Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Randy Olson plugs Ben Stein’s EXPELLED (actually, the trailer for EXPELLED)

William Dembski
August 22, 2007
Intelligent Design
Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

Responding to PZ Myers’ usual commenters, Randy Olson, of FLOCK OF DODOS fame, remarks:

Are you folks really this clueless? You make me think of a baseball team that finishes the season in last place, then spends the off season criticizing all the other teams, as if that will address the problem.

I’m sorry to be the bearer of bad news, but that is an excellent trailer they have produced. Not some amateurish clunky mess that you would expect from a science organization. The music cue, “Bad to the Bone,” would have cost them $25,000 at least (assuming they have paid the rights — someone might want to look into that, but I’m guessing they have). Rights for music in a trailer is more than for using it in the movie.

Take the pain. Accept it. It already appears to be a much more powerful piece of mass communication than anything from the world of evolution for a long time (much slicker than my humble little movie, light years better than anything from PBS or AIBS). The science world is being out-gunned, both financially and in terms of cleverness.

What are you gonna do about it? Complain it’s not fair?

Posted by: Randy Olson, Head Dodo | August 22, 2007 03:14 PM

SOURCE: go here.

Comments
Rocket -- Is the designer a person, a supernatural being, an energy force, a deity, or what? Help me out here. Persuade me. ID is an attempt to determine design not a designer. You really can't see the distinctiion and its significance?tribune7
August 23, 2007
August
08
Aug
23
23
2007
10:50 AM
10
10
50
AM
PDT
Rocket is no longer with us. --WmADWilliam Dembski
August 23, 2007
August
08
Aug
23
23
2007
10:34 AM
10
10
34
AM
PDT
Rocket, To answer your question from a layman's point of view, if you are wanting to find out who the designer is, ID will not answer that question. ID looks for the effects of design by examining an object or event. Asking who did the design is not a scientific question, but a philosophical and/or theological question. I think "tyranny" was the right word. Drs. Crocker, Sternberg and Gonzolez work(ed) for public institutions, and were fired because they did not agree with the majority. This is comparable to the Sovient Union when scientists who disagreed with the state-supported theories of Lysenko were persecuted. While no one is dyingot imprisoned, threatening one's livelihood and destroying one's career, that I would called tyranny. (Note: the above is not a comprehesive list; I'm sure there are a lot more out there).JJS P.Eng.
August 23, 2007
August
08
Aug
23
23
2007
10:32 AM
10
10
32
AM
PDT
Rocket, Your argument is beyond stupid. It is not necessary to know the identity of the designer to know something is designed and it never has been. This whole idea that the identy of the designer must be known to detect design is such a blatant logical fallacy it is laughable. It is clearly a bad argument thought up by people without a good argument in order to convince the gullible.Jehu
August 23, 2007
August
08
Aug
23
23
2007
10:30 AM
10
10
30
AM
PDT
The use of "venomous rhetoric" and "tyranny" is pretty strong language. It makes you sound angry and desperate, as if you are arguing from a weak position. People who are confident of their position don't need to be so vehement. So if ID is not creationism, then exactly who is the designer? Isn't he the same as the creator? Creator (a person who creates), designer (a person who devises or executes designs, esp. one who creates), they sound the same to me. Can you tell me how they are different? Is the designer a person, a supernatural being, an energy force, a deity, or what? Help me out here. Persuade me.Rocket
August 23, 2007
August
08
Aug
23
23
2007
10:13 AM
10
10
13
AM
PDT
Changing PZ and friends minds is not the purpose of this movie. The purpose, IMO, is to expose the venomous rhetoric and tyranny of the materialist establishment and is aimed at those who aren't in the extremes, but in the middle. They are the ones who need persuading. PZ said he would have given a bigger and better rant if he knew he was going to be in this movie. I say bring it on! It just gives more support to the movie's premise. Slighty off topic: did anyone else notice that PZ had to be told he was in Expelled some time AFTER he first posted on it? That PZ gives a knee-jerk reaction without truly examining the subject he's talking about is worrisome since these are the guys in the ivory tower. That doesn't say much for the state of academics.JJS P.Eng.
August 23, 2007
August
08
Aug
23
23
2007
10:00 AM
10
10
00
AM
PDT
ID, or some form of teleology is going to win out and become an acceptable framework within biology at some point in the not too distant future. If someone in the general public wants to continue believing that ID = creationism (whatever the definition du jour of that is), then fine. Big deal.ultimate175
August 23, 2007
August
08
Aug
23
23
2007
09:58 AM
9
09
58
AM
PDT
This movie will cement in the public's opinion the fact that ID is creationism, and is a religious belief system. It will be loved by people who already agree with creationism, and won't change anybody's mind who thinks otherwise. Why does anyone here care what PZMyers thinks or says. Do you think you will change his mind?Rocket
August 23, 2007
August
08
Aug
23
23
2007
09:39 AM
9
09
39
AM
PDT
Hi LT, Of course, not having seen the movie or how it will be perceived, there have to be reservations. The makers will have their own interpretations and their editing will reflect that. The viewer will have his own interpretation and his reaction will reflect that. I, too, am bothered whenever I see this conflation of God and Designer. But a few things ought to mitigate your/our/my fears: The IDists interviewed, editing aside, will likely talk about science when talking science and personal interpretation when not. Whatever conflation occurs, the producers of this film are not the ones who define what ID is. Regardless of conflation, exposing the stories of Sternberg/Gonzalez/Kenyon/Behe/Dembski (any or all) to the public is a good unto itself. I think.Charlie
August 23, 2007
August
08
Aug
23
23
2007
09:11 AM
9
09
11
AM
PDT
I am somewhat surprised that there seems to be no reservations about this. I fear this may lend far more credence to the idea that Intelligent Design is "trojan horse creationism" in a lot of people's eyes if the movie talks about "God".Lord Timothy
August 23, 2007
August
08
Aug
23
23
2007
08:38 AM
8
08
38
AM
PDT
OK wait- didn't Paul Allen (microsoft) finance the PBS series "Evolution"? Do IDists really have more $$ than that? Movies like "Expelled" is what happens when one group tries to stifle academic freedom and scientific inquiry. The anti-IDists are the minority and cannot afford a culture war. Reap the whirlwind PZ and followers...Joseph
August 23, 2007
August
08
Aug
23
23
2007
08:20 AM
8
08
20
AM
PDT
People, people, the film is coming out in FEBRUARY, for Maude's sake. That means its distributors expect it to do crappy business. February is the cinematic wasteland for movie releases.
This comment was from Phyrangula. I think the point of the February release is to poop in the punchbowl of Darwin's birthday celebration and get some free publicity as a result.russ
August 23, 2007
August
08
Aug
23
23
2007
07:39 AM
7
07
39
AM
PDT
The Darwinists really ought to spend their time doing research to support their dying theory rather than worrying about some movie being made.rrf
August 23, 2007
August
08
Aug
23
23
2007
07:19 AM
7
07
19
AM
PDT
Three or four years ago one of the cable nets (I think it was Discovery) had a really stupid documentary (or something) based on how life would continue to evolve on Earth in millenia to come if the human race should migrate from it. It blatently assumed Darwinian evo to be a fact, and, IIRC, the conclusion was insects would take over. I don't want to be unfair to this show. (I certainly did not watch the whole thing and it was several years ago.) But if my memory is correct, the Insects take over. Ponder that. According to TOE, mammals, birds, reptiles all evolve after insects. Yet insects are the more survivable paradigm. Maybe one of our sleeper-cell IDists was behind the production, after all :-) I'll concede they are outgunned on cleverness :-)tribune7
August 23, 2007
August
08
Aug
23
23
2007
06:47 AM
6
06
47
AM
PDT
Trib 7:
it’s not really that they are out-gunned –at least w/regard to financing, considering the budgets of places like the Smithsonian, NPR and the NY Times — but that they are a far, far, far more target-rich environment.
True, true! Compare the budgets of just the major media institutions dominated by evolutionary materialist thought to DI's or that of an indie documentary producer. (NB: The Darwin Quote Mining, originally humorous, thread seems to be showing why EM makes for so target-rich an environment.) On the methane-burping moose -- poor moose! [BTW, I think they are called "elk" in Europe.] GEM of TKIkairosfocus
August 23, 2007
August
08
Aug
23
23
2007
06:25 AM
6
06
25
AM
PDT
“The science world is being out-gunned, both financially and in terms of cleverness.” Firstly, it's not the science world but the dogmatic materialists. Secondly, it's not really that they are out-gunned --at least w/regard to financing, condsidering the budgets of places like the Smithsonian, NPR and the NY Times -- but that they are a far, far, far more target-rich environment.tribune7
August 23, 2007
August
08
Aug
23
23
2007
06:01 AM
6
06
01
AM
PDT
This is FANTASTIC, I love the producers thinking. Take the case for academic freedom to the American public. When the issue is seen in its true context by the American people, as a case of freedom of thought in academia, then Darwinists will be seen in their true light, as impediments to true scientific progress, not the defenders of science as they would like people to believe. This is truly a joyful day for ID and for science!!! Off topic: Whoever does the Global warming topics may want to look at this: Belching moose add to global warming OSLO (AFP) - A grown moose belches out methane gas equivalent to 2,100 kilograms (4,630 pounds) of carbon dioxide a year, contributing to global warming, Norwegian researchers said Wednesday. http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20070822/sc_afp/sciencenorwayclimatebornagain77
August 23, 2007
August
08
Aug
23
23
2007
04:41 AM
4
04
41
AM
PDT
Randy is taking the heat for saying the obvious. I hope that movie makes it big, specially here in EuropeMats
August 23, 2007
August
08
Aug
23
23
2007
01:33 AM
1
01
33
AM
PDT
Poor Olson. He swam through the feeding frenzy that is Pharyngula and suffered a few bites before being properly and completely recognized. Maybe his own movie was a little too Chamberlainesque for that crowd.Charlie
August 22, 2007
August
08
Aug
22
22
2007
10:06 PM
10
10
06
PM
PDT
"The science world is being out-gunned, both financially and in terms of cleverness." I love that. They are being outgunned because they have ape-brains. Let them protest about the movie, as loud as possible, and as loud and violent as PZ Meyer did. We will thank them for giving the film free publicity, just as they did for the Passions of Christ.MatthewTan
August 22, 2007
August
08
Aug
22
22
2007
09:57 PM
9
09
57
PM
PDT
1 2

Leave a Reply