Ben Stein's Expelled

[L1mp_3rection]

Ben Stein freely admits he isn't a scientist. He's a lawyer, an actor with a signature deadpan delivery, and an eye-medication pitchman.
ADVERTISEMENT

He's also the star of the new film "Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed," which casts Stein as a "rebel" with "political dynamite" who is blowing the lid off a conspiracy of scientists to silence critics of evolutionary theory.

An underlying premise of Expelled is that creationism (or intelligent design theory, as it's called in the film) is a competing theory to evolution, and that schoolchildren should be exposed to all explanations about human evolution.

On one level, this makes sense. If there are differing theories and explanations for an observed phenomenon, they should be considered. The problem is that not all theories are equally valid. Some theories (such as evolution) have overwhelming evidence to support them, and other theories (such as intelligent design) have no evidence whatsoever to support them. In fact, intelligent design is not a scientific theory at all, and makes no testable claims.

There's a place for creationism/intelligent design theory in schools. It's in religion and social studies classes, not science courses. If Ben Stein and other creationists are truly concerned about giving fairness and equal time to competing theories, they should be demanding that students be taught that mankind came from a tree, as the Maasai tribe of East Africa believe; that according to Hindus, the gods Vishnu, Shiva, and Brahma created the world and humans; and that the Incans believed that mankind first arose on two small islands on Lake Titicaca in Bolivia. There is just as much evidence for these creation stories (and many others) as for the one told in Genesis.

One refrain is "teach the controversy," but among scientists there is no controversy about whether evolution is true. Evidence of evolution is all around us; for example, flu vaccines need to be reformulated each year because the flu viruses are constantly evolving and adapting to older vaccines.

Other than Ben Stein and a handful of other activists, relatively few people of any expertise, stature, or authority seem particularly concerned about the issue. In fact, when the issue was addressed in a 2005 courtroom (Tammy Kitzmiller, et al. v. Dover Area School District) Judge John Jones III rebuked the intelligent design promoters, citing their "breathtaking inanity" and dishonesty: "Witnesses either testified inconsistently, or lied outright under oath on several occasions." In 1997, Pope John Paul II stated that "New knowledge leads us to recognize the theory of evolution [as] more than a hypothesis," and declared that there was no conflict between faith and evolution.

"Expelled" tries to criticize the theory of evolution for not providing answers to the origin of life. Yet that is a red herring; neither Charles Darwin nor his theory of evolution by natural selection ever claimed to explain life's origins. The question of how life first emerged on our planet remains unanswered, but that has nothing to do with evolution. It's puzzling that Ben Stein and "Expelled" don't seem to understand that. Then again, Ben Stein is no scientist.



http://news.yahoo.com/s/livescience/20080404/sc_livescience/commonsenseexpelledinnewmovie

Should stir some controversy up. Though I don't understand why it would when the fundamental concepts of evolution are tested and proven daily, while creationism holds no more scientific weight than the greek's belief in Olympus.

[/Tilt/]

It's a good thing that this movie will probably suck.

[_Joe]

I'll give it a look and keep an open mind. I think creationism makes sense at the actual point of creation, but evolution makes more sense when looking at how we've progressed through time. What a lot of people don't like doing is admitting that parts of each theory are correct.

[BJ and UT5]

I'll give it a look and keep an open mind. I think creationism makes sense at the actual point of creation, but evolution makes more sense when looking at how we've progressed through time. What a lot of people don't like doing is admitting that parts of each theory are correct.

The problem is that intelligent design is not a theory. Whether its true or not can not be determined because there is no way to test it. So when you say that there are parts of both that are correct you're just pulling it out of your ass, as evolution is the only theory here and it has come about from repeatable results through a test on a hypothesis, ergo science.

I don't get why people think this guy is smart. Because he wears glasses and has a monotone voice? As a nerd, I'm offended by this stereotype, as Ben Stein proves that just because you look and talk like that doesn't make you smart. He wrote a couple of speeches for Nixon and did a few acting parts. How does that qualify him to talk about this shit?

[_Joe]

The problem is that intelligent design is not a theory. Whether its true or not can not be determined because there is no way to test it. So when you say that there are parts of both that are correct you're just pulling it out of your ass, as evolution is the only theory here and it has come about from repeatable results through a test on a hypothesis, ergo science.

I don't get why people think this guy is smart. Because he wears glasses and has a monotone voice? As a nerd, I'm offended by this stereotype, as Ben Stein proves that just because you look and talk like that doesn't make you smart. He wrote a couple of speeches for Nixon and did a few acting parts. How does that qualify him to talk about this shit?

My point is, you can test the actual origin of life on this planet the same amount through the eyes of both ID and Evolution: Zero. We can't test where life came from on our planet, in fact some scientists have actually suggested that aliens dropped life forms here, or that meteors containing lifeforms perfectly suited for this climate landed here. Now how are those explanations more plausible than a supernatural designer?

[BJ and UT5]

My point is, you can test the actual origin of life on this planet the same amount through the eyes of both ID and Evolution: Zero. We can't test where life came from on our planet, in fact some scientists have actually suggested that aliens dropped life forms here, or that meteors containing lifeforms perfectly suited for this climate landed here. Now how are those explanations more plausible than a supernatural designer?

I would think this actually quite obvious. I don't know about the Alien one, and as far as I'm concerned it is as likely as personal god creating all of us. As for the second theory we know that meteors exist, we know that they carry material from other parts of the universe, we've found bacteria on this planet that is capable of living in extreme temperatures. We don't even know that a personal omnipotent god exists. I would say that puts the meteor theory on higher ground than the creationist idea. By no means does that make it right, but just more probable than "the god did it" theory.

Secondly you're confusing evolutionism with theories about the creation of life. The scientific community doesn't have an answer for the question of how life was first created but they have a couple of hypotheses. Evolution is the theory of how complex life came about from the existence of simple life. There is lots of evidence to support it.

Finally, its true that right now we don't have an explanation for the existence of life but that doesn't mean that we won't have one later with more data, analysis and insight. If we do come up with an answer however, it will not come from the vatican or any other religious authority, because for them the question is satisfactorily answered already. They think God did it. Science on the other hand is not satisfied with that answer and is trying to gain a greater understanding. And that is exactly why science and religion are two disjoint fields.

[Fungus Amungus]

My father saw a special screening of the movie and he really liked it. The movie just isnt "Oh my god creationism is the only way!!1!". He hits on a few major points:

1. Both are still theories and both should be taught and allow kids to choose. I know alot of you are athiests, but there is a different world from outside this forum.

2. Looking back at the very begining of time it could be that something created us. Make's the point that nothing in nature/universe has ever spawned out of nowhere except the universe itself.

3. Personal prefrence and let people believe what they want to believe.

Ben Stein is a very smart man and he isn't a bigot in any way. He is a christian, but he made this movie too show people that both sides can't say for certain and you should believe what you want to follow and let others be.

[Just Spurplin]

My father saw a special screening of the movie and he really liked it. The movie just isnt "Oh my god creationism is the only way!!1!". He hits on a few major points:

1. Both are still theories and both should be taught and allow kids to choose. I know alot of you are athiests, but there is a different world from outside this forum.
As said above, it is not a scientific theory if it can not be tested.
Secondly you're confusing evolutionism with theories about the creation of life. The scientific community doesn't have an answer for the question of how life was first created but they have a couple of hypotheses. Evolution is the theory of how complex life came about from the existence of simple life. There is lots of evidence to support it.
And that is the reason I will be skipping this movie. In the commercial I saw, there is some retarded looking teacher talking about evolution, then Ben Stein raises his hand and goes "But where did life start from..." and then the teacher has this "Oh shit, he got me!" kind of look on his face. Then it shows Ben Stein in the principals office because (I assume) he got in trouble for stickin it to the man.

If Ben Stein is stupid enough to think the origin of life has anything to do with evolution, then he is too stupid to make a movie about evolution.

[Pajman]

1. Both are still theories and both should be taught and allow kids to choose.
Creationism is a theory only in a colloquial sense. Evolution is a scientific theory. Kids will be taught the subject in a science class. Therefore, only evolution should be taught in schools as a theory.

[Fungus Amungus]

Look he wasn't trying to say it was science. A theory is a THEORY. A idea of how something MIGHT work. It's not proven fact. Both evolution and creationism are theories. Not to mention he didn't want the bible's God made the earth in 6 days idea taught. It was that a supereme being could have made the universe for the fact that we don't know how the universe is created. As much as we like to think we know they answers we really don't. I'm not trying say which is better, but Stein is offering another view point on the subject.

[hole in the sky]

And that is the reason I will be skipping this movie. In the commercial I saw, there is some retarded looking teacher talking about evolution, then Ben Stein raises his hand and goes "But where did life start from..." and then the teacher has this "Oh shit, he got me!" kind of look on his face. Then it shows Ben Stein in the principals office because (I assume) he got in trouble for stickin it to the man.



jeez, i can perfectly picture that commercial just the way you typed it, too. it's weird, isn't it? as many times as we tell creationists that abiogenesis has nothing to do with evolution, they just don't seem to get it. -i'm not even trying to sound condescending either. they just don't understand the difference. they also don't understand that there is nothing scientific about their "theory" of creationism and that it has no place in a science classroom.

[Spike Lee]

Look he wasn't trying to say it was science. A theory is a THEORY. A idea of how something MIGHT work. It's not proven fact. Both evolution and creationism are theories. Not to mention he didn't want the bible's God made the earth in 6 days idea taught. It was that a supereme being could have made the universe for the fact that we don't know how the universe is created. As much as we like to think we know they answers we really don't. I'm not trying say which is better, but Stein is offering another view point on the subject.

Except evolution is a scientific theory. It goes beyond hypothesis. Creationism is not a scientific theory and is not science. The law says it is not science and science also says it isn't science. I am a Christian, but I do not want creationism to be taught in science class.

edit: you contradicted what you said about the key points you said this:
1. Both are still theories and both should be taught and allow kids to choose. I know alot of you are athiests, but there is a different world from outside this forum.
So did Ben Stein want it taught or not?

[clutch-monkey]

is it only the US where there is any actual threat of ID being taught in classrooms?

[Just Spurplin]

Look he wasn't trying to say it was science. A theory is a THEORY. A idea of how something MIGHT work. It's not proven fact. Both evolution and creationism are theories. Not to mention he didn't want the bible's God made the earth in 6 days idea taught. It was that a supereme being could have made the universe for the fact that we don't know how the universe is created. As much as we like to think we know they answers we really don't. I'm not trying say which is better, but Stein is offering another view point on the subject.

But EVERYTHING is a "theory" in that sense. We would have to teach kids that 2+2 might equal 5, because I just now made up a theory that it does.

The difference between evolution and creation is that one is a SCIENTIFIC theory, and the other is not (which means it holds as much weight as 2+2=5). Science class is where we teach things that have been, or can be, proven. Things like creation can be taught in world studies classes, where it is made clear that there is nothing scientific about it.
is it only the US where there is any actual threat of ID being taught in classrooms?
I really don't think there is any chance of it happening here. It's going to be preached for and protested about forever, because thats how people pass the time here. But there is no way it's ever going to make it into our science classes.

[Spike Lee]

is it only the US where there is any actual threat of ID being taught in classrooms?

To my knowledge it is. There is a great documentary by Nova:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/id/program.html

[clutch-monkey]

I really don't think there is any chance of it happening here. It's going to be preached for and protested about forever, because thats how people pass the time here. But there is no way it's ever going to make it into our science classes.
yeah, but is this even a debate anywhere else in the world? it just seems that ID seems to only be taken seriously by a portion of the US public but no-one else? or is that just the media coverage?
To my knowledge it is. There is a great documentary by Nova:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/id/program.html

how does one trial a subject :ohnoes: ask the kids which they prefer at the end?

[Fungus Amungus]

Except evolution is a scientific theory. It goes beyond hypothesis. Creationism is not a scientific theory and is not science. The law says it is not science and science also says it isn't science. I am a Christian, but I do not want creationism to be taught in science class.

edit: you contradicted what you said about the key points you said this:

So did Ben Stein want it taught or not?

He wants both taught and leave the kids to decide what is right.

[Pajman]

Look he wasn't trying to say it was science. A theory is a THEORY. A idea of how something MIGHT work. It's not proven fact. Both evolution and creationism are theories.
"Theory" is an unusual term because the denotative definition gives the antonym of the colloquial definition. Colloquially speaking, creationism is a theory in that it is a speculation which is not based on evidence; scientifically, evolution is a theory in that it is an explanation based on evidence. They are both theories, but in completely different ways (in fact, they are the complete opposite of each other).

[psychomonkey62]

My father saw a special screening of the movie and he really liked it. The movie just isnt "Oh my god creationism is the only way!!1!". He hits on a few major points:

1. Both are still theories and both should be taught and allow kids to choose. I know alot of you are athiests, but there is a different world from outside this forum.
Look he wasn't trying to say it was science. A theory is a THEORY. A idea of how something MIGHT work. It's not proven fact. Both evolution and creationism are theories. Not to mention he didn't want the bible's God made the earth in 6 days idea taught. It was that a supereme being could have made the universe for the fact that we don't know how the universe is created. As much as we like to think we know they answers we really don't. I'm not trying say which is better, but Stein is offering another view point on the subject.

Creationism isn't a theory. Period. A scientific theory can be tested, makes (correct) predictions, and is falsifiable.

[vtsquire]

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4609561480192587449&q=ben+stein&total=557&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=2&hl=en

Right out the gate at 2 minutes: I think your audience may be interested to know what intelligent design is in the first place and it is the hypothesis (he emphasized the word, not me) that life did not originate radomly...but by an all powerful designer, yadda yadda yadda

[PartyTaco]

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4609561480192587449&q=ben+stein&total=557&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=2&hl=en

Right out the gate at 2 minutes:

I couldn't help but notice that he's sucking on candy or something...

...haha what an interesting thing. I guess it helps the mouth keep watered.

[Unknown24]

Look he wasn't trying to say it was science. A theory is a THEORY. A idea of how something MIGHT work. It's not proven fact. Both evolution and creationism are theories. Not to mention he didn't want the bible's God made the earth in 6 days idea taught. It was that a supereme being could have made the universe for the fact that we don't know how the universe is created. As much as we like to think we know they answers we really don't. I'm not trying say which is better, but Stein is offering another view point on the subject.

Is Evolution JUST a theory? (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=85diEXbJBIk)

[Jenovah]

I'm quite suprised that Zardozus hasn't posted here yet, he seems to be all about the "new generation of Intelligent Design".

Anyway, this seems like the typical quote-mining Evolution-caused-the-motherfuckin'-holocaust-documentary, nothing to see here!

[Dustbunny]

What angers me the most about creationism is that, the way it is taught in most schools, human beings were "created" as humans. In other words, it sounds like we didn't exist then all of a sudden *poof* we did.
Now, from a scientific stand point, we have evidence of life forms existing WAY before us, millions of years to be exact (single-celled lifeforms, dinosaurs etc...) yet evidence of the first human remains date only to a few thousand years back. So most schools that teach creationism as "Adam and Eve" have no way of reconcilling the fact that life forms existed on earth before humans even existed.
Other creationists argue that someone created the single cell life forms on the planet. These are the more scientific based creationists, ala Ben Stein. To them, someone created these single celled organisms, and then evolution took over. Again, possible...but I'm skeptical personally.

Ultimately, Ben Stein's movie, to make sure he isn't being a fucking hypocrite, should critisize the schools who only teach evolution AND the fucking evangelical/extreme religious nut schools who teach us that they're way is the only right way. At least science admits there are flaws in they're theory...not so with creationism...it is all or nothing.

[Mahalo]

The commercial pisses me off.

So he's in a science class and asks, "Yeah, but where did life begin?" and the guy in the lab coat starts steaming out the ears. Ben Stein could just STFU and go to a church or a philosopher instead of interrupting a biology class with metaphysical questions, and spare us the movie. Creationism is not scientific. Intelligent Design is not scientific. And now this film's getting cast as a crusade against some kind of oppressive Darwinist scientific establishment. Go back to Win Ben Stein's Money.

And this "Just a theory" talking point is pure facepalm...

[L1mp_3rection]

Look he wasn't trying to say it was science. A theory is a THEORY. A idea of how something MIGHT work. It's not proven fact. Both evolution and creationism are theories. Not to mention he didn't want the bible's God made the earth in 6 days idea taught. It was that a supereme being could have made the universe for the fact that we don't know how the universe is created. As much as we like to think we know they answers we really don't. I'm not trying say which is better, but Stein is offering another view point on the subject.

A hypothesis is an idea of how something might work.
A theory is a hypothesis that has been tested repetedly and not yet falsified.

So sure you could call it a hypothesis if you want to use a semi-scientific word to entice idiots into believing its science ( Which is a word I'm sure will be used several times in this movie.)

[Spike Lee]

He wants both taught and leave the kids to decide what is right.

Well that is stupid. Ben Stein may be smart, but if thats what he wants, well thats just absurd. ID is not science.

[Jenovah]

For those of you who haven't seen the scene from the commercial. (http://youtube.com/watch?v=IYChpXw2XvU)

I don't know how the movie actually portrays it, but this trailer comes over as biased to me.

[_Joe]

I would think this actually quite obvious. I don't know about the Alien one, and as far as I'm concerned it is as likely as personal god creating all of us. As for the second theory we know that meteors exist, we know that they carry material from other parts of the universe, we've found bacteria on this planet that is capable of living in extreme temperatures. We don't even know that a personal omnipotent god exists. I would say that puts the meteor theory on higher ground than the creationist idea. By no means does that make it right, but just more probable than "the god did it" theory.

Secondly you're confusing evolutionism with theories about the creation of life. The scientific community doesn't have an answer for the question of how life was first created but they have a couple of hypotheses. Evolution is the theory of how complex life came about from the existence of simple life. There is lots of evidence to support it.

Finally, its true that right now we don't have an explanation for the existence of life but that doesn't mean that we won't have one later with more data, analysis and insight. If we do come up with an answer however, it will not come from the vatican or any other religious authority, because for them the question is satisfactorily answered already. They think God did it. Science on the other hand is not satisfied with that answer and is trying to gain a greater understanding. And that is exactly why science and religion are two disjoint fields.
Actually, I was trying to address others' confusion of theories of creation and evolution. I think we are unable to determine how life began on this planet, so my religious guess is as good as anything else, only I have complete faith in what I think happened.

[Nocturnal]

He wants both taught and leave the kids to decide what is right.

Why just the two theories? Why not include the other hundreds of beliefs out there?

[Just Spurplin]

Why just the two theories? Why not include the other hundreds of beliefs out there?

Exactly. There are literally an endless amount of "theories" (meaning random statements or guesses without any kind of proof or logic to back it up) on every single subject known to man. Since we clearly can't teach all of those, we are going to teach the things that do have scientific logic, have been scientifically proven, or at the very least COULD be scientifically proven/falsified.

They can be taught all about the ideas of Jesus and Adam and Eve and all that other shit in church, or in some kind of World Studies class that goes over all the major cultures and religions in the world. If we let kids decide if they want to learn about evolution, does that mean we also have to let them decide if they want to learn spelling, grammar, geography and arithmetic?

[Nocturnal]

Science classes must also contain discussions of Astrology, Alchemy, Phrenology etc. plenty of other theories out there about how the universe works.

see psuedo science

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pseudoscience

[_Joe]

I wasn't saying ID should be taught in schools, it probably shouldn't be. It doesn't have a secular basis. Teaching it in Sunday school is fine by me, not in public school.

[BJ and UT5]

Actually, I was trying to address others' confusion of theories of creation and evolution. I think we are unable to determine how life began on this planet, so my religious guess is as good as anything else, only I have complete faith in what I think happened.

I disagree. I think some theories are definitely better than others. Some theories prove feasibility. Some at least document historical fact. You can not say that "god did it" is on par with theories like abiogenesis.

The problem is that ID at its best provides nothing. Its not even an answer. If god did design everything then simply saying he did is not an answer and not the goal of science. The goal is the how and why. And at its worst ID is an impediment to scientists because of dumb movies like this that try to vilify scientists for pointing out that there is nothing scientific about intelligent design.

[Swindler]

Teaching ID would just be a waste of resources. What would be the educational benefit of incorporating biblical dogma into science? Getting kids to believe wholeheartedly that the earth was created as the bible suggests won't make them better geologists, physicists, or astronomers; nor will the belief that man was created by God make for better doctors or biologists. The only benefit derived from such beliefs are spiritual and should be kept out of the curriculum of our public schools.

I think Galileo said it best:

I do not feel obliged to believe that the same God who has endowed us with senses, reason and intellect has intended us to forego their use and by some other means to give us knowledge which we can attain by them. He would not require us to deny sense and reason in physical matters which are set before our eyes and minds by direct experience or necessary demonstrations. This must be especially true in those sciences of which but the faintest trace (and that consisting of conclusions) is to be found in the Bible.

[vtsquire]

It's my understanding that he's not so much a proponent of ID being in the classroom as he is attempting to point out that is is, and I actually agree with him here, a problem when scientists or teachers lose their jobs for their beliefs rather than for how well they perform in the work environment.

[No0n3]

It's my understanding that he's not so much a proponent of ID being in the classroom as he is attempting to point out that is is, and I actually agree with him here, a problem when scientists or teachers lose their jobs for their beliefs rather than for how well they perform in the work environment.

Here's (http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=ben-steins-expelled-review-john-rennie&page=2) an article discussing that.
In short, some stuff is left out when it's shown in the film, and it's not portrayed accurately.

I saw a nice video in the vid forum discussing this movie. link (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NiNGK3y5Ypg)