Wow! Ben Stein has an awesome new movie coming out

[Ginger]

Originally Posted by kirbyfan

Looks very very interesting...I am definately going to buy the book and then make my kids watch it!...oh wait thats Rybergs line.

[gingele]

Originally Posted by Rissask

Ah! Okay now your comment makes more sense...I thought you were just waiting for a reaction (which was funny, but now it's really funny.)

So.....he's a nobody then?

Aw, don't get annoyed UGA- I am sure he is more than entitled to his opinion.

I hope he makes a arkload of money.
I am sure it will do well in the southern US.
Maybe not so much anywhere else...can you say 'limited release' or even 'straight to video'?

He's definitely not a nobody. Valedictorian from his class at Yale Law, Law Prof at Pepperdine, speechwriter for President Nixon, by all accounts a very smart man.

[gingele]

Originally Posted by melliedee

I will see it too. I love the evolution debate. Can't. Look. Away.

I'm with ya sister.

[UGAplaya]

Originally Posted by Babaloo

Ben Stein is the actor who spoke those infamous words "Bueller?...Bueller?...Bueller?



You are the first to say it (with words)
I'll give it to ya

Exactly. LOL. Did you see hear the reference at the end to Bueller.....Bueller....Bueller.

[UGAplaya]

Originally Posted by melliedee

I will see it too. I love the evolution debate. Can't. Look. Away.

That's awesome. Regardless of which side you're on, it's great to see people with open opinions.

[TAPPY]

Originally Posted by kirbyfan

Looks very very interesting...I am definately going to buy the book and then make my kids watch it!...oh wait thats Rybergs line.

Seriously, looks like a thought provoking movie that I will have to see.

[melliedee]

Okay, so the ID crowd and the Young Earthers are not necessarily the same group, right? I can't see Ben Stein advocating a young earth theory?

[gingele]

Originally Posted by melliedee

Okay, so the ID crowd and the Young Earthers are not necessarily the same group, right? I can't see Ben Stein advocating a young earth theory?

I think he is in the ID crowd.

[UGAplaya]

Originally Posted by melliedee

Okay, so the ID crowd and the Young Earthers are not necessarily the same group, right? I can't see Ben Stein advocating a young earth theory?

No not the same group but even IF Ben isn't a Young Earth believer or a Creationist or however people chose to classify that belief, at the very least it's a step in the right direction.

[SunKneeMarie]

Originally Posted by Babaloo

he's also a lawyer, economist, former presidential speech writer, author and social commentator

...if that makes a difference

and game show host

just to up the ante

[Rissask]

Originally Posted by Babaloo

he's also a lawyer, economist, former presidential speech writer, author and social commentator

...if that makes a difference

yeah, not really .....no science background hey...shame.
Then he is pretty unequipped to try to discredit evolution with any credibility at all.

But hey now, I never said I wouldn't watch it. But I sure won't be supporting his cause by spending money on it in any way.

This is his aim: to have religious creationism taught in schools to students in science class and present it as a scientific certainty. This is something that would fly nowhere else in the world except the US.

He thinks that since the 'majority of the US don't believe in evolution' that therefore the reason is is that evolution is therefore false!!

Ask yourself - is this rational or logical? Could there possibly be other reasons for the fact that 'over half' of American citizens don't believe in evolution?

Kind of conspiracy theory territory. Scary. Do do do do.

I'd certainly like to see his 'new scientific facts' that 'may suggest' evidence of intelligent design in the universe. And I wonder why Scientific American hasn't jumped all over that?

and what does this even mean? Sounds like paranoid ranting.

[playabum17]

And we're off....

Originally Posted by Rissask

yeah, not really .....no science background hey...shame.
Then he is pretty unequipped to try to discredit evolution with any credibility at all.

But hey now, I never said I wouldn't watch it. But I sure won't be supporting his cause by spending money on it in any way.

This is his aim: to have religious creationism taught in schools to students in science class and present it as a scientific certainty. This is something that would fly nowhere else in the world except the US.

He thinks that since the 'majority of the US don't believe in evolution' that therefore the reason is is that evolution is therefore false!!

Ask yourself - is this rational or logical? Could there possibly be other reasons for the fact that 'over half' of American citizens don't believe in evolution?

Kind of conspiracy theory territory. Scary. Do do do do.

I'd certainly like to see his 'new scientific facts' that 'may suggest' evidence of intelligent design in the universe. And I wonder why Scientific American hasn't jumped all over that?

and what does this even mean? Sounds like paranoid ranting.

[gingele]

Ineresting to read Ben's thoughts on Darwin. (excerpted from an article written by Mr. Stein on his movie site blog. Full article found here: The blog for EXPELLED: No Intelligence Allowed » Blog Archive » Darwinism: The Imperialism of Biology?

Darwinism, the notion that the history of organisms was the story of the survival of the fittest and most hardy, and that organisms evolve because they are stronger and more dominant than others, is a perfect example of the age from which it came: the age of Imperialism. When Darwin wrote, it was received wisdom that the white, northern European man was destined to rule the world. This could have been rationalized as greed–i.e., Europeans simply taking the resources of nations and tribes less well organized than they were. It could have been worked out as a form of amusement of the upper classes and a place for them to realize their martial fantasies. (Was it Shaw who called Imperialism “…outdoor relief for the upper classes?”)


I find it problematic that Ben calls Darwin's theories to task simply because of the age in which Darwin himself lived or the social class to which Darwin belonged. Not very emperical. And actually a bit of a slippery slope for such a well trained legal mind such as Ben's. I mean, what if we started chucking other major theories of science based upon the period in history when the original theorist happened to live? Or because of his socio-economic background?

[kirbyfan]

Originally Posted by Rissask

yeah, not really .....no science background hey...shame.
Then he is pretty unequipped to try to discredit evolution with any credibility at all.

But hey now, I never said I wouldn't watch it. But I sure won't be supporting his cause by spending money on it in any way.

This is his aim: to have religious creationism taught in schools to students in science class and present it as a scientific certainty. This is something that would fly nowhere else in the world except the US.

He thinks that since the 'majority of the US don't believe in evolution' that therefore the reason is is that evolution is therefore false!!

Ask yourself - is this rational or logical? Could there possibly be other reasons for the fact that 'over half' of American citizens don't believe in evolution?

Kind of conspiracy theory territory. Scary. Do do do do.

I'd certainly like to see his 'new scientific facts' that 'may suggest' evidence of intelligent design in the universe. And I wonder why Scientific American hasn't jumped all over that?

and what does this even mean? Sounds like paranoid ranting.

Way to keep an open mind Ris!

[melliedee]

Originally Posted by gingele

Ineresting to read Ben's thoughts on Darwin. (excerpted from an article written by Mr. Stein on his movie site blog. Full article found here: The blog for EXPELLED: No Intelligence Allowed » Blog Archive » Darwinism: The Imperialism of Biology?

Darwinism, the notion that the history of organisms was the story of the survival of the fittest and most hardy, and that organisms evolve because they are stronger and more dominant than others, is a perfect example of the age from which it came: the age of Imperialism. When Darwin wrote, it was received wisdom that the white, northern European man was destined to rule the world. This could have been rationalized as greed–i.e., Europeans simply taking the resources of nations and tribes less well organized than they were. It could have been worked out as a form of amusement of the upper classes and a place for them to realize their martial fantasies. (Was it Shaw who called Imperialism “…outdoor relief for the upper classes?”)


I find it problematic that Ben calls Darwin's theories to task simply because of the age in which Darwin himself lived or the social class to which Darwin belonged. Not very emperical. And actually a bit of a slippery slope for such a well trained legal mind such as Ben's. I mean, what if we started chucking other major theories of science based upon the period in history when the original theorist happened to live? Or because of his socio-economic background?

Stein is citing social Darwinism here, and not a very fair comparison if he means to shed light on biological evolution. I agree. Problematic.