Ben Stein shows he's no Michael Moore

[Shogun]

If numbers are any indication, Ben Stein has shown he's no Michael Moore.

Stein's Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed, a documentary which makes an argument for intelligent design over the theory of evolution, debuted at just number eight among the top ten grossing movies last week.

The film made $1.2 million on Friday in 1,052 theaters. By comparison, Michael Moore's 'Sicko' raken in $23.9 million its opening weekend from just 441 theaters, and Fahrenheit 9/11 did $23.9 million from only 868 slots.

"Playing in 1,052 theaters, the pic distributed by Rocky Mountain Pictures earned $1.2M Friday for what should be a $3.4M weekend," penned Nikki Finke's Deadline Hollywood Daily. "But the per screen average for Friday was a feeble $1,130 (that $3,000 ballyhooed on the Internet would be for the entire weekend), showing there wasn't any pent-up demand for the film despite an aggressive publicity campaign. So much for the conservative argument that people would flock to films not representing the "agenda of liberal Hollywood.'"

On Friday, The New York Times' Jeannette Catsoulis called the movie "one of the sleaziest documentaries to arrive in a very long time... a conspiracy-theory rant masquerading as investigative inquiry."

Expelled's producers have also been accused of copyright violations -- they're said not to have secured the rights for the use of John Lennon's "Imagine" and The Killer's "All these things I have done."

http://rawstory.com/news/2008/Ben_Stein_shows_hes_no_Michael_0420.html

 

[midcan5]

I watched some of the youtube excerpts, that has to win the dumbest documentary of the year award. The poor numbers are a good thing, proves Americans are still thinking, we can only hope.

 

[Shogun]

well, if anything it proves that there is not some raging ID underground. I half-expected to see the numbers that the Passion gathered but, I guess, stein is less interesting than messiah porn.

 

[frazzledgear]

If numbers are any indication, Ben Stein has shown he's no Michael Moore.

Stein's Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed, a documentary which makes an argument for intelligent design over the theory of evolution, debuted at just number eight among the top ten grossing movies last week.

The film made $1.2 million on Friday in 1,052 theaters. By comparison, Michael Moore's 'Sicko' raken in $23.9 million its opening weekend from just 441 theaters, and Fahrenheit 9/11 did $23.9 million from only 868 slots.


http://rawstory.com/news/2008/Ben_Stein_shows_hes_no_Michael_0420.html

Moore and Stein are opposite sides of the same coin when it comes to their movies apparently. The two movies you list of Moore's are little more than political propaganda that are absolutely rife with errors, exaggerations and outright fabrications. Anyone who believes the total crap in those two movies is an ignorant nutcase too lazy to figure out how to do his own research from unbiased sources instead.

Stein's movie has no real substance, has a political agenda and misleads too. Not only did it have nothing about the very few highly specific questions in science where the theory has been proposed by scientists, but even those who love this theory because of their religious beliefs have attacked it for having provided nothing of substance to support any justification for teaching ID -which I think could be done, but wasn't here. The biggest misconception is that the theory of ID was proposed to counter the theory of evolution when that is not correct at all. The theory of evolution was offered as a broadbased answer to EVERY possible question regarding the origins of life and diversification of all life. But ID has been proposed as the most scientifically accurate answer for just a few highly specific questions in nearly every field of science. Not as a broad answer regarding every possible aspect about the appearance and diversity of life that evolution purports to answer (but doesn't). And many of the questions where it has been proposed have nothing to do with Darwin's theory. Now "creationism" and ID are so intertwined in the minds of many people, that they consider them to be one and the same thing when in fact creationists absconded with this theory and shoved it out there themselves to counter evolution on RELIGIOUS grounds. But I have no doubt that most creationists haven't a clue as to what specific scientific questions ID has actually been proposed by scientists and on what scientific basis.

The one thing Stein was criticized for was his contention there was this "secret" disagreement about the validity of evolution among scientists. It actually isn't a "secret" to anyone but non-scientists. Scientists know full well there are lots and lots of scientists who have, do and will continue to challenge this theory and for very valid scientific reasons. Anyone studying advanced science is going to find out about that "secret" in no time.

But Stein was misleading by suggesting that Intelligent Design is THE competing scientific theory to evolution. Insisting ID challenges evolution entirely is a claim of creationists, but not for those scientists who actually offered it as the most scientifically correct for a highly specific question -most of which have nothing to do with evolution. Most of the scientists who have proposed ID for some specific question -think some aspects of evolution are correct. But the theory of evolution should be challenged because it is seriously flawed, it has not proven to be totally correct because the science shows it fails to explain many of the very things it was first offered to try and explain.

That only means we got at least some of it WRONG. I do get tired of those who seem to think this is an "either-or" situation. That it somehow means either evolution is the total "truth" -or the Biblical story of creation and God wrapped it all up in six 24 hour days (even though the manmade measurement of time didn't exist then) is the total "truth". This is not an "either-or" situation. And even though creationists have glommed onto ID because it fits in with their personal religious doctrine, while most are likely quite ignorant about the specific scientific questions the theory has actually been proposed and why -that was a disservice too. Doing that only served to provide plenty of fodder for those who insist on the outright rejection of the theory -but for all the wrong reasons. Demanding the rejection or adoption of a theory on the grounds it fits in with some religious doctrine is just a "flat-earth" mentality on both sides and are equally a disservice to scientific discovery. Such demands made for all the wrong reasons can only hinder scientific discovery and prolong ignorance.

Why is it so hard for evolutionists to even consider the possibility that Darwin didn't get it totally right after all and that scientists need to do MORE research, ask MORE questions, pose MORE theories in order to find those answers? Insisting that evolution is 100% correct and pretending it is 100% proven fact when it is no such thing -is a demand that says all other possible theories are off the table. It is slamming the door on scientific research.

But I have no doubt at all that our descendants will laugh at how stubbornly the ignorant people of the day clung to a theory that had no real scientific legs under it after all.

 

[ReillyT]

Why is it so hard for evolutionists to even consider the possibility that Darwin didn't get it totally right after all and that scientists need to do MORE research, ask MORE questions, pose MORE theories in order to find those answers? Insisting that evolution is 100% correct and pretending it is 100% proven fact when it is no such thing -is a demand that says all other possible theories are off the table. It is slamming the door on scientific research.

But I have no doubt at all that our descendants will laugh at how stubbornly the ignorant people of the day clung to a theory that had no real scientific legs under it after all.

This is a really stupid post.

Since Darwin, scientists have conducted more research, asked more questions and posed more theories. The fact that Darwin's basic hypothesis about the evolution of life hasn't been tossed in the dustbin reflects its fundamental strength, not its weakness. You might as well question the scientific community because they continue to cling to Newton's silly theory of gravity.

Some other theories (such as creationism or ID) are ignored because they are not essentially scientific and cannot be tested using the scientific method. That doesn't mean that they are wrong. It means that they aren't science.

I will take your bet on our descendants.

 

[Diuretic]

Meanwhile the scientific community gets on with its research work, not oblivious to the sort of stupidity that ID'ers parade, but probably with a collective smile at it. After all, they got rid of phlogiston theory because it just didn't explain what it was supposed to explain. ID'ers are cunning creationists, but they don't suck in those with the ability to see through them.

ID'ers can believe what they like, but they can't sell the crap that it's anything near being scientific. That's just a total misrepresentation, simple and transparent propaganda. They've been sprung on it but still they keep on about and still some believe their schtick. It ain't science folks, it's religion.

 

[Ravi]

But I have no doubt at all that our descendants will laugh at how stubbornly the ignorant people of the day clung to a theory that had no real scientific legs under it after all.

You think we'll evolve that far? Or would that be devolve...

 

[frazzledgear]

This is a really stupid post.

Since Darwin, scientists have conducted more research, asked more questions and posed more theories. The fact that Darwin's basic hypothesis about the evolution of life hasn't been tossed in the dustbin reflects its fundamental strength, not its weakness. You might as well question the scientific community because they continue to cling to Newton's silly theory of gravity.

Some other theories (such as creationism or ID) are ignored because they are not essentially scientific and cannot be tested using the scientific method. That doesn't mean that they are wrong. It means that they aren't science.

I will take your bet on our descendants.

Really? By your own answer I know where your education in science ended. There are multiple problems with Darwin's theory. I'm pointing out just TWO of them but could discuss a variety of numerous problems with the theory.

1. Darwin himself said the ONLY way for scientists to prove his theory correct was through the fossil record -and in a number of different ways. One of which was that if his theory were correct, then the vast majority of all fossil discoveries would be "in-between missing link" creatures -showing that one species was in the process of turning into another brand new species. But the fossil record shows NO "in-betweens" for ANY species at all. Not one. So it isn't just that the majority of fossils don't show what Darwin said they would -not a single one does. The reason no such "in-betweens" exist is largely explained by the second problem I discuss below. But since Darwin himself said this was the only possible way to prove his theory correct, then Darwin himself would be the first to admit there must be something fundamentally wrong with it since the fossil record fails to support that part of his theory at all.

2. Darwin saw problems with his own theory too. Darwin considered the biggest argument against his theory to be the Cambrian Explosion -an event that Scientific American calls "life's big bang". MANY highly reputable and accomplished scientists say it is THE single most insurmountable hurdle for Darwin's theory.

Prior to the Cambrian, the most complex life forms on earth were single-cell, multi-cell organisms, sponges, jellyfish and soft-bodied worms. And nothing but those unchanging life forms existed for 3.8 BILLION years. Then comes the Cambrian period which lasted between 5-10 million years -just a teensy fraction of the time prior (geologically speaking).

The Cambrian age was about 530 million years ago -and during that 5-10 million year period, the Cambrian layer shows the simultaneous co-existence of virtually every phyla known to man. All the major body plans and every known complex body system and nearly every known phyla to ever exist or exists to this day -all coexist in this single layer that lasted between 5 and 10 million years. They don't exist at all in the layer prior to the Cambrian -which has nothing but unchanging single and multi-cell organisms and sponges, jellies and soft-bodied worms going back for nearly 4 BILLION years -and then bam -nearly every phyla known to have ever existed or still exists to this day all show up within 5-10 million years. No "in-betweens" because nearly every known phyla are already co-existing in this same layer. 530 times as much time has passed as the Cambrian lasted -and we have seen nothing like this again. Darwin knew all along that the fossil record as it was known during his time was the strongest argument against his theory.

As does something Darwin did NOT realize at that time: the fact that successive layers AFTER the Cambrian show decreasing numbers of species in the fossil record with each successive layer -a decrease in the diversity of life over time. Once the most recent layers are reached, it shows that 98% of everything that has ever lived is now extinct. That fact totally contradicts Darwin's theory which postulated INCREASING diversity over time with ever more species. Remember -his theory is that all life forms have a common ancestor and branched OUT over time with increasing diversity of species occurring over time. It is the entire foundation of his theory, which apparently some of the most diehard evolution supporting people haven't actually read. So if that were true, the fossil record would show LESS diversity as we go back in time and greater diversity as we move forward in time.

But the fossil record is the opposite -it shows increasing diversity of life as we go BACK in time to the Cambrian and less diversity as we move forward in time. For billions of years prior to the Cambrian, there are sponges and worms and single-cell and multi-cell organism that existed unchanged, then a short period of time in the Cambrian where nearly every known phyla are all coexisting in the same layer with the simultaneous appearance of every seen complex body plan, method of reproduction, complex systems within the body - all showing up fully intact. And then from the Cambrian on, decreasing diversity of life as we come forward in time. To the current time where we now know that 98% of all life that has ever existed is now extinct.

Darwin tried to get around what he knew was already seen in the fossil record during his time by postulating that the fossil record simply had not been well researched enough and said he believed that further research in the fossil record would eventually end up showing the exact opposite of what was seen in the record at that time. But 150 years later and WHOLE lot more discoveries and research in the fossil record has only confirmed what Darwin already knew at the time. And it is a big, ugly fact -the fossil record totally contradicts his theory, totally contradicts the very foundation of his theory that life has a common ancestry and branched out over time. And that is a MAJOR problem. What Darwin realized was a huge and significant contradiction to this theory then -still is. And his belief that the fossil record would eventually show the exact opposite of what it did then -was dead wrong and has only confirmed what the fossil record already showed at that time.

So -yes, a whole lot of scientists are fully aware that Darwin didn't get it right and refusing to continue the search for answers only delays scientific knowledge that much longer. One current theory under active investigation is that the earth was exposed to some kind of unique radiation or ultrahigh wavelength rays of some kind from a cosmic event that resulted in a response from life forms with an intense but brief period of diversification that gradually died off over time -and even that theory is more consistent with the reality of the fossil record than Darwin's theory.

But you go ahead and tell your descendants all about how Darwin answered every possible question about the origin of life and diversity of life to your complete satisfaction and how you accepted that as "proven fact".

 

[AllieBaba]

well, if anything it proves that there is not some raging ID underground. I half-expected to see the numbers that the Passion gathered but, I guess, stein is less interesting than messiah porn.

Naw, it's just that the right, unlike the left, knows the difference between farce and reality.

Which explains the block-buster status of Michael Moore's and Gore's mockumentaries.

 

[ReillyT]

Really? By your own answer I know where your education in science ended. There are multiple problems with Darwin's theory. I'm pointing out just TWO of them but could discuss a variety of numerous problems with the theory.

1. Darwin himself said the ONLY way for scientists to prove his theory correct was through the fossil record -and in a number of different ways. One of which was that if his theory were correct, then the vast majority of all fossil discoveries would be "in-between missing link" creatures -showing that one species was in the process of turning into another brand new species. But the fossil record shows NO "in-betweens" for ANY species at all. Not one. So it isn't just that the majority of fossils don't show what Darwin said they would -not a single one does. The reason no such "in-betweens" exist is largely explained by the second problem I discuss below. But since Darwin himself said this was the only possible way to prove his theory correct, then Darwin himself would be the first to admit there must be something fundamentally wrong with it since the fossil record fails to support that part of his theory at all.

2. Darwin saw problems with his own theory too. Darwin considered the biggest argument against his theory to be the Cambrian Explosion -an event that Scientific American calls "life's big bang". MANY highly reputable and accomplished scientists say it is THE single most insurmountable hurdle for Darwin's theory.

Prior to the Cambrian, the most complex life forms on earth were single-cell, multi-cell organisms, sponges, jellyfish and soft-bodied worms. And nothing but those unchanging life forms existed for 3.8 BILLION years. Then comes the Cambrian period which lasted between 5-10 million years -just a teensy fraction of the time prior (geologically speaking).

The Cambrian age was about 530 million years ago -and during that 5-10 million year period, the Cambrian layer shows the simultaneous co-existence of virtually every phyla known to man. All the major body plans and every known complex body system and nearly every known phyla to ever exist or exists to this day -all coexist in this single layer that lasted between 5 and 10 million years. They don't exist at all in the layer prior to the Cambrian -which has nothing but unchanging single and multi-cell organisms and sponges, jellies and soft-bodied worms going back for nearly 4 BILLION years -and then bam -nearly every phyla known to have ever existed or still exists to this day all show up within 5-10 million years. No "in-betweens" because nearly every known phyla are already co-existing in this same layer. 530 times as much time has passed as the Cambrian lasted -and we have seen nothing like this again. Darwin knew all along that the fossil record as it was known during his time was the strongest argument against his theory.

As does something Darwin did NOT realize at that time: the fact that successive layers AFTER the Cambrian show decreasing numbers of species in the fossil record with each successive layer -a decrease in the diversity of life over time. Once the most recent layers are reached, it shows that 98% of everything that has ever lived is now extinct. That fact totally contradicts Darwin's theory which postulated INCREASING diversity over time with ever more species. Remember -his theory is that all life forms have a common ancestor and branched OUT over time with increasing diversity of species occurring over time. It is the entire foundation of his theory, which apparently some of the most diehard evolution supporting people haven't actually read. So if that were true, the fossil record would show LESS diversity as we go back in time and greater diversity as we move forward in time.

But the fossil record is the opposite -it shows increasing diversity of life as we go BACK in time to the Cambrian and less diversity as we move forward in time. For billions of years prior to the Cambrian, there are sponges and worms and single-cell and multi-cell organism that existed unchanged, then a short period of time in the Cambrian where nearly every known phyla are all coexisting in the same layer with the simultaneous appearance of every seen complex body plan, method of reproduction, complex systems within the body - all showing up fully intact. And then from the Cambrian on, decreasing diversity of life as we come forward in time. To the current time where we now know that 98% of all life that has ever existed is now extinct.

Darwin tried to get around what he knew was already seen in the fossil record during his time by postulating that the fossil record simply had not been well researched enough and said he believed that further research in the fossil record would eventually end up showing the exact opposite of what was seen in the record at that time. But 150 years later and WHOLE lot more discoveries and research in the fossil record has only confirmed what Darwin already knew at the time. And it is a big, ugly fact -the fossil record totally contradicts his theory, totally contradicts the very foundation of his theory that life has a common ancestry and branched out over time. And that is a MAJOR problem. What Darwin realized was a huge and significant contradiction to this theory then -still is. And his belief that the fossil record would eventually show the exact opposite of what it did then -was dead wrong and has only confirmed what the fossil record already showed at that time.

So -yes, a whole lot of scientists are fully aware that Darwin didn't get it right and refusing to continue the search for answers only delays scientific knowledge that much longer. One current theory under active investigation is that the earth was exposed to some kind of unique radiation or ultrahigh wavelength rays of some kind from a cosmic event that resulted in a response from life forms with an intense but brief period of diversification that gradually died off over time -and even that theory is more consistent with the reality of the fossil record than Darwin's theory.

But you go ahead and tell your descendants all about how Darwin answered every possible question about the origin of life and diversity of life to your complete satisfaction and how you accepted that as "proven fact".

Some of that stuff that you think that I said... I didn't say. Who cares? Accuracy is a bitch. Otherwise...

Cool. By your own admission, both Darwin and the rest of the scientific community have not been resting on Darwin's laurels. Ain't progress grand? I guess you have nothing to bitch about.

 

[Shogun]

frazz, Did you just not read the underlined part of his statement?


Since Darwin, scientists have conducted more research, asked more questions and posed more theories. The fact that Darwin's basic hypothesis about the evolution of life hasn't been tossed in the dustbin reflects its fundamental strength, not its weakness.

indeed, it's too bad that we didn't scrap cellular biology too since THAT guy didn't know a damn thing about DNA either. Trying to wrangle the conversation into some darwin roast is about as laughable as galileos ghost relaying a vatican observatory punchline.

 

[Shogun]

Naw, it's just that the right, unlike the left, knows the difference between farce and reality.

Which explains the block-buster status of Michael Moore's and Gore's mockumentaries.

HA!


suuuuuuuuuuuure, baba. sure. keep telling yourself that.


One would think you'd avoid easy jokes about the hindsight reality of your last two presidential votes.

 

[frazzledgear]

Meanwhile the scientific community gets on with its research work, not oblivious to the sort of stupidity that ID'ers parade, but probably with a collective smile at it.

You are right -they are getting on with the research. But you are wrong that ID was trumped up by creationists and did not come from scientists.

Oddly enough, in the last 25 years, when we have seen the greatest accumulation of scientific knowledge, is when MORE scientists have been directly challenging some aspect of Darwinism. Charles Thaxton, a doctorate in chemistry, together with Walter Bradley of Texas A&M and researcher Roger Olsen published what is considered to be a groundbreaking thesis called The Mysteries of Life's Origins in 1984. That was followed in 1987 with another book Evolution: A Theory in Crisis by Australian biochemist Michael Denton which became a scientific bestseller. And that brought the debate within the scientific community to the attention of the public. This was followed by an increasing number of challenges to the theory by scientists.

In 1999, biochemist Michael Behe, mathmetician William Dembski, and molecular biologist Stephen Meyer gave papers at a conference sponsored by the Wethersfield Institute in which they presented what have become signature arguments for design. Dembski applied developments in the information sciences to argue that "specified complexity" can be used objectively to detect evidence of intelligence in events and artifacts. Meyer dealt with information-rich biological features, including DNA and RNA, which exhibit a level of complexity and specificity that could not have evolved through natural causes. Behe presented some of the material from his acclaimed 1996 book Darwin's Black Box, arguing that the irreducible complexity of some biological mechanisms suggests that they could not have evolved in small steps, since the imagined intermediate phases would not have been functional (survivable) mechanisms.

Since then only more scientists have tried to break the grip held by 19th century naturalists with challenges to some aspect of Darwinism or offering the theory of design to explain some specific question in their field of science from nearly every field of science that ranges from psychology to quantum physics to astrophysics to thermodynamics. Just last year, more than 150 scientists including faculty and researchers from Yale, Princeton, MIT and the Smithsonian published a statement expressing their skepticism "of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life."

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/02/07/opinion/07behe.html A scientist's explanation about what is and is not part of the theory of intelligent design.

http://www.leaderu.com/real/ri9403/evidence.html Dr. Walter Bradley regarding identifying intelligent design in the universe based on his own expertise in engineering design.

 

[AllieBaba]

HA!


suuuuuuuuuuuure, baba. sure. keep telling yourself that.


One would think you'd avoid easy jokes about the hindsight reality of your last two presidential votes.

You don't hear any righties running around blathering about what an eye-opener Stein's movie was, or insisting that it's the holy grail of information. You won't see us nominating him for a Nobel, for Pete's sakes.

We know the difference between fact and fiction.

 

[ReillyT]

You don't hear any righties running around blathering about what an eye-opener Stein's movie was, or insisting that it's the holy grail of information. You won't see us nominating him for a Nobel, for Pete's sakes.

We know the difference between fact and fiction.

Maybe Stein is just incomparably larger of a twat.

 

[AllieBaba]

There's no such thing as a bigger twat than M. Moore or A. Gore.

 

[mattskramer]

We know the difference between fact and fiction.

Yes. We certainly do. This was a propaganda piece if there ever was one.

http://www.expelledexposed.com/

 

[Diuretic]

You are right -they are getting on with the research. But you are wrong that ID was trumped up by creationists and did not come from scientists.
...........

Scientists using science, that is, scientific method? Or scientists simply resorting to the old argument from design and not using science?

The fact is the people you refer to have been debunked by the scientific community and ID itself has been exposed as junk science in at least one court case.

As I said, I have no problem with theology and I obviously have none with science. I have a major problem with those who want to dress up theology as science when it patently isn't.

 

[frazzledgear]

Scientists using science, that is, scientific method? Or scientists simply resorting to the old argument from design and not using science?

The fact is the people you refer to have been debunked by the scientific community and ID itself has been exposed as junk science in at least one court case.

As I said, I have no problem with theology and I obviously have none with science. I have a major problem with those who want to dress up theology as science when it patently isn't.

There is no point in arguing about whether the scientists who proposed design relied on scientific methods, accepted scientific principles and provided scientific rationale, etc. or not. I've read many of the papers these scientists have written -and YOU clearly have not. Some of them -like the quantum physicist who claims that after working through a decade of formulas, proved the existence of a cosmic singularity -are beyond my level of comprehension and probably yours. But he provided all his work -and only another quantum physicist can prove his work is wrong. And NONE of them used, included or relied upon anything remotely religious in their work. They simply relied on the science to reach a conclusion that OTHER people find quite compatible with their religious beliefs.

I completely agree -theology and religious doctrine have no place in a science class. But that doesn't mean some science MUST be rejected out of hand if someone else found a particular theory to fit in well with their own personal religious beliefs -even though that scientific work did not arise from or was based on religious doctrine. That isn't the same thing.

Do you really mean to suggest that science is NOT allowed to reach certain scientific conclusions if those conclusions happen to coincide with some religious doctrine somewhere even though they did not arise from that religious doctrine? Because that is no less stupid than insisting all science must ONLY reach conclusions that always agree with a particular religious doctrine. Whether or not some religion finds a particular scientific theory more in line with their religious doctrine, or whether the nonreligious dislike a particular theory because it doesn't fit in nicely with their atheist beliefs -just is not how the validity of science is determined.

 

[manifold]

Naw, it's just that the right, unlike the left, knows the difference between farce and reality.

Which explains the block-buster status of Michael Moore's and Gore's mockumentaries.

Actually, Best in Show, A Mighty Wind and This is Spinal Tap are examples of mockumentaries. Moore's and Gore's (and Stein's) works are examples of crockumentaries.

Just thought you'd like to know.