Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

7 Minute Expelled Preview


After watching the actions of Lazarus and cdesignproponentsists for a while I decided to block them. I cannot tell if they legitimately believe what they are saying but they are not here to reasonably discuss issues, they are here to accuse people based upon a disagreement on priorities. Besides, some terminology they used made me suspect they were frauds. If they're not going to have any positive contribution to UD I don't see why they should stay. Patrick
[...] and humorous than it’s predecessors, but also might be more powerful as a result. It can be found here. [...] l3rucewayne’s blog
What is the purpose of ‘overthrowing materialism’?
I'm not at all sure that materialism can be overthrown...or that it would be a good thing to "overthrow" it. What I'm interested in is a fair hearing for alternative points of view, as I said in #20. But what do you suppose is the purpose of defending it? Lutepisc
I think you meant ‘relurk’.
By "delurk" I meant I will not bother to lurk any more. The blog will not be worth the time it takes to lurk. Lutepisc
I think you meant 'relurk'. And you may answer the question to Appolos as well: What is the purpose of 'overthrowing materialism'? What will that change? Lazarus
It’s getting old.
I completely agree, Apollos. I've said my piece. I'll say no more about "cdesignproponentsists." Ironically, I've been noticing in the past couple of months how the quality of blog postings has markedly improved over what it was when I first began lurking about two years ago. But now if we have to contend with Darwinist trolls, I expect threads to be increasingly commandeered with rear-action attempts to identify the trolls and dispute their outrageous misinterpretations of ID. Regrettably, the quality of the postings will deteriorate. If this continues, I will "delurk." I've got better things to do with my time. Lutepisc
Appollos, what is the purpose of Intelligent Design? Simply to 'overthrow materialism'? How will that help anything in the world, if we don't return to Christ. Lazarus
It would seem that trolls travel in pairs, and are good at exploiting loopholes on moderated blogs supporting intelligent design. Good faith dialog is lacking among a few recent posters on UD; instead we see sarcasm, parody, and caricature -- with megaphone style satirical sermons echoing from the soapbox -- it has a real Westboro baptist flavor to it. The brilliance of this portrayal is that many here seem willing to accept the stereotype as the legitimate portrayal of "fundies." More likely this is a militant TE posing as a fundie, since the association of ID with materialistic science is so prolific. This is an underhanded approach to painting ID as a creationist attempt at using materialist science to promote Christianity. It's getting old. Apollos
Lutepisc, if you are really into Intelligent Design then you will engage this person and attempt to save their soul for Christ, the Designer. These trolls just come here hoping that someone will lead them to the Lord, and that is the only thing we have on this Earth to accomplish. No amount of stealing materialists arguments to fight materialism will save one single soul. Lazarus
Patrick, I want to say this as gently as possible. I would send this backchannel if I could. The handle "cdesignproponentsists" is a conflation of "design proponents" and "creationists." It's a reference to the Dover trial's examination of "Of Pandas and People," where later editions of the text evidently replaced the word "creationism" with the words "intelligent design." This was used as evidence that ID is simply "creationism in a cheap tuxedo." I can't say which Darwin-friendly blogs I've seen "cdesignproponentsists" posting on, but someone with that handle has been posting there. Perhaps it's just a chance coincidence, but I'm more inclined to accept a design inference here. That plus the "over the top" content of the posting here leads me to conclude that "cdesignproponentsists" is a troll. Typical of the style of engagement which Darwinistas employ, this troll prefers subterfuge and disdain to legitimate dialog and debate. I think the guardians of this site have done a great job of providing a space where proponents and fans of ID can work together to move the paradigm forward. I just hope that the defenders can recognize a good camouflage and deal with it. Lutepisc
There are groups that are attempting to squash ID but they are doing this publicly and thus are hardly a "conspiracy", which usually implies secrecy unless you use a broader definition like this: any concurrence in action; combination in bringing about a given result. Given such a broad definition, it's perhaps justified to call what happened to Sternberg a "conspiracy" since it's on record that "My[Sternberg] professional reputation, private life, and ethics were repeatedly impugned and publicly smeared with false allegations by government employees working in tandem with a non-governmental political advocacy group, the National Center for Science Education (NCSE)." Otherwise, the majority of people opposing ID are acting alone and without guidance from a "conspiratorial group." Sometimes individuals will organize efforts based upon their own initiative but again that does not add up to a "grand atheist conspiracy.” Patrick
cdesignproponentsists, is anyone here besides trolls like you talking about a "grand atheist conspiracy?" The sarcasm in your last sentence is palpable. This is the attitude I was referring to in my comment about "social-psychological factors which need to be publicly identified and addressed." Lutepisc
God bless Ben Stein, even if he doesn't believe in Jesus! I think that its great that he's exposing the grand atheist conspiracy that mainstream scientists seem to be a part of. The Truth has been suppressed for too long! In a perfect world, people like Michael Behe and Stephen C. Meyer would be Nobel laureates for their brilliant scientific work. cdesignproponentsists
A trailer that's not an exhaustive treatment of a movie's subject matter? A movie trailer being provocative? Gosh, it's almost as if they're trying to get people to pay real actual money to go see this movie! angryoldfatman
Oh cool, thx again:-). 13atman
13atman, The Indoctrinate U website is up an running. I checked it out before I finished my comment just to make sure. Here are current screenings. http://indoctrinate-u.com/pages/screenings.html jerry
Jerry, Thanks for the very useful site! It is now bookmarked. I knew about Indoctrinate U whose site last i checked is down. I requested a local screening but no luck so far. I will probably be getting the DVD. I hope you are wrong as well about Expelled. The New York Times attention, O'Reilly, the Times Square ad and the previous successes of premise media and rocky mountain pictures give me cause for optimism. 13atman
Tyke, you make a valid point regarding the need to clarify ID as science (or at least protoscience) in the public’s perception. The scientific status of ID ultimately needs to be a subject of debate in the academy, though. That debate is being blocked by social-psychological factors which need to be publicly identified and addressed before the debate can proceed. What Expelled does, it seems to me, is bring those factors to the public’s attention. As Phillip Johnson said (paraphrasing), “If India is the most religious nation on earth and Sweden is the least religious, then the U.S. is a nation of Indians ruled by Swedes.” Expelled is making an appeal to the Indians about the behavior of the Swedes. In several cases within the academy (e.g., Gonzalez, Marks) ID proponents have been treated in a blatantly unfair way. Experience has shown that it is useless to appeal to the Swedes themselves for fairness in this. But until ID proponents are treated fairly in the academy, no scientific debate can move forward. Your point is well taken, but I believe you are putting the cart before the horse. If the message of Expelled is effective, increased debate on a level playing field within the academy will be the result. Lutepisc
You can look at "www.boxofficemojo.com" for the money a movie generates. I expect this movie not to make the top 100 for the year. A similar movie about political indoctrination that is current and privately made is "Indoctrinate U" and it is getting very limited screenings. It will be interesting if any of the major movie distributors or movie complexes take this movie on. If they do not then I expect a similar reception for Expelled. My guess is that Expelled will make its only money in the after market of DVD's and will essentially be bought by the choir and because of this will have little effect. I hope I am wrong. jerry
Well it's definitely less light hearted and humorous than the previouse ones, which might be a good thing for it's subject matter. I would like to know if this is playing in theaters yet. If not where is one likely to find out when previews for the film are playing in theaters and before which films? Also more generally where does one find out how a film does financially in the box office? Thx for answers to any of the above. 13atman
Borne I must disagree about the God inference not pushing the origins debate back a step. Of course it does, infinitely. This is where faith must enter the picture (aside: it was never out of the picture, for reason and faith cannot exist singly but reason as a gift of faith). There are many questions that we can not answer and must refrain from asking in this fallen creation. In the afterlife, we will have an eternity (and a reunion of faith and reason, in a perfect and not fallen form) to ask these questions. I can't wait to sit and talk with Jesus beside the still waters and hear all about what happened before the bible. If the infinite regress argument contains anything that we can take home at the end of the day, it is that the designer is infinite. To put it in fallible human terms, God probably designed Himself and saw that it was Good. Lazarus
Has anyone seen Ben Stein interviewed yet? If you have you already know he and his movie are going to accomplish zero. If anything it's going to help the enemy. Tim Toolbox_Tim
Let me remind all of you Expelled trailer dissenters and complainers that this is not an IDist movie, it is not a DI movie. It's a Hollywood production. And, as such, it uses all the typical Hollywood techniques for advertising - just like they did for Beowulf, The Number 23, Spiderman, Star Wars,Gangster and everything else. Of course the DI supports this movie as it serves their interests and presents to the public the reality of academic persecution against anything bucking neo-Darwinism. That is simply undeniable, though Darwinists "fly like pigs in sty" trying to prove the contrary - all while doing it before our eyes! So. What did you expect? Darwinists rush to support anything (using millions of public $) that promotes their own distorted and unrealistic views. Just look at the garbage published by PBS, Nova, National Geographic etc. So much hype and so many outright lies, known fraudulent cases and outdated information constantly presented as fact. Get over it people! So, coming here to crap on ID as a reaction is lame and foolish to boot. Not very smart. Tyke: I would actually appreciate your points (if not for the above comments). However, you're right about one thing: ID isn't about the God of the bible or any specific God at all. The God inference is everywhere to be logically obtained in this present universe. Including within yourself. The big bang theory is also recognized (and disliked by many scientists) as pointing to some omnipotent, omniscient being required for it to have occurred, and not much differently than ID pointing to the complexities and coded information systems of DNA. Complex coded information structures - they are present in all known living systems. A 'God' inference is not only valid but the only inference to origins that doesn't merely push the questions of creation back a step - like smart alien theories you mention i.e. Where'd the smart aliens come from? - or blindly insists on chance because it has a previous metaphysical commitment to materialism. Information is neither matter nor energy. It is metaphysical in nature and different from the medium that carries it. That alone ought to give you a hint that more is going on than mere matter in motion underlying existence.
"Atheism turns out to be too simple. If the whole universe has no meaning, we should never have found out that it has no meaning just as, if there were no light in the universe and therefore no creatures with eyes, we should never know it was dark. Dark would be without meaning." -
CS Lewis Borne
Speaking from 'across the pond' (the UK), what I found fascinating about the trailer was the Steinberg/Meyer case it touches upon. If that's the kind of material this production is going to focus upon, there are clearly serious questions to ask about the manner in which some aspects of inquiry are being muted. That must be something of concern to us all. howard
Tyke, Here is another link about the lies and misrepresentations promulgated by NOVA: PBS Airs False Facts in its "Inherit the Wind" Version of the Kitzmiller Trial EndoplasmicMessenger
Tyke, This is a teaser trailer. It is meant to garner attention for the entire movie - in the popular context of the culture war. Wait until February, I'm sure Dawkins, PZM, et al will squawk over specifics much louder then, especially if the film gets a wide audience. By the way, do you have any similar criticisms of the NOVA misrepresentations of Dover vs Kitzmiller? todd
Hi Chris: Your remark at 5 is more relevant to the thread than you may think. For, on inspection, it is unfortunately telling on the underlying unwarrantedly dismissive and denigrating contempt that leads to the sort of persecution that "Expelled" documents. For instance, re the pic referenced in 5: Does this structure include CSI? Is it “designed”?, I comment:
You mean, including the worker bee [including its genetics and chemistry!] and the hive that create the honeycomb [including not only the structure but the material, beeswax] as part of the process of reproduction and nutrition?
In short, there is a lot more to the scientific inference to design than may meet your eye just now. [Cf my always linked, through my handle for a start, as well as the general stuff in this blog's right column at the top.] Those who differ with the Dawkins-style evolutionary materialist paradigm at technical levels, do not do so because generally speaking they are one or more of being so ignorant, stupid, insane or wicked that they cannot see what a honeycomb and the bee that makes it are about. GEM of TKI PS to Tyke: Not so fast, ump! kairosfocus
1. There is no God and I hate Him.
2. The purpose of science is to prove there is no God.
Wrong again.
3. Anybody who doesn’t agree with points 1 and 2 is an anti-science creationist.
Strike three, and yer out!! I'll leave it there, except to say that you obviously don't know much about atheism. tyke
Oh my, perhaps I should not have mentioned the "A" word, since we seem to have instantly veered widely off track. But actually, I think Robo simply reinforces my point about the clip. Since Hitler is supposedly synonymous with the "A" word (it isn't, but let's not get sidetracked) then the liberal use of his image and those of his Nazis cohorts in the clip confirms that this is a movie about on going battle between religion vs science (or materialism vs religion if you want) and little to do with the veracity of ID and why it should not be censored from the scientific debate. ID is supposed to be neutral when it comes to who the designer is. As far as I'm concerned, it is much more likely that an alien species seeded our planet in some fashion than it is that some deity zapped us into existence. I understand this is a minority view here, but I thought it was a valid one all the same. My concern is that the DI and its supporters will be heavily promoting a movie that looks and sounds like a creationist tract. Since ID will not doubt be featured in the movie, I just think that in the end it will do more harm than good in the battle to have ID accepted as science. If you want to ban me from the board for expressing an unpopular opinion, then fine, but why not wait a few months and see who's right, eh? tyke
If at all possible I will try to make the first showing at the nearest theater that will show this film. UrbanMysticDee
Off Topic Question: http://www.vsa-apothekensysteme.de/uploads/RTEmagicC_239_Bienenwaben.jpg.jpg Does this structure include CSI? Is it "designed"? ChristopherSaint
tyke, I would not be surprised to learn that you are a previously banned poster using a new name, your posts are so tediously predictable. Maybe atheists all just post from the same talking points. To wit, 1. There is no God and I hate Him. 2. The purpose of science is to prove there is no God. 3. Anybody who doesn't agree with points 1 and 2 is an anti-science creationist. Apply the above talking points to Expelled and your post basically writes itself. Jehu
Tyke, you sound like a hyper sensitive atheist scientist friend of mine who changes the subject every time Hilter is mentioned. If u r an atheist, you need to own up to the implications of your belief system. I am NOT saying that being an atheist WILL make you into a Hilter. What I AM saying is that as an atheist you have no epistemic right to claim that moral vaules are absolute. Thus Hilterism, while entirely inconsistent with Christianity is entirely CONSISTENT with atheism. Did you catch the shot of the leopard in the film? As for being an atheist ... have u heard of the presumption of atheism? Can u prove God does not exist? Then ditch atheism and become an agnostic for goodness sake. Robo
This is what I got from the preview: Slick production values, no doubt, but that the overarching battle is science vs. religion. Either we are mud and lightning (this is a phrase right of the creationist play book, by the way) or we are God's creation. As an atheist who is sympathetic to the core idea of ID, it looks as though there will be nothing in this movie for me. This is yet another case where ID is little more than a proxy in the ongoing battle between science and creationism. The trailer uses all the same tricks that creationists have been using for decades -- invoking God, context-free sound bytes from scientists, claims of persecution and censorship, scary pictures of Hitler and concentration camps, on and on. All in seven minutes. Frankly, out-and-out creationists like Ken Ham and D. James Kennedy could have easily made something like this. I have little doubt that it will play well its target audience -- Christians who are already sympathetic to creationism, and I do not doubt a lot of people on this site will get a big kick out of it. But I also have no doubt that it will further weaken the case that ID is something more, something different from creationism. This movie will change nothing. And that's a crying shame. tyke
This is a powerful preview. I suspect the viral value will produce a result similar to Gibson's The Passion. todd
I really don't see how this movie helps the cause of intelligent design. Isn't the whole point that ID'ers remain agnostic as to who the designer is? It seems to me that this movie could do more damage than good. Us evolutionists can point at it and say "See? We told you it was all about God." And the way they cut off Dawkins' comment seemed a little dishonest. I wonder what he said after the word "doctrine". mathstudent

Leave a Reply