Friday, May 24, 2013
Comment Archives: stories: Film
Re: “Lies, damned lies and "intelligent design'”
PS-The movie wasn't all about Nazis. It simply revealed in one small portion of the film that Hitler based his selective breeding plan on Darwinismthat anyone not fitting his Arian model was a worthless eater (in the case of people with disabilities).
Posted by
webgirl
on 04/21/2008 at 12:00 AM
Re: “Lies, damned lies and "intelligent design'”
The thing that I find most interesting is that the comments are all posted before the film was released in the Springs (April 18). Has anyone even seen this film? I did and I found that it did a good job of showing both sides of the academic lines. I think that the most comment came from Dr. Dawkins himself when he said that he believed that life on Earth was "seeded" from an advanced, intelligent society. Now isn't that interesting? An evolutionist who admitted that he believed in intelligent design?
Posted by
webgirl
on 04/20/2008 at 11:52 PM
Re: “Lies, damned lies and "intelligent design'”
I digress. I really do believe in intelligent design. Ever heard of the flying spaghetti monster theory? Praise the Spaghedeity or be scorned for all eternity! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flying_Spaghetti_Monster
Posted by
liliGibbons
on 04/20/2008 at 8:07 AM
Re: “Lies, damned lies and "intelligent design'”
It never ceases to amaze me that IDers want this crap in SCIENCE classes (comparative religions class anyone?)- maybe I'm not getting it...errrrrr wait, wait, now I remember, the scientific theory is largely based on refutation. Something about keeping a theory as long as it can't be refuted? Information that becomes available that coincides with the proposed theory simply strengthens it- not proves it (look how reasonable, science leaves the concretes" up to religion :)? So, creationists need to relax the hell out, first of all, you can't refute a god (creator-whatever), but then again, its not a hypothesis AVAILABLE for negation. Why do IDers want to play ball in the realm of science when they're not willing to participate within the bounds of the scientific method???? And second of all, its completely inappropriate for religion to enter science, it not only retards scientific process, it also threatens the very separate, important realm of spirituality and religion. Shoo evangelicals, shoo- for your own good as well as the rest of humanitys
Posted by
MilesCamus
on 04/19/2008 at 8:47 PM
Re: “Lies, damned lies and "intelligent design'”
It would be silly to try and discuss science vs. creationism here, or anywhere else where creationists actually show up. The only place where it *would* be sensible for creationists to try and discuss their ideas is where _any_ person with a scientific idea goes : peer-reviewed journals where experts (not gullible rubes) can read a clear presentation and give feedback, point out errors, detect deceptions, etc. But no scientist who claims to support ID (i.e. creationism) has _ever_ presented a clear description of Intelligent Design, or any of its associated "critiques of Darwinism [sic]" to a legitimate peer-reviewed journal. The stories of "suppression" presented in this film, every one of them, have been skewed and nuanced to cover up the incompetence, ethical lapses, and irrelevance of the "victims". If anyone wants to learn more check out http://expelledexposed.com . The clearest and best explanation of Intelligent Design I have ever seen - honestly - is given by ljackso (above) : "I am a Christian. It is impossible that all life on earth just happened." Q.E.D. There really, really isn't anything better out there. Michael Behe, the intellectual heavyweight of the ID movement (i.e., he used to be an actual scientist) quit submitting his work to peer-reviewed publications when he joined the ID movement. Now he hawks his (million dollar bestselling) books on ID to a gullible public, and deletes any actual criticism of his work from the comments section of his web forum. Apart from the very detailed information he presents on molecular biology, his logic is exactly the same as ljackso : "I don't understand X, it looks very complicated, therefore God (er, uh, the Inventor) did it." Behe, BTW, admits that it is "trivially obvious" that all life is descended from a common ancestor, so it is a bit ironic to find him as the scientific frontman for ID. But the true sophistication of the ID movement is the realization that there is actually NO NEED to convince scientists. Why bother joining a fight you know you will lose, when you can stage a fight you know you can't lose. By preaching to the base, the already converted faithful and scooping up gullible followers on the margins, they have been able to advance quite far. Ben Stein's film will certainly not convince anyone with half a brain, but it will energize the movement nontheless. And it happens - pureley by coincidence, I am sure - that the release of the movie coincides with the introduction of bills in Florida and Missippi that would allow teachers to present anything they feel "sounds" scientific in science class, regardless of how goofy or overtly religious it may appear to educated "elites". Mr. Stein has travelled to these states to hold private screenings of his "documentary" with favorably inclined lawmakers. All in all, my response to this movie is that points out a clear and urgent need for more people to be taught about ID. Not its scientific claims - which there are none - but it's techniques, agenda, and overall level of sleaze. Thankfully, the movie itself is a good start.
Posted by
js22
on 04/19/2008 at 7:43 PM
Re: “Lies, damned lies and "intelligent design'”
Hey, ljackso when I meet the creator I'll fart on him for you, k?
Posted by
liliGibbons
on 04/19/2008 at 7:21 PM
Re: “Lies, damned lies and "intelligent design'”
"Creationists often take his famous quote "God does not play dice" out of context..they take A LOT of things out of context for that matter. Einstein was referring to Quantum physics and Heisenberg's Uncertainty principle." Exactly so. The statement that "God does not play dice with the universe" - was merely a metaphorical expression embodying Einstein's contempt for modern quantum theory. As a strict determinist he couldn't bring himself to accept its tenets that trajectories (say of electrons inside an atom) are impossible to map out, or that positions (say of electrons) are impossible to specify or fix down to the last decimal. Perhaps the premier biographer of Einstein was Jeremy Bernstein (cf. Einstein, Fontana-Collins Books, UK, 1973) who noted (p. 20) that Einstein often loosely invoked God as a substitute for the rational connections, the laws, governing the behavior of the universe. Einstein also used the pet term "Old man" interchangeably - but that didn't mean he thought a literal "old man" was behind the laws of the cosmos! Einstein would have openly laughed at any suggestion God (or personal salvation) can be found by believing on a glorified human, or personalized incarnation. Hence, his embrace of "Spinoza's God". As for the ID'ers, they will never get it. Plus, they will never get that they cannot have a bona fide alternate theory until they first enunciate the means for falsifying their ID. Up to now, I haven't heard peep one from any of them. All they do is tear into Darwinian evolution and natural selection, but offer nothing substantive of their own. It's pathetic.
Posted by
droogoy
on 04/19/2008 at 8:54 AM
Re: “Lies, damned lies and "intelligent design'”
@ erehys "Didn't Newton and Einstein support intelligent design? Yeah, you must be an idiot for it to be an option. Most people who don't support intelligent design are speaking out of ignorance." Ah the wonderful world of creationism, where up is down, down is left and 2+2=7 Newton was a creationist but not by choice but due to the simple fact that in his there were no viable alternatives to biblical creation. Newton died in 1727 Darwin wasn't born until 1809. As for Einstein, he was an agnostic and certainly no fan of religion. Creationists often take his famous quote "God does not play dice" out of context..they take A LOT of things out of context for that matter. Einstein was referring to Quantum physics and Heisenberg's Uncertainty principle. What always amazes me about creationists is that most of them don't even really know what they're criticizing as even the most basic concepts of evolution through natural selection seem to elude their understanding.
Posted by
Classy
on 04/19/2008 at 2:57 AM
Re: “Lies, damned lies and "intelligent design'”
I have a degree in biology and I am a Christian. It is impossible that all life on earth just happened. The odds are too great. It had to have a designer. Some day you will face the creator of life and this universe and your knee will bow and your tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord. You can laugh and scoff now but you will not be laughing then. I will pray for you and ask God to open you spiritual eyes and ears that you may know the truth. I think you are completely wrong but I do not want you to go to hell. God does not want you to go to hell. He is speaking to your heart. That still small voice is telling you there is something more. Listen to it and seek God with all you heart and all your soul. In Christ love. lj
Posted by
ljackso
on 04/18/2008 at 9:57 PM
Re: “Lies, damned lies and "intelligent design'”
erehys: You obviously haven't read the book. If you had, you'd know that Darwin wasn't talking about human races in the subtitle "The Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life" He was using the term "race" in its biological sense meaning "varieties." Don't believe me? It's easy enough to research yourself, while still avoiding the hard work of actually reading the book you are expounding on. Just find an online version of the Origin of the Species--for example, at Project Gutenberg--and do a search on it for the word "race." You'll find that Darwin is talking about races of cabbages, dogs, pigeons, bears, and so forth. While you are at it, you might research the origins of the Nazi belief in the Aryan master race and the importance of racial purity in German civilization. You'll find that they were influenced, not by Darwin, but by writers like Gobineau, who published his Essay on the Inequality of the Human Races several years before Darwin published the Origins. Gobineau was a life-long creationist and Bible literalist who believed that only the white race was descended from Adam and who believed that the mixing of the races was dangerous to white civilization. Shall we now blame the Holocaust on creationists?
Posted by
Terra Firma
on 04/18/2008 at 4:04 PM
Re: “Lies, damned lies and "intelligent design'”
Didn't Newton and Einstein support intelligent design? Yeah, you must be an idiot for it to be an option. Most people who don't support intelligent design are speaking out of ignorance. There's plenty of "scientific" evidence to support that it took more than a random fart in space to create the universe and everything in it. Do the research, then make up your mind. Also, the Nazis did use evolution to support the Holocaust. Read the *whole* title of The Origin of the Species. It ends with: The preservation of favored races... Finally,if you really support this theory, then women are inferior and less evolved than men. Read the book and have a great day.
Posted by
erehys
on 04/18/2008 at 1:57 PM
Re: “Lies, damned lies and "intelligent design'”
We never said liberals were intellegently designed just conservatives.
Posted by
Bill
on 04/17/2008 at 10:34 AM
Re: “Lies, damned lies and "intelligent design'”
hmmmm... are you purporting that global warming due in part to human actions is "mumbo-jumbo" while intelligent design is legit?
Posted by
liliGibbons
on 04/17/2008 at 10:02 AM
Re: “Lies, damned lies and "intelligent design'”
Now that's funny. While on the cover of the Indy we get clubbed like a baby seal with one over politicized batch of political-scientific mumbo-jumbo back here is where we find all the journalistic skepticism the Indy can muster directed toward perhaps the silliest of all political-scientific frauds. Why not direct a fair amount of that effort toward debunking the favored pseudo-science of the left as well as the right? Every day more and more articles come to light questioning the very foundation of the theory of human caused global climate change. Articles written by real scientific types whose fields of study cover the relevant material. But they are ignored. Thank Gaea for Ben Stein and his silly movie about Intelligent Design. What a wonderful distraction from your own sides politicization of science.
Posted by
Mister Mxyzptlk
on 04/17/2008 at 6:59 AM
Re: “Stopped short”
This kid seems to know what he's talking about for the most part. I was interested in the film but will now skip it over. As usual, well done Mr Sneider (well except for TWBB)
Posted by
Bardo
on 03/28/2008 at 10:33 AM
Re: “Romancing the stoned”
Speaking for women everywhere... what's wrong with Malibu Ken?
Posted by
EowynRohan
on 02/08/2008 at 1:15 PM
Re: “Blood thirsty”
"Eli's good-natured faith in people makes him optimistic, and it's this compassion for his fellow man that sets Eli apart from Plainview, who has nothing but contempt for others." Did you even see this movie?
Posted by
Frank Frey
on 01/28/2008 at 9:11 AM
Re: “Blood thirsty”
I just returned from seeing this film and I am still trying to find the words to express how moved I was by Daniel Day-Lewis' fabulous performance! He is truly one of our finest performers and continues to amaze me.He&this film truly deserve the industry's highest honor!
Posted by
pclarke1997
on 01/25/2008 at 7:38 PM
Re: “Type casting”
THE FACT THAT YOU BELIEVE THAT THESE TWO ACTORS MADE THIS MOVIE BASED ON COLLECTING A PAYCHECK, SHOWS HOW NARROW MINDED YOU ARE TOWARDS REACHING A PLACE OF COMFORTABILITY IN LIFE,,, THOSE ARE TWO WONDERFUL ACTORS WHO HAVE DONE MANY ROLES, WHAT THEY DO ON SCREEN IS AMAZING. THE WAY YOU PORTRAYED THEM, ABSOLUTLY TERRIBLE, IT WAS INSULTING, TWO OF MY FAVORITE ACTORS, AND TWO OF THE GREATEST. STOP AND PUT INTO PERSPECTIVE, MAYBE THEY DO MOVIES THEY ENJOY, RATHER THAN HOW MANY AWARDS IT WILL WIN, OR WHO THE DIRECTOR IS, OR THE SUPPORTING CAST, THOSE TWO HAVE NOTHING TO PROVE, THEY'VE DONE ALL THAT OVER THE LAST 30-40 YRS,, I'M SORRY YOU CAN'T SEE WHAT IT IS TO REACH A POINT OF LIFE IN WHICH THINGS ARE DONE, FOR THE SAKE OF SMILES, AND FRIENDS, "DEEBO"
Posted by
deebo
on 01/16/2008 at 1:20 PM
Re: “Lies, damned lies and "intelligent design'”
I did and I found that it did a good job of showing both sides of the academic lines. You're wrong, webgirl. There is no "other side" to the ID issue, a fact that the film completely obscures. No reputable, peer-reviewed scientist has yet put forth any kind of scientific defense of ID. There simply is no controversy about evolution in scientific circles. Ben Stein is lying to you. I think that the most comment came from Dr. Dawkins himself when he said that he believed that life on Earth was "seeded" from an advanced, intelligent society. Now isn't that interesting? An evolutionist who admitted that he believed in intelligent design? And now you're lying. Dawkins admits it's within the realm of possibility that aliens could have seeded Earth with the most basic form of life... but -- he goes on to say -- those aliens would themselves have had to have been the products of natural evolution. And in any event, Dawkins is talking about the origin of life on Earth, NOT the development of life after that point, which is ALL the theory of evolution is concerned with. Evolution does NOT even pretend to cover the origin of life on Earth. And once again, Stein is confusing the issue by pretending that evolution has anything to do with that area. Here, once again, is the insidiousness of Stein and *Expelled*: he misleads the ignorant for his own purposes, which I'm not even sure we can discern from the film. Why does Stein believe it's better to lie about these things?