Ben Stein - Expelled movie
Posted: Wed Dec 19, 2007 6:33 am
Just came across this and thought others here might be interested to see the trailer: http://expelledthemovie.com/playground.php
"The heavens declare the glory of God; the skies proclaim the work of his hands." (Psalm 19:1)
https://discussions.godandscience.org/
zoegirl wrote:Wow, is this for real?
Yes, as far as I can tell it is. If taken by mainstream cinemas hopefully it should rocket the issue of why Philosophical/Metaphysical Naturalism has a stranglehold on science. There is really no reason for it.zoegirl wrote:Wow, is this for real?
I had no idea that Ben Stein was an advocate for the ID movement... I've always had an admiration for Ben, maybe because of his Jewish demeanor which I find enlightening. I will definitely watch this video.Kurieuo wrote:Just came across this and thought others here might be interested to see the trailer: http://expelledthemovie.com/playground.php
Actually be careful here. From what I have seen Stein does not seem to have much insight or care regarding Intelligent Design. Although he might cross paths with ID in that they see science is gripped by a philosophical naturalism, I think Stein has his own purposes. In video interview (found on the same site) on Fox TV, he not only allowed the host to interchange "Creation" with "Intelligent Design" but he himself did so.Gman wrote:I had no idea that Ben Stein was an advocate for the ID movement... I've always had an admiration for Ben, maybe because of his Jewish demeanor which I find enlightening. I will definitely watch this video.Kurieuo wrote:Just came across this and thought others here might be interested to see the trailer: http://expelledthemovie.com/playground.php
Thanks for sharing this Kurieuo...
The proper application of both the endorsement and Lemon tests to the facts of this case makes it abundantly clear that the Board's ID Policy violates the Establishment clause. In making this determination, we have addressed the seminal question of whether ID is a science. We have concluded that it is not, and moreover that ID cannot uncouple itself from its creationist, and thus religious antecedents
I say let the kids believe what they want, but keep real science in public schools and keep theology in Church. If we had to teach every version of creation, we would proably confuse the kids more than actually teaching them. A simple preamble at the beginning of the lecture, like "evolution is a theory that...", or even a class debate or assigned paper on the subject, would be more effective then introducing religion to public schools or textbooks.The citizens of the Dover area were poorly served by the members of the Board who voted for the ID policy. It is ironic that several of these individuals, who so staunchly and proudly touted their religious convictions to the public, would time and again lie to cover their tracks and disguise the real purpose behind the ID Policy.
Ok sorry about that... I was reading off his profile on wikipedia.Kurieuo wrote:Actually be careful here. From what I have seen Stein does not seem to have much insight or care regarding Intelligent Design. Although he might cross paths with ID in that they see science is gripped by a philosophical naturalism, I think Stein has his own purposes. In video interview (found on the same site) on Fox TV, he not only allowed the host to interchange "Creation" with "Intelligent Design" but he himself did so.
Stein is not necessarily interested in ID, but is rather more interested in the dogmatism found in the sciences (which apparently even BGood was able to appreciate ). Not to mention the moral issues he himself sees with the premises on which Darwinian evolution is based. Regarding Intelligent Design and the movement itself, I have sincere doubts he really understands the differences between ID and creation (or creationist versions of ID) or even really cares. Yet, there is obviously a lot of overlap between Stein and ID.
What? You don't think Ben Stein could write on a blackboard?BGoodForGoodSake wrote:Many, of you know I disagree with much of what was in the trailer, but he does have a point about there being a new dogmatism the scientific circles.
Science is about skepticism, which leads to testing every minute detail of any and all scientific theories, although there is no place for this in high school and undergraduate courses, at the highest levels a healthy skepticism of anything should not be thwarted.
As discussed elsewhere with Jad (you might be interested to read my other responses to him in that thread), Jones cut and paste ACLU's response. I doubt this makes your argument count for much.Himantolophus wrote:hmmm... while I have no problem with kids deciding for themselves, I have a problem with including something in public schools that has been repeatedly been ruled as a "non-science". Just look at the ruling by a conservative, Bush-appointed Judge Jones on the Dover ID case and you have the answer.The proper application of both the endorsement and Lemon tests to the facts of this case makes it abundantly clear that the Board's ID Policy violates the Establishment clause. In making this determination, we have addressed the seminal question of whether ID is a science. We have concluded that it is not, and moreover that ID cannot uncouple itself from its creationist, and thus religious antecedentsI say let the kids believe what they want, but keep real science in public schools and keep theology in Church. If we had to teach every version of creation, we would proably confuse the kids more than actually teaching them. A simple preamble at the beginning of the lecture, like "evolution is a theory that...", or even a class debate or assigned paper on the subject, would be more effective then introducing religion to public schools or textbooks.The citizens of the Dover area were poorly served by the members of the Board who voted for the ID policy. It is ironic that several of these individuals, who so staunchly and proudly touted their religious convictions to the public, would time and again lie to cover their tracks and disguise the real purpose behind the ID Policy.
Are judges the referees of science now? Must we go down this road?Himantolophus wrote:hmmm... while I have no problem with kids deciding for themselves, I have a problem with including something in public schools that has been repeatedly been ruled as a "non-science". Just look at the ruling by a conservative, Bush-appointed Judge Jones on the Dover ID case and you have the answer.The proper application of both the endorsement and Lemon tests to the facts of this case makes it abundantly clear that the Board's ID Policy violates the Establishment clause. In making this determination, we have addressed the seminal question of whether ID is a science. We have concluded that it is not, and moreover that ID cannot uncouple itself from its creationist, and thus religious antecedentsI say let the kids believe what they want, but keep real science in public schools and keep theology in Church. If we had to teach every version of creation, we would proably confuse the kids more than actually teaching them. A simple preamble at the beginning of the lecture, like "evolution is a theory that...", or even a class debate or assigned paper on the subject, would be more effective then introducing religion to public schools or textbooks.The citizens of the Dover area were poorly served by the members of the Board who voted for the ID policy. It is ironic that several of these individuals, who so staunchly and proudly touted their religious convictions to the public, would time and again lie to cover their tracks and disguise the real purpose behind the ID Policy.
Judge Jones can do no wrong!Kurieuo wrote:As discussed elsewhere with Jad (you might be interested to read my other responses to him in that thread), Jones cut and paste ACLU's response. I doubt this makes your argument count for much.Himantolophus wrote:hmmm... while I have no problem with kids deciding for themselves, I have a problem with including something in public schools that has been repeatedly been ruled as a "non-science". Just look at the ruling by a conservative, Bush-appointed Judge Jones on the Dover ID case and you have the answer.The proper application of both the endorsement and Lemon tests to the facts of this case makes it abundantly clear that the Board's ID Policy violates the Establishment clause. In making this determination, we have addressed the seminal question of whether ID is a science. We have concluded that it is not, and moreover that ID cannot uncouple itself from its creationist, and thus religious antecedentsI say let the kids believe what they want, but keep real science in public schools and keep theology in Church. If we had to teach every version of creation, we would proably confuse the kids more than actually teaching them. A simple preamble at the beginning of the lecture, like "evolution is a theory that...", or even a class debate or assigned paper on the subject, would be more effective then introducing religion to public schools or textbooks.The citizens of the Dover area were poorly served by the members of the Board who voted for the ID policy. It is ironic that several of these individuals, who so staunchly and proudly touted their religious convictions to the public, would time and again lie to cover their tracks and disguise the real purpose behind the ID Policy.