Lies, Damned Lies, and “Intelligent Design”
Nazis! It’s all about Nazis. In a parallel universe even crazier than our own, Ben Stein is making a documentary about how the Nazis utilized the controversial theory of gravity to make bombs that fall from the sky to the earth, and so the theory of gravity must be wrong. But we are here, and here, Ben Stein is telling us with a straight face that because the Nazis thought it would be a good idea to breed people like people breed animals, the theory of evolution must be wrong.
It’s apeshit crazy nuttiness right from the opening moments of Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed, as imagery of Nazi atrocities and the terrors of life behind the Berlin War are smugly deployed in a demented attempt to editorialize away basic scientific fact. And in a saner universe than the one in which we live, you could scoff at Stein and dismiss him and not give this propagandistic nonsense another thought. But we don’t live in that universe: we live here, where the religious insecurity of a scientifically illiterate populace is being twisted by people who certainly know better. We cannot dismiss this movie, because anyone who cares about public discourse in America and anyone who cares about the ongoing war on scientific literacy in this country needs to see it in order to arm herself against the idiocy. You need to see this movie because these people are not going away, not without a fight from people who understand where they’re coming from.
It would be hilarious how unintentionally apt the subtitle of this “documentary” is were the film not such a horrifying exposé of how insidious the “intelligent design” proponents are. Ben Stein — former Nixon speechwriter turned, improbably, ironic symbol of anti-hip — is not a stupid man, but he pretends to be in this would-be “takedown” of the scientific theory of evolution that is dishonest and contradictory even when approached on its own terms. Stein’s thesis — he wrote the movie with Kevin Miller and Walt Ruloff, and it is directed with all the subtlety of a sledgehammer by Nathan Frankowski — is that Big Science, academia, the media, and the courts have been bullying the poor, brave mavericks who dare to question the theory of evolution by suggesting that only an “intelligent designer” could have guided said evolution. Bad enough that Stein deliberately pretends to misunderstand what science is (which he must do because he knows his target audience of religious fundamentalists does) — “here, a miracle happened” is emphatically not science, not that Stein bothers to present that not-at-all radical concept. But he also constantly refers to evolutionary science as “Darwinism” and evolutionary scientists and those who accept evolution as “Darwinists”… which is akin to referring to quantum physicists as “Newtonians” or “Copernicans.” And he does this even though one of his own ID proponents notes here that biological science has moved on from Darwin much as physical science has moved on from Newton. Since Stein is unable to adequately critique evolutionary science, he resorts to a kind of namecalling that is purposely designed to mislead his audience… and yet he must hold that audience in contempt if he believes they won’t notice his own deceit.
All pretense that the “competing” “theory” of “intelligent design” Stein champions here is not about Judeo-Christian Creationism is put well to rest, too. The (supposed) scientists interviewed here who support notions of intelligent design make no mention of who an “intelligent designer” might be — and indeed, any honest explanation of ID that pretends to bear any relationship at all to science, which is what Stein wants us to accept ID as, must allow that ID does not attempt to define the designer. And yet Stein wastes no time in bringing into focus a particular and narrow idea of who that designer must be. For instance, he dismisses the concept of “panspermia,” which posits that perhaps life in its most basic, fundamental form first arrived on planet Earth from space, perhaps on an asteroid or comet, as meaning “aliens did it,” which he snarls in a tone of voice that suggests nothing could be more ridiculous. (That isn’t what panspermia suggests, of course. Not that the orgin of life itself is dealt with by the theory of evolution, anyway. Oh, the layers of obfuscation and deception are many!) Still, wouldn’t “aliens did it” be “intelligent design”?
Nope: wrong designer for Stein and his audience. If ID isn’t about “God” as many people today use the term, then why does Stein have such a hard-on for scientist Richard Dawkins, the honor and professionalism of whom Stein feels to believe he has impeached when he gets Dawkins to admit that he’s a steadfast atheist (as if it were a great secret). At long last, Expelled isn’t about “intelligent design,” about an alternative scientific theory of anything, or even about academic freedom: it’s about Stein believing he has proven that because acceptance of evolution leads to atheism (which isn’t always true, though other scientists, such as PZ Myers, do say here that that was their experience), and also, we’re told with an apparent straight face, to such horrors as birth control, evolution cannot be allowed to be true. Even if it is.
It’s all so shockingly, baldly disingenuous and phony an “argument” that it may well make you want to throw things at the screen, as I nearly did. But it’s why you must see Expelled. Not for the unintentionally ironic spectacle of the film’s faux-retro-hip-snark of using clips from Planet of the Apes — “a planet where apes evolved from men?”! — to comment on what it perceives as the stifling of intellectual freedom. Or even to see a dumbfounded Dawkins speaking to Stein as if Stein were a child, which is hilarious. But because until those who would stand up for honesty and integrity — of any kind, never mind the “merely” scientific — as willing to accept that their opponents pretend to no such scruples, they will always be hitting us in our blind spots. Our eyes must be opened to their trickery.
Eh. I’ve seen these types of arguments before, and the sheer stupidity and redefining/misunderstanding of terms makes me far too pissed off and depressed. I don’t think I could sit through a whole movie of it without either having an aneurysm or hanging myself.
I agree that people should see this idiocy so they know it’s out there and can recognize it. But I’d encourage people to just download the damn thing off BitTorrent. Don’t give these jackasses any money or encouragement, please.
I gotta ask, but is this ‘documentary’ serious or meant to be some sort of elaborite sarcastic joke? Ben Stein never struck me as someone who would fall for ID at all…
Flying straight over to America to see it.
Yeah right. Glad I live outside of the fruit bowl. Good luck with that anyway. I’ll be keeping a close watch from the safety of Ireland.
P.S. If the ID crowd did push this crap into government, you do realise you’d be the only developed country in the world teaching it. Please, I implore you, don’t let the ignorant bully their way in. Don’t become a laughing stock.
“Ben Stein is making a documentary about how the Nazis utilized the controversial theory of gravity to make bombs that fall from the sky to the earth, and so the theory of gravity must be wrong.”
That’s hilarious !!!!
Great review!
We’re trying our best, Thomas Byrne, but the idiots in this country are many and powerful.
*headdesk*
They’re already here. I mean, have you seen our president?
while i agree that creationists and IDers are wrong headed, crazy and should not be allowed to influence or have control over education in any way, i take issue with thomas byrne’s comment:
“Yeah right. Glad I live outside of the fruit bowl. Good luck with that anyway. I’ll be keeping a close watch from the safety of Ireland.”
i seem to recall, thomas byrne, that the educational curriculum of primary schools in Ireland is heavily influenced and controlled by the Catholic Church — another brand of fruit and nuts that bears watching.
What a lovely film review! As I always ask on comment pages like this one: If the believers have God on their side, then why must they lie?
I had to double check, I thought maybe there was another Ben Stein. I thought the Ben Stein of “Win Ben Stein’s Money” and “The World’s Most Smartest Supermodel” was supposed to be… smart. I couldn’t watch this movie I would probably give myself a stroke yelling at the screen.
You recall do you. Recall from 1989 perhaps. A once a week 40 minute religion class hardly constitutes as heavy influence especially with no one else to enforce it. Young people these days don’t give a shit about the church.
“You recall do you. Recall from 1989 perhaps. A once a week 40 minute religion class hardly constitutes as heavy influence especially with no one else to enforce it. Young people these days don’t give a shit about the church.”
i said “recall”… so has Roman Catholicism been abolished as the *official* state religion of the Irish Republic? our creationists and ultra religious may be attempting to make some sort of official religion but at least we’ve had 200 years of precedent which emphasizes the separation of church and state. i do not deny we have our religious nuts, but i’d be pretty careful about throwing stones from across the water.
It’s funny how many countries in Europe are “official” Catholic and yet are far, far more secular than the United States, which supposedly has no “official” religion, is.
It’s only official religion in name. There’s a major push to get them out of school altogether because Ireland is multi national. Ireland is an increasingly secular country. I know only 3 creationists. A film like expelled wouldn’t even be shown here. The only thing keeping the church afoat is the high prices for services weddings, communions etc… and the Polish. See Ireland only has a small population so when the nuts get together their fruity little club never numbers much and they disband quite quickly, especially when they see their friends out having a drink and a laugh. I’m not mocking America, I’m well aware most people are cool, it’s just that because of the larger population the fruity little clubs can grow quite large and then start gaining money and power.
Oh Ben Stein, how could you? I knew that obsessing over the stock market for too long did strange things to people, but really this is too much. I’m going to keep believing this movie is just a cynical cash-in from an opportunistic, greedy elitest. What else can explain how a former Yale Law School valedictorian could present his side of an argument in such a ridiculous way?
*Not for the unintentionally ironic spectacle of the film’s faux-retro-hip-snark of using clips from Planet of the Apes — “a planet where apes evolved from men?”! — to comment on what it perceives as the stifling of intellectual freedom.*
You’re kidding.
Holy shit, you’re not kidding.
That’s a bigger case of missing the point than the Nazi thing. My God. I think you’re right, I DO have to see this.
“scientist Richard Dawkins, the honor and professionalism of whom Stein feels to believe he has impeached when he gets Dawkins to admit that he’s a steadfast atheist ”
Aha! I *knew* it.
Uhhh The argument here is not intelligent design….its scientists masquerading philosophy as science. Thats a problem. Evolution does not disprove the existence of an intelligent creator but Richard Dawkins, CHAIR of Evolutionary Biology at the world’s olds university seems to think so. That is an intellectual crime and this is what the film is exposing. Also, Mary Ann, FILM CRITIC, if you want to weigh in on the finer points of science and politics, please see Dr. David Berlinski, and explain to me how he appears to be some low intelligence fundamentalist fanatic that you so surgically try to label wide swaths of people with your clumsy housepainters brush. Why are soo many critics paid to contribute to the VAST cliche of the politics of film reviewers.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p-UjnHy7QAA
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wrs3FDiyot4&feature=related
time: 30 – 6:00.
“Evolution does not disprove the existence of an intelligent creator but Richard Dawkins, CHAIR of Evolutionary Biology at the world’s olds university seems to think so.”
Not true. Dawkins does not contend that evolutionary biology disproves the existence of God or any other intelligent designer – that is something that can be neither proven nor disproven (in the same way that the existence of Russell’s teapot or the Invisible Purple Unicorn or the fairies at the bottom of my garden that I believe intelligently designed and created all life on this planet cannot be proven or disproven). But just because something is undisprovable does not mean that it is likely to exist: anybody can create a deity which cannot be disproven by saying that it is not part of the physical world which is open to scientific inquiry; but the likelihood of that deity actually existing is probably minute.
What Dawkins says is that such speculation about intelligent designers is unnecessary, and fundamentally unscientific. Evolution is something for which there is an abundance of evidence, and is a theory which has stood the test of 150 years of intellectual scrutiny; ID, on the other hand, is nothing more than a recourse to the ‘god of the gaps’: basically saying “we can’t understand how life came to be as it is now, so rather than investigating the matter further, we’ll just suppose that God did it and not ask any more questions.” Intelligent design adherents are essentially making up their own stories to explain what they do not understand, and peddling these stories as “science”. Please tell me how it is “an intellectual crime” to discourage such a shoddy academic approach?
“The argument here is not intelligent design….its scientists masquerading philosophy as science.”
Are you sure you’re not actually talking about intelligent design advocates? Because that’s what intelligent design is — a philosophical response to scientific evidence. Not the same as science. Science answers how, philosophy answers why. Easy to remember, memorize it and use this tenet for the rest of your life. Science doesn’t, and isn’t ever going to, find the meaning of life. That’s a personal perception.
The best argument against intelligent design I ever heard is that the natural world is so complicated yet ordered that it couldn’t be an accident. But our concept of order is based on natural law — if the world worked completely differently, we’d call the new rules ordered. Circular logic.
Where’d the natural laws come from, MBI?
Obviously, the natural laws come from, you know, nature.
I dunno what that means, but it sounds good. Where do I go to get paid?
Wait…so … nature CREATED natural laws?
And, by the way, MaryAnn, I’d like to humbly point out that the implications of there being a force that holds us to the earth is nothing compared to the implications of us being nothing more than animals, having no souls, or absolute worth. No metaphysical implications with gravity. But with evolution mixed with atheism? Sorry, but the belief has effectively taken away objective worth in human beings. Thus the danger that is seen in it. Funny analogy though, however faulty.
“Where’d the natural laws come from, MBI?”
Good question. Maybe from God. Maybe from nothing at all. Doesn’t necessarily follow that they come from somewhere. Maybe they just are.
Does the absence of God erase the objective value of humanity? Also a good question. If I could venture a guess at how an atheist deals with that question (I wouldn’t know firsthand, being a Scientologist and everything), I’d say that either they 1) enjoy the subjective value of humanity, or 2) believe that the objective value of humanity doesn’t need a God to affirm it. I’d say that believing in the objective value of humanity is nearly as big a leap of faith as believing in God, but you know, whatever. These are all big cosmic questions that, when it comes down to it, don’t really affect how good my steak is. I’m gonna go play some Metroid Prime 2.
Also, I’d note that I’d agree that the idea of humanity having no objective value is incredibly destructive for society. But that doesn’t necessarily make it true.
“Good question. Maybe from God. Maybe from nothing at all. Doesn’t necessarily follow that they come from somewhere. Maybe they just are.”
Sounds scientific to me.
“i said “recall”… so has Roman Catholicism been abolished as the *official* state religion of the Irish Republic?”
It never was the official state religion. We’ve never had an official state religion at all.
As for the educational curriculum of primary schools in Ireland; the science curriculum is not affected by the concerns of any church.
Okay, good stuff and all, but let’s try to keep the conversation related to the movie.
“Sounds scientific to me.”
Again, we’re getting into matters that are beyond the realm of science. Which is why they shouldn’t be taught in science classes.
I can’t help but think that the assumption behind ID is the Christian God. What a dis-service to the argument.
I’m intrigued by this idea that we can investigate life further through a scientific approach. What exactly is being studied? What approach is being taken to study? It links to the comments regarding natural and law and how that counter argument makes ID circular. The very idea of knowing implies the concept of order. It demands a connection of isolated conceptsevents to define some-thing. In turn, simply because we might exist in a world that is completely different does negate ID. It negates the process of understanding, i.e. natural law, but what is constant is the idea that there is order.
What is happening per the above is that the Primary Idea is being lost in by how we come to understand it. The Primary Idea is that there is order. ID attempts to define that by Some-Thing independent of the “known world”. The abuse is the canonization of that idea. Dawkins may be correct in that such questions should not be asked because they cannot be answered by scientific means. And yet Dawkins assume the process, the scientific method(olog), is sound in understanding. Evolution is sound because of science. That assumes a great deal of certitude not only in the process but the subject using it.
I am not defending any dogmatic mysticism and if this movie is using a Christian Biblical definition of creation then that is disappointing. It is one thing to believe a question shouldn’t be or can’t be asked. But if experience tells me things are ordered, and can be known, but then experience tells me all things come to an end (I’ve yet to experience infinity) then we truly have a contradiction and as such how can I trust the subject that can’t reconcile such a contradiction? Either there is a constant to all things which exists beyond the thing or when the thing dies nothing remains. I’m not defining anything and I’m not making an argument for a soul. What I’m asking is, what is constant that can be known and if it exists what is its origin.
When I see the movie I can comment on the movie. At this point I can neither agree nor disagree with the review. If you haven’t seen the movie all you can do is question the methodology behind how the movie was reviewed.
Which is more fun to do with a glass of wine or gin. :)
Regardless of one’s stance on ID it’s common knowledge that cliques form in universities (and frankly, in all walks of life) that shut down anyone with a belief system outside the power base’s own.
This reviewer is as parochial as any small town evangelist with her “these people” and “their trickery” nonsense.
The crucial point is, though, that as much as we all love to root for the underdog, that doesn’t make the people in power wrong, and it doesn’t make the people who have been rejected right.
bwfull noted:
Either there is a constant to all things which exists beyond the thing or when the thing dies nothing remains. I’m not defining anything and I’m not making an argument for a soul. What I’m asking is, what is constant that can be known and if it exists what is its origin.
I have good reason to believe that what you’re looking for is right in front of everyone’s noses, and the constant is evolution. You don’t need an origin if there is a perpetually inherent thermodynamic function that enables the universe to periodically “leap”/bang to higher orders of the same basic configuration, because this preserves causality, the arrow of time and the second law of thermodynamics, indefinitely… … …
Course, nobody on either side of the debate will ever be able see that reality through the distortions of their respective ideologically warped worldviews, so the truth may as well not even exist.
The universe is Darwinian… but neodarwinians/physicists/anticentrists will never be able to accept purpose in nature, and creationists… well, that’s already a given.
You don’t really want to know…
Wait…why is it not acceptable for Ben Stein, Valedictorian of his class at Yale, to posit that a legitimate scientific theory – proffered by scholars around the world (see contributers to the ISCID Academic Journal and current staff at the Discovery Institute – is being suppressed?
Rather, why IS it acceptable for some e-journalist to condemn Stein’s arguments based on no scientific evidence, but rather pure scoffery? How was the movie, silly? And which enlightened soul here can remember that it was developmental evolution – expressed in my biology classes as Darwinism – that came under fire with similar vague scoffery?
ID is not a “legitimate scientific theory.”
I assume that the “e-journalist” you’re referring to is me. I am not condeming Stein’s “aruguments”: the scientific community condemns Stein’s “arguments,” based on scientific evidence. Stein — and the ID proponents on the whole — is manufacturing the illusion of controversy where none exists… at least not to any greater degree than there is controversy over whether the Earth is round or not. This film is outrageously deceptive, and is clearly designed to pander to people who don’t understand the issues, and to manipulate them. That’s repulsive, and must be condemned.
No, I’m not. Some things are simply wrong, and not matters of opinion. ID as as scientific theory is one of them.
Why should they? That’s the kind of presumption that science, by its very nature, tries to avoid.
Regardless of one’s stance on ID it’s common knowledge that cliques form in universities (and frankly, in all walks of life) that shut down anyone with a belief system outside the power base’s own.
I can hardly think of two words more useless and dishonest than the phrase “common knowledge.” What knowledge is that, exactly? The sort that you just made up on the spot I’d wager.
A dose of reality: There is no ‘power base’ in science. Ben Stein’s “Big Science” doesn’t exist. The scientific method is not a popularity contest, and any ‘cliques’ at an individual university are meaningless in the context of the untold thousands (millions?) of scientists and researchers worldwide. There is no conspiracy to suppress ID as a scientific theory. If the proponents of ID could come up with any empirical, falsifiable data then the scientific community would judge it on its merits. Until then they are just a source of laughter and/or frustration.
This reviewer is as parochial as any small town evangelist with her “these people” and “their trickery” nonsense.
If you read her review of this film then I’m sure you noticed that bit equating the theory of evolution with Nazism. How you can witness such elemental logical fallacy and cynical emotional pandering and not call it trickery is beyond me.
Jordan Lewis wrote:
“Wait…why is it not acceptable for Ben Stein, Valedictorian of his class at Yale, to posit that a legitimate scientific theory ”
Jordan, that’s one of the biggest lies of all. “Theory” means “hypothesis that has a long track record of successful predictions.” There’s no such thing as an “ID theory.”
“- proffered by scholars around the world (see contributers to the ISCID Academic Journal…”
Yes! Go to the link to the journal at iscid.org, then answer two simple questions:
1) Why is there no new evidence published in any of the issues of that journal?
2) Even funnier, why hasn’t their very own journal published an issue IN OVER TWO YEARS, Jordan? Are they supressing themselves?
“… and current staff at the Discovery Institute – is being suppressed?”
Because they aren’t. No one was fired. They are perfectly free to bring up ID, but then we real scientists ask them, “Where are your data from testing an ID hypothesis?” and they run to ignorant nincompoops like you with nothing but rhetoric. Then we laugh at them, because ID is a joke.
Oh, whatever. These arguments are all just pointless nonsense, because we know that life was really created by The Flying Spaghetti Monster. Have you been touched by His Noodly Appendage?
Anyone arguing that ID should be accepted or that you need to disprove it misses the point. There is a reason “scientific” people such as myself brush it off as just another one of those things religious people do. ID is NOT a scientific idea, it is purely a religious idea, which is why it has no place in the scientific community. People say ID has nothing to do with God, but like God, it is based in nothing. There is only one question you have to ask yourself. Is there any logical reason for you to think this? I’m so tired of hearing, “take a look around, the earth is beautiful. If one of the physical forces were slightly different, we wouldn’t exist.”
Yes, the universe is beautiful, and again yes, if one of the forces, say gravity were different by a seemingly minute fraction, we wouldn’t exist. The entire universe would be completely different, and there would be other absolutely amazing things that don’t exist in our universe. Some of these things may even be sentient beings, and they may have the chance to tell themselves how amazing they are so they must have been created by an all powerful being.
I know this is becoming a huge general rant on a belief system as opposed to just ID, but I’ve been exposed to so much of it lately and its making me go nuts. If people wish to believe in those things, thats fine, but don’t go around pretending it is scientific by any means. If your only real defense of a theory is “we can’t prove it, but you can’t disprove it” then you have to accept that it is absolutely useless as a scientific concept. Even outlandish theories in astrophysics have some plausible basis in what we currently know, and are at some point, given that we can possibly measure the phenomena they predict, will either be proven or refuted.
Simply because science doesn’t know the absolute answer to a question doesn’t mean that you can make ridiculously claims and expect them to be accepted just because they can’t be factually refuted.
As much as i would like to chime in on the whole debate between ID and Evolution… i won’t, because there are massive amounts of forums, blogs and websties for that kind of thing.
I do think it is funny that as much as she utterly despises the movie, she encourages us to go see it, nay demands that we go see it.
What is your agenda?
If i’m a Darwinist, i should know the kind of clap-trap they are pushing against me? Wouldn’t i already experienced it and have had to deal with it? But I need yet another thing to make me hate some people that much more because of something they believe? Trust me, the LAST thing anyone needs is another reason to fight about something. I would even say the movies exsistance goes too far in that regard anyway.
If i’m an ID’er or “on the fence” you really want me to sell-out heart and soul to something like this after seeing it? If the ID’ers are as some sort of naive, dumb and incapable of an independent thought, wouldn’t they just eat this up and promptly man their picket signs and immediately start protesting universities for their lack of “scientific openness”? Because we all know that a small, but very annoyingly vocal minority of that side of the debate LOVE to picket and cry about these type of things.
Or maybe you want to push as many as you can to waste their time in the theater at this movie as you apparently did (misery loves company)? I think next time stick to telling us that it sucked or it was awesome and why, then let us decide how we will waste our own time and money, because as a critic, i doubt you had to pay to see this film.
(JBH) Hey, everybody, spread the word:
HITLER WAS A CREATIONIST
Reading the quotations from Mein Kampf, (see below), it is clear that Hitler saw race in religious, Creationist terms, not from any Darwinian perspective. (Nor from any admiration of pagan prehistory.) The Nordic peoples were the original pure descendants of Adam, formed in the true image of God, and their health and racial purity meant the continuing reproduction of true images of God.
(Begin quotations. Parenthetical comments are from the original webpage at http://www.nobeliefs.com/hitler.htm )
[quotes from Hitler deleted by MAJ — this isn’t the place to post other people’s writings]
“Our eyes must be opened to their trickery.”
Indeed. Though one doesn’t have to fund their mendacity to do so. The NCSE has a great resource responding to the nonsensical claims of Expelled. Save yourself $10 and 2 hours.
HITLER WAS NOT A CHRISTIAN. HE PROCLAIMED THAT HE WAS IN ORDER TO GET PEOPLE ON HIS SIDE, WHEN IN REALITY HE DESTROYED ANY CHURCH/CHRSTIAN PERSON THAT SPOKE OUT AGAINST WHAT HE WAS DOING. PUBLICALLY, HE WAS CATHOLIC, BUT PRIVATELY? PLEASE CONTINUE READING.
The claim is sometimes made that Hitler was a Christian – a Roman Catholic until the day he died. In fact, Hitler rejected Christianity.
The book Hitler’s Secret Conversations 1941-1944 published by Farrar, Straus and Young, Inc.first edition, 1953, contains definitive proof of Hitler’s real views. The book was published in Britain under the title, _Hitler’s Table Talk 1941-1944, which title was used for the Oxford University Press paperback edition in the United States.
All of these are quotes from Adolf Hitler:
[quotes from Hitler deleted by MAJ — what part of “stay on topic” was misunderstood?]
These posts have everything to do with the claims of the movie, by the way. What were Hitler’s true positions on Christianity/God, and what pushed him into believing what he actually did? It definitely wasn’t the Christian conception of God. The entire POINT of Christianity is to love God with all of your heart and your neighbor as yourself.
To think that Hitler actually believed that Christianity was true is ridiculous. If he did he had a funny way of showing it(destroying every Church but the one he supported).
Goebbels, Nazi Minister of Propaganda, noted:
“The Fuhrer is deeply religous, though completely anti-Christian. He views Christianity as a symptom of decay. Rightly so. It is a branch of the Jewish race… Both [Judaism and Christianity] have no point of contact to the animal element, and thus, in the end, they will be destroyed.”
http://constitutionalistnc.tripod.com/hitler-leftist/id2.html
Excellent review, one comment however:
You use the term: “Judeo-Christian.” I suppose this term has meaning (tortured thought it may be), but if you are referring to ‘people of the book’, shouldn’t it be Islamo-Judeo-Christian? Same writings, same connection.
Oh for the love of…
Argumentum ad Hitlerum : “Hitler supported X, therefore X must be bad.”
This is realy, truely a pointless tactic in any debate that is not specifically about Hitler. Which is why it is so abhorent that Stein would resort to it. Whatever Hitler did or did not belive, his opinions are irrelevant to the value of those things. Hitler can’t poison the entire well of anything. I mean, being an Austrian/German, its likely Hitler at some point in his life Hitler enjoyed beer and sausages. I enjoy beer and sausages. OMG I’M LIKE HITLER!!!! No, no I’m not. So, Hitler may have been a supporter and student of Darwin’s evelutionary theories. So what? He was also a supporter of the burgening theories of rocketry, Should we scrap the entire space program, as many post-WWII wanted?
MAJ, maybe you want to just exercise executive editorial privelidge (i.e. hit the “delete post” button) on thoise last posts by Hodges and Kelly, saving them from the sad trap that Stein fell into.
Whether Hitler was a Christian or not has no bearing on whether evolution is true or not. Any indulgence of this kind of argument only gives credence to that idea. So quit it. Or I’ll delete all such comments entirely.
Nice one, scanartist. There are no Darwinists today. Darwinism is 19th century. Come join us in the 21st — the water’s fine.
You think this is about *hating* people? People are free to believe whatever they want. They just can’t pass it off as something it’s not as a way to fool people into joining them in that belief. THAT’S what this is about.
Did I say that? Ignorance and stupidity are not the same thing. Though anyone smart but willfully ignorant deserves our disdain, I think.
IDers don’t need me to tell them to see this movie. They are not whom I’m writing for, anyway, and this movie is already being effectively marketed at them. I’m trying to convince those who are already on my side of the fence that they need to see this. Disagree with that if you want… but you do yourself no credit by deliberately misinterpreting what I’m saying.
No, unlike Ben Stein, I do not hold my audience in contempt.
Your powers of perception are indeed awesome, since I state at the end of my review — as I state at the end of all my reviews — how I saw a film. And in this case, yes, I did attend a press screening for which I did not have to pay admission. How does this change what I’m saying?
Ah, I see you did. Good on you, MAJ!
No, I used the term quite deliberately because already some people are trying to tell me that *Expelled* cannot possibly be creationist because Ben Stein is Jewish. And I don’t see any Muslim groups trying to push their creationist fable onto school boards as legitimate science.
The posts had already been edited by the time you posted this request, Grant. Which I’ll second: Just because someone can kill you by pushing you off a cliff does not constitute a refutation of the theory of gravity. Just because an atomic bomb can destroy a city doesn’t mean that atomic theory is wrong. Wishful thinking is not science, and just because you really, really would like something be so doesn’t make it so.
PLEASE, everyone, stay on topic.