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