4 ms·

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

by 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.
        tptacek 17y ago
        I am so confused. Where in that article does he call very religious people --- no, wait, anyone --- a "liar"? Did you read it? Read it again. It's good.
    - wglb 17y ago
      Here is the roger ebert article: http://blogs.suntimes.com/ebert/2008/12/win_ben_steins_mind.html http://blogs.suntimes.com/ebert/2008/12/win_ben_steins_mind.... One quote: This film is cheerfully ignorant, manipulative, slanted, cherry-picks quotations, draws unwarranted conclusions, makes outrageous juxtapositions (Soviet marching troops representing opponents of ID), pussy-foots around religion (not a single identified believer among the ID people), segues between quotes that are not about the same thing, tells bald-faced lies, and makes a completely baseless association between freedom of speech and freedom to teach religion in a university class that is not about religion.
    - deleted 17y ago
      [deleted]
- anigbrowl 17y ago
  you could make a great-looking documentary claiming the earth is flat, and it would likely do equally badly. The whole ID movement depends on manufacturing controversy by claiming that gaps in our knowledge constitute evidence for an alternative theory, which is fundamentally unscientific. Universities dumping staff who put their names to publications which they know will discredit science is not a big deal to me. It would be different if ID advocates were presenting evidence that contradicted the findings of cladistics or so, but their arguments are metaphysical rather than evidence-based, and ID is not so much a theory as an objection to Drawinism. In the case of Expelled, things like the juxtaposition of Nazi concentration camps with discussions of Darwinism mean that the film ultimately amounts to a giant reductio ad Hitlerum argument, and the fact that it involved professional camerawork and editing doesn't alter that fact. The only way the film belongs in a science museum or archive is if it's filed next to exhibits about the church burning Giordano Bruno at the stake for asserting that the sun goes around the earth...with Expelled being a depressing example of the burning mentality, rather than a heroic defense of the victims. Darwin himself was highly skeptical of eugenics, objected to slavery, and valued humanity's capacity for empathy and education which he viewed as part of evolution's outcome rather than as constraints upon it.
- tdedecko 17y ago
  Bad example. I gave Expelled a 1 on IMDB for the sole reason I thought it was very badly made (for a documentary). Some votes might be because the movie is "being punished" but I seriously doubt all are. There certainly are enough ID advocates to cancel out the negative votes.

by 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.
      - tptacek 17y ago
        I am so confused. Where in that article does he call very religious people --- no, wait, anyone --- a "liar"? Did you read it? Read it again. It's good.
  - wglb 17y ago
    Here is the roger ebert article: http://blogs.suntimes.com/ebert/2008/12/win_ben_steins_mind.html http://blogs.suntimes.com/ebert/2008/12/win_ben_steins_mind.... One quote: This film is cheerfully ignorant, manipulative, slanted, cherry-picks quotations, draws unwarranted conclusions, makes outrageous juxtapositions (Soviet marching troops representing opponents of ID), pussy-foots around religion (not a single identified believer among the ID people), segues between quotes that are not about the same thing, tells bald-faced lies, and makes a completely baseless association between freedom of speech and freedom to teach religion in a university class that is not about religion.
  - deleted 17y ago
    [deleted]
anigbrowl 17y ago
you could make a great-looking documentary claiming the earth is flat, and it would likely do equally badly. The whole ID movement depends on manufacturing controversy by claiming that gaps in our knowledge constitute evidence for an alternative theory, which is fundamentally unscientific. Universities dumping staff who put their names to publications which they know will discredit science is not a big deal to me. It would be different if ID advocates were presenting evidence that contradicted the findings of cladistics or so, but their arguments are metaphysical rather than evidence-based, and ID is not so much a theory as an objection to Drawinism. In the case of Expelled, things like the juxtaposition of Nazi concentration camps with discussions of Darwinism mean that the film ultimately amounts to a giant reductio ad Hitlerum argument, and the fact that it involved professional camerawork and editing doesn't alter that fact. The only way the film belongs in a science museum or archive is if it's filed next to exhibits about the church burning Giordano Bruno at the stake for asserting that the sun goes around the earth...with Expelled being a depressing example of the burning mentality, rather than a heroic defense of the victims. Darwin himself was highly skeptical of eugenics, objected to slavery, and valued humanity's capacity for empathy and education which he viewed as part of evolution's outcome rather than as constraints upon it.
tdedecko 17y ago
Bad example. I gave Expelled a 1 on IMDB for the sole reason I thought it was very badly made (for a documentary). Some votes might be because the movie is "being punished" but I seriously doubt all are. There certainly are enough ID advocates to cancel out the negative votes.