Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Ben Stein Gets 'Expelled' on Blu-ray
HIGH-DEF DIGEST ^ | Wed Aug 06, 2008 | HIGH-DEF DISC NEWS

Posted on 08/07/2008 11:17:53 AM PDT by Donald Rumsfeld Fan

Bringing the intelligent design debate to high-def, Vivendi Visual has announced an October Blu-ray release for Ben Stein's controversial documentary 'Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed.'

Drawing lines in the intelligent design versus evolution debate (with Stein falling squarely on the side of the former), 'Expelled' was praised by religious leaders and condemned by scientists in equal measure. Released through the Vivendi Visual Entertainment label, the company has set a October 21 Blu-ray release for the incendiary doc, day-and-date with the standard DVD.

(Excerpt) Read more at highdefdigest.com ...


TOPICS: Miscellaneous; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: benstein; crevo; expelled; hollywood

1 posted on 08/07/2008 11:17:53 AM PDT by Donald Rumsfeld Fan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Donald Rumsfeld Fan

Using science to bash science.


2 posted on 08/07/2008 11:19:33 AM PDT by Soliton (> 100)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Soliton

Hehe!


3 posted on 08/07/2008 11:20:02 AM PDT by Constitution Day (This tagline is a Designated Whine-Free Zone)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Donald Rumsfeld Fan

Cool, I’ve heard about it...I want to see it.


4 posted on 08/07/2008 11:22:13 AM PDT by cowdog77
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: cowdog77

See it?

You’re supposed to make comments about it and be an expert on everything presented on it without ever actually watching it.

geesh


5 posted on 08/07/2008 11:23:55 AM PDT by Skooz (Gabba Gabba we accept you we accept you one of us Gabba Gabba we accept you we accept you one of us)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: cowdog77
"Cool, I’ve heard about it...I want to see it."

It tends to run a bit long, but only because there is so much documented evidence and there are so many real, accomplished scientists who have been 'expelled' for crossing the party-line.

Dawkins admitting that the only realistic possibility for abiogenesis is an alien origin is especially appropriate. I don't know why he even agrees to these interviews anymore. He always sticks his foot in his mouth and ends up claiming he was 'misquoted' later. The fact is that these guys don't have a clue and are following the old 'fake it till you make it' game plan.

You also should have some technical background to appreciate the points being made. I think the film is actually more damaging to the philosophical naturalists than most viewers realize.

6 posted on 08/07/2008 11:39:54 AM PDT by GourmetDan (Eccl 10:2 - The heart of the wise inclines to the right, but the heart of the fool to the left.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Donald Rumsfeld Fan

I enjoyed the movie very much when it came out. While it was entertaining and informative, it was equally sobering to realise (again) the extent to which academia as descended into the abyss. God, help save our children from the “teachers”.


7 posted on 08/07/2008 11:43:40 AM PDT by Jerry Attrick
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Soliton
"Using science to bash science philosophy."

There, fixed it for you.

8 posted on 08/07/2008 11:48:06 AM PDT by GourmetDan (Eccl 10:2 - The heart of the wise inclines to the right, but the heart of the fool to the left.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Soliton
Drawing lines in the intelligent design versus evolution debate (with Stein falling squarely on the side of the former), 'Expelled' was praised by religious leaders and condemned by scientists in equal measure

Plenty of scientists (such as the persecuted ones featured in the movie) support Expelled. Your cheap "religion vs. science" propaganda is weak. Why should anyone trust you about the distant past when you can't even admit the growing numbers of scientists in the present who disagree with evolutionism?

Evolutionism is just as much a religion - indeed, religiously foundational to almost all the world's religions - as creation. Atheism and its denominations of secular humanism, Marxism, etc., agnosticism, Hinduism, Shinto, Buddhism, etc. would cease to exist were evolutionism to likewise cease to exist.

9 posted on 08/07/2008 12:15:11 PM PDT by Liberty1970
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Donald Rumsfeld Fan
This movie brings forth an paralell evolutionary example that indicates conservatives and liberals intellect evolved along separate non convergent tracks. Liberals are obviously less intelligent than conservatives. Libs spent millions of dollars on Fahrenheit 911, even though it was billed as a fictional documentary and directed by a guy who dresses like a man wearing his lunch.

On the other hand, a true documentary directed by a genius made little money with its conservative audience. Conservatives are much smarter and will wait for DVD or cable release. Save your $8 per ticket for a movie that makes a difference on the big screen.

10 posted on 08/07/2008 12:31:52 PM PDT by 11th Commandment (Obama- new socialism for a new generation that never heard of Hitler, Stalin and Mao)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Liberty1970

Can you supply a link to a source that has evidence that a growing number of scientists believe in Intelligent Design?


11 posted on 08/07/2008 1:12:16 PM PDT by Soliton (> 100)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Soliton
Can you supply a link to a source that has evidence that a growing number of scientists believe in Intelligent Design?

Dr Francis Crick and Richard Dawkins apparently do. You can easily infer that from their statements.

Does anyone today seriously argue that biological specific information suddenly came ex nilo from a bolt of lightening striking a "primordeal soup"?

I know they did back in the 50's but today?


12 posted on 08/07/2008 2:28:08 PM PDT by Donald Rumsfeld Fan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Donald Rumsfeld Fan
Can you supply a link to a source that has evidence that a growing number of scientists believe in Intelligent Design?

So the answer is no?

13 posted on 08/07/2008 2:39:36 PM PDT by Soliton (> 100)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Soliton
Using science to bash science.

You didn't see it, did you.

Using science and reason to bash intolerance and academic censorship.

14 posted on 08/07/2008 5:33:24 PM PDT by Publius6961 (You're Government, it's not your money, and you never have to show a profit.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Soliton
Can you supply a link to a source that has evidence that a growing number of scientists believe in Intelligent Design?

That is a misrepresentation of the actual conflict.

More accurately it is about the possibility of intelligent design.
As stated elesewhwere, even doofus Dawkins stated clearly that "...the only realistic possibility for abiogenesis is an alien origin...

Simply another way of saying the same thing.

15 posted on 08/07/2008 5:38:20 PM PDT by Publius6961 (You're Government, it's not your money, and you never have to show a profit.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Soliton

It’s self evident that intelligence (i.e. information) is the prime a-priori precursor to the universe. It’s not open to serious debate.


16 posted on 08/07/2008 7:07:15 PM PDT by Donald Rumsfeld Fan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Publius6961

Dawkins didn’t allow for a designer for life in the universe. He said that if you allow for extraterrestrial design for life on earth, then that designer would have had to have a natural origin.

The Hallmark of the ID movement is mking either unsupported statements and calling them facts.


17 posted on 08/07/2008 7:45:26 PM PDT by Soliton (> 100)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Donald Rumsfeld Fan
It’s self evident that intelligence (i.e. information) is the prime a-priori precursor to the universe. It’s not open to serious debate.

"Self evident" is not a serious scientific statement

18 posted on 08/07/2008 7:46:55 PM PDT by Soliton (> 100)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Publius6961
You didn't see it, did you. Using science and reason to bash intolerance and academic censorship.

The whole purpose of the movie is to sneak religion into public schools by describing it as science in violation of the Supreme Court.

19 posted on 08/07/2008 7:49:07 PM PDT by Soliton (> 100)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Soliton
"Dawkins didn’t allow for a designer for life in the universe. He said that if you allow for extraterrestrial design for life on earth, then that designer would have had to have a natural origin. The Hallmark of the ID movement is mking either unsupported statements and calling them facts."

Dude, an extraterrestrial designer does not have to have a natural origin. That's only true if you assume that reality is limited to naturalism and that is an unsupported statement that cannot honestly be called a fact.

Your rendition of Dawkins statement is making unsupported statements and calling them facts. But evos never do that, do they? Only ID'ers, huh?

20 posted on 08/08/2008 1:52:23 PM PDT by GourmetDan (Eccl 10:2 - The heart of the wise inclines to the right, but the heart of the fool to the left.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Soliton; Donald Rumsfeld Fan
""Self evident" is not a serious scientific statement"

Neither is assuming that that intelligence is *not* an 'a priori' precursor to the universe. That is a philosophical position as well.

But somehow that doesn't penetrate the evo mind.

21 posted on 08/08/2008 1:57:18 PM PDT by GourmetDan (Eccl 10:2 - The heart of the wise inclines to the right, but the heart of the fool to the left.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: GourmetDan
Neither is assuming that that intelligence is *not* an 'a priori' precursor to the universe. That is a philosophical position as well.

Science requires evidence to declare something exists. Just provide verifiable evidence for a designer and all science will be at your feet

22 posted on 08/08/2008 2:12:01 PM PDT by Soliton (> 100)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: GourmetDan
Dude, an extraterrestrial designer does not have to have a natural origin.

Of course not, that's why ID is just creationism in disguise.

23 posted on 08/08/2008 2:13:33 PM PDT by Soliton (> 100)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: GourmetDan
Your rendition of Dawkins statement is making unsupported statements and calling them facts. But evos never do that, do they? Only ID'ers, huh?

In the film "Expelled" (reviewed below), Richard Dawkins is asked how intelligent design might be identified. He replies that an alien civilization might have designed life on earth and left a signature somewhere in the biosphere (my paraphrase). But, the alien designers would themselves have to have been evolved through Darwinian mechanisms.

http://theconstructivecurmudgeon.blogspot.com/2008/04/richard-dawkins-and-darwinian.html

24 posted on 08/08/2008 2:27:07 PM PDT by Soliton (> 100)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Soliton
"Science requires evidence to declare something exists. Just provide verifiable evidence for a designer and all science will be at your feet"

Science declares that naturalism is reality without evidence. Just provide verifiable evidence that naturalism is reality and all the world will be at your feet.

25 posted on 08/11/2008 5:40:42 AM PDT by GourmetDan (Eccl 10:2 - The heart of the wise inclines to the right, but the heart of the fool to the left.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Soliton
"Of course not, that's why ID is just creationism in disguise."

And your rendition of Dawkins statement is making unsupported statements and calling them facts. But evos never do that, do they? Only ID'ers, huh?

Of course, science is just the philosphy of naturalism in disguise.

26 posted on 08/11/2008 5:42:50 AM PDT by GourmetDan (Eccl 10:2 - The heart of the wise inclines to the right, but the heart of the fool to the left.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: Soliton
"In the film "Expelled" (reviewed below), Richard Dawkins is asked how intelligent design might be identified. He replies that an alien civilization might have designed life on earth and left a signature somewhere in the biosphere (my paraphrase). But, the alien designers would themselves have to have been evolved through Darwinian mechanisms."

I knew the evo mind wouldn't be able to comprehend, but would just repeat back that which it already believes, again without evidence.

You are back to making unsupported statements and calling them facts. But evos never do that, do they? Only ID'ers, huh?

27 posted on 08/11/2008 5:44:49 AM PDT by GourmetDan (Eccl 10:2 - The heart of the wise inclines to the right, but the heart of the fool to the left.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: GourmetDan

I’ve already supplied a link in support of that quote.


28 posted on 08/11/2008 7:24:41 AM PDT by Soliton (> 100)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: Soliton
"I’ve already supplied a link in support of that quote."

Some quotes from your link:

"Dawkins's explanation leaves the postulated alien designers unexplained in terms of any original design. This indicates his a priori (or philosophical or worldview) commitment to naturalism as the only explanation for life. He can admit no possible evidence for any original designer. Now who is closed minded?"

"This illustrates that Philip Johnson pointed out near the beginning of the Intelligent Design movement in his work, Darwin on Trial: Darwinism is supported more by an a priori commitment to naturalism than it is by the empirical evidence. If naturalism is true, then something like Darwinism must be true. But if one keeps both design and naturalism on the table, the evidence for design can at least be seriously considered (and should be considered in the same way that evidence for design is detectable in archaeology, SETI, cryptography, forensics, and so on."

"The Darwinists claim that their science leads to their worldview (Darwinism). But, in reality, it is more like the opposite situation. Their naturalistic worldview demands Darwinism (or something very much like it--that is, some design-free explanation for all of life). This kind of philosophical commitment is a brand of fundamentalism: I have made up my mind, don't confuse me with the evidence."

"Richard Lewontin on materialism as absolute: "We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism."

Here is your unsupported statement. "He said that if you allow for extraterrestrial design for life on earth, then that designer would have had to have a natural origin. The Hallmark of the ID movement is mking either unsupported statements and calling them facts."

The statement that 'that designer would have to have a natural origin' is unsupported in that it is a belief. There is no scientific evidence to support such a belief. You made the claim that making unsupported statements and calling them fact is a hallmark of the ID movement when you did exactly that in the sentence just prior to you making the claim.

The question is not whether there is a link for Dawkins making such unsupported statements. It is that the unsupported statement is believed without evidence. And this from someone who said, "Science requires evidence to declare something exists."

29 posted on 08/11/2008 7:59:24 AM PDT by GourmetDan (Eccl 10:2 - The heart of the wise inclines to the right, but the heart of the fool to the left.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: GourmetDan

You got me dude. I have no idea what you are getting at.


30 posted on 08/11/2008 8:36:09 AM PDT by Soliton (> 100)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: GourmetDan
He can admit no possible evidence for any original designer. Now who is closed minded?"

Can you provide any evidence of a designer? I've been asking for months and no one has come up with anything.

31 posted on 08/11/2008 8:55:53 AM PDT by Soliton (> 100)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: Soliton
"Can you provide any evidence of a designer? I've been asking for months and no one has come up with anything."

Can you provide any evidence of naturalism? I've been asking for months and no one has come up with anything.

32 posted on 08/11/2008 9:15:54 AM PDT by GourmetDan (Eccl 10:2 - The heart of the wise inclines to the right, but the heart of the fool to the left.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: Soliton
"You got me dude. I have no idea what you are getting at."

Where is the scientific support for your belief in naturalism?

33 posted on 08/11/2008 9:16:43 AM PDT by GourmetDan (Eccl 10:2 - The heart of the wise inclines to the right, but the heart of the fool to the left.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: GourmetDan

Results, naturalism has been proven to produce them. Things like the computer you are using are the results of scientific method based on naturalism. No one has ever been shown to create anything supernaturally. You do it and I will believe.


34 posted on 08/11/2008 9:35:36 AM PDT by Soliton (> 100)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: Soliton
"Results, naturalism has been proven to produce them. Things like the computer you are using are the results of scientific method based on naturalism. No one has ever been shown to create anything supernaturally. You do it and I will believe."

You are confusing technology w/ the philosophy of naturalism. That is a logical error. Your belief is based on logical error.

No one has ever shown that the universe and life have been created naturally or that the natural universe is the limit of reality. You do it and I will believe.

35 posted on 08/11/2008 9:59:19 AM PDT by GourmetDan (Eccl 10:2 - The heart of the wise inclines to the right, but the heart of the fool to the left.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: GourmetDan
You are confusing technology w/ the philosophy of naturalism

No I'm not. One is derived from the other

36 posted on 08/11/2008 10:24:17 AM PDT by Soliton (> 100)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: Soliton
"No I'm not. One is derived from the other"

Yes you are. Naturalism is not necessarily derived from technology and technology is no proof of naturalism.

Naturalism is an 'a priori' commitment, as the link you provided clearly showed.

"Richard Lewontin on materialism as absolute: "We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism."

"...because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism."

Geez dude, Lewontin is honest enough to admit it. Why can't you?

37 posted on 08/11/2008 10:31:40 AM PDT by GourmetDan (Eccl 10:2 - The heart of the wise inclines to the right, but the heart of the fool to the left.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson