Discover the best of the web!
Learn more about Digg by taking the tour.
Box office flop: Ben Stein shows he's no Michael Moore
rawstory.com — Stein's Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed, a documentary which makes an argument for intelligent design, 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 venues.
johnd24- 1989 diggs
- digg it
- Bhima, on 04/21/2008, -61/+22This is actually pretty hilarious. Next they'll be saying he's no Uwe Bole
- whodoes, on 04/21/2008, -10/+81except that Uwe stacks his flicks with hot chicks...
Uwe Bole : 1
Ben Stein : 0
Science : 42- sovietninja, on 04/21/2008, -3/+6I see what you did there!
Stephen Hawking Approves!
- sovietninja, on 04/21/2008, -3/+6I see what you did there!
- Kbennett, on 04/21/2008, -1/+22I was just going to say that a $3.0 million opening weekend is sub-Boll territory.
- KibibyteBrain, on 04/22/2008, -0/+2A $3M opening weekend means that teenagers who merely pick a random movie to go to each night so they can make out away from the eyes of their parents actively decided they'd rather not make out during that movie. Ouch.
- giveer, on 04/21/2008, -2/+6Aw, c'mon... he provides us with a river of movie bile that runs long and deep. The least you could do would be spell his name correctly.
- schuder, on 04/21/2008, -4/+2If he's no Michael Moore then why does Digg cover him like they're Fox News? If no one is seeing his movie then it shouldn't really be diggable considering he's not influencing anyone right? He's kind of a turd but this isn't front page material.
- arpad, on 04/21/2008, -38/+4I think this proves conclusively that if you want to make a bunch of money it's *liberals* you have to like too.
- Chompy, on 04/21/2008, -1/+28Mel Gibson begs to differ.
- kurttrail, on 04/21/2008, -4/+13Snuff Films don't count as documentaries.
- whatever01, on 04/21/2008, -1/+6@kurttrail: Ouch...
Are you saying conservatives prefer snuff films? :P- ElCazador, on 04/22/2008, -4/+2Only snuff films where their "Savior" is the one being 'snuffed', to remind them how he supposedly 'died for their sins', as well as to remind them how evil the people responsible for it were (the Jews, ya know).
Now THAT'S (good-ol'-fashioned Family) Entertainment! - therightclique, on 04/22/2008, -1/+3you don't know what a snuff film is, do you?
- DarkShroud, on 04/22/2008, -0/+4Except the whole part of it being the Romans who actually killed Christ.
- ElCazador, on 04/22/2008, -4/+2Only snuff films where their "Savior" is the one being 'snuffed', to remind them how he supposedly 'died for their sins', as well as to remind them how evil the people responsible for it were (the Jews, ya know).
- arpad, on 04/21/2008, -8/+2And Micheal Moore would heartily agree with me.
- brufleth, on 04/21/2008, -5/+23Sicko discussed the short comings of the US health care system. Despite what you apparently think it isn't a right or left thing. The CEO of my company is DEFINITELY a conservative right wing die hard republican. He also bitches about health care costs hurting the bottom line all the time.
Find me a conservative that thinks our health system is A-OK and I'll show you a conservative that doesn't know what a conservative is and/or anything about our health care system.
Learn to troll better or learn about things you comment on before commenting.- arpad, on 04/21/2008, -13/+4Sicko didn't discuss anything.
It was as reprehensible a series of distortions, misrepresentations, editorial excesses and just, plain lies as "Expelled". The difference between the two is the target audience. Whereas the right edge of the political spectrum hosts a pretty healthy dose of mind your own damned business the left is where pocket-change nobility goes to commiserate that "they" just don't get it. Micheal Moore's grown quite wealthy pandering to the conceits of the left and he's boiled the formula down to its essence.
All you have to do to get a lefty to cough up plenty of bucks is give them an opportunity to feel clever, noble, generous or brave. Of course it's all pretense since those qualities require more commitment then most lefties can muster unless their bellies or sexual organs are involved.
But as long as you can cause a lefty to feel like they've displayed bravery, generosity or thought deep thoughts they're your bitch and you can get pretty much anything you want out of them.
Provided it doesn't cost too much, take too much time, cause you to break a sweat or is in any way scary.- brufleth, on 04/21/2008, -1/+8So health care doesn't cost too much in the US?
So health care doesn't cost business (small and large) too much in the US?
So health care quality isn't below that of many other developed countries (contrary to WHO studies)?
Nice one sided hate logic you have there. Could you explain what makes it a right or left issue when someone can't afford to have their kid's limbs reattached? Or when someone gets cancer and loses their job? Whether you mean to be or not you're a troll. Sicko is ridiculous. That was the intention. It was saying "look how stupid it is to trust something as unpredictable (on the individual level) as health to the free market." It showed extreme cases on purpose. The only reason people associate it with right or left is because Michael Moore's name is on it. If Charleston Heston or Rush Limbaugh had made the same exact movie the association would have switched but it would still be just as pointed. - amadeusdemarzi, on 04/21/2008, -2/+4you're a tool :P
- phrenzy, on 04/21/2008, -1/+5Arpad must be a riot at parties.
- KibibyteBrain, on 04/22/2008, -0/+3Even if you didn't agree with the recommendations and opinions presented in Sicko, to not believe it showed that the american system had unique shortcomings would be simply partisan irrationality.
- brufleth, on 04/21/2008, -1/+8So health care doesn't cost too much in the US?
- dbs1221, on 04/21/2008, -2/+3how does expelled not subscribe to the guidelines for a blockbuster you laid out.
It claims:
academic discourse and free speech are being suppressed
and if we don't change the course of science education we might end up with another holocaust.
Knowing and caring and talking about these things (were they true) is definitely something to feel noble,brave, generous and important about.- iamafatguy, on 04/22/2008, -1/+3The key words being "were they true".
None of his assertions are.
- iamafatguy, on 04/22/2008, -1/+3The key words being "were they true".
- arpad, on 04/21/2008, -13/+4Sicko didn't discuss anything.
- pintomp3, on 04/21/2008, -2/+24right, and only liberals believe the earth is round.
- didiman, on 04/21/2008, -34/+11liberals believe whatever Obama tells them
- ElCazador, on 04/22/2008, -2/+6You're probably so stupid, you actually BELIEVE that.
Well, Conservative Sheep do whatever W tells 'em. (Or, by proxy: Faux News).
If you're gonna blindly follow someone, at least make it someone intelligent! Oh, wait, that would require free-thought, common sense, etc. Never mind. - dunk71, on 04/22/2008, -2/+4What about foreign liberals? Oh wait! Silly me! Foreigners don't count to conservatives. Sorry. Back to school for me.
- ElCazador, on 04/22/2008, -2/+6You're probably so stupid, you actually BELIEVE that.
- didiman, on 04/21/2008, -34/+11liberals believe whatever Obama tells them
- Sidzilla, on 04/21/2008, -2/+16Even Fox News gave Sicko positive reviews. The health care issue is one that affects everybody, and in this case even I have to admit that Moore was spot on.
- Chompy, on 04/21/2008, -1/+28Mel Gibson begs to differ.
- nycmac247, on 04/21/2008, -6/+2Manute Bol?!??!!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cwc6Sdlhp9A - ramiro, on 04/21/2008, -22/+2If you want to make money, make movies not based on fact that please rich and elitist liberals.
If you want to just be truthful, do the opposite.- MsGo, on 04/21/2008, -3/+7 ....Repeated from above, Mel Gibson.
- phrenzy, on 04/21/2008, -4/+10I really can't believe I share my country with people like you.
- dunk71, on 04/22/2008, -2/+2Unfortunately, we do... Any ideas what we can do about it?
- sovietninja, on 04/22/2008, -2/+2Well, first we need a Great Depression...
- dunk71, on 04/22/2008, -1/+2@ sovietninja: Thanks for assuming I'm a fascist for no apparent reason. The OP of this thread made a comment about "rich and elitist liberals" which struck me as a negative and bigoted point of view, and one probably garnered from the influences of this nation's media outlets rather than by personal consideration of facts. I am dismayed by the commonality of this attitude and it appears that phrenzy shares this dismay. I don't think either of us were endorsing genocide, ethnic cleansing, mass murder, or any other term you wish to apply to the atrocities of the Holocaust.
For the record, I was thinking of education. Something that might teach how to apply logic to thinking instead of relying on bias and prejudice to form opinions, NOT isolating and persecuting a group based on their race or beliefs. - ramiro, on 04/24/2008, -1/+1See? The rich and elitist liberals consider anyone who does not share their opinions as illiterate and unworthy of living.
- dunk71, on 04/25/2008, -1/+1@ ramiro: 1. I'm not rich. 2. I'm not elitist. 3. I may be liberal in comparison to you, but it's a big assumption to make that I am "a liberal" by the terms which you judge them. 4. I didn't say anyone was unworthy of living (and, actually, that would be paradoxical to a liberal). 5. I think you may be intellectually subnormal. Or a troll.
- dunk71, on 04/22/2008, -2/+2Unfortunately, we do... Any ideas what we can do about it?
- kaelyiesta, on 04/21/2008, -7/+2Nah, they can compare him and Moore, but Uwe is in another league since he doesnt pretend to make documentaries that turn out to be cherry picked ***** or misleading arguments. Sure his movies suck, but at least no one is tricked into buying that *****.
- buhbyebot, on 04/22/2008, -1/+2Here you go you stupid *****.
http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/expelled_no_intell ...
13% at Rotten Tomatoes
"A cynical attempt to sucker Christian conservatives into thinking they're losing the 'intelligent design' debate because of academic 'prejudice.' "- buhbyebot, on 04/22/2008, -1/+2^ bury this, I replied to the wrong ***** post.
- whodoes, on 04/21/2008, -10/+81except that Uwe stacks his flicks with hot chicks...
- DymnDog, on 04/21/2008, -23/+422I was unimpressed at the hype this movie was trying to generate. But when one of the scientists interviewed for this movie was banned form seeing it at a public showing, it became clear which side was part of a cover-up.
- gr3yn3t, on 04/21/2008, -15/+7Wasn't Richard Dawkins banned from a preview?
- deepthot42, on 04/21/2008, -3/+29That's the funny part, when they were busy expelling this one scientist (Don't remember off the top of my head) ... no one recognized Dawkins who casually strolled in the theatre.
Do a YouTube search or something for more info.- kaanstikle, on 04/21/2008, -0/+30That was PZ Myers..
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/- artofwar420, on 04/21/2008, -0/+3Yep, yep. Good blog btw.
- Lyk4n, on 04/21/2008, -0/+2I love his stuff..
- blergle, on 04/21/2008, -0/+4Dawkins was Myers' +1 guest. Myers had registered for a ticket with his name in advance so the fundies were looking for him. They didn't recognise Dawkins who was admitted.
- withears, on 04/22/2008, -0/+3Dawkins was so good in The Running Man.
- senatorpjt, on 04/22/2008, -2/+1Dawson, but close enough.
- kaanstikle, on 04/21/2008, -0/+30That was PZ Myers..
- macaddct1984, on 04/21/2008, -1/+11No, it was PZ Myers. Richard Dawkins and the rest of PZ Myers' family was admitted.
- deepthot42, on 04/21/2008, -3/+29That's the funny part, when they were busy expelling this one scientist (Don't remember off the top of my head) ... no one recognized Dawkins who casually strolled in the theatre.
- brufleth, on 04/21/2008, -1/+27I am pretty sure that at least a small chunk of the people going to see it just didn't really know what was going on ahead of time. The commercials that were airing (at least in my market) did not clearly depict what the movie was about. It seemed more like it was a funny documentary or even "mockumentary" with Ben Stein. People could easily have misunderstood what it was they were going to see.
- Jaliyl, on 04/21/2008, -1/+7Indeed, until I read the description of this article I had only seen the ads and I never got around to googling what it was about.
- MWeather, on 04/21/2008, -2/+14As soon as I saw Stein conflate abiogenesis and evolution, I knew what the movie was about. And knowing Stein has the education to know better, I know what level of intellectual honesty to expect.
- riggs32, on 04/21/2008, -1/+3yeah i saw the previews on tv and had no idea what this movie was about. only after later reading about it on digg did i even have the slightest clue as to what ben stein was even talking about
- bacon_skoda, on 04/21/2008, -4/+17Well of course...what does the movie says in bold letters?
"Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed"
should play real well in the bible belts. - Vic333, on 04/21/2008, -4/+11Go to www.skeptic.com for a pretty good factual bashing of the film. A lot (if not all) of the cases in the film are fraudulent.
- chaosium, on 04/21/2008, -1/+4They are all misrepresented or blatantly fictionalized.
- JettaMan, on 04/21/2008, -15/+7Believe in religion because... because of the holocaust. Why is it with some Jews that everything comes down to the holocaust rather than what is actually true? Truth comes before everything. Don't deny Darwin because some Jew wants to guilt trip you.
- analogkid01, on 04/21/2008, -1/+6I'm sitting here trying to cut through the racism to find a coherent point, and...I got nothin'.
- CurlyMike139125, on 04/22/2008, -1/+5Thanks you, JettaMan, for that completely inappropriate and out-of-place trolling racism.
- quomen, on 04/21/2008, -7/+5Since when was making $1 million in one day a failure? In hollywood transformers starwars lotr standards, yeah it tanked. But in perspective his profit margin must be huge because it's a documentary. Buried as somewhat inaccurate. (I'm not stein apologist)
- Instaa, on 04/21/2008, -0/+4Um...the cost of production is still a lot + advertising + all the other expenses is a lot.
If every theater had 12 showings over the weekend then it would be about 100$ per showing per theater which is about what? 10 people?- AON99, on 04/21/2008, -0/+3But if you read the article blurb, that was the take from friday alone. Not the whole weekend. And it was compared to Sicko's whole opening weekend.
I hate 'intelligent design' and it's idiot followers, but the article blurb is disingenuous.
- AON99, on 04/21/2008, -0/+3But if you read the article blurb, that was the take from friday alone. Not the whole weekend. And it was compared to Sicko's whole opening weekend.
- rgodfrey, on 04/22/2008, -0/+3Agreed. Documentaries are cheap to produce, and a $3.5 million dollar opening weekend is huge. (Note from the article that the movie is already in the top 26 for documentary box office of *all time*.) Prints and advertising are going to be a big cost for this particular film, but I'm willing to bet that this movie has already become profitable.
So yeah, you're making Ben Stein cry as he cashes all of the checks.- letitbleed62, on 04/22/2008, -0/+4So... I haven't won any of Ben Stein's money?
- phrogxix, on 04/22/2008, -0/+1Promotion, rights clearances (which apparently they didn't get), and distribution cost a lot more than you'd think. Just because it made X amount of dollars doesn't mean Ben Stein is cashing checks in that amount.
- Instaa, on 04/21/2008, -0/+4Um...the cost of production is still a lot + advertising + all the other expenses is a lot.
- brightshadow525, on 04/21/2008, -8/+7Ok... Someone tell me how anyone is going to be compared to such a retard like Michael Moore. Who gives a crap if Expelled sucks, Michael Moore's movies are just as stupid.
- burchie2, on 04/21/2008, -0/+6O.K. "Sicko" made less than 25 mil in the box office, so 3 mil for an opening weekend isn't exactly a failure. (for a documentary).
- withears, on 04/22/2008, -10/+3So let's summarize...
1. Ben Stein is a republican.
2. republicans lie.
3. This movie is full of lies.
4. The only people going to see this movie are those people who are the intersection of (a) republicans/liars (apologize for the redundancy) and (b) religious nuts.
5. Ben Stein learn his ethics, morals, integrity from Richard Nixon.
Conclusion - Too bad there aren't more religious nuts that Ben Stein could fleece.- withears, on 04/22/2008, -0/+1So it looks like there are 6 republicans on Digg. That's way too many.
- hammerpants, on 04/22/2008, -1/+3Isn't this Stein's first "documentary?" I think a fairer comparison, if you must use Michael Moore as an example, would be "Roger & Me," which opened at around $80,000 in 4 theaters (boxofficemojo) and later went on to 265 theaters. $20,000/theater ain't bad, really, but there's no real logical comparison between Expelled and Farenheit 9/11, besides the fact that they're both high(ish) budget, agenda-driven "documentaries."
- charris1980, on 04/22/2008, -0/+11mil is nothing when sent to 1000+ theaters.
- gr3yn3t, on 04/21/2008, -15/+7Wasn't Richard Dawkins banned from a preview?
- StandupShowcase, on 04/21/2008, -102/+458ben stein is a real p.o.s. he claims to be an intellectual yet supported bush. those two things do not equate.
- dumpyhumpy, on 04/21/2008, -23/+4Deepthroat is a little biased
- KipEvil, on 04/21/2008, -23/+5*BURR CLICK WHIZZ* Does not compute. *BURR CLICK WHIZZ*
- rudy23, on 04/21/2008, -29/+61either ways. not being michael moore is a compliment
- Portachking, on 04/21/2008, -9/+10I agree, but I think the point is that Michael Moore makes money. Lots of it.
- mal1964, on 04/21/2008, -50/+9StandupShowcase is a real p.o.s. he claims to be an intellectual yet supported Doesn't Matter. those two things do not equate.
Anyone can do that.
Mal1964 is a real p.o.s. he claims to be an intellectual yet supported Doesn't Matter. those two things do not equate.
See it works for me also- 4321234, on 04/21/2008, -4/+31No. It doesn't.
- mal1964, on 04/21/2008, -23/+2Yes it don't
- Waiting2awake, on 04/21/2008, -3/+6you're delusional.
- mal1964, on 04/21/2008, -13/+3Why because i disagree with someone that calls people he doesn't know a POS, Who's really delusional? You also don't know one ***** thing about me, So again who's delusional?
- mal1964, on 04/21/2008, -7/+1@hagnar
My Reply, - IllBeBack, on 04/21/2008, -3/+7@mal1964: "You also don't know one ***** thing about me"
We know from the words you've written in your comments that you are a huge douche. - CurlyMike139125, on 04/22/2008, -2/+1C-C-C-COMBO BREAKER
- mal1964, on 04/22/2008, -5/+1I agree with the douche part but not delusional. At times i get delirious whenever U're near
Lose all self-control, baby, just can't steer
Wheels get locked in place
Get a stupid look on my face
When it comes 2 makin' a pass, pretty mama
I just can't win a race
Cuz I get delirious
Delirious
Delirious
I get delirious when U hold my hand
Body gets so weak I can hardly stand
My temperature's runnin' hot
Baby, U got 2 stop
Cuz if U don't I'm gonna explode
And girl I've got a lot
I get delirious, yeah
Delirious
Delirious
I get delirious whenever U're near
Girl, U gotta take control cuz I just can't steer
U're just 2 much 2 take
I can't stop, I ain't got no brakes
Girl, U gotta take me 4 a little ride up and down
In and out around your lake
I'm delirious
U, U, U get me delirious
Baby, lay me down
Delirious
The room, the room, the room is spinnin' around, oh yeah
(Delirious) {repeat in BG}
I..I..I..I'm deliri... oh yeah, oh I, oh I, yeah
Delirious, yeah
It's got me in repair, everybody look out
Everybody will know
Oh yeah, I'm delirious
Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah,
- mal1964, on 04/21/2008, -23/+2Yes it don't
- 4321234, on 04/21/2008, -4/+31No. It doesn't.
- mal1964, on 04/21/2008, -13/+3"It's amazing what ordinary people can do if they set out without preconceived notions."
Ben Stein- MxM111, on 04/21/2008, -1/+14Well, he treats science as on of that preconceived notions...
- rockchops, on 04/21/2008, -0/+7teapot, kettle, black, etc...
- ElCazador, on 04/22/2008, -2/+2"It's amazing the amount of damage complete idiots can do without established facts, or even a clue"
Me
- Rikkochet, on 04/21/2008, -18/+34Uh, I hate to nitpick, but supporting Bush is a political decision because he's a politician. It is unquestionably mutually exclusive from intellect and science. Your support for him may vary based on HIS opinions on science, but that's where the comparison ends.
Please guys, stop doing what they're doing on the other side of the fence.- mal1964, on 04/21/2008, -8/+3I know i couldn't say it as good or any better but i was going to attempt it. So I totally agree very nice!
- rholland356, on 04/21/2008, -7/+11Ben Stein is a political animal. He wrote speeches for Dick Nixon. Served as his lawyer, as well.
Why is such a smart man supporting creationism and the stretch that Darwin's understanding of evolution resulted, ultimately, in the holocaust? I mean, right there he injects politics.
I think he did it for the payday. Nothing pays so well for such little work as a career on the silver screen. True, he's been in bed with the I D folks for a fair amount of time. Does this movie explain Ben Stein's motives for supporting I D?- flossdaily, on 04/21/2008, -0/+2I don't know why this comment was dug down. It was substantive and on point.
- YourMajesty, on 04/22/2008, -1/+3Stein doesn't say that Darwinism lead to the Holocaust. He said that Nazism isn't a requirement for Darwinism, but Darwinism is a requirement for Nazism as it gave Hitler something to manipulate and propagate.
What he was saying is that it's very easy to take Darwinism from a scientific standpoint and apply it to a social one. When you do, ultimately, things like the Holocaust happen.
...has anyone who's posted against this movie seen it? At least Dawkin's did before he bashed it.- iamafatguy, on 04/22/2008, -0/+1http://bluecollarscientist.com/2008/04/18/some-exp ...
- rockchops, on 04/21/2008, -1/+4It would be awfully nice if we lived in a world where that were true
- tjmb9, on 04/21/2008, -1/+1What are you, insane? They only way I can keep from crying myself to sleep is to turn Bush and his supporters into a joke.
- didiman, on 04/21/2008, -11/+7Have you even graduated high school yet?
- mirunit, on 04/21/2008, -6/+8"ben stein is a real p.o.s. he claims to be an intellectual yet supported bush. those two things do not equate."
The question is, what do you consider yourself? - Qumahlin, on 04/21/2008, -7/+17Ben Stein is an intellectual in that he has the ability to memorize facts and re-gurgitate them. There is a difference between being an intelligent logical thinking human being and simply being able to remember ***** and play it back later.
- LongShlong, on 04/21/2008, -3/+3Memory is the lowest form of intelligence.
- NeutrixX, on 04/21/2008, -24/+1Just for the record, those of you who hold that the theory of evolution is true, please check yourself. It is still scientifically considered a theory. It has not been proven within the context of humans evolving from any lower life form. They are still considered theories. Scientists have proven certain evolutionary leaps within the insect realm, and aquatic species, bit it is still considered a giant leap when trying to prove Neanderthal even existed.
- rholland356, on 04/21/2008, -1/+11What utter rubbish. If you truly believe humans did not evolve from lower life forms, then what is it in our DNA that makes the distinction? We do indeed have much in common in our DNA with other creatures on this planet.
- YourMajesty, on 04/22/2008, -2/+2Utter rubbish? He's pointing out something that people have apparently forgotten: there's yet to be an observable recreation of inorganic life to organic life (the first step in macroevolution). Scientists can't even do it, how are you supposed to expect randomness to do it?
- Fratz, on 04/22/2008, -2/+6Every time a Fundamentalist Christian says "macroevolution" an angel evolves its wings.
- iamafatguy, on 04/22/2008, -0/+6@Your Majesty "there's yet to be an observable recreation of inorganic life to organic life (the first step in macroevolution). Scientists can't even do it"
That's actually entirely untrue - there have been several experiments in that realm. Do some research. - YourMajesty, on 04/22/2008, -2/+0Show me. I'm all up for correction. Show one experiment where we create life.
- Fratz, on 04/22/2008, -0/+1http://astrobiology.arc.nasa.gov/news/expandnews.c ...
- rholland356, on 04/22/2008, -0/+1Egads, man! You have fish DNA up to your neck, and it seems to have affected your thinking.
Evolution says nothing about the origin of life. It tells us how creatures change forms from one to another.
If humans have no connection to evolution, then why do you look like you and very few others? - Fratz, on 04/23/2008, -0/+2"You have fish DNA up to your neck"
Literally. Embryos have gills during development.
- YourMajesty, on 04/22/2008, -2/+2Utter rubbish? He's pointing out something that people have apparently forgotten: there's yet to be an observable recreation of inorganic life to organic life (the first step in macroevolution). Scientists can't even do it, how are you supposed to expect randomness to do it?
- fotbr, on 04/21/2008, -4/+13Well, "Gravity" is also "still considered a theory". So feel free to throw yourself off a nice tall cliff just to see if the "theory" has any holes in it.
- Indierocka, on 04/21/2008, -15/+2Gravity is not a theory. Poor argument
- Indierocka, on 04/21/2008, -10/+0Why am I getting dugg down?
- bigbadgoat, on 04/21/2008, -0/+9Because Gravity IS a theory, you ***** moron.
- YourMajesty, on 04/22/2008, -7/+0It is, but not the context fotbr was putting it. The only thing theoretical about gravity is what exactly causes it (gravitons or spacetime curvature), not that gravity itself actually occurs. He did a nice straw man, though.
- bigbadgoat, on 04/22/2008, -0/+5I see you're clueless about theories as well.
- TheCatsPants, on 04/22/2008, -0/+5@yourmajesty
The same holds for biology as well. There's no dispute in the scientific communtiy about whether evolution happened or not, but the actual mechanisms are disputed. So evolution is a fact, like gravity, and there is also a theory of evolution, like there is a theory of gravity.
- Abaddon1125, on 04/21/2008, -0/+9http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravity#History_of_gr ...
...And come back when you know what a scientific theory is, retard.- Indierocka, on 04/21/2008, -6/+0I was refering to "theory" in the same context as fotbr, that context being speculation, not in the context of a scientific principle to explain phenomena
- flossdaily, on 04/21/2008, -1/+6That's the point, Indierocka. When it comes right down to it, the theory of evolution has a lot more support than any theory of gravitation. Evolution is as close as science comes to fact. Except that science recognizes absolute fact to be a fiction.
- Indierocka, on 04/21/2008, -15/+2Gravity is not a theory. Poor argument
- Lyk4n, on 04/21/2008, -3/+11Guys! It's just a theory! Hur de der der! I'ma gonna go pet my mullet now..
- flossdaily, on 04/21/2008, -4/+2Dug down because anti-evolution morons probably don't understand sarcasm either, and I don't want them thinking that they have support.
- YourMajesty, on 04/22/2008, -9/+0Last I checked, NeutrixX didn't say anything untrue. Stating that while evolution is a scientific theory and is more credible than non-scientific theories like Loose Change or JFK, we've yet to evolution outside of species.
- DarkShroud, on 04/22/2008, -4/+1Actually by science's own rules Evolution doesn't even rate at the level of theory. It's lower at hypothesis, because it's not repeatable, observable, or recordable.
- bigbadgoat, on 04/22/2008, -1/+4actually it is.
- stukilla, on 04/22/2008, -0/+4Everything scientific is a theory that is what separates science for religion. Because you can change a theory if you discover something that does not act as the theory predicted but it is very very very difficult to change religion look what happen to the people that said earth wasnt the center of the solar system or that earth was round!!! Man i love science
- rholland356, on 04/21/2008, -1/+11What utter rubbish. If you truly believe humans did not evolve from lower life forms, then what is it in our DNA that makes the distinction? We do indeed have much in common in our DNA with other creatures on this planet.
- quomen, on 04/21/2008, -4/+4I don't agree with this movie, but to call him stupid is..stupid. Tell me when you're writing speeches for presidents. But then again, that's just rhetoric. But he's a skilled rhetorician at that.
- flossdaily, on 04/21/2008, -1/+4There are many different types of stupidity. You can have brilliant mathematicians who can't pen an elegant sentence to save their lives, and you can have brilliant authors who can't calculate a 15% tip.
Ben Stein may be gifted in certain areas, but he has proven with this film that he is seriously deficient in the area of critical thinking.
Or worse, he has the capacity to understand evolution, but is being willfully ignorant- which is the worst brand of stupidity in the world. - booboolean, on 04/21/2008, -0/+2Exactly. It's skill. It's the same skill you'd use if you wrote cards for hallmark or dialogue for commercial television.
- flossdaily, on 04/21/2008, -1/+4There are many different types of stupidity. You can have brilliant mathematicians who can't pen an elegant sentence to save their lives, and you can have brilliant authors who can't calculate a 15% tip.
- mGARANDEUR1, on 04/21/2008, -6/+2Ben Stein simply makes the argument that scientists should be able to present their research, even if it doesn't agree with the theory that humans come from apes.
- AON99, on 04/21/2008, -1/+8And if they come up with research that follows the scientific method, is testable, and doesn't ignore proven facts, I think they'll find no one is stopping them from presenting it.
It's when they spew unsubstantiated religious crap with no thought to the scientific method that they get the response from the scientific community that they so richly deserve. - flossdaily, on 04/22/2008, -0/+8When someone who can demonstrated a thorough understanding of the theory of evolution, presents an alternative theory which is falsifiable and has some predictive value, the scientific community will happily take it seriously.
- bonhoeffer, on 04/22/2008, -5/+0ID is a theory that can be falsified by showing, scientifically, how organisms which defy evolutionary processes could have formed other than by design.
How can evolution be falsified?- flossdaily, on 04/22/2008, -0/+6#1) No organism to date has been found which defies evolutionary processes.
#2) If such an organism were found, THAT is how evolution could be falsified.
#3) ID can't be falsified because it doesn't make any predictions which can be tested. That's why it isn't a scientific theory, and that's why everyone laughs at you.
- flossdaily, on 04/22/2008, -0/+6#1) No organism to date has been found which defies evolutionary processes.
- mGARANDEUR1, on 04/22/2008, -1/+1How can a person even have a chance to prove anything if he/she is immediately criticized for questioning a theory that is over a 100 years old? True science demands that people have open minds.
- bonhoeffer, on 04/22/2008, -5/+0ID is a theory that can be falsified by showing, scientifically, how organisms which defy evolutionary processes could have formed other than by design.
- Fratz, on 04/22/2008, -0/+2Just for the sake of posterity (i.e. late comment thread readers) it's not just that humans come from apes, but that we _are_ apes, taxonomically and genetically. We just happen to be apes who _tend_ to be smarter than all the other apes.
- AON99, on 04/21/2008, -1/+8And if they come up with research that follows the scientific method, is testable, and doesn't ignore proven facts, I think they'll find no one is stopping them from presenting it.
- Modizzle, on 04/22/2008, -3/+4I dunno. Just because you support Bush doesn't mean you're dumb. It just means that you're probably above upper middle class and you like your money. However, if you like Bush for any other reason, you're probably just ignorant.
- StandupShowcase, on 04/29/2008, -0/+1either dumb or selfish..usually a combo of both
- DeepFriedFetus, on 04/21/2008, -91/+328Did Ben Stein actually think he was going to make money off of this? I mean, he's defending "intelligent" design, the de facto delusion for Christ-crazy rednecks who aren't exactly the movie-going demographic (they'll stick to their good ol' Nascar, thank you very much), while alienating and outraging anyone with an IQ over 100 and a shred of common sense. Who's going to see this movie?
- Bilabrin, on 04/21/2008, -19/+95Hell, even "Passion of the Christ" sold with that crowd. How bad does your movie have to be if even those guys won't come see it?
- AzBats, on 04/21/2008, -8/+36This isn't about making money - it's about pushing an ideology. The money is all a write-off I'm sure.
I know the Florida Legisature has been given special screenings and I'm sure other States' elected officials have had them to.- letitbleed62, on 04/22/2008, -0/+2Do you know what a write off is? tax deductible =/= free
- bimtott, on 04/21/2008, -3/+35"Passion of the Christ" was not pretending to be a documentary
- kurttrail, on 04/21/2008, -8/+22Exactly, it was a snuff film.
- bacon_skoda, on 04/21/2008, -4/+1snuff a luff I guess.
- Bulletbillx, on 04/21/2008, -2/+3And yet I bet the people that watched it would be outraged if you showed them Guinea Pig movies like flower of flesh and blood or the devils experiment which are also simulated snuff.
- Abaddon1125, on 04/21/2008, -2/+3Of course. Passion was "Jesus snuff." It's holy.
- rootneg2, on 04/22/2008, -1/+3snuff films do not exist, he rose again...
AS A ZOMBIE!!! - Bilabrin, on 04/22/2008, -0/+1SWEET ZOMBIE JESUS!
- kurttrail, on 04/21/2008, -8/+22Exactly, it was a snuff film.
- SpaceMonkeyZero, on 04/21/2008, -1/+9Well, Catholics believe in evolution, (look it up, the only thing they claim involves God is when and where souls came into play) so they have no need to see this Creationist garbage.
- etherreal, on 04/21/2008, -0/+4Yep, Pope Palpatine himself has stated that he believes God created life through evolution:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/new ...
- etherreal, on 04/21/2008, -0/+4Yep, Pope Palpatine himself has stated that he believes God created life through evolution:
- AzBats, on 04/21/2008, -8/+36This isn't about making money - it's about pushing an ideology. The money is all a write-off I'm sure.
- cornswalled, on 04/21/2008, -20/+23Intelligent design is seen as a half assed cop out by most real conservatives. They're lukewarm fence sitters afraid to commit either way. Either God created the world, in which case Genesis is the literal truth, or we're godless apes, in which case Darwin has it right. The ID cowards are trying to play both sites and just pissing of everyone.
Ten years ago ID was the bastard step child of Creationist thinking, the place where faithless conformists went to lurk and sulk, pretending to believe God Did it while playing lip service to the mechanics of Evolution. Stein is failing because he banked on a disgusting bastard ideology that most Christians see as a place for spineless jellyfish to hide.- Orion682, on 04/21/2008, -3/+41Just because we came from apes doesn't mean we're godless :) Even the ***** pope doesn't have a problem with the theory of evolution. It's the answer to how, but not necessarily why.
(Not that I believe in God per se, but evolution doesn't disprove God)- Kral, on 04/21/2008, -2/+12The 'culture war' crowd is pushing the black and white worldview that it's Darwin or God, mostly to drum up support for their crazy culture war. 'The Big Lie' is a well established method of getting people to back lunacy, after all.
- AzBats, on 04/21/2008, -4/+5What I find amazing is our abilities for our stories to change into mythologies and then the myths to change into creation stories.
Stories that have morality tales = good stuff
Stories with morality tale taken to be the word of some God which has to be appeased to stop the volcano/end of the world = violence - Waiting2awake, on 04/21/2008, -1/+1I was going to say the same thing - including the disclaimer.
- Kohaxx, on 04/21/2008, -1/+13The issue here is the movie tried to make something out of nothing, to the fundamental conservatives it may seem to be a choice between being godless apes and literal truth but in reality science is science and religion is religion. Trying to teach religion as science is the problem here.
You can still have faith and believe in evolution, a couple of the scientists he interviewed did, but he cut the footage out of the movie to attempt to show evolution as anti-religion.
When the glowing review on the movie poster is from Rush Limbaugh, you know it's going to be crap.- cornswalled, on 04/21/2008, -12/+3What do you have against Rush? He's a bit liberal in his religious views but he's OK.
- RidesAPaleHorse, on 04/21/2008, -1/+4That, sir, is pure comedy gold! I think you're being Dugg down becasue people aren't' recognizing the irony in your post.
- Bilabrin, on 04/21/2008, -2/+5Is that a joke? Rush limbaugh is a convicted drug addict and a hypocrite. He was eating up to 30 oxycontin a day. If you or I tried that we'd die. You have to build up to it. Even one quarter of an Oxycontin is powerful enough to take care of a full blown toothache for 6 hours.
Here's an excerpt from this page:
http://www.bradleyreport.net/commentary/StonedRush ...
But just what has Mr. Limbaugh done? How serious a drug offender is he?
Here is what the record to date shows: Mr. Limbaugh’s housekeeper, Wilma Cline, approached Florida media and Florida authorities to reveal that she had acted as Rush Limbaugh’s drug buyer for years, purchasing "more than 30,000 hydrocodone, Lorcet and OcyContin pills," and she reports he "took as many as 30 OxyContin pills a day."**** Florida authorities then began investigating, and Ms. Cline’s allegations have apparently proved solid, certainly solid enough for the State of Florida to take action.
This means, of course, that for quite a long period Mr. Limbaugh was heavily abusing prescription narcotics while continuing to conduct his radio talk show. In short, this means that Mr. Limbaugh was often under the influence of drugs when he was on the air, delivering a hard right-wing message. To be truly blunt, it appears he was stoned while adhering to a position that anyone who uses drugs should be incarcerated.
Obviously this is the very definition of hypocrisy. - coyote1284, on 04/21/2008, -0/+6@Rides
From cornswalled POV, almost everyone is a bit liberal, maybe even Ann Coulter.
- cornswalled, on 04/21/2008, -12/+3What do you have against Rush? He's a bit liberal in his religious views but he's OK.
- evodude, on 04/21/2008, -2/+8That's a false dichotomy if there ever was one. Either we're godless apes, or this one particular creation story is correct. Yes indeed, those are the only two options.
- Abaddon1125, on 04/21/2008, -1/+1From a Christian point of view the dichotomy is there, which is why the fundamentalists fight it so hard. There's also a connection between the truth of evolution and the truth of the bible that scares them. If Genesis is wrong, what else is? It's sowing the seeds of doubt at that point.
- Kohaxx, on 04/21/2008, -3/+2I disagree, if one thing isn't literal in the bible it doesn't mean that none of it ever happened. Who's to say which parts are literal and which are metaphorical? Religion doesn't exist only because of the stories of genesis.
It's really easy to get overeager and see everything in black and white to support your view, but in reality it's never that simple. You can't deny the evidence supporting evolution, and you can't discount the entire bible based off an inaccuracy or metaphor. - Lanlost, on 04/22/2008, -1/+2You're right Kohaxx, it isn't that simple. I use what you are saying here all of the time to explain things. The problem is that you are missing something. Yes, almost EVERYTHING in life is more complex than you realize until you really dive into it. Even then you realize how much more there is to learn.
The Bible is supposed to be the word of God, regardless. Either it's true, or it's false.
Sure, you can subscribe to the "some parts are literal, some parts are metaphorical" idea which by itself isn't necessarily wrong. The problem with this is, who decides which is which?
It is SUPPOSED to be God's word, if it is.. then how can we expect a mere human to decide what God meant? Who are we to even say that it's not all literal?
Religion doesn't just exist because of the Book of Genesis, but the Abrahamic religions certainly start there.
- Lanlost, on 04/22/2008, -0/+2First of all, I believe in evolution.
Second of all, EVERYONE on both sides of the argument need to look at what they are saying to make sure they aren't using logical fallacies.
As far as Abrahamic religions are concerned, either the Bible is God's word.. or it isn't. However, Christianity and the rest of the Abrahamic religions aren't the only possible way for a "God" of some sort to exist. Really, they have the exact same chance of being true as any other belief.
MOST IMPORTANTLY: Abiogensis is NOT the same thing as evolution. Most people who believe in evolution ALSO believe in abiogenesis so it is commonly thought to go hand in hand with it.
For those who don't know, abiogenesis is the idea for the naturalistic origin of life. It is commonly believed that the theory of evolution includes this idea of how life originated. It doesn't. Obviously life had to start somewhere and abiogenesis is the current scientifically accepted (and yet obviously debated) hypothesis for the origin of life. Evolution exists regardless of how life started.- SigersonLTD, on 04/22/2008, -1/+0So, you believe you came from a rock, or ultimately, life from no life. Randomly. Impressive.
- Orion682, on 04/21/2008, -3/+41Just because we came from apes doesn't mean we're godless :) Even the ***** pope doesn't have a problem with the theory of evolution. It's the answer to how, but not necessarily why.
- kelly, on 04/21/2008, -55/+11Actually, he's not defending intelligent design. The movie is simply advocating for freedom of inquiry.
- kingmanic, on 04/21/2008, -3/+50No, the movie is trying to play the "prejudice" card by drastically distorting the truth but failing spectacularly. The freedom to explore ideas exists but the freedom from critical analysis doesn't. Thus ID exists as a idea but isn't taken seriously because it's premises had been proposed, scrutinized and found wanting more then a century and a half ago.
- moolaismyfriend, on 04/21/2008, -9/+7No its not *****.
- bimtott, on 04/21/2008, -5/+34Evolution is the most rock-solid, throughly tested and proven hypothesis in the history of science; Newton's laws of physics have not survived under half as much scruitny. the need for a "freedom of inquiry" is stupid. It's like saying that there is a scientific consipiracy against the "possibility" that the sun rises in the West.
- jagchamp, on 04/21/2008, -20/+3If you are speaking of darwinistic evolution, you are incorrect. Darwinistic Evolution is far from rock-solid, and cannot be tested. On the other hand, Microevolution, such as the length of finch beaks, can be examined and verified, and is not disputed by informed people. And as for your "sun rises in the west" comment, it seems like just an inflammatory and out of context.
- kingmanic, on 04/21/2008, -0/+19Macro and micro evolution were terms coined for something other then what you are thinking of. Micro evolution as the term was originally coined is the study of alleic statistics while macro evolution is the study of population genetics. Not micro = beak size macro = new arms. Both micro and macro evolution as used in science per the people who coined the terms have been observed. The straw man creationists attempt to portray the terms as is false. The use of those terms has long fallen out of favor. Taken within context your comment is a sign of a distinct lack of knowledge about biology.
- iamafatguy, on 04/22/2008, -0/+3micro AND macro evolution are the same thing. Just different time scales. Those words are used by creationists to confound.
"Darwinistic evolution" is another non-term. It's evolution. Period. Darwin made it famous in "Origin of Species", but it's not "Darwinistic", it's not "Darwinian", it's evolution. Darwin's ideas are 150 years old. Much science has been done since then, and much more will continue to to be done.
- jagchamp, on 04/21/2008, -20/+3If you are speaking of darwinistic evolution, you are incorrect. Darwinistic Evolution is far from rock-solid, and cannot be tested. On the other hand, Microevolution, such as the length of finch beaks, can be examined and verified, and is not disputed by informed people. And as for your "sun rises in the west" comment, it seems like just an inflammatory and out of context.
- Orion682, on 04/21/2008, -1/+38Free Speech != Scientific Method
Ben Stein is essentially whining that ID is laughed at, but the fact is that it's not laughed at because of the premise, but rather because there's absolutely no hard evidence whatsoever in support of it. If they came out and said "Look, this is irrefutable evidence of Intelligent Design" then that's one thing, but they have nothing and are surprised that they're a joke in the scientific community.
In science, you can say anything you want, but if you have no evidence to support it, then no one cares what you have to say. - geomon, on 04/21/2008, -3/+5The movie is about ID and how it is being singled out for academic abuse. Read up on the premise from the movie's own website.
- iamafatguy, on 04/22/2008, -0/+3Oh, there are quite many more false assertions than just that - read up on the premise from reviews of the movie. ;-)
- askegg, on 04/21/2008, -1/+3He has the freedom to inquire - no one is impinging his free speech here.
However, proponents of intelligent design can't pretend it is science until they present some (any!) evidence that can be tested. This "theory" does not belong in the science class and should remain in the ancient myths and fairy tales faculty.
- dcollins, on 04/21/2008, -44/+9Although I believe in evolution, I sometimes hope that there is a god so that pompous asses such as yourself, who think you've got the whole world figured out and anyone else's ideas must be wrong, get to go straight to hell. Now that would be poetic justice.
- kingmanic, on 04/21/2008, -0/+10Evolution does not require belief. Evolution requires critical analysis which it has endured and has not been found to contradict the evidence and thus we must accept it as a scientific theory until new evidences either amends or falsifies it. Nothing in science requires belief so long as you philosophically accept that the universe exists and is self consistent. Without those two then science doesn't mean anything but neither would anything around you.
- jagchamp, on 04/21/2008, -14/+1this is simply not true. what type of critical analysis has it withstood?
- kingmanic, on 04/21/2008, -0/+11It's implication that there must be a method of heredity was correct, DNA was found. The implications that there must be some mechanism for changing traits was correct (genetic mutation). The history implied by the fossil record conforms with the theory as well as philo-genetic trees supporting the fossil record and the theory. Competing theories (Lamarckism) were found to be incorrect. Intense political and theological criticism have been present since Darwin published but non of it has been found to be valid scientifically. Even within the scientific community it was controversial at first but no valid criticism has been unearthed. The mechanisms have been studied and scrutinized by thousands of studies and has resulted in support for the theory. The mechanisms have been observed in various ways. The mechanisms have been artificially applied with great success in a number of situations (think agriculture).
I could go on I could point to primary research but somehow I think you wouldn't look. Go to nature.com type in evolution and the tens of thousands of studies that come up should be a good starting point(43507). Nature is the premier biological science journal.
- kingmanic, on 04/21/2008, -0/+11It's implication that there must be a method of heredity was correct, DNA was found. The implications that there must be some mechanism for changing traits was correct (genetic mutation). The history implied by the fossil record conforms with the theory as well as philo-genetic trees supporting the fossil record and the theory. Competing theories (Lamarckism) were found to be incorrect. Intense political and theological criticism have been present since Darwin published but non of it has been found to be valid scientifically. Even within the scientific community it was controversial at first but no valid criticism has been unearthed. The mechanisms have been studied and scrutinized by thousands of studies and has resulted in support for the theory. The mechanisms have been observed in various ways. The mechanisms have been artificially applied with great success in a number of situations (think agriculture).
- bonhoeffer, on 04/21/2008, -6/+0Then why do you believe it without having critically analyzing it?
- funkywood, on 04/22/2008, -0/+1Now we're getting somewhere. What does it mean to believe something? Is belief faith like you're saying (not blind faith mind) or your internal model of the world that distorts reality to fit?
- jagchamp, on 04/21/2008, -14/+1this is simply not true. what type of critical analysis has it withstood?
- bimtott, on 04/21/2008, -1/+13I can't wait for the day when "believing in evolution" gets added to the lexicon of boneheaded things to say. Evolution isn't something to "believe in" or not. That's for faith, God, FSM, whatever. Evolution is an objective scientific theory, and the most durable scientific theories mankind has ever seen. God needs "belief". Evolution does not.
- Lyk4n, on 04/21/2008, -1/+2When people pull that card I always tell them I accept the theory of evolution, belief doesn't require evidence, just faith.. Faith puts such a bad taste in my mouth..
- dgendreau, on 04/21/2008, -0/+7How very Christian of you.
- michrech, on 04/21/2008, -5/+3If heat rises, isn't heaven hotter than hell?
- dcollins, on 04/21/2008, -3/+2Yes, because science has taught us that the center of the earth is ice cold.
- Abaddon1125, on 04/21/2008, -2/+2*boggles at the hypocracy*
- Phyraxus, on 04/22/2008, -1/+3Good enough for a joke. I dugg.
- iamafatguy, on 04/22/2008, -0/+1That's a real loving compassionate god ya got there...
- kingmanic, on 04/21/2008, -0/+10Evolution does not require belief. Evolution requires critical analysis which it has endured and has not been found to contradict the evidence and thus we must accept it as a scientific theory until new evidences either amends or falsifies it. Nothing in science requires belief so long as you philosophically accept that the universe exists and is self consistent. Without those two then science doesn't mean anything but neither would anything around you.
- kipmartin, on 04/21/2008, -20/+17youre a moron.
NASCAR races are held in the afternoon and most movie goers prefer evening shows.- CobaltBlue, on 04/21/2008, -3/+11I would think that not knowing when NASCAR races are held would mean that you are less likely to be a moron.
- LexisNexis, on 04/21/2008, -1/+3That was a joke.
- Dumbledorito, on 04/21/2008, -3/+25Sadly, he'll probably do pretty well on DvD sales through several ministries, Christan HSN blitzes, etc.
- dshPls, on 04/21/2008, -1/+17The next step is some lunatic saying "Why can't we have both arguments in public schools?"
- SpaceMonkeyZero, on 04/21/2008, -0/+7As long as ID/Creationism is restricted to a non-required philosophy class and also includes the elephants on the backs of turtles and other culture's myths... But keep it out of science!
- CthulhuDawn, on 04/22/2008, -1/+1It ain't philosophy either. It's insanity.
- kingmanic, on 04/22/2008, -1/+1No technically ID is a type of meta physics so it could be taught in philosophy.
- SpaceMonkeyZero, on 04/21/2008, -0/+7As long as ID/Creationism is restricted to a non-required philosophy class and also includes the elephants on the backs of turtles and other culture's myths... But keep it out of science!
- coyote1284, on 04/21/2008, -0/+3Mmmm, blintzes...
- dshPls, on 04/21/2008, -1/+17The next step is some lunatic saying "Why can't we have both arguments in public schools?"
- c1nn46, on 04/21/2008, -4/+7that was a very open minded and accepting comment. thank you
- mboudro, on 04/21/2008, -15/+3Do you yourself have over a 100 IQ? It would be contradicted by the sheer ignorance of that comment.
- Chalks777, on 04/21/2008, -14/+17Wow. I mean really, wow. That is an incredibly offensive statement. You're implying that all intelligent design proponents are insane Christian rednecks who have an IQ of less than 100. That's akin to a Christian saying "You're an anti-christ nutjob. You delude yourself with pseudo-science simply to assuage your guilty conscience, you left wing fascist".
Just because someone believes something that does not have (and can't have) scientific proof does NOT mean they are stupid. If Christianity was a race, I'd call you racist. Since it's not, I'll just stick with "bigoted".- Qumahlin, on 04/21/2008, -10/+10"Just because someone believes something that does not have (and can't have) scientific proof does NOT mean they are stupid."
Actually yes, it means just that as your believing in pure fantasy. It's no different then a 40 year old still believing in the easter bunny.- Chalks777, on 04/21/2008, -6/+2There are very intelligent people that believe a rabbit's foot brings good luck.
Also, scientific discovories are sometimes made simply because someone believes that something exists despite there being no proof whatsoever. Like... atoms. Or germs. There was no PROOF that those things existed.- kingmanic, on 04/21/2008, -0/+9"Also, scientific discovories are sometimes made simply because someone believes that something exists despite there being no proof whatsoever. Like... atoms. Or germs. There was no PROOF that those things existed."
No. People investigated these ideas because other ideas had implications. Einstein investigated the nature of light because the current model implied a wave needed a medium to travel through while experiments suggested light could travel in a vacuum "implying" there was more to the story. That is how science works. Someone gets an idea from an implication, studies it and tries to see where the implication leads. Proof is the data that tests the implication. The Atomic model came about because many implications implied a discreet unit of matter. The data/proof was all of the tests in chemistry and physics which lead to the current model. Nothing was accepted without proof. Belief is not necessary outside of the first few principles of the philosophy of science. Namely, the universe exists, is self consistent. - Chalks777, on 04/21/2008, -2/+1Can you only reply to comments down to the fourth level? I've only recently been commenting on digg. >.>
You're right, of course. Science is built off of things that are implied. However, to me, I think (and believe) that there are many, many things in this world that imply God exists. Since there's no way to test that implication (aside from divine intervention), that's as far as science can go. That's what I was trying to say (I said it poorly) with the atom example... There wasn't any "proof" for it but there was at least some evidence for it
Regardless, my main points are still valid:
DeepFriedFetus was offensive
Smart people DO sometimes believe things with no proof. - kingmanic, on 04/21/2008, -0/+3Chalks777: Its in another class. If it's not testable empirically, it's not science but there are other branches of philosophy it could be (meta physics). Smart people believe all sorts of crazy things but the truly smart people will not attempt to introduce an idea where it doesn't belong. Id belongs in meta physics not science.Belief in a God does not imply you are stupid but disbelief of evolution implies you don't know biology and have a particularly narrow view of God.
- phrenzy, on 04/21/2008, -0/+4Let me know when there is a thesis written on rabbit's feet and their ability to effect mind, nature ,matter, time and space in such a way to cause an outcome that is desirable to the entity that possesses it. Until then, don't you think we might want to keep that discussion out of science class?
- kingmanic, on 04/21/2008, -0/+9"Also, scientific discovories are sometimes made simply because someone believes that something exists despite there being no proof whatsoever. Like... atoms. Or germs. There was no PROOF that those things existed."
- dfeifer, on 04/21/2008, -1/+0As long as I still get a basket every year,. I shall believe..
- flip2trip, on 04/21/2008, -9/+2This is the problem with scientists. They think that the only proof is Scientific proof. If you can't see it, touch it, taste it or smell it that means it doesn't exist. If you ask me, this shows the narrow-mindedness of thought that exists within the scientific community.
For example: if you love your mother or father, this cannot be proved scientifically even though you may KNOW it very well. Oh sure, you can tell people that you love them and you can even attempt to show them, but, as we all know, this cannot be proved scientifically, therefore according to scientists, LOVE doesn't exist.
But we all know that love does exist. We all know it because we have experienced it in our lives.- kingmanic, on 04/21/2008, -0/+7Hypothesis: I love my parents
implication: I would call them semi-regularly, I would have not killed and eaten them, I would not hit them or hurt them, I would acknowledge their concerns regaurding me.
Proof: I call them regularly, I haven't killed them or eaten them, I have not hurt them, I listen to them.
I must accept the hypothesis that I love my mom and dad as a plausible scientific hypothesis. With significant peer review I may then assert that the theory I love my parents is true.
Love does exist it's a collection of chemical responses to certain situations or people. It can be mimiced. I love absolutely everyone while on E. I cannot distinguish the difference between E induced affection for people and genuine affection for people aside from the objective knowledge that I am not on E when I see my GF and feel the same way. According to science you haven't doen much research.
Hypothesis: flip 2 trip doesn't know much about science.
Data: 1.He asserts science does not acknowledge Love exists. 2.A large part of behavioral neurology studies LOVE. 3. If flip2trip knew much about science he'd know science is aware of loves existence.
conclusion: We must hold this hypothesis to be possible as the data conforms with the model.
- kingmanic, on 04/21/2008, -0/+7Hypothesis: I love my parents
- oblique63, on 04/21/2008, -0/+6after reading all these comments, I have to say...
is understanding the scientific method really that hard?... because really, this is all, really deeply saddening.... - humptydumtonme, on 04/21/2008, -6/+0Where is your proof that there isn't a God? So you believe a bunch of particles were just floating around until they exploded and formed the universe? There are only two explanations of the universe and both require faith to believe. I'm not saying that evolution does not exist or that the world was created in 6,000 years, I'm just saying that because you despise Christians does not mean that Creationism is stupid.
- Bilabrin, on 04/22/2008, -0/+2Science doesn't make up answers when it doesn't have them.
- Chalks777, on 04/21/2008, -6/+2There are very intelligent people that believe a rabbit's foot brings good luck.
- Bilabrin, on 04/21/2008, -0/+1They're not all rednecks.
- nomadofthehills, on 04/21/2008, -2/+9"Just because someone believes something that does not have (and can't have) scientific proof does NOT mean they are stupid."
Yes, yes it does.
Also, those intelligent people who "beleive a rabbit's foot brings good luck" are also morons.- Chalks777, on 04/21/2008, -1/+2You can't make blanket statements like that and expect to get away with it. Even if it's generally true, there's (almost) ALWAYS an exception. Especially when we're talking about something as common as the idea of intelligent design.
and yes, it is common:
http://digg.com/general_sciences/Public_acceptance ...- kingmanic, on 04/21/2008, -2/+3Common != right. ID is common in the states because a great many are under educated. On average the US don't' compete well internationally it's only because the US attracts some of the best and brightest from around the world that it had achieved as much as it has. Check out the top of all university for achievement. They will more often then not be international students. Most of the teaching staff and the top scientists at the universities are foreign. The public acceptance of Id or creation over evolution as a valid science is deeply troubling.
The belief that random events have a determinable pattern (if the wheel hits black 8 times in a row, it is then more likely for it to hit red on the 9th time?) is common but provable wrong.
- kingmanic, on 04/21/2008, -2/+3Common != right. ID is common in the states because a great many are under educated. On average the US don't' compete well internationally it's only because the US attracts some of the best and brightest from around the world that it had achieved as much as it has. Check out the top of all university for achievement. They will more often then not be international students. Most of the teaching staff and the top scientists at the universities are foreign. The public acceptance of Id or creation over evolution as a valid science is deeply troubling.
- Chalks777, on 04/21/2008, -1/+2You can't make blanket statements like that and expect to get away with it. Even if it's generally true, there's (almost) ALWAYS an exception. Especially when we're talking about something as common as the idea of intelligent design.
- DeepFriedFetus, on 04/21/2008, -0/+6I wasn't saying that EVERYONE who believes in intelligent design is stupid (although it is an undeniably stupid belief in itself), I was saying that by making such outrageous claims and taking on this populist-esque persona of taking on "them big scientists and whatnot" (imitating a redneck probably isn't going to help my case), Ben Stein seems as if he's trying to pander to the Evangelical crowd, which, I think, will fail. I just don't see his efforts to go after this demographic as successful.
- oblique63, on 04/21/2008, -0/+4it is true, that that is a bit of a stereotype, but that doesnt mean it's point was invalid... usually those who interpret and believe in religious teachings so literally and profoundly, have been miseducated in some form or another, and it is usually through the denial of scientific understanding...
so it is true that not all creationists watch nascar or are 'rednecks', because a large portion of creationists are actually across the world in the Islamic nations, and in of course, israel, and something tells me that they dont really watch nascar... however, given that this is a predominantly american movie, it's understandable that he would refer to the predominant demographic of 'orthodox' theists in this country to make his point, so really, I think you're over reacting... I mean, I dont blame you for having resentment, but at least be productive about it and direct it to where it needs to be directed -- America's educational system... - Cloud7654, on 04/21/2008, -0/+2Subtle sarcasm is always the best kind.
- zardoz73, on 04/21/2008, -0/+2"Just because someone believes something that does not have (and can't have) scientific proof does NOT mean they are stupid."
Smart people believe all manner of wacky *****. Look at Scientologists. It's not about intelligence, it's about *willfull ignorance*. ID proponents wallow in it.
- Qumahlin, on 04/21/2008, -10/+10"Just because someone believes something that does not have (and can't have) scientific proof does NOT mean they are stupid."
- Suricou, on 04/21/2008, -1/+3Not quite. The delusion for the 'Christ-crazy rednecks who aren't exactly the movie-going demographic' is plain creationism - Six thousand year old universe, world flood, talking snake and so forth. That is for those who not only have no intellectual capability but are proud of this fact. People who look down on those who try to appear scientific as lacking in faith, ivory-tower, and unable to accept the bible as unconditional truth. ID is for those a little above that level - its for the pseudoscientists who want to be seen as educated and respectable, and those with the political knowledge to recognise that ID provides a way to subvert the teaching of evolution in public schools. The difference is that between the fraud who offers mystic anti-ageing snake oil, and the fraud who claims that his snake oil contains the obscure compound draconium, scientificially proven to slow the signs of ageing by world-leading herpetologists.
- SigersonLTD, on 04/22/2008, -1/+0Fascinating. You reject this outright. You know that the Universe isn't 6K years old, because you were there when it was created? Have you read Genesis and the Big Bang? Turns out the theory of relativity explains an old Universe, and a young Earth. God was capable of doing both.
ID only falls apart when you ask the question, "Who designed the designer?" But it doesn't attempt to answer that question. There is a creator, but it's not necessarily, The Creator, or, for those of you with an IQ below 100, the God of the Bible. Nowhere is that mentioned. Why is it not science? Because it can't be measured? Well, then evolution falls apart there, too.
Oh, and the fossil record actually proves the global flood, but don't let facts get in the way of your beliefs....
- SigersonLTD, on 04/22/2008, -1/+0Fascinating. You reject this outright. You know that the Universe isn't 6K years old, because you were there when it was created? Have you read Genesis and the Big Bang? Turns out the theory of relativity explains an old Universe, and a young Earth. God was capable of doing both.
- chrgrose, on 04/21/2008, -0/+4two words: pirate bay
In any case, I'm only going to see it because I am interested in the psychology of crazy. - SilverSnayke, on 04/21/2008, -0/+5I think some shred of truth is a requisite of a documentary, if you'd like it to do well at the box office.
They're called 'documentaries' because they document things, things that exist.
Ben Stein, take note. - kyleoman, on 04/21/2008, -6/+0"Who's going to see this movie?"
the same type of people who claim Richard Dawkins as the guy who "has it right."
It all comes down to who thinks theyre more right. Unfortunately, its the vast majority of unorganized atheists who have nothing more than flame wars and ignorant "knowledge" of any religion.- askegg, on 04/21/2008, -0/+4Atheists are far to free thinking and independent to organise. It's like trying to herd cats.
Also, you assume all atheists know nothing about religion, which is far from the truth. many atheists (like myself) were once dyed in the wool believers, but gave up our invisible friends when the evidence and arguments did not stack up.- juicebag, on 04/21/2008, -4/+1You think it's hard to find an group of atheists?
Digg
4chan
etc.- askegg, on 04/23/2008, -0/+1Not hard to find - hard to organise.
- juicebag, on 04/21/2008, -4/+1You think it's hard to find an group of atheists?
- Abaddon1125, on 04/21/2008, -0/+7"the same type of people who claim Richard Dawkins as the guy who "has it right.""
Hardly. I think Dawkins may have it right simply because he makes a convincing argument and backs it up with evidence. The people who go to see this movie aren't interested in evidence. They just want to hear others supporting their crazy worldviews.
And for the record, many atheists are far more knowledgeable that theists in their own religion.
- askegg, on 04/21/2008, -0/+4Atheists are far to free thinking and independent to organise. It's like trying to herd cats.
- seeyounorth, on 04/21/2008, -0/+3Don't worry, they can catch this on a major network as a daytime movie (*cough* FOX*cough*)
As an aside, Ben Stein has lost all credibility with me, I was impressed watching Ben Stein's Money but now...wow, he's *****. - mushtakrakish, on 04/21/2008, -1/+2i might have gone to see it. none of the other comedies this weekend really appealed to me...
- Buckwald, on 04/22/2008, -0/+0Wow i didnt know Stephen Hawking was a Christ-crazy redneck? See a quote from him below. He is smarter than anyone that posts on this entire site, and he gets it.
"It is difficult to discuss the beginning of the universe without mentioning the concept of God. My work on the origin of the universe is on the borderline between science and religion. But I try to stay this side of the border. It is quite possible that God acts in ways that cannot be described by Scientific laws."
- Bilabrin, on 04/21/2008, -19/+95Hell, even "Passion of the Christ" sold with that crowd. How bad does your movie have to be if even those guys won't come see it?
- thinkjones, on 04/21/2008, -32/+191Glad to hear that this documentary with dubious writers, performers and deceitful intentions makes next to zero. Hopefully this pseudo-scientific garbage will end up in the trash ASAP.
- ohmahgawd, on 04/21/2008, -5/+13This bullcrap is still strong in parts of the USA. Thank god it hasn't spread. In Canada, even the 'bible belt' in Alberta thinks this concept is stupid.
- kingmanic, on 04/21/2008, -2/+8I live in Alberta and the "creationists" are few and far between. It's not actually that bad in the 2 major cities. Calgary and Edmonton are fairly cosmopolitan. The whole micro evolution vs macro evolution ***** that the states seem to buy into doesn't exist here. It wasn't until after my degree that I first heard the terms being misused on slashdot. I was in genetics for 2.5 years.
- ohmahgawd, on 04/21/2008, -3/+2Yeah I live north of Edmonton in a highly religious community. There's a bit of creationism here, but it's very uncommon, and when I go to Edmonton, it just doesn't exist; few even know what it is. I don't get why the USA is buying into this fluff so strongly.
- SpaceMonkeyZero, on 04/21/2008, -1/+3According to the box office receipts for the movie, they're not buying it in the U.S.
- ohmahgawd, on 04/21/2008, -3/+2Yeah I live north of Edmonton in a highly religious community. There's a bit of creationism here, but it's very uncommon, and when I go to Edmonton, it just doesn't exist; few even know what it is. I don't get why the USA is buying into this fluff so strongly.
- yojiffyskippy, on 04/21/2008, -5/+1Thank god it hasn't spread? I'm pretty sure if there was a god, she'd be pro-ID.
- ohmahgawd, on 04/21/2008, -1/+7God would be pro-ID? That's bull. Darwin and many other scientists who started the theory of evolution just thought they were figuring out God's work. ID is pissing all over this, and trying to make it work for God.
- pakruse, on 04/22/2008, -0/+1@ohmahgawd speaks the truth.
Think about it. A scientist who is a theist generally studies science in the first place because they want to better understand the elegance of the natural world that their God constructed, correct? So isn't stooping to Intelligent Design (the "God did it" answer) in a way limiting God?
As a programmer, if I don't write a good program and I have to insert breakpoints to manipulate registers, I've done something wrong. An omniscient being would make no mistakes and need no breakpoints. Intelligent Design implies that he needed breakpoints and therefore did not write his code perfectly the first time. If I were an omniscient and omnipotent being, I'd be insulted.
Ergo, even God hates Intelligent Design. Epic fail.
- kingmanic, on 04/21/2008, -2/+8I live in Alberta and the "creationists" are few and far between. It's not actually that bad in the 2 major cities. Calgary and Edmonton are fairly cosmopolitan. The whole micro evolution vs macro evolution ***** that the states seem to buy into doesn't exist here. It wasn't until after my degree that I first heard the terms being misused on slashdot. I was in genetics for 2.5 years.
- kelly, on 04/21/2008, -34/+5Ya, we wouldn't want the scientific method to actually be applied. /sarcasm
Ben stein is simply advocating for freedom of inquiry. The movie didn't even advocate for intelligent design.- Dumbledorito, on 04/21/2008, -4/+34The scientific method? Intelligent Design (which the movie IS about, and I think you're very well aware of that) isn't scientific at all.
You can't use ID to predict anything, it's not based on observable or testable data, and it isn't even a proper hypothesis.- Garjon, on 04/21/2008, -8/+0Neither is Evolution. Part of the scientific method is experiments. Evolution (as the origin of the human species) is based on is forensics. We currently can't experiment to disprove either evolution or creationism.
- ApokalypseNow, on 04/21/2008, -1/+5Evolution is just the study of how life changes, not how we humans got here. Toward that end, we can and do perform experiments on changing life. Look up nylon-eating bacteria some time.
- Garjon, on 04/22/2008, -0/+0Apok, the main beef between creationism and evolution, is the origin of humanity. I believe in creation. But I cannot deny that animals and plants have evolved from other forms. There's too much evidence of that
- bonhoeffer, on 04/22/2008, -3/+0So, what can we use evolution to predict? Kind of hard to do, since whatever happens is pre-determined to be the result of evolution, even if we can't explain how it happened.
- ApokalypseNow, on 04/22/2008, -0/+3It is very difficult to make any kind of accurate predictions regarding evolution - the variation that occurs in a population is random, but the environment selects for and against those variations. For example, say a predator is introduced into the environment. A certain population now must deal with selection pressures from a new natural selector. Over time, the population will adapt to be better able to deal with this predator, but we can't tell how it will deal with it - look at all the defense mechanisms in nature! Skunk spray, rabbit legs, cat claws, squid ink, various animals that puff up to look bigger, various animals that just *are* bigger, tusks, armor plating, pack behavior, venoms, poisons, and more. Life will adapt, but it is difficult to say just how.
Even in labs with very simple organisms and very controlled environments, it doesn't always turn out as planned. For example, with nylon-eating bacteria, when we were trying to reproduce a population of flavobacterium that could eat nylon (like that found in the wild) we were successful in this endeavor. However, the enzymes that the lab-produced bacterium secretes, and that which the wild bacterium secretes, are not exactly the same.
We can, however, make predictions about the fossil record - our knowledge of the past is not complete, so we can take a look at a pair of fossils that we believe to be related and predict that an intermediate (or series of intermediates) exists. This has been done, and demonstrated, many times.
- ApokalypseNow, on 04/22/2008, -0/+3It is very difficult to make any kind of accurate predictions regarding evolution - the variation that occurs in a population is random, but the environment selects for and against those variations. For example, say a predator is introduced into the environment. A certain population now must deal with selection pressures from a new natural selector. Over time, the population will adapt to be better able to deal with this predator, but we can't tell how it will deal with it - look at all the defense mechanisms in nature! Skunk spray, rabbit legs, cat claws, squid ink, various animals that puff up to look bigger, various animals that just *are* bigger, tusks, armor plating, pack behavior, venoms, poisons, and more. Life will adapt, but it is difficult to say just how.
- Garjon, on 04/21/2008, -8/+0Neither is Evolution. Part of the scientific method is experiments. Evolution (as the origin of the human species) is based on is forensics. We currently can't experiment to disprove either evolution or creationism.
- Dumbledorito, on 04/21/2008, -4/+34The scientific method? Intelligent Design (which the movie IS about, and I think you're very well aware of that) isn't scientific at all.
- CrazedLeper, on 04/21/2008, -20/+3Popular does not necessarily equal "correct". Ben Stein and all the whole ID set could all still be factually correct...but those who are repeatedly being told not to listen (and obey) will never know it.
- enicholas, on 04/21/2008, -1/+23Sure, and the schizophrenic guy I heard claiming that his turntable knob could control time could be factually correct, too. He couldn't provide any support for his claim, though, any more than intelligent design supporters can provide support for their claims, so it's pretty much equally foolish to take either one of them seriously.
- Orion682, on 04/21/2008, -1/+19Being the underdog doesn't make you correct either. You know what makes you correct? Testable data. Scientifically predictable observations. Supporting evidence. You know, things that the entire concept of ID LACKS, but which evolution has in spades.
- itsthebrod, on 04/21/2008, -1/+8I agree that popularity doesn't determine scientific facts, but you lost all credibility with your second sentence... IDs have had chance after chance to provide even ONE shred of evidence in support of their theory. They've provided absolutely no proof, and their silly belief has no place in science until it meets all the criteria of being a scientific theory.
- ssn697, on 04/21/2008, -1/+6The movie doesn't try to prove ID at all. IT just tries to tear down evolutionary theory via lies, half truths, and over-edited interviews. There is VERY little promotion of ID in the movie, because Stein knows he has no leg to stand on. He has to attack the other side, and not very cleverly.
Faith is fine for those who want/need it. There is just no scientific basis for ID. Evolution has its own place that has absolutely nothing to do with faith. It is the religious right that can't see that distinction.
- monoa, on 04/21/2008, -0/+5It's turning in to a big win for 'Big Science'. It's exposing the fact that ID / Creationism has nothing but Bronze Age stupidity and lies to keep it afloat.
- SigersonLTD, on 04/22/2008, -0/+0Well, let's see. $3.2 million in the opening weekend, for his first documentary, and Michael Moore didn't make that much until his what, second, third? It's all relative.
Therefore it follows your wish won't be granted....
- ohmahgawd, on 04/21/2008, -5/+13This bullcrap is still strong in parts of the USA. Thank god it hasn't spread. In Canada, even the 'bible belt' in Alberta thinks this concept is stupid.
- AwesomeMonster, on 04/21/2008, -59/+18Really, if you compare any documentary's success against Micheal Moore it will seem like a terrible disappointment. Ben Stein simply doesn't have the name value Micheal does.
- Coven, on 04/21/2008, -9/+28Really? You think Michael Moore is more recognizable than Ben Stein? Go ahead and compare their resumes on IMDB. Ben Stein has ten times the name recognition that Michael does.
- Bilabrin, on 04/21/2008, -2/+23True that, I had a great deal of respect for Ben Stien prior to hearing about this movie. Just like I liked Danny Masterson and Tom Cruise before I found out they were Scientologists.
- kingmanic, on 04/21/2008, -1/+18You really shouldn't have respected stein. He was a Nixon speech writer, a Nixon apologist, and condoned the lying cheating and other moral failings of nixon. The man was scum even before this. Stein is a colossal jack ass and always was.
- mirunit, on 04/21/2008, -0/+1So, we should judge Presidents on a moral basis?
- Bilabrin, on 04/21/2008, -2/+23True that, I had a great deal of respect for Ben Stien prior to hearing about this movie. Just like I liked Danny Masterson and Tom Cruise before I found out they were Scientologists.
- oldhick, on 04/21/2008, -13/+10I think the problem is audience. Michael Moore spins and manipulates his data into pretty witty movies that strike a chord with Americans. Take Sicko for example, its about as BS as you can get with manufactured stories, complete disinformation in some sections, but it really touches on a problem that we all face and that is health-care.
Of course we ALL see the need for health-care reform and no one is going to claim, "you know what, I'm not really paying enough for my health-care"...
With evolution, who's the audience? A few Christian nut jobs...- kingmanic, on 04/21/2008, -4/+10Moore sees a real issues and goes about using propaganda techniques to play up the problem. Stein took something that isn't a problem and applied the same techniques and failed. US health care is a real issues when 1/5 of the country can't afford it and another 2/5 can't afford adequate amounts of health care. His examples may have been trumped up (I didn't see sicko) but the question is real. The question if ID is science or has a place in science was answered before ID was collected together and proposed. Since the establishment of the scientific method predates ID as well as invalidates it.
- oldhick, on 04/21/2008, -3/+5My point exactly. Thanks for helping clarify!
- kingmanic, on 04/21/2008, -1/+4PS. I dug you up so the 0 diggs isn't from me.
- oldhick, on 04/21/2008, -3/+5My point exactly. Thanks for helping clarify!
- kingmanic, on 04/21/2008, -4/+10Moore sees a real issues and goes about using propaganda techniques to play up the problem. Stein took something that isn't a problem and applied the same techniques and failed. US health care is a real issues when 1/5 of the country can't afford it and another 2/5 can't afford adequate amounts of health care. His examples may have been trumped up (I didn't see sicko) but the question is real. The question if ID is science or has a place in science was answered before ID was collected together and proposed. Since the establishment of the scientific method predates ID as well as invalidates it.
- p51d007, on 04/21/2008, -3/+3That is because Michael Moore is a media whore, but, the public hasn't caught on to his snake oil act.....they are too busy figuring out who's on American Idol
- fr3ddie, on 04/21/2008, -0/+1ben stein had his own tv show for quite a while... and he did commercials. did moore have anything like that?
- iamafatguy, on 04/22/2008, -0/+1TV Nation comes to mind, but I can't recall any commercials. And don't forget "Canadian Bacon"!
- DiscoJohn, on 04/21/2008, -0/+1You must have been born within the last 6 years.
- Coven, on 04/21/2008, -9/+28Really? You think Michael Moore is more recognizable than Ben Stein? Go ahead and compare their resumes on IMDB. Ben Stein has ten times the name recognition that Michael does.
- JimmySpaza, on 04/21/2008, -106/+27The movie is doing better than this biased article says.
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.vie ...- nymphetamine, on 04/21/2008, -8/+38RTFA.
- Coven, on 04/21/2008, -5/+40Nice work Jimbo. Rebut one biased article with another biased article. You don't help your argument at all. WND posts the numbers for the entire weekend. Rawstory shows the numbers for Friday alone.
- JimmySpaza, on 04/21/2008, -34/+3Yes, but the premise of the article was that this movie is fizzling. A look at the whole weekend says otherwise. Why do you think Rawstory only looked at Friday? Couldn't wait until Monday to post an article? Rawstory has an agenda.
- logicalnoise, on 04/21/2008, -4/+26or they posted it friday which many entertainment sites do. It's called early estimates. Raw story just covered since ben is a political hack.
- Coven, on 04/21/2008, -3/+26Friday's numbers had the movie at #8, the weekend chart at #9. I don't see how looking at Friday only made the movie look worse.
- kayala, on 04/21/2008, -1/+4And WND totally doesn't have an agenda.
- bonhoeffer, on 04/21/2008, -2/+1The figures come from Daily Box Office, a neutral source. Don't shoot the messenger.
What is a source for Sicko's opening weekend of $23.9 mil? That's right, raw story's ass; Sicko's 1st weekend made $4.6 mil. And why does raw story compare Expelled's "Friday" with Sicko's "weekend"?
- JimmySpaza, on 04/21/2008, -34/+3Yes, but the premise of the article was that this movie is fizzling. A look at the whole weekend says otherwise. Why do you think Rawstory only looked at Friday? Couldn't wait until Monday to post an article? Rawstory has an agenda.
- ClemsonPoker, on 04/21/2008, -6/+33The WND article is not incompatible with the rRaw Story article. The movie is doing pathetically in both...heartbreaking for you, huh?
- Bilabrin, on 04/21/2008, -5/+40WND is not a credible source for news. I saw an article a few years ago entitled "WMD's found in Iraq!" It was up for several days and then disappeared.
- pintomp3, on 04/21/2008, -2/+29are you saying soy doesn't turn kids gay?
http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=533 ...- Dumbledorito, on 04/21/2008, -2/+13That's "thoy," thank you very much.
- pintomp3, on 04/21/2008, -2/+29are you saying soy doesn't turn kids gay?
- IHaveIssues, on 04/21/2008, -5/+40Hahhahahahahahah!!! Using WND as a crebible source. Fail!
- mcquitty, on 04/21/2008, -8/+4Ok. How about Yahoo!? Is that credible?
http://movies.yahoo.com/mv/boxoffice/weekend/
Whether you are for or against ID, choosing to ignore something on WND is like saying RawStory isn't credible. I know, it offends, but it is the truth. So, is Yahoo credible or not?- IHaveIssues, on 04/21/2008, -3/+12Sure is. Better than a site than takes that data and adds: "Ben Stein's documentary on academia's censorship of any ideas hinting of intelligent design" and comparing it to a smaller independant film's gross in order to put lipstick on that pig.
- mcquitty, on 04/21/2008, -3/+5I don't care about the movie. Much less the debate. Funny, tho, I am getting dugg down because, I assume, I mentioned Rawstory. People complain of bias from one source, only to digg up another source just as biased. I have nothing against rawstory or wnd. They both give substantial spin to any story they push. The only difference is the reader's bias. Is it an echo chamber or against my beliefs..
- IHaveIssues, on 04/21/2008, -3/+12Sure is. Better than a site than takes that data and adds: "Ben Stein's documentary on academia's censorship of any ideas hinting of intelligent design" and comparing it to a smaller independant film's gross in order to put lipstick on that pig.
- mcquitty, on 04/21/2008, -8/+4Ok. How about Yahoo!? Is that credible?
- itsthebrod, on 04/21/2008, -1/+12And on the lower right of the screen, is an advertisement for Expelled... Hmm, I'm sure there's no connection though... Hah!
- inkswamp, on 04/21/2008, -2/+11Gotta love resorting to World Net Daily as a source! The Internet never fails to entertain on a Monday morning.
However, I'm rebutting your WND article with something my neighbor's cousin's best friend's wife's sister-in-law's plumber said. That is, after all, just as credible. - gak001, on 04/21/2008, -2/+11Oh my god, you never cease to amaze and amuse me - you attack a biased article with an even less objective news source. Congratulations.
- lydecker, on 04/21/2008, -4/+8"Expelled" rolled out in 1,052 theaters, compared with 3,151 for the top grosser, "The Forbidden Kingdom."
This quote is written to make it seem like the reason it lost to the top grosser is because it was only in a third of the theaters. But it grossed less than half at each of those theaters. That is not actual data to be proud of, but they did a good job at spinning it to lessen the blow.
Even opening on half the screens, the amount of money it made is not impressive.
It's incredibly strange, when Spurlock's movie makes less than half of this one, it's terrible. But when Expelled makes less than half of the top movie, it's impressive. I guess opening at a quarter of the top spot is terrible while opening at half is impressive.
And I don't remember hearing anyone claim that "Where In The World Is Osama Bin Laden" would be this amazing movie. Has anyone even heard of it? I'm probably not that representative of most people, I hadn't heard of The Forbidden Kingdom either. - dbs1221, on 04/21/2008, -1/+5"Ben Stein's documentary on academia's censorship of any ideas hinting of intelligent design, scored an impressive $3.2 million in its opening weekend – more than all but eight other movies."
***** YEAH 9TH PLACE!!!!!! - Thefatheroftime, on 04/22/2008, -2/+2LOL!
Propelled... - buhbyebot, on 04/22/2008, -0/+7Here you go you stupid *****.
http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/expelled_no_intell ...
13% at Rotten Tomatoes
"A cynical attempt to sucker Christian conservatives into thinking they're losing the 'intelligent design' debate because of academic 'prejudice.' "
- ClemsonPoker, on 04/21/2008, -24/+72Thank God (pun intended)...I was worried that this hack job was going to influence people. I'm glad to see that for once, my view of humanity was too pessimistic.
- kelly, on 04/21/2008, -34/+2Ya, we wouldn't want the scientific method to actually be applied. /sarcasm
Ben stein is simply advocating for freedom of inquiry. The movie didn't even advocate for intelligent design.- BoneheadFarker, on 04/21/2008, -0/+15Hmmmm...a movie with the by-line "No Intelligence Allowed" about how scientists are ridiculed for proposing that evolution doesn't exist and God is really the driving force behind everything...yeah, that's not advocating Intelligent Design or anything...
- YourMajesty, on 04/22/2008, -2/+0He never said God was the force behind life. All ID says is that there is intelligence behind life. And intelligence can be interpreted as a lot of things, such as aliens for that matter. Stein does point out the irony that it's perfectly acceptable to assume aliens seeded life, but it's considered craziness to assume a Divine Being did it.
- BoneheadFarker, on 04/22/2008, -0/+0Funny thing about the alien theory. You see...if aliens did it, where did the aliens come from? There's a pretty good chance that they evolved on their planet in much the same way we have, reaching point where they've advanced into space travel and genetics, which means ID is ***** since evolution still applies. Aliens don't just pop into existance, the same as everything else. And better still, we will eventually be able to test the alien theory. There is no test available for the existance of a divine being. Not even a proposal for a test in the future when technology advances enough. If it can't be measured in any imaginable way, then it must be pushed to the side to make way for things that can be measured.
- YourMajesty, on 04/22/2008, -2/+0He never said God was the force behind life. All ID says is that there is intelligence behind life. And intelligence can be interpreted as a lot of things, such as aliens for that matter. Stein does point out the irony that it's perfectly acceptable to assume aliens seeded life, but it's considered craziness to assume a Divine Being did it.
- toxicshok, on 04/21/2008, -0/+11no its a clever attempt to confuse the scientific method with free speech
- kingmanic, on 04/21/2008, -0/+10The failings of ID as a scientific theory are legion. To be a proper theory it must be falsifiable (which ID isn't) it must have implications which can be tested (ID has none) and it must have some supporting data (the quest to find patterns is an ass backwards way of trying this but because it's ass backwards anything they find is meaningless). So basically you are advocating the freedom of people to ***** up science by giving legitimacy to ideas that can't be tested via the scientific method and giving them a free pass from criticism. Which is asinine. You are an idiot.
- Orion682, on 04/21/2008, -0/+12Stop reposting your comment in every single thread. You were wrong the first two times and you're still wrong.
Go read a book - yojiffyskippy, on 04/21/2008, -1/+1You mean a movie about "freedom of inquiry" didn't do well at the box office? Very surprising indeed. /sarc/
- BoneheadFarker, on 04/21/2008, -0/+15Hmmmm...a movie with the by-line "No Intelligence Allowed" about how scientists are ridiculed for proposing that evolution doesn't exist and God is really the driving force behind everything...yeah, that's not advocating Intelligent Design or anything...
- kipmartin, on 04/21/2008, -2/+19what pun? there is no pun in your post. there is a small amount of irony, but no pun. you might want to look the word 'pun' up because i dont think you know what a pun is.
- greenlight2001, on 04/21/2008, -0/+3Exactly what I was thinking. "Thank God" was used exactly how everyone would expect it to be used, so no puns abound.
- ClemsonPoker, on 04/21/2008, -0/+1I could elaborate, but I'll just say "my bad", and move on.
- Risingashes, on 04/21/2008, -1/+4Don't count your chickens just yet.
This movie will be shown to all those 'religious' schools- further indoctrinating the pupils in the ways of absurdity. One day you'll be having a conversation with someone who once saw this movie and your chuckle as he mentions the persecution of ID professionals will get you a glare as they identify you as a hater of free thought.- ClemsonPoker, on 04/21/2008, -0/+1I should have specified, "influence people who otherwise wouldn't be indoctrinated". There.
- rlgunnells, on 04/21/2008, -3/+1It does not matter if you believe in intelligent design or not if you are afraid to be asked a question you don't have the answer to. If you are going to promote an idea know your subject don't guess at it or assume other will be won over by your opinion alone.
- jpkunselman, on 04/22/2008, -0/+0Everyone is influenced through all types of media. You don't think that media companies promote sex and other various lifestyles? So what if Ben Stein releases a movie promoting intelligent design. It's not like you're forced to go an watch it so why do you really care? All Ben Stein is trying to do is to get you to question what you have been told to believe, just like Michael Moore does in his documentaries.
- ClemsonPoker, on 04/22/2008, -0/+0Science isn't about "belief", it's about testing, observing, and recording the evidence and then championing theories that best explain that evidence. I was "told to believe" creationism. I studied, and escaped a life of ignorance.
And the fact that I personally won't be swayed by the movie (unless it has a lot of evidence and facts and whatnot, which doesn't sound like the case) doesn't mean other people won't. That's just as bad, creating new morons to fight alongside the old ones.- jpkunselman, on 05/03/2008, -0/+1I agree with you 100 percent. Science isn't about belief. The difference between you and I is that I was told to believe evolution, which can be a very good scientific explanation but also has many flaws.
I think there are things that cannot always be tested by science. You can't test, observe, and record any evidence on faith you can only believe. People should be allowed to believe whatever they want but trying to back beliefs up with made up evidence and facts is ridiculous.
- jpkunselman, on 05/03/2008, -0/+1I agree with you 100 percent. Science isn't about belief. The difference between you and I is that I was told to believe evolution, which can be a very good scientific explanation but also has many flaws.
- ClemsonPoker, on 04/22/2008, -0/+0Science isn't about "belief", it's about testing, observing, and recording the evidence and then championing theories that best explain that evidence. I was "told to believe" creationism. I studied, and escaped a life of ignorance.
- kelly, on 04/21/2008, -34/+2Ya, we wouldn't want the scientific method to actually be applied. /sarcasm
- InsideJob11Sep, on 04/21/2008, -52/+7Yeah, but Michael Moore is also a left-gatekeeper of 9/11 truth! Bush "didn't just sit there" in the school because he "didn't know what to do", as purported in Moore's Fahrenheit 9/11 movie. Why did the Secret Service break protocol that day is the question!
- dumpyhumpy, on 04/21/2008, -4/+19"Bush "didn't just sit there" in the school because he "didn't know what to do", as purported in Moore's Fahrenheit 9/11 movie"
Really? Then what was he doing.... when he was just sitting there?... In a kindergarten class...for 7 minutes after learning the US was under attack...- methos75, on 04/21/2008, -9/+2Going ***** *****, god dammit, what the *****, *****, goddamn kids, ***** what do I say now. ***** A, christ on a stick, ***** ***** ***** *****!!!!
- Waiting2awake, on 04/21/2008, -2/+3That was prior to the attacks, when he was handed a book and found out he'd have to act like he was "read'in"
- methos75, on 04/21/2008, -1/+2I LOL
- Waiting2awake, on 04/21/2008, -2/+3That was prior to the attacks, when he was handed a book and found out he'd have to act like he was "read'in"
- pintomp3, on 04/21/2008, -11/+6
- methos75, on 04/21/2008, -9/+2Going ***** *****, god dammit, what the *****, *****, goddamn kids, ***** what do I say now. ***** A, christ on a stick, ***** ***** ***** *****!!!!
- dumpyhumpy, on 04/21/2008, -4/+19"Bush "didn't just sit there" in the school because he "didn't know what to do", as purported in Moore's Fahrenheit 9/11 movie"