32 Replies to “Rick Sternberg in Theaters , February 12, 2008

  1. 1
    PaV says:

    It’s time to “Michael Moore” Darwinism.

    Great trailer. Looking forward to seeing it!

  2. 2
    JJS P.Eng. says:

    I am looking forward to seeing “Expelled”, but I’m getting ready to be entertained by the reaction to this. It has started already at PZ’s blog. I don’t normally frequent pharyngula but I was curious, and I was rewarded with sites of vulgarity, Ben Stein bashing, and hilarities that will make you gasp for air!

  3. 3
    JJS P.Eng. says:

    Oops! sites = sights

  4. 4
    Charlie says:

    Let me guess:
    “Ben Stein is an idiot …”
    “I used to like Ben Stein, but not now …”
    “I’m burning my Ferris Bueller posters …”
    “What a stupid trailer. Ben Stein doesn’t look like a cool Bad-to-the-bone-rebel .. what?…what’s irony?”

  5. 5
    JJS P.Eng. says:

    Actually, I was thinking of this one (Comment #10):

    “…It seems to me that, say, Ernst Mayer and Dobzhansky led pretty fruitful careers, despite dissenting with certain tenets of Darwin’s theory.”

    Yeah, good example man! Mayer and Dobzhansky are SO poster-boys for rebellioin against Darwinism!

    It’s kind of like America’s Funniest Home Videos; I laugh and shake my head that people like that actually exist in this world.

  6. 6
    Charlie says:

    I just occurred to me that Stein should keep the cameras rolling from now to the release date and he will have a perfect sequel or appendix to the film.
    I imagine the righteous indignation of the materialism-only crowd will spill over, if not amplify, in an effort to discredit or even suppress his documentary.
    The comments from the inevitable spamming of his blog would illustrate the point nicely.

  7. 7
    Forthekids says:

    “I just occurred to me that Stein should keep the cameras rolling from now to the release date and he will have a perfect sequel or appendix to the film.”

    LOL…no KIDDING. That would be THE PERFECT sequel. I’ve often thought that someone should write a book portraying the evilutionists at their best…in on-line blogs and forums. The things they spew would make the general public reel.

    I think this flick is going to give ID a serious boost.

    Can’t wait to order some rebel apparel.

  8. 8
    ex-xian says:

    He comes out and says that this is all about God in science and an intelligent creator rather than an intelligent designer. I thought that Dembski, Behe, etc, hold that ID is only about detecting design, not about saying anything about the designer(s)/Designer(s).

  9. 9
    scordova says:

    From Ben Stein’s blog:

    Ben Stein’s Blog

    Some of the greatest scientists of all time, including Galileo, Newton, Einstein, operated under the hypothesis that their work was to understand the principles and phenomena as designed by a creator.

    Operating under that hypothesis, they discovered the most important laws of motion, gravity, thermodynamics, relativity, and even economics.

    Now, I am sorry to say, freedom of inquiry in science is being suppressed.

    Under a new anti-religious dogmatism, scientists and educators are not allowed to even think thoughts that involve an intelligent creator. Do you realize that some of the leading lights of “anti-intelligent design” would not allow a scientist who merely believed in the possibility of an intelligent designer/creator to work for him… EVEN IF HE NEVER MENTIONED the possibility of intelligent design in the universe?EVEN FOR HIS VERY THOUGHTS… HE WOULD BE BANNED.

    In today’s world, at least in America, an Einstein or a Newton or a Galileo would probably not be allowed to receive grants to study or to publish his research.

    They cannot even mention the possibility that–as Newton or Galileo believed–these laws were created by God or a higher being. They could get fired, lose tenure, have their grants cut off. This can happen. It has happened. EXPELLED: No Intelligence Allowed comes to theaters near you in February 2008. To learn more, check out my blog here often … and explore the rest of our site for new developments, or to volunteer to help spread the word.

    Sincerely,

    Ben Stein

  10. 10
    mike1962 says:

    ex-exian: “I thought that Dembski, Behe, etc, hold that ID is only about detecting design, not about saying anything about the designer(s)/Designer(s).”

    What is wrong with the term “God?” It isn’t necessarily the Judeo, Christian, Muslim, Hindu, Wiccan, Zoroastrian. Manachaean, Sumerian, Akkadian, or Egyptian, deities.

    Einstein used the term “God” to refer to some abstract deistic-like process. If there is an intelligent designer, or designers, I would have no problem calling them lord and God, if they ever showed up on my doorstep, no matter what their nature was. They may or not be a god in the classical sense, but they sure would be God to me. (Sidebar: And I would probably do what they told me to do.)

    I’m not a fundamentalistic religionist, and I see nothing wrong with the term.

  11. 11
    shaner74 says:

    Yeah, this is the first time I chose to read Pharyngula over UD…for about 10 minutes. The comments there have left me with that warm type of happy feeling you get when your enemy is scared to death. To think, stuff like this could be easily avoided if Darwinists would just address the problems raised by the IDists and display to the world the mountain of evidence for unguided, purposeless, blind watchmaker evolution.

  12. 12
    ex-xian says:

    mike1962: What is wrong with the term “God?” It isn’t necessarily the Judeo, Christian, Muslim, Hindu, Wiccan, Zoroastrian. Manachaean, Sumerian, Akkadian, or Egyptian, deities.”

    There’s nothing wrong with it. In fact, I wish all intelligent design supporters were as forthright as Ben Stein about the purpose and meaning of ID.

  13. 13
    ex-xian says:

    One more thing, and I’m new here and I’m sorry if this isn’t the right place to ask this.

    I see above my comments “You comment is awaiting moderation.” I at first thought that no one could see it until it was approved, but mike1962 quoted me. What does the “awaiting moderation” mean?

  14. 14
    bornagain77 says:

    Here is the press release letter

    http://www.prnewswire.com/cgi-.....038;EDATE=

    Looks like they have all their bases covered!

    Should be very interesting to see the publics response to the academic censorship of Darwinists

  15. 15
    tyke says:

    shaner, it didn’t seem to me that Myers was upset, except for perhaps not being told openly and up front that he was being interviewed for pro-ID documentary movie. (Why did the producers do that anyway, it doesn’t seem like a particularly honorable way to go about things?)

    Frankly, as Myers himself says, the filmmakers would have gotten a much better rant from him if they’d have been more forthcoming about the nature of the movie–and that would have been much more fun to see on our side.

  16. 16
    StephenB says:

    Ben Stein is exactly right. Our greatest scientists, the real trailblazers, insisted that they were “thinking God’s thoughts after him.” The confidence to explore nature stemmed from the following conviction:

    1) God created a rational universe that left “clues” about his existence.
    2) God created rationality in man to find those clues
    3) God created a correspondence between the two

    That is why the materialist conception of the world is so warped. Take away any of these three conditions and lose not only science but all rational thought. What good is a rational mind without something to investigate? What good is a rational universe without an immaterial mind to apprehend it? What good is either one without a unifying metaphysical framework that makes each relative to the other allows for a meaningful interaction between the two?

    How, then, do we reconcile this confidence with the following fact: ID can detect design, but it cannot provide any information about the identity or attributes of the designer. Again, it is a simple matter of tempering confidence with humility. If we believe that the world that we investigate conforms to the laws of logic, we will not try to violate its laws or its logic by making unsupported claims about what our methodology can do. If, on the other hand, our investigation leads us in the direction of God, there is no reason in principle that we should feel inhibited about taking it as far as it will go.

    Darwinists, however, do not feel inhibited by those same laws of logic. Why should they honor some cosmic principle of rationality that they do not believe in. If they want to say that time, chance, random mutation, and natural selection can synergize to create life, who are we to challenge them? In their world, a thing can be true and false at the same time. If they want to say that creation science and intelligent design are the same thing, even though a twelve- year- old could tell the difference, who are we to impose our oppressive standards of right reason on them.

    What it all adds up to is that we cannot separate good science from common sense. Part of our task is to do good science and part of it is to rescue science from ideologues, even though the ideologues themselves are probably beyond rescue.

  17. 17
    bork says:

    Hmm, should be interesting.

    It should adequetly cause individuals to question darwinism and the current view of science.

    I hope PZ is incorrect about being interviewed under false pretenses. This will generate a lot of anger and belly aching.

  18. 18
    scordova says:

    There is an Academy Award category for documentary. It would be a riot if the film even got nominated!

  19. 19
    tribune7 says:

    Ben Stein rocks!

  20. 20
    scordova says:

    Bornagain77,

    Thanks for the link. Here is a blurb:

    The extensive grass roots campaign for Expelled, spearheaded by Motive
    Entertainment president, Paul Lauer, will include nationwide screenings and endorsements with key leaders, promotional materials, a promotional resource DVD, publicity, radio promotions and Internet. In addition, a pre-launch campaign will include unprecedented partnerships and a widespread campaign together with educators, youth, scientists, families and the media nationwide.

    I’m thankful for this movie because there are great threats to the freedom of thought these days. For example, thought police like Sam Harris are roaming around seeking whom they can devour.

    Nature August 23, 2007

    An Editorial announcing the publication of Francis Collins’s book, The Language of God (‘Building bridges’ Nature 442, 110;
    2006) represents another instance of high-minded squeamishness in addressing the incompatibility of faith and reason.

    Nature praises Collins, a devout Christian, for engaging “with people of faith to explore how science — both in its mode of thought and its results — is consistent with their religious beliefs”.

    ….
    What does the “mode of thought”
    displayed by Collins have in common with science? The Language of God should have sparked gasping outrage from the editors at Nature. Instead, they deemed Collins’s efforts “moving” and “laudable”, commending him for building a “bridge across the social and
    intellectual divide that exists between most of US academia and the so-called heartlands.”

  21. 21
    russ says:

    I’ve often thought that someone should write a book portraying the evilutionists at their best…in on-line blogs and forums. The things they spew would make the general public reel.

    As an experiment, I went to the pharyngula.com and clicked on comments for the movie blog post. Without reading any comments, I hit CTL + F and typed in a four-letter word for defecation. Twelve hits.

    Does Darwinism produce vulgarity, or is it simply that the vulgar are attracted to Darwinism?

  22. 22
    bork says:

    Well russ, we all know correlation is the same as causation – so, either vulgarity causes darwinism or vice versa, lol.

  23. 23
    GilDodgen says:

    Yeah, this is the first time I chose to read Pharyngula over UD…for about 10 minutes. The comments there have left me with that warm type of happy feeling you get when your enemy is scared to death.

    They are not only frightened, but depressed, because deep down inside they know that they have invested their lives and faith in a nihilistic lie — about everything that ultimately matters. This is why they lash out with such vitriol. They want others to join them in their nihilism, and are frustrated when others refuse to accompany them in their misery.

    But I don’t have a warm, happy feeling about this. It is a tragic state of affairs, that could have been easily avoided by following the evidence where it leads.

  24. 24
    scordova says:

    [from my post at TelicThoughts]

    I should mention there is a serious side to all this.

    If people think this about the public school issue, they’ve got it all wrong.

    I was filmed about the same time Caroline Crocker was, but I haven’t heard if I’ll be in the movie.

    I’ll probably learn indirectly if at all. I was also told it was a documentary. I was worried it was going to be another Lauren Sandler-type setup…It appears DI President Bruce Chapman had the same worries. I think the producers kept this under wraps pretty good toward both sides!

    If I don’t appear in the movie, at least I got featured with Dr. Crocker in that infamous 6-part nationally televized series connecting Darwin to Hitler and Columbine…

    I was there when the Geoff Brumfiel was interviewing Dr. Crocker and I, and I knew that that could be the end of her teaching career, and it was. Only 3 weeks after the article appeared on the cover of Nature, April 28, 2005, she was dismissed.

    Later that year I saw hundreds of college student coerced into an auditorium and lectured about the evils of ID for 2 hours. I knew this would marginalize pro-ID students and faculty. What kind of climate and message does this create?

    One of the students in the GMU IDEA club who was also Caroline Crocker’s student was screamed at by her professors for coming forward to reporters. She was in tears for several days over the incident. This is an innocent 21-year-old girl being bullied by her college professors. That’s the sort of crap that goes on. If you read the blogsphere, there should be little doubt what the critics are capable of….

    One of her classmates (an IDEA officer) came forward to an NPR reporter in 2005. I advised her to refrain, but she stepped forward anyway. She finds herself in class one day and a recording of her radio interview is being played back for her classmates…I’d say that’s a bit uncomfortable.

    John Patterson as ISU was adovcating an iquisition and stripping students on the spot if the were discovered to be accepting of an ID position. I have little doubt he was isolated in his views.

    That’s what this film is about. It’s not about getting ID in public schools. It’s about the intimidation that goes on in universities and to lesser extent industry. Anyone reading the blogsphere or Sam Harris or John Patterson’s and seeing the vitriol being poured out should have little doubt what the opponents of ID are capable of….

  25. 25
    mike1962 says:

    ex-xian: “I wish all intelligent design supporters were as forthright as Ben Stein about the purpose and meaning of ID”

    Is Ben Stein attempting to establish a Christian theocracy or something? Otherwise I’m not sure what you’re trying to say. ID (the science, not the movement) is about detecting intelligent design in biological entities. Who is not forthright about that? Did you read the top of this page where it says, “Uncommon Descent holds that…”

    By the way, have you read Science’s Blind Spot by Cornelius Hunter?

  26. 26
    scordova says:

    ex-xian wrote:

    What does the “awaiting moderation” mean?

    It means your comment for some reason was suspended from display. It is sometimes the spam buffer, but in your case, I marked it for moderation, because I felt that comment was distracting to the discussion.

    You said:

    He comes out and says that this is all about God

    I didn’t want to delete it outright. But I considered it a misrepresentation, and I don’t think UD is obligated to give air time to misrepresentations.

    I wish all intelligent design supporters were as forthright as Ben Stein about the purpose and meaning of ID.

    The purpose of ID is irrelevant to it’s truthfulness.

    Besides, insinuating dishonesty of the people associated with this blog by posting such comments here is rather rude.

    I’ll edit out such comments in the future, or any other such comment which might not be of interest to our readers.

  27. 27
    EndoplasmicMessenger says:

    Looks like Ben’s blog is getting eXpelled:

    Ben Stein’s Introductory Blog

  28. 28
    scordova says:

    I put this comment on Ben’s blog, it is awaiting moderation:

    ======
    Having been one of those interviewed for this movie [it remains to be seen if my footage doesn’t end on the cutting room floor], I would like to offer a clip from a 6-part half-million dollar, nationally televised series which featured some of the names in Ben’s movie.

    The movie features Dr. Crocker (who was in the Expelled preview), Ed Sisson, and myself:

    See:
    http://tinyurl.com/mtay5

    Whether ID is ultimately right or wrong is not the real issue. The real issue is whether it is permissible to explore ID after one has realized that Darwinism has failed as scientific explanation.

    The issue is one of freedom of inquiry, and the fact that Darwinist dogma is just plain bad for business, bad for science, and bad for humanity.

  29. 29
    scordova says:

    I added the following to Ben Stein’s blog:

    ==========
    “One cannot look at this Universe with all living productions & man without believing that all has been intelligently designed”

    –Charles Darwin, 1861
    Letter 3154 to Herschel, J. F. W., 23 May [1861]

    In that letter, after declaring the apparent impression of design, Darwin gives an anemic excuse as to how he managed to self-blind himself to what was obvious. He argued that he didn’t understand the purpose of life, therefore it was not designed.

    He argued designs which break down imply something is not designed (a very bad argument). He presumes a Perfect Creator will make things as Perfect as Himself (a highly illogical presumption by Darwin).

    He mistakenly presumes one must have knowledge of the purpose of an artifact to conclude it was designed. Not true. We know many things are designed long before we every understand the purpose…

    Curiously, one has to wonder if Darwin would have been expelled from the Big Science Academy because he dared to doubt even his own theory as evidenced by that quote.

  30. 30
    scordova says:

    Here is another post to Stein’s blog:

    ======
    Here is a Nobel Laureate 1996 that would have been expelled from the Academy:

    “Evolution has just been dealt its death blow. After reading Origins of Life with my background in chemistry and physics, it is clear that [biological] evolution could not have occurred.”

    –Richard Smalley, Ph.D., Nobel Laureate-Chemistry, 1996

    See:
    http://tinyurl.com/yoayoq

  31. 31

    […] ID-friendly papers, as of 2011. Remember, back in 2004, the mother of all scandals when editor Rick Sternberg fronted such a paper at the Smithsonian’s journal? Today, another ID-friendly paper hits print […]

  32. 32

    […] ID-friendly papers, as of 2011. Remember, back in 2004, the mother of all scandals when editor Rick Sternberg fronted such a paper at the Smithsonian’s journal? Today, another ID-friendly paper hits print […]

Leave a Reply