Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed

[diamond]

and that sounds like a cop out my friend.

and until *you* view the film Melon, you too fall into the same catagory, a soundbite, clip and post provocateur not able to come to the table correctly.

what is it w you some of you who suppose yourselves as experts to critique a film without viewing it?

why is it beneath you to do so?
are you *better* than others viewing yourselves as intellectual superiors?

or prehaps, are some afraid of the truth?

please refrain from quoting me until you watch the film, unless you have a decent excuse like Yolland.

<>

[A_Wanderer]

Intelligent design is flawed, you want to try and justify why it deserves a place in the classroom? Fairness alone doesn't cut it; why not have alchemy taught alongside chemistry, astrology alongside astronomy or qui in health class? The battles have been fought when over-zealous Christians get elected to school boards, try and subvert the curriculum and then get taken to court where they have lost every time - and the judges weigh up the evidence as expert witnesses from both sides are brought in and cross examined. Every time it is demonstrated that ID is not science, that it is promoted by a religious organisation with the goal of bringing the science class in line with their theology; and that it is unconstitutional to do so in a public school.

That after loosing in Kansas and Pennsylvania they bring out a movie. It does not change the facts, ID posits a supernatural designer and promotes a religious belief and has no place in the classroom.

Your posts are pure ad hominem, if you think that natural selection is the best theory to explain the origin of new species (note theory is in the scientific sense, not the colloquial) then you are open to genocide or worse, a snooty intellectual.

[Diemen]

Originally posted by diamond
and that sounds like a cop out my friend.

and until *you* view the film Melon, you too fall into the same catagory, a soundbite, clip and post provocateur not able to come to the table correctly.

what is it w you some of you who suppose yourselves as experts to critique a film without viewing it?

why is it beneath you to do so?
are you *better* than others viewing yourselves as intellectual superiors?

or prehaps, are some afraid of the truth?

please refrain from quoting me until you watch the film, unless you have a decent excuse like Yolland.

<>

It doesn't take a rocket scientist to see that this movie has a very strong bias, and no interest in fairly presenting both sides of the story. When there are so many countless reviews out there that list the films talking points, and one can corroborate the talking points by looking at both positive and negative reviews, then it is not necessary to see the film in order to debate the talking points. I have yet to see you actually refute anyone's assertations as to the talking points of the film. So, unless you are being uncharacteristically generous, it would be safe to assume that we got the talking points correct, and that the discussion has now moved beyond the film itself, and into the arguments the film tries to make. That you refuse to discuss these issues simply because some haven't seen a film that talks about them is a massive cop out.

But, since you have seen the film, and those at www.expelledexposed.com have also seen the film, perhaps you'd care to discuss their analysis of the film's talking points?

[melon]

Originally posted by diamond
and that sounds like a cop out my friend.

and until *you* view the film Melon, you too fall into the same catagory, a soundbite, clip and post provocateur not able to come to the table correctly.

The thing is, you and all the reviews have stated the supposed "Darwinist/Nazi" connection. The only difference has been our reactions to it.

So even presuming that Hitler supported evolution, to evoke "Hitler" as the sole reason to object to something is the working definition of "reductio ad Hitlerum." Ben Stein seems like a relatively educated guy, and being an entrenched political conservative as he is, I find it baffling that he'd fall for such an important contribution from 20th century conservative political philosophy as "reductio ad Hitlerum."

So tell me where I'm wrong here, if you disagree?

[deep]

Bill Lets Fla. Schools Teach Evolution Alternatives

by Greg Allen






Actor Ben Stein speaks March 12 in Tallahassee in support of legislation sponsored by state Rep. Alan Hays for Florida schools to teach challenges to evolution in science classes. AP

Morning Edition, April 29, 2008 · Florida's House and Senate have passed bills that would allow — or require — teachers to present alternate theories of how life evolved. Proponents say the issue is academic freedom. But critics say the bills would introduce religion into public schools.

The Florida House legislation must now return to the Senate, which has already passed a different version of the bill.

Two other states are also looking at the issue, framed as a matter of "academic freedom." That terminology is promoted by the Discovery Institute, a group that backs the teaching of "intelligent design" in classrooms.

The movement is also the subject of the new Ben Stein film, Expelled.

The House bill is called the Evolution Academic Freedom Act. One of its sponsors, Republican state Rep. Alan Hays, says he has a question for its critics.

"What are you afraid of?" Hays asked. "Are you afraid that our students are going to learn how to critically analyze a theory?"

'Thorough Presentation' of Evolution Theory

Florida's House passed the bill by a wide margin Monday. It requires teachers to provide students with "a thorough presentation and scientific critical analysis" of the theory of evolution.

What that analysis would be isn't clear. But proponents say it would have to be scientific, not religious.

Hays said the bill is needed to protect teachers who feel intimidated by school district policies that prevent them from teaching alternate views to the theory of evolution.

Opponents, mostly Democrats like Rep. Franklin Sands, said all the talk about academic freedom is a smokescreen.

"Let's be real clear on what it is that we're actually voting about," Sands said. "We're voting about the separation of church and state. We're voting about teaching religion in the schools. You can couch it any way you want. But that is exactly what we're talking about."

To help clarify that issue, when a similar bill was debated and passed last week in Florida's Senate, opponents introduced an amendment that would allow teachers to present the full range of scientific viewpoints on sex education.

The amendment was quickly voted down.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/s...oryId=90024822

[diamond]

Originally posted by melon


The thing is, you and all the reviews have stated the supposed "Darwinist/Nazi" connection. The only difference has been our reactions to it.

So even presuming that Hitler supported evolution, to evoke "Hitler" as the sole reason to object to something is the working definition of "reductio ad Hitlerum." Ben Stein seems like a relatively educated guy, and being an entrenched political conservative as he is, I find it baffling that he'd fall for such an important contribution from 20th century conservative political philosophy as "reductio ad Hitlerum."

So tell me where I'm wrong here, if you disagree?

You need to see the movie.
The movie is more about suppression of speech -the thing that Bloom warns against in the book you ask that I read,and I'm happy to report, I'm now on page 21.

So, until you *see* the movie it's not fair to debate it's contents or motives, and please refrain from quoting me in this thread until you actually watch the movie, or at least read the script.

<>

[Diemen]

Originally posted by diamond
The movie is more about suppression of speech

from expelledexposed.com

Richard Sternberg
Summary
Expelled claims that Sternberg was “terrorized” and that “his life was nearly ruined” when, in 2004, as editor of Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington, he published a pro-intelligent design article by Stephen C. Meyer. However, there is no evidence of either terrorism or ruination. Before publishing the paper, Sternberg worked for the National Institutes of Health at the National Center for Biotechnology Information (GenBank) and was an unpaid Research Associate – not an employee – at the Smithsonian. He was the voluntary, unpaid editor of PBSW (small academic journals rarely pay editors), and had given notice of his resignation as editor six months before the Meyer article was published. After the Meyer incident, he remained an employee of NIH and his unpaid position at the Smithsonian was extended in 2006, although he has not shown up there in years. At no time was any aspect of his pay or working conditions at NIH affected. It is difficult to see how his life “was nearly ruined” when nothing serious happened to him. He was never even disciplined for legitimate violations of policy of PBSW or Smithsonian policy.
more

Guillermo Gonzalez
Summary
Expelled claims that Iowa State University astronomy professor Guillermo Gonzalez was denied tenure because of his views on intelligent design. However, this shows a naïve and distorted understanding of the tenure process at a major research university. The tenure process involves intense scrutiny of a candidate’s accomplishments in order to assess his future potential; the beliefs or extra-academic opinions held by the candidate are not a factor. Gonzalez’s academic record is not as golden as Expelled would have you believe, and due process was rendered at every level of appeal. ISU was justified in rejecting his application for tenure.
more


Caroline Crocker
Summary
Expelled claims that Caroline Crocker was fired because she mentioned Intelligent Design in a class she was teaching. However, the evidence says otherwise. While there may have been grounds to fire her with cause, Crocker was not fired and continued to teach her course after student complaints; in addition, she did not just “mention” intelligent design, but rather was teaching demonstrably false creationist material. We do not know for certain why Crocker was not re-hired for her non-tenure track job. Such positions carry no promise that contracts will be renewed. Only tenure-track jobs come with such an expectation, and only tenured professors have a guarantee of employment.
more

And further info on claims made in the movie about other IDers who were "surpressed" by the establishment:

Robert Marks

Pamela Winnick

Michael Egnor

[diamond]

..and in some ppl's worlds to learn fact or truth they run to an advesarial source to appease their view points and or feelings, breathing a sigh of relief when vindicationg their hopes- instead of looking at both sides which would be watching the actual movie for starters.

if i wanted to learn about Hinduism, I wouldn't run to a Muslim for the "goods" to ask their views on the truthfulness of Hinduism.

diemure my challenge to you is to put down your left coast latte, get some sack and get your lanky a*s to the theater and view the film-what are you afraid of?

and at that point *we* may be able to have an objective discussion.

[melon]

Originally posted by diamond
The movie is more about suppression of speech -the thing that Bloom warns against in the book you ask that I read,and I'm happy to report, I'm now on page 21.

[opens up page 21...]

Bloom wrote that in the context of a liberal-arts education. Science, in contrast, is not part of that humanities curriculum. Other than that, I'm happy for debate within humanities, and I'd like to see a rebirth of philosophy in higher education, which is where I think such debates like these are most appropriate.

[Irvine511]

Originally posted by diamond

So, until you *see* the movie it's not fair to debate it's contents or motives, and please refrain from quoting me in this thread until you actually watch the movie, or at least read the script.

lovely. i look forward to hearing about your new gay relationships the next time you feel you want to comment on marriage equality.

knock 'em dead, big guy.

[diamond]

i extend the same challenge that i made to diemure to the 2 other bums piping off here.

<>

[Irvine511]

Originally posted by diamond
i extend the same challenge that i made to diemure to the 2 other bums piping off here.

which one is you?

[A_Wanderer]

I refuse to pay money to the Discovery Institute. I know the science, I understand what ID posits and I reject it. It isn't a question of fairplay in the scientific community or academic freedom; it is about what scientific theory (which you need to learn about - a theory is not a guess) best describes the nature of nature. And evolution does that exquisitely with all the nuances that life's grandeur deserves.

[A_Wanderer]

Originally posted by Irvine511








which one is you?

I think we can see more skin.

[Irvine511]

Originally posted by A_Wanderer
I think we can see more skin.

but does diamond?

that's the question -- he'd have to want to see more male skin were he to be qualified to comment on any gay-related issue, as per his stance in here that you are unqualified to comment on ID or Ben Stein unless you have seen this particular propaganda piece.

that's the only ironic point i have to add to this.

you and Melon defend the science far better than i can.

[A_Wanderer]

It evokes a response, I say bring on the action; I can distract myself with naked ladies, this is the internet after all.

[diamond]

debauchery

[A_Wanderer]

Freedom.

[A_Wanderer]

Wow, I just saw Ben Stein on youtube and he was repeating the lightning striking a mud puddle line; wrong on 2 points, the first being that biogenesis is not evolution and the second is that there is no difference between living and inert matter; the carbon atoms in a human brain are the same as those in the center of a star.

Evolution doesn't postulate that human beings were formed instantaneously by lighting striking a mud puddle through pure luck. It postulates that all life on earth replicates it's information with heritable variations and that the differential rates of survival of organisms in their environment effect what variations get passed down through the generations.

It is a blind mechanical process. That it selects the optimum kinds for an environment. That any particular mutation taking place occurs by chance does not undo the tremendous selective pressure at play. The failure of imagination and understanding by creationists does them no favours and inhibits any chance at that dialogue that they so deeply seem to desire.

[INDY500]

Originally posted by A_Wanderer
[B] biogenesis is not evolution

That was kinda the point of the whole movie. Evolution does not explain how life started. Evolution requires, at the minimum; living, replicating cellular life.
So then, how did life begin? Well, we really don't have any clue how, strictly by chance, molecules assembled themselves from nonliving things into living things -- only that they did, and that only a monotone Jew or snake-handling inbreed would think otherwise.