll of the day, or... no. You have to be a troll. There's no other explanation.

Re:Academic Oppression (2, Insightful)

Fished (574624) | more than 6 years ago | (#23141162)

Don't be silly... The Bible's measurement of those "Seas" was exactly correct: to one significant digit. I know a lot of fundamentalists althought I'm not one (I'm a part-time pastor), yet I don't know ANYONE who believes pi is exactly equal to 3. Everyone recognizes that that is just not the point of the Bible. It's like what I've always said: "I don't believe in the sort of {Bible,God} that the skeptics don't believe in, either." Stop beating up on straw men.

Evolution doesn't disprove God(s)... BUT... (4, Insightful)

Dr. Manhattan (29720) | more than 6 years ago | (#23140958)

Dawkins and many others notwithstanding, evolution doesn't disprove god(s) or mandate atheism. What it does do is undermine (very thoroughly) an argument for god(s) that used to be a 'slam dunk': the 'argument from complexity in the biological world'.

Unfortunately, a lot of people don't understand the distinction, and people like Dawkins don't help. Many religious types treat 'discounting an argument for god(s)' the same as 'advancing an argument against god(s)', and go ballistic. But it's important to note the difference. There's still room to believe in god(s) even if you accept the ridiculously overwhelming evidence that evolution happened and is happening. (I don't believe in god(s), FWIW, but many people do.)

Stein and his ilk really remind me of the worst features of Ned Flanders sometimes. "Well, I say there are some things we don't want to know! Important things!"

About time... (0, Offtopic)

munik (1115121) | more than 6 years ago | (#23140964)

It's about time we challenge the presuppositions behind evolution [answersingenesis.org] on a larger scale.

An honest question for the young-Earth types. (4, Insightful)

Dr. Manhattan (29720) | more than 6 years ago | (#23141100)

Finding oil is a very important and high-stakes issue for oil companies. Literally trillions of dollars are riding on it. Exxon's exploration budget alone is around $20 billion per year. When the chips are down and they need to find the most likely spots to drill - what kind of geology do they use? Flood geology, or mainstream? Which one actually delivers the goods?

Let's assume the Earth is only a few thousand years old. Where did the oil come from? Was it created in the ground with the rest of the Earth? If so, is there a way to predict where it might be found? Or perhaps it really did form from plankton (with a few plants and dinosaurs), but about 10,000 times faster than any chemist believes it could? Any way you look at it, a young Earth and a Flood would imply some very interesting scientific questions to ask, some interesting (and potentially extremely valuable) research programs to start. How come nobody's actually pursuing such research programs?

Why don't creationists put together an investment fund, where people pay in and the stake is used as venture capital for things like oil and mineral rights? If "Flood geology" is really a better theory, then it should make better predictions about where raw materials are than standard geology does. The profits from such a venture could pay for a lot of evangelism. Why isn't anyone doing this?

Re:About time... (1)

wanerious (712877) | more than 6 years ago | (#23141136)

It is a good attitude to maintain skepticism about assertions and ideas --- you are in a prime position to actually learn about evolution and other areas of science.

But please, I'm begging you, steer wide of websites like Answers in Genesis and the ilk. You will find little honest science there, only phantom plastic arguments that sound like real science. You should challenge presuppositions in the strongest way --- which is to become a scientist yourself. Can you imagine how famous you'd be by overturning the life's work of thousands of very smart people over the last hundred years or so? But don't fall for the easy, grade-school arguments of the charlatans. There are so many subtle and important errors in the page you referred to that you'll never claw your way back out into the world of clear thinking.

Win ben stein's money (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23140974)

Apparently it's easier than I thought to win Ben Stein's money, just pass the collection plate.

lose my job? (2, Insightful)

fermion (181285) | more than 6 years ago | (#23140976)

This is just indicative of the paranoid world some wackos live in. Only those that gain their power from deceiving the masses are afraid of open discussion. Otherwise, we are free to discuss whatever we like.

BTW, the reason that evolution can be talked about in school and ID should not is that evolution is science, and can change as new information is acquired. Evolution is not based on any traditional truth. It is based on observation, and it's connection to the holy, if any, is only incidental. OTOH, ID is based on a specific group creation myth, and promoting ID is like promoting religion, something the US government should not do. If we want a survey of creation myths, that is such a large topic that it needs a course all of it's own, and many would support such course, except, I suspect, those that want to teach ID, as such seem often afraid of competing knowledge, perhaps because the truth will set you free,

Two for two (3, Informative)

smooth wombat (796938) | more than 6 years ago | (#23140980)

Just as with the Dilbert Flash fiasco [slashdot.org] , I had already mentioned the nonsense of 'Expelled' in my journal [slashdot.org] and provided four links showing the outright lies and falsehoods presented in this propaganda piece.


To cut short any discussion from those who think that a religious precept should be included in a scientific curriculum, I submit this quote from one of the linked articles so everyone is clear as to why ID is not science:

"Intelligent Design" fails to meet the basic definition of a scientific idea: its proponents do not present testable hypotheses and do not provide evidence for their views that can be verified or duplicated by subsequent researchers.

That's all there is to it folks. ID supporters need to submit evidence to back up their claim and it will be considered. So far, the only thing ID supporters have done is a) try to show supposed holes in current Evolutionary theory (all of which have been answered) and b) claim that some unknown, untestable, omnipotent force is behind everything. At no time have they ever presented evidence to support their idea and so, rightly, ID falls under the heading as an idea which attempts to support someone's religious ideas.

why? (2, Insightful)

ionix5891 (1228718) | more than 6 years ago | (#23140984)

As a European person a question pops into my mind a lot lately

"why is the US going backwards in the last decade? who is gaining from this dumbing down of the population??"

Look to your own backyard, thank you (3, Insightful)

Shivetya (243324) | more than 6 years ago | (#23141190)

Because I can find lots of stories that make me I am glad the crazies here don't express their religion by bombing people... like , in, uh wonderfully enlightened Europe.

Really, do you guys not get the news we do? Burning cars in France, oh I know, the PC word is immigrants. Killing of writers in Europe because they dared to write about someone's god?

What you have here in America is exaggeration. Look at it this way, if its brought up over and over and made to look silly it probably is. The haters need something to jump up and down about to make themselves feel superior and these ID people are a great target. The ID people are not a great percentage, just a convenient target.

It says even more for /. that this qualifies as a story. I guess a few editors need to get their brownie points with the insecure techie crowd... the one that needs to vilify anyone with belief and the willingness to express it. (plus its also good fodder for anti-Bush people who claim some hair brained connection to him however tenous)

mod to me to hell if you like, but it is true that it takes a big does of exaggeration to make ID people out as a representative of America or religious America.

Bring out the haters, this thread should have lots of them.

It isn't science. (5, Insightful)

Don_dumb (927108) | more than 6 years ago | (#23140986)

encourage people to speak out if they believe
How many times do we have to say it, SCIENCE is not about BELIEF. You can believe whatever you want but in a science class (or academic institution) and officially (the government position) the thinking should be one of reason, evidence and demonstration of understanding. Belief has no place.

Remember if intelligent design is correct then it can be explained, demonstrated and then analysed further. Until then it is as much a waste of time as it is trying to work out how much flour Flying Spagetti Monster is made up of.

Re:It isn't science. (1)

munik (1115121) | more than 6 years ago | (#23141046)

Interpretation of facts is based on presuppositions, which are based on our beliefs. Scientists sometimes presuppose that only those things which can be directly observed, explained, demonstrated, analysed further, and etc. can be shown to be true. However, that's a faulty presupposition. What about gravity? Energy?

Re:It isn't science. (2, Insightful)

Epeeist (2682) | more than 6 years ago | (#23141182)

If you are trying to say (very badly) that all observations are theory-laden then I doubt that anybody will argue with you. Similarly if you want to argue that the Duhem-Quine thesis would allow multiple theories that explain the observed facts of evolution then you won't get any disagreement.

So its down to you. Produce another theory that explains the facts. Just make sure it has the same explanatory power as Darwin's theory and the neo-Darwinian synthesis. It also has to be predictive and the predictions have to be testable and falsifiable. Parsimony is another requirement - no de-occamisation to sneak a god in by the side door.

Creationists are extremely good at whining about the ToE. All they have managed to produce, as Behe had to admit at the Kitzmiller-Dover tria, is something with the same scientific standing as astrology - http://www.cavehill.uwi.edu/bnccde/ph29a/thagard.html

Re:It isn't science. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23141202)

When are you going to list thats that meet the supposedly faulty presupposition of science? Gravity and energy are both completely observable. Are you just a troll?

Another American obsession (5, Interesting)

jonnyj (1011131) | more than 6 years ago | (#23140992)

This whole debate seems pretty strange to European eyes. I consider myself to be a fundamentalist Bible believing evangelical Christian, but, in Britain, people like me take the view that Genesis describes the evolutionary process pretty well. Although many Evangelicals support Intelligent Design or Young Earth Creationism, there's little opposition within Christian circles to full acceptance of the scientific explanation of the origins of life.

Between this and support for a right-wing social and foreign policy agenda, I sometimes wonder if American evangelicals read the same Bible that I do.

Re:Another American obsession (1)

OhPlz (168413) | more than 6 years ago | (#23141096)

That seems a little odd to me, as an American. One of the reasons the colonists came here was to escape religious persecution. It can't have changed all that much over the years, can it? Europe's religious elite didn't take too kindly the idea that the Earth might be round or that people might be descended from apes. Even now, the new Pope is visiting us and basically calling everyone a bunch of heathens, and telling us we need to return to Catholicism. Not terribly progressive, if you ask me.

Re:Another American obsession (1)

smooth wombat (796938) | more than 6 years ago | (#23141118)

I sometimes wonder if American evangelicals read the same Bible that I do.


No, they don't. What they appear to be trying to do is take us back to the days of the Puritans. Being from Great Britain, you remember the Puritans, don't you? The ones who used force to take over the government for a time and tried to impose their religious views on the entire country?

Yeah, that's the same thing America's Evangelicals are trying to do (minus the military portion but occasionally using terrorist-like acts to force their views on others).

Re:Another American obsession (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23141132)

Please can we distinguish the origins of life from the origins of species?

Win Ben Stein's Attention (2, Informative)

folstaff (853243) | more than 6 years ago | (#23141004)

If you actually watch the movie or listen to Stein talk about the movie, of course the majority of this group won't, Stein is pointing out that there is no tolerance for dissenting opinions in universities.

Stein does not reject Darwinism for the evolution of individual species. He rejects that it is the answer for why life exists and why the universe works that way that it does.

Re:Win Ben Stein's Attention (2, Interesting)

ScentCone (795499) | more than 6 years ago | (#23141150)

Stein does not reject Darwinism for the evolution of individual species. He rejects that it is the answer for why life exists and why the universe works that way that it does.

So, he doesn't reject evolution except for the part that really undermines his personal choice of mythologies. And he doesn't like university science curriculums because they ... don't confuse mythologies with science? There are entire coures of university study dedicated to mythology, and indeed there are entire universities that are all about training people to be good religious Borg units. The views he holds on this subject are talked about and celebrated at such places every single day. What he wants to do is remove the scientific method and critical thinking from the science classroom.

If he has a point in this area, it has far more to do with liberal arts and poli-sci type educations, where far more subjective and debatable things are quashed in the classroom every day. Is he bothered by the way science is twisted in some classrooms? Then he should start with the professors who think that the World Trade Center was blown up by an army of stealthy NSA demolotion experts because - lacking some basic science education - they can't get their heads around the difference between "melted" steel and "weakened" steel. There's plenty of things to examine in the classroom without debating whether or not you can become infected by a bacteria today that didn't exist yesterday (since, you can).

Re:Win Ben Stein's Attention (2, Informative)

martinmcc (214402) | more than 6 years ago | (#23141188)

I have done both, and yes one of the points he is making is that there is no tolerance for ID in may scientific establishments. He does however bring in a lot of erroneous examples to make this point.

Secondly, the reason science teachers teaching ID is not tolerated, is because it is not science. Quite simple - someone teaching ID in a science class is not doing their job.

Stein does reject Darwinism for the evolution species. Evolution has nothing to do with where life comes from - it answers why life is like it is now. The beginnings of life is another question, which has many interesting conjectures and experiments, but nothing to do with evolution.

He also blames Darwin for the holocaust (always a nice move) and is patently and obviously dishonest in word and action (he used sound tracks without permission, copied animations without permission, got interviews based on false premises etc.)

The fact is, ID is complete and utter nonsense. Try reading anything advancing ID. The idea itslef is so fool of logical falicies it would not fool a open minded six year old. Google some of their 'proofs' - either they are extremely lazy, or they provide proofs they know are false. No serious honest person, whether Christian or otherwise takes ID seriously, it is just extremists attempt to muddy the waters because they fear people have too much knowledge and more and more are coming to realise the ludicrousness of religion.

 

John Oliver said it best... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23141006)

We'll allow a sticker on every science textbook that says "This is only a theory" so long as we can put a sticker on every bible that says "This might all be bullshit".

All Your Global Leadership will Be Ours (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23141012)

The sooner the US embraces creationism, thereby abandoning the scientific method, the better. We British didn't do a bad job of running the world when it was our go and we've learned from our mistakes - we're ready to have another bash as soon as the US steps aside.

Hmm (1)

ScouseMouse (690083) | more than 6 years ago | (#23141032)

Unfortunately, if you dont think conventional Scientific wisdom has its own share of theories that are not backed by facts, i direct you the "String theory", from which so many PHD's have been made over the last few decades.

Not totally dissimmilar to creationism, it happens to fit a bunch of facts which may or may not be true, and is unlikely to be proven either way.

Of course, As there trying to dissaociate Creationism from Religion, another way of reading the "facts" they rely on is that we were all created by Aliens from the planet "Zog" who were on a bit of a bender after "DRuuth" celebrated his 4096th cycle (They count in 16's naturally). Boy was that one to remember!
Naturally, if you try to suggest this to one of them, they get rather Irate. Trust me on this. :-)

Re:Hmm (1)

Matt Edd (884107) | more than 6 years ago | (#23141102)

String theory actually makes testable predictions. It's just that most of them cannot be tested at this time. I've been waiting but ID doesn't provide even one testable prediction.

Religious Fanaticism from within... (1)

HetMes (1074585) | more than 6 years ago | (#23141036)

...Western society. Maybe exaggerated rigth now, but you're getting there. A Secretary of State mentioned this discussion in the Netherlands a few years ago. She became a laughing stock, and rightfully so. I look at it this way: if you make a movie of yourself rolling dice, eventually you'll roll 20 6's straight. Cut all except that part, youtube it, and amaze the world with your amazing dice skillz ("He must know how to throw dice!"). Anthropic principle, multiple universes, they all sound a hell of a lot more plausible than anything remotely connected to Creationism.

'Intelligent Design' Advocates Make Kids Idiots (4, Insightful)

curmudgeon99 (1040054) | more than 6 years ago | (#23141042)

Isn't it ironic that a whole generation of religious folks are doing nothing more than routing their kids into a backwater. Suspicion of science just means their children will distrust science and math and be shuttled, therefore, into a legion of burger flippers. Teaching your kids that Intelligent Design is the right answer is as close to child abuse as I can imagine.

Re:'Intelligent Design' Advocates Make Kids Idiots (1)

munik (1115121) | more than 6 years ago | (#23141090)

As a child, I was taught to love science and to be scientifically inquisitive. As an adult, I continue to be scientific in my observation of the world. As a child, I was also taught creationism. And, as an adult, I continue to believe creationism as it has held up under my and others' scrutiny.

Let's be honest. (1)

kinabrew (1053930) | more than 6 years ago | (#23141064)

There is no debate. There is no evidence whatsoever for creationism.

corepirate nazis 'shaking their fists' at creators (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23141070)

it's all in the manual. better to be prepared than just plain scared. see you there? let yOUR conscience be yOUR guide. you can be more helpful than you might have imagined. there are still some choices. if they do not suit you, consider the likely results of continuing to follow the corepirate nazi hypenosys story LIEn, whereas anything of relevance is replaced almost instantly with pr ?firm? scriptdead mindphuking propaganda or 'celebrity' trivia 'foam'. meanwhile; don't forget to get a little more oxygen on yOUR brain, & look up in the sky from time to time, starting early in the day. there's lots going on up there.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071229/ap_on_sc/ye_climate_records;_ylt=A0WTcVgednZHP2gB9wms0NUE
http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20080108/ts_alt_afp/ushealthfrancemortality;_ylt=A9G_RngbRIVHsYAAfCas0NUE
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/31/opinion/31mon1.html?em&ex=1199336400&en=c4b5414371631707&ei=5087%0A

is it time to get real yet? A LOT of energy is being squandered in attempts to keep US in the dark. in the end (give or take a few 1000 years), the creators will prevail (world without end, etc...), as it has always been. the process of gaining yOUR release from the current hostage situation may not be what you might think it is. butt of course, most of US don't know, or care what a precarious/fatal situation we're in. for example; the insidious attempts by the felonious corepirate nazi execrable to block the suns' light, interfering with a requirement (sunlight) for us to stay healthy/alive. it's likely not good for yOUR health/memories 'else they'd be bragging about it? we're intending for the whoreabully deceptive (they'll do ANYTHING for a bit more monIE/power) felons to give up/fail even further, in attempting to control the 'weather', as well as a # of other things/events.

http://video.google.com/videosearch?hl=en&q=video+cloud+spraying

dictator style micro management has never worked (for very long). it's an illness. tie that with life0cidal aggression & softwar gangster style bullying, & what do we have? a greed/fear/ego based recipe for disaster. meanwhile, you can help to stop the bleeding (loss of life & limb);

http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/12/28/vermont.banning.bush.ap/index.html

the bleeding must be stopped before any healing can begin. jailing a couple of corepirate nazi hired goons would send a clear message to the rest of the world from US. any truthful look at the 'scorecard' would reveal that we are a society in decline/deep doo-doo, despite all of the scriptdead pr ?firm? generated drum beating & flag waving propaganda that we are constantly bombarded with. is it time to get real yet? please consider carefully ALL of yOUR other 'options'. the creators will prevail. as it has always been.

corepirate nazi execrable costs outweigh benefits
(Score:-)mynuts won, the king is a fink)
by ourselves on everyday 24/7

as there are no benefits, just more&more death/debt & disruption. fortunately there's an 'army' of light bringers, coming yOUR way. the little ones/innocents must/will be protected. after the big flash, ALL of yOUR imaginary 'borders' may blur a bit? for each of the creators' innocents harmed in any way, there is a debt that must/will be repaid by you/us, as the perpetrators/minions of unprecedented evile, will not be available. 'vote' with (what's left in) yOUR wallet, & by your behaviors. help bring an end to unprecedented evile's manifestation through yOUR owned felonious corepirate nazi glowbull warmongering execrable. some of US should consider ourselves somewhat fortunate to be among those scheduled to survive after the big flash/implementation of the creators' wwwildly popular planet/population rescue initiative/mandate. it's right in the manual, 'world without end', etc.... as we all ?know?, change is inevitable, & denying/ignoring gravity, logic, morality, etc..., is only possible, on a temporary basis. concern about the course of events that will occur should the life0cidal execrable fail to be intervened upon is in order. 'do not be dismayed' (also from the manual). however, it's ok/recommended, to not attempt to live under/accept, fauxking nazi felon greed/fear/ego based pr ?firm? scriptdead mindphuking hypenosys.

consult with/trust in yOUR creators. providing more than enough of everything for everyone (without any distracting/spiritdead personal gain motives), whilst badtolling unprecedented evile, using an unlimited supply of newclear power, since/until forever. see you there?

"If my people, which are called by my name, shall humble themselves, and pray, and seek my face, and turn from their wicked ways; then will I hear from heaven, and will forgive their sin, and will heal their land."

meanwhile, the life0cidal philistines continue on their path of death, debt, & disruption for most of US. gov. bush denies health care for the little ones;

http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/10/03/bush.veto/index.html

whilst demanding/extorting billions to paint more targets on the bigger kids;

http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/12/12/bush.war.funding/index.html

& pretending that it isn't happening here;

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/article3086937.ece
all is not lost/forgotten/forgiven

(yOUR elected) president al gore (deciding not to wait for the much anticipated 'lonesome al answers yOUR questions' interview here on /.) continues to attempt to shed some light on yOUR foibles. talk about reverse polarity;

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article3046116.ece

God and Evolution working together: Deism (1)

usul294 (1163169) | more than 6 years ago | (#23141078)

One thing I've always wondered is why nobody has tried some good old fashioned (Founding Fathers style) Deism. Its pretty simple, God sets the initial conditions at t=0 and he sets the system. By doing this He (or She) knows how things will happen in the future of this timeline. Everything after t=0 is governed by physics leading up to and through evolutionary processes. Its not Intelligent Design, since life on Earth is created by natural processes, but the fundamental laws of the universe are of God/God himself.

"nobody tried"? (1)

jopet (538074) | more than 6 years ago | (#23141184)

This is essentially what most catholics seem to believe in.

However, that theory has no explanation for why something like a god is needed in the first place. If god is the explanation and "sets the initial conditions", what makes that theory any more plausible than the universe just was with this conditions? Just came into existence?
If you propose some X to explain Y, what is the benefit if you cannot at all explain X?
Why do people always seem to feel more comfortable with not being able to explain the existence of some (usually humanoid) "god" than being equally unable to explain the existence of the universe?
And why do people insist so desperately on something there has never, ever been even the slightest indication or hint for?

Re:God and Evolution working together: Deism (1)

HetMes (1074585) | more than 6 years ago | (#23141192)

To say the least, it would require a premise far more complex than something like the anthropic principle and multiple universes. However, if you are willing to believe that, would you also be willing to believe that you were created just a fraction second ago with false memories, and that anyone but you is just there to give you the experience of being alive. And you will die within a fraction of a second from now. But, you might think, as I am reading this, surely seconds have past. Or have they? You might also believe in the Tooth Fairy. Because, you see, once you move away from Occam's Razor and common sense, anything is possible.

Sometimes (4, Insightful)

hey! (33014) | more than 6 years ago | (#23141108)

They ignore you because you obviously don't know what you're talking about.

Then they mock you because you expect to be taken seriously without putting in the work to become informed.

Then they fight you, because you won't go away until you've had your fight, and ingrained in your thinking, so deeply you don't know it's there, is the notion that might makes right.

Then you win, because there are so many ignorant, lazy, belligerent people that sooner later sensible people, who want to get something accomplished with their lives, will sooner or later give up on picking sense out of your nonsense.

Moot (1)

Xacid (560407) | more than 6 years ago | (#23141110)

I view this in the same manner that Passion of the Christ made more Christians, the way Micheal Moore has made more liberals or the way Bill O' Reily made more conservatives. -They didn't. It catered to an audience already set in their ways on the topic. I don't see a crazy threat to my scientific mind here. If I did...I'd start building sharks with laser beams and build a moat around my house.

So much to say... (4, Insightful)

Fished (574624) | more than 6 years ago | (#23141114)

There's so much I would like to say here, and I rather doubt that I'll get it all said, but I'll make a stab at it. In the first place, I haven't seen the movie, so can't really comment on Stein's take. However, I have looked at the "sociology" of the Evolution/Intelligent Design/Creationism debate a fair amount, and what I see disturbs me from all sides. One major concern I have is the elevation of Darwinian natural selection as a means of species creation to an unrealistic importance. I just don't see why it's so important in and of itself. One could certainly be a competent physician, for example, and not believe in Darwinism (or neo-Darwinism). It seems to me that one could even be a quite competent practitioner of any of the biological sciences (other than the various sorts of paleontology) without necessarily agreeing with Darwinism. Yet, we are constantly told that a failure to teach Darwinism at the high school level will destroy science education as we know it and result in a US population that is hopelessly ignorant of all science, etc. etc. I just don't buy it. Bluntly, I can scarcely think of a job where a belief in Darwinism is necessary. On the other hand, we have school systems that literally teach absolutely no information science, computer science, etc. etc., and people graduating from college who literally don't know the different between a byte and a gigabyte. It's hard for me to see why this ONE THING is so vitally important, when it has virtually no practical application and there are scientific topics with enormous practical application that go untaught. Could the real problem be social or (speak softly now) political? It seems to me that that is exactly the case. The extraordinary efforts put forth by various scientific bodies to defend Darwinism from all criticism strike me as a knee-jerk reaction to a knee-jerk fear that the Scope's trial will happen all over again. This isn't about science--it's about continuing the Enlightenment project of supplanting all sources of Meaning (capitalization intended) with Scientific Meaning. That doesn't mean that I think that Darwinism is wrong. I actually think that it's as right as you're going to get within the boundaries that it sets itself. But I certainly don't think that the loss of Darwinism would destroy American education or anything along those lines. So ... people... GET A GRIP. My $0.02.

Here's my take (1)

jocknerd (29758) | more than 6 years ago | (#23141138)

You can be sure that those behind this film will say that this is not a pro-religion film, but one where they try to make Intelligent Design a real scientific theory. But before you believe that, take a look at how many church's will send their members, teen youth groups, etc. to watch this film. Then tell me this isn't about pushing religion down our throats even more.

What I am opposed to ... (3, Insightful)

mbaGeek (1219224) | more than 6 years ago | (#23141140)

... is the closing of minds

ideas are dangerous to closed minds.

80 years ago the "establishment" was opposed to teaching the theory of evolution - now the "establishment" doesn't want to discuss the possibility that evolution is "bad" science.

I also like the fact that the "enlightened pro-evolution" people are usually the ones resorting to argumentum ad hominem [wikipedia.org] ...

Why the fuss? (2, Interesting)

rotide (1015173) | more than 6 years ago | (#23141156)

Seriously, I don't get what the fuss is about. First off, I'm agnostic bordering on atheist (confused but don't particularly believe, but still confused). That said, I would never buy this ID/Creationist bull that is being portrayed as some sort of pseudo-science.


But seriously, it's Ben Stein making a movie!?!? Why is this going to be "promoting poor science education that can and will severely handicap American students"?

Listen, there are VERY FEW MOVIES of which I would ever suggest to a kid to _learn_ from. As a boilerplate, if you see it on TV, it is probably fiction (except for most of what discovery et al have in their programming, you can generally learn from those).

But come on! It's a religiously themed movie that seems to take after those awful Moore movies. Buy a ticket or don't, but why blow this up (in typical American fashion) and out of proportion?

Get over it, it's a movie, move on, ride a bike or something and forget about it.

umm (1)

superwiz (655733) | more than 6 years ago | (#23141160)

The trailer itself is plainly inflammatory. It doesn't support any of its claims. It just makes the accusations graphic. You are not likely to be shunned or feared as he would like to believe. You are, however, likely to be laughed out of the room. The academic answer to mystery has to be exploration. Hypothesizing that it is something unexplainable (ie, the flying spaghetti monster creating the universe) is simply tantamount to giving up the exploration for physical causes of events.

No Intelligence Allowed (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23141196)

I wanted to watch the trailer, but it turns out you need flash to do so. All of a sudden it hit me why "No Intelligence Allowed" was painted all of the website.

Censorship? (1)

Poorcku (831174) | more than 6 years ago | (#23141204)

"This video is not available in your country."- that is what youtube says. And I live in Germany; so how should i interpret this?

No conflict (1)

Coolhand2120 (1001761) | more than 6 years ago | (#23141212)

Evolution and ID do not contradict each other. ID is vague to the point that no matter what science comes up with as the "meaning of life" followers of ID can turn around and say "that sounds like Genesis". Of course when you compare the study and continued theory of evolution to a few paragraphs in the bible there are bound to be some assholes that say "These two things can't be the same". The ability to form one's own opinion is the beauty of the bible, no matter what some wacko interprets the meaning as being, it's just their opinion. The same goes for the atheist/agnostic crowd, they come up with their latest theory and throw it in the face of someone they believe is religious and scream "SEE THERE IS NO GOD" as if they had finally found that incontrovertible proof. The two groups have need to stop trying to have it 100% their own way. I would say a good half way point would be to teach evolution, and if the kids ask how or why evolution is the way it is, the required answer is "God made it that way". Which is a very good answer for all sorts of questions that have yet to be answered: How long is a transcendental number? Why can't we seem to move faster than light? When will Duke Nukem Forever be released?

Intelligent design opresses other religions. (1, Insightful)

PeterKraus (1244558) | more than 6 years ago | (#23141216)

My religion, the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster, is really discriminated in the United States.

We can all agree, that evolution IS scientific theory. Now, if we assume, that Intelligent Design is scientific theory as well, I (and other members of my church) find it really discriminative, that Intelligent Design attempts on getting so much space and propaganda, while other, equally-valid theories, such as FSM-ism, are considered unworthy and deemed disrespectful.

Either strict definition of science, or, complete freedom of speech and equal amount of presentation for every religious theory!
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?