4 ms·

Science Center sued for rejecting anti-evolution film

7 points by prat 17y ago

prat 17y ago
I finished watching Ben Stein's "Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed" documentary. I thought the documentary was good, in that it talked about otherwise reputable scientists/teachers being expelled from their institutions because their name appeared in the context of ID where they did not vehemently reject it. Even if they didn't support or believe in ID, if they wrote an article merely wondering out loud about it, they were expelled. Interesting part is that in most cases authorities denied that that was the reason for the firing - eventhough their termination letter mentioned it.
- mani824 17y ago
  These people deserve to be bashed. The next thing they'll say would contradict another established scientific theory and then they would ask to include it in curriculum.
  - prat 17y ago
    That statement could be made about anyone contradicting any well established theory. I am not putting the ID guy on a pedestal with Galileo or some such sacrificed truth seeker. All I am saying is that beleif in ID is not like child molestation for which one should be expelled from job.
    - bbgm 17y ago
      Would you fire someone for teaching that the earth is at the center of the universe? Because ID pretty much falls into the same category. What people should be doing is being upfront about the reasons for firing rather than trying to hide them. Clarification: Firing is only relevant if they are actually teaching life sciences. If they aren't then it is a personal belief and doesn't really matter
      - prat 17y ago
        Your clarification was actually my next point. Many of them were in fields not remotely connected with biology.
- tptacek 17y ago
  Ebert handled this film better than any of us can: http://blogs.suntimes.com/ebert/2008/12/win_ben_steins_mind.html http://blogs.suntimes.com/ebert/2008/12/win_ben_steins_mind.... (He's not a fan). I agree with you that it's wrong to fire someone for believing in I-D, and I also find Ebert's take compelling.
- tdedecko 17y ago
  I tried watching Expelled a week ago. I approached it with an open mind trying to be able to see an alternate perspective. Unfortunately, I found it to be nearly unwatchable. I didn't like it because the presentation made it impossible for the documentary to even present an argument. Cuts during interviews were so rapid that I could barely understand the context of any statement. Furthermore, the rapid cuts symbolize an intention to mislead or misinterpret what people say. I got to point where Ben Stein visits the concentration camps. I was so perplexed by this I just turned the movie off. As for the information contained in Expelled. It was hard to interpret because it was filled with so much opinion. Nothing was hard fact enough for me to consider that the professors were fired for an invalid reason.
prat 17y ago
I also think that the question is no longer about which theory is true.. Its about which side do you belong to and how stupid can you be to even raise the topic of ID.
- prat 17y ago
  here is an example.. The movie got 3.7 on IMDB - the lowest I have seen yet. I think the movie is not badly made - it been punished for being sympathetic towards (not ID but) people who believe in ID http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1091617/ http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1091617/
  - tptacek 17y ago
    The movie is well put together but, according to convincing descriptions from Roger Ebert (and many others), frequently dishonest.
    - DanielBMarkham 17y ago
      I hate to weigh in here, cause it looks like one of those no-win conversations, but I don't understand. Are you saying that Ebert called Ben Stein a liar? That's usually what the word "dishonest" means. (as opposed to "mistaken") EDIT: The reason I ask is that I've seen a lot of adjectives applied to creationists (as opposed to true ID'ers) Words like "mistaken", "superstitious", "simple-minded", "pig-headed", "anti-academic", etc But never liar. It just wouldn't fit in with the rest of the words commonly used.
      - tptacek 17y ago
        I don't even understand what you're asking, Daniel. You should read the article. Like most of what he writes on his blog, it's excellent.
        DanielBMarkham 17y ago
        I just tried. Looks like a bunch of straw-man nonsense to me. I like Ebert and have watched him for a long time on S&E (and later E&R). But I've always thought he was a bit too mushy-headed for me and for that reason have never been a fan of his blog. He was always the one to get caught up in the "feel" of a movie, even when the production values, acting, and directing stunk. In fact, Ebert is the person that turned me off to movie reviews in general. When I want reviews, I use an aggregation service like RottenTomatoes. Like I said, no-win discussion. I'm certainly not a creationist, but calling them liars doesn't seem very productive. Make fun of them all you want, but calling a very religious person a liar seems completely counter-productive.
jrockway 17y ago
I hate the name "American Freedom Alliance" for an organization whose goal is to control people through religion. It should rename itself to the "American Brainwashing Alliance". Not quite as catchy, I guess...

7 points by prat 17y ago

prat 17y ago

I finished watching Ben Stein's "Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed" documentary. I thought the documentary was good, in that it talked about otherwise reputable scientists/teachers being expelled from their institutions because their name appeared in the context of ID where they did not vehemently reject it. Even if they didn't support or believe in ID, if they wrote an article merely wondering out loud about it, they were expelled. Interesting part is that in most cases authorities denied that that was the reason for the firing - eventhough their termination letter mentioned it.

mani824 17y ago
These people deserve to be bashed. The next thing they'll say would contradict another established scientific theory and then they would ask to include it in curriculum.
- prat 17y ago
  That statement could be made about anyone contradicting any well established theory. I am not putting the ID guy on a pedestal with Galileo or some such sacrificed truth seeker. All I am saying is that beleif in ID is not like child molestation for which one should be expelled from job.
  - bbgm 17y ago
    Would you fire someone for teaching that the earth is at the center of the universe? Because ID pretty much falls into the same category. What people should be doing is being upfront about the reasons for firing rather than trying to hide them. Clarification: Firing is only relevant if they are actually teaching life sciences. If they aren't then it is a personal belief and doesn't really matter
    - prat 17y ago
      Your clarification was actually my next point. Many of them were in fields not remotely connected with biology.
tptacek 17y ago
Ebert handled this film better than any of us can: http://blogs.suntimes.com/ebert/2008/12/win_ben_steins_mind.html http://blogs.suntimes.com/ebert/2008/12/win_ben_steins_mind.... (He's not a fan). I agree with you that it's wrong to fire someone for believing in I-D, and I also find Ebert's take compelling.
tdedecko 17y ago
I tried watching Expelled a week ago. I approached it with an open mind trying to be able to see an alternate perspective. Unfortunately, I found it to be nearly unwatchable. I didn't like it because the presentation made it impossible for the documentary to even present an argument. Cuts during interviews were so rapid that I could barely understand the context of any statement. Furthermore, the rapid cuts symbolize an intention to mislead or misinterpret what people say. I got to point where Ben Stein visits the concentration camps. I was so perplexed by this I just turned the movie off. As for the information contained in Expelled. It was hard to interpret because it was filled with so much opinion. Nothing was hard fact enough for me to consider that the professors were fired for an invalid reason.

prat 17y ago

I also think that the question is no longer about which theory is true.. Its about which side do you belong to and how stupid can you be to even raise the topic of ID.

prat 17y ago
here is an example.. The movie got 3.7 on IMDB - the lowest I have seen yet. I think the movie is not badly made - it been punished for being sympathetic towards (not ID but) people who believe in ID http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1091617/ http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1091617/
- tptacek 17y ago
  The movie is well put together but, according to convincing descriptions from Roger Ebert (and many others), frequently dishonest.
  - DanielBMarkham 17y ago
    I hate to weigh in here, cause it looks like one of those no-win conversations, but I don't understand. Are you saying that Ebert called Ben Stein a liar? That's usually what the word "dishonest" means. (as opposed to "mistaken") EDIT: The reason I ask is that I've seen a lot of adjectives applied to creationists (as opposed to true ID'ers) Words like "mistaken", "superstitious", "simple-minded", "pig-headed", "anti-academic", etc But never liar. It just wouldn't fit in with the rest of the words commonly used.
    - tptacek 17y ago
      I don't even understand what you're asking, Daniel. You should read the article. Like most of what he writes on his blog, it's excellent.
      - DanielBMarkham 17y ago
        I just tried. Looks like a bunch of straw-man nonsense to me. I like Ebert and have watched him for a long time on S&E (and later E&R). But I've always thought he was a bit too mushy-headed for me and for that reason have never been a fan of his blog. He was always the one to get caught up in the "feel" of a movie, even when the production values, acting, and directing stunk. In fact, Ebert is the person that turned me off to movie reviews in general. When I want reviews, I use an aggregation service like RottenTomatoes. Like I said, no-win discussion. I'm certainly not a creationist, but calling them liars doesn't seem very productive. Make fun of them all you want, but calling a very religious person a liar seems completely counter-productive.

jrockway 17y ago

I hate the name "American Freedom Alliance" for an organization whose goal is to control people through religion. It should rename itself to the "American Brainwashing Alliance". Not quite as catchy, I guess...