Has this film been released yet?

Has anybody seen it?

It's in at least one theater near here, but I have no desire to see it.

I haven't even heard of it. What is it about?

imdb (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1091617/)

looks interesting enough to steal
i just got done watching micheal moore's sicko (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0386032/) and kinda cried when the fuckers went to cuba for treatment. what we countenance here is a goddamn crime.

/ashamed

Hmmmmm..... sounds strange .......... I might just watch it ...... one day in the furure ......

Yes, this has been already released but I forget if it was in a theater or just DVD. I know that it got very bad reviews.

Its been released, but I doubt I will see it.

Thank God for these films like these. Like Fraggle sometimes says, sunlight is the best disinfectant. I would be hard pressed to think of a better way for Ben Stein to ruin his image.

Apparently it is a propaganda film for the Intelligent Design movement. It claims that the right and good theory of ID is being systematically suppressed by the evil scientific community. Just like Creationism.

I haven't seen it, but I'm interested because it is getting lots of controversial press (at least on the internet) at the moment.

Yep, Richard Dawkins is in it. The interviewers tricked him into believing it was something it wasn't. Richard has said a few things about it on his site. Apparently the movie argues that the Holocaust wouldn't have happened if it weren't for Darwin. Yes, you read that correctly. A Jew who had watched the movie wrote a vitriolic letter to one scientist who then shared it with Richard Dawkins. Richard then wrote an open letter to that Jew. Here's the link to the letter:

http://richarddawkins.net/article,2488,An-Open-Letter-to-David-J,Richard-Dawkins

www.expelledexposed.com

I saw it, it's a very well done production. The main thrust of the movie is the shunning and suppression of any mention of ID in any honest manner. The movie presents a case for discussing ID in relation to several different disciplines, including the development of species.

What I find interesting is while Darwinian evolution applies only to pre-existing life, ID has applications to the beginning of life, the structure of physical laws and cosmology as a whole. ID of course deals more with the philosophy behind the laws than the laws per se.

I am interested in Dr. Dawkins reaction. He seems to imply he was interviewed under false pretenses, and implies he would not have given the interview or not made the same statements had he known the full story. Were his answers to the questions his own and honest? If so, what complaint can he have? One must conclude he either is unwilling to answer questions from a 'hostile' source, or he would have lied about his beliefs.

By the way, the link from 'evolution' to the eugenics program of the NAZI regime is very clear and direct. Please Note: This is not to say Charles Darwin intended such results - but eugenics is the concept of applying evolutionary principles to humanity. After all, we do it to cattle and other domesticated animals, don't we? Eugenics had a following in most of the 'civilized' nations of the world in the period 1910 to 1930 or so. "Planned Parenthood" was founded on watered down eugenic concepts - encouraging the poor and uneducated not to reproduce. It was only the NAZI government who actually started killing 'undesirables' in mass. Sort of a 'promising thought' gone wild.

I think the Nazis would have killed the Jews anyway. Eugenics was probably just an afterthought.

yeah I am def. not watching anotheir theist vs atheist debate

By the way, the link from 'evolution' to the eugenics program of the NAZI regime is very clear and direct. Please Note: This is not to say Charles Darwin intended such results - but eugenics is the concept of applying evolutionary principles to humanity. After all, we do it to cattle and other domesticated animals, don't we? Eugenics had a following in most of the 'civilized' nations of the world in the period 1910 to 1930 or so. "Planned Parenthood" was founded on watered down eugenic concepts - encouraging the poor and uneducated not to reproduce. It was only the NAZI government who actually started killing 'undesirables' in mass. Sort of a 'promising thought' gone wild.1. Selective breeding has been used on animals for thousands of years.
2. Evolution relies on nature to select the species which will prosper, not humans.

So the Nazis were not applying evolutionary principles, they were using techniques that were around long before Darwin.

I just watched the trailer. It looks like it's trying to legitimize creationism by making fun of science-oriented people who explicitly cannot answer how life started. In other words, they are saying "Because you don't know, 'God' becomes a possible answer"... it's just another 'God' of the gaps argument. I won't see the movie as I don't want to support such idiocy.

1. Selective breeding has been used on animals for thousands of years.
2. Evolution relies on nature to select the species which will prosper, not humans.
3.So the Nazis were not applying evolutionary principles, they were using techniques that were around long before Darwin.

1) man selected seeds & animals to plant as the beginning of agriculture, but not always as well-thought out plans
not sure they understood genetics until Mendel, I don't think that people got serious until then (my opinion)
2) that implies causality, I think that you may want to word it a little different, since "nature" in your statement is "active" & I think you meant to imply that its "blind" or "neutral" (am I reading to much into it?)
3) I would like to know from their writings what they said (no I haven't read "Mein Kmepf", nor do I think I want to), if they used that as an excuse or if it was part of the prevailing "social Darwinists" theory that Europeans held at the time, white mans burden, they were at the top of the evolution ladder, primitive man would become extinct soon, some of the writing of the time were definetly racist

Has this film been released yet?

Has anybody seen it?

my uncle saw it, said it implied "group-think" on the part of the "establishment in-crowd", that always happens to scientists just before a paradigm shift leaves the old guard in the dust

he said that chemistry, physics & other sciences have gone through over-lapping periods where some scientist believe in theory A, while others know that theory B explains the facts better (as Newtonian was replaced by Einsteinian, while Quantum Mechanics & String Theory try to replace old crazy hair)

case in point, plate tectonics (he said that there were geologists that swore it was a crack-pot idea when it was first proposed, don't know when that was though, recently I guess???seeing that they keep on making movies about stopping the spin, or making super volcanoes, blah-blah-blah)

he said that Dawkins wasn't ambushed, Ben Stein is a well known conservative figure, so if he's interviewing you, be prepared

question, who knows about protein replication & folding??? the movie mentions that a simple cell needs 250 protein molecules to function as a cell(to live) not sure I understood that
that cells are protein nano-factories

case in point, plate tectonics (he said that there were geologists that swore it was a crack-pot idea when it was first proposed, don't know when that was though, recently I guess???

Ah, I remember that controversy very well. It was in the 60s...not all that recent, depending on your timescale.

But what major shift do you see in the scientific world vis a vis anything in biology?

It still seems to me the entire ID thing belongs in the realm of metaphysics no matter how you slice it.

If there's a shift, all I can think of would be a recognition that the supposed war between science and religion was a limited affair from Western Europe and perhaps after a few centuries we should all just get over it and get on with our respective jobs? But that's not a shift in science.


he said that Dawkins wasn't ambushed, Ben Stein is a well known conservative figure, so if he's interviewing you, be prepared


I did wonder about that. Seriously, if Jon Stewart or Stephen Colbert interviews a well known conservative, they shouldn't be surprised to be lampooned either.

1. But what major shift do you see in the scientific world vis a vis anything in biology?
2. It still seems to me the entire ID thing belongs in the realm of metaphysics no matter how you slice it.
3. If there's a shift, all I can think of would be a recognition that the supposed war between science and religion was a limited affair from Western Europe
4. and perhaps after a few centuries we should all just get over it and get on with our respective jobs?
5. But that's not a shift in science..
Booko:
1. more questions, different lines of inquiry, then ID enters into the picture, looking for irreducible complexity, then nanotech duplicates those protein factories??? who knows???
also, if that 65 million year old T-Rex DNA proves true, (and the stuff that I read a long time ago, that they found cells that turn had spores, just like bacteria), maybe Jurassic/Triassic Parks???
2. supposedly the Heavens declare His glory, so what if that is the only explanation? irreducible complexity, elegant simplicity (E=mc2, "let there be light" & there was light)
3. & religion won?
4. but under what circumstances?
5. probably the only thing I remember about history, besides that its boring, is that its BORING, but we don't know what will happen in the future, did anyone predict 9-11? or Bush being a lame prez because of Iraq?

1) man selected seeds & animals to plant as the beginning of agriculture, but not always as well-thought out plans
not sure they understood genetics until Mendel, I don't think that people got serious until then (my opinion)It may not have been well understood but it has been practiced for thousands of years. Darwin discusses it in Origin of Species.

2) that implies causality, I think that you may want to word it a little different, since "nature" in your statement is "active" & I think you meant to imply that its "blind" or "neutral" (am I reading to much into it?)I was pointing that humans selectively breeding based on what they perceive to be superior traits is very different from natural selection. Therefore the Nazis were not applying evolutionary principals.

By the way, the link from 'evolution' to the eugenics program of the NAZI regime is very clear and direct.........eugenics is the concept of applying evolutionary principles to humanity.

You are 100% wrong on this - probably because you don't understand evolution so its not your fault.

Quick lesson:

Evolutionary theory teaches us that the way to ensure that a species has the best chance to thrive and survive is through the genetic diversity present in a population, and that we can never be certain as to which traits will turn out in the future to be most conducive to survival.
Eugenics effectively breeds out diversity - therefore it is anti-evolution.

any questions?

Wel as a marine biologist i know things.

Wel as a marine biologist i know things.

sorry was I sounding a bit of a smartarse?

1. You are 100% wrong on this - probably because you don't understand evolution so its not your fault.
2. Eugenics effectively breeds out diversity - therefore it is anti-evolution.

any questions?
S-P: I think that the problem here is with terms
1. Social Darwinists thought they were at the top of the ladder, therefore eugenics naturally came from them, Margeret Sanger from Planned Parenthood devised that program to help rid America of undesirables
2. early SD's did not understand evolution as such, I think Charles Darwim may not have understood it correctly, being he did not have access to electron microscopes & other modern gadgets & techniques

The main thrust of the movie is the shunning and suppression of any mention of ID in any honest manner. So the main thrust of the movie is bullshit. OK.

I mean, have you checked out what the ID folks are claiming ?! You can't sneak that stuff into peer-reviewed journals of actual science - sure there's a conspiracy against it: it's called requiring rigor and logical consistency. It's a virtue.
1. Social Darwinists thought they were at the top of the ladder, therefore eugenics naturally came from them, Anyone who thinks they are at the top of some kind of ladder is badly confused about evolutionary theory.

Any parasites you have are further up the evolutionary ladder than you are - just for one example.

And then to top it off, some of them tried to exterminate the most successful demographic group they had in their civilization - that doesn't even make sense from the Social Darwinist perspective.

Idk, a 3.8 IMDB rating isn't very high.....

S-P: I think that the problem here is with terms
1. Social Darwinists thought they were at the top of the ladder, therefore eugenics naturally came from them, Margeret Sanger from Planned Parenthood devised that program to help rid America of undesirables
2. early SD's did not understand evolution as such, I think Charles Darwim may not have understood it correctly, being he did not have access to electron microscopes & other modern gadgets & techniques

Social Darwinism is a political beleif held by the christian right - so your point is meaningless

Social Darwinism is a political beleif held by the christian right - so your point is meaningless
Nah, Social Darwinism is a legit theory of Sociology. The only discredit I can think of is the fact that it makes generalizations about groups of people (this is common in sociology), whereas the evolutionary Darwinist theories for nature are backed by more 'scientific' observations of creatures less complex than humans.

Nah, Social Darwinism is a legit theory of Sociology. The only discredit I can think of is the fact that it makes generalizations about groups of people (this is common in sociology), whereas the evolutionary Darwinist theories for nature are backed by more 'scientific' observations of creatures less complex than humans.

legit socialogical theory or not - its one commonly held by people in the religious right - listen to Limbaugh, Fallwell, Hagger, etc some time - they are all social darwinists

I suppose so. Hitler was a big fan of Social Darwinism.

I myself also place a lot of value on Social Darwinism, but I still vandalize and steal from churches every other weekend.

I suppose so. Hitler was a big fan of Social Darwinism..

Perhaps - certainly Hitler, Limbaugh and Falwell etc would get along like a cross on fire - err I mean house on fire


I myself also place a lot of value on Social Darwinism, but I still vandalize and steal from churches every other weekend.

good on yer