Big Bomb Theory
Stein is a lot of things, but movie star ain’t one of them. Ben Stein has had a checkered career – speech writer for Richard Nixon, TV game show host, business columnist, movie actor. But his latest foray into the entertainment world as movie producer doesn’t seem to be panning out too well.
Stein’s movie Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed opened last weekend with mediocre box office numbers and less than mediocre reviews. It’s a purported documentary intended to support the theory of “intelligent design” and show how proponents of intelligent design face discrimination and harassment in academia. Among other subtleties, it attempts to link Darwinism to Nazi genocide and the Berlin Wall.
Critics virtually unanimously panned Expelled, blasting it as a ham-handed and not very clever propaganda exercise. Jeanette Catsoulis of the New York Times called it “one of the sleaziest documentaries to arrive in a very long time … a conspiracy-theory rant masquerading as investigative inquiry … an unprincipled propaganda piece that insults believers and nonbelievers alike.”
Opening-weekend audiences apparently weren’t bowled over either: The movie opened on 1,052 screens Friday and earned $1.2 million, or just $1,130 per screen, “showing there wasn’t any pent-up demand for the film despite an aggressive publicity campaign,” wrote Hollywood Deadline Daily. In comparison, Michael Moore’s Sicko took in $23.9 million its opening weekend from just 441 theaters, and his Fahrenheit 9/11 did $23.9 million from only 868 screens.
Looks like Stein’s movie just lacked an intelligent design.
The Boss and the Blob
Just before the critical Pennsylvania primary (well, everybody keeps telling us it’s critical) Barack Obama picked up two big show business endorsements from two guys who are physical opposites but apparently ideological twins.
The first was Bruce Springsteen, who came out in favor of the Illinois senator rather quietly by posting a brief letter of endorsement on his website.
“Senator Obama, in my view, is head and shoulders above the rest,” The Boss wrote. “He has the depth, the reflectiveness, and the resilience to be our next President. He speaks to the America I’ve envisioned in my music for the past 35 years, a generous nation with a citizenry willing to tackle nuanced and complex problems, a country that’s interested in its collective destiny and in the potential of its gathered spirit.”
The other Obama boomer was the rotund documentary filmmaker Michael Moore, who – as one might expect – expressed himself in considerably more caustic language.
“I haven’t spoken publicly ’til now as to who I would vote for, primarily for two reasons: 1) Who cares?; and 2) I (and most people I know) don’t give a rat’s ass whose name is on the ballot in November, as long as there’s a picture of JFK and FDR riding a donkey at the top of the ballot, and the word ‘Democratic’ next to the candidate’s name,” Moore wrote on his website Monday.
However, he went on, “over the past two months, the actions and words of Hillary Clinton have gone from being merely disappointing to downright disgusting. I guess the debate last week was the final straw. I’ve watched Senator Clinton and her husband play this game of appealing to the worst side of white people, but [at the debate] last Wednesday, when she hurled the name ‘Farrakhan’ out of nowhere, well that’s when the silly season came to an early end for me. She said the ‘F’ word to scare white people, pure and simple. … Yes, Senator Clinton, that’s how you sounded. Like you were nuts. Like you were a bigot stoking the fires of stupidity.”
Heating Things Up
at the Kremlin
split for perfect splits. With not much news to report on French First Lady Carla Bruni-Sarkozy this week, Upfront decided to bring you up to speed on the brewing sex scandal that could rock the Kremlin.
Rumors swirling around Moscow are that Russian President Vladimir Putin, 56, has been having an affair with Olympic gymnast Alina Kabaeva, 24, and, in fact, has separated from his 50-year-old wife, Ludmilla, and is planning to dump her and marry the younger woman.
The talented Ms. Kabaeva, a rhythmic gymnast known for her athleticism and remarkable “natural flexibility” (ahem!), captured a bronze medal at the 2000 Olympics in Sydney and the gold at the 2004 games in Athens. (You can see her displaying her natural flexibility on YouTube, and take it from Upfront, it really IS remarkable.)
Kabaeva also is a member of the Duma, the Russian Parliament, representing the pro-Putin party – one of a number of shapely young gymnasts that the president has elevated to that body.
According to a Russian tabloid, Moskovski Korrespondent, Putin and Kabaeva actually have set June 15 as their wedding date. But Putin has vigorously denied those reports.
And on Saturday Moskovski Korrespondent was shut down – demonstrating that, although its president may display the same appetites as certain American politicians, Russia is still Russia.
This article appears in Apr 24-30, 2008.
MAKE LOCAL JOURNALISM HAPPEN
Republish our articles for free, online or in print, under a Creative Commons license.
Your writer needs to learn to spell.
Regarding the film, perhaps the writer doesn’t know what a documentary about exclusionary tactics on college campuses is all about. Yeah, yeah, colleges supposedly encourage open-mindedness and tolerance, right?? Don’t think so—as Ben well knows, there’s tolerance for everyone except anyone who dares to mention the “G”(od) word or anything that smacks of deity like “intelligent design.” Having seen the uncut version before the film made national rounds, it was a documentary worth seeing. Perhaps if the writer saw it a few more times, they just might pick up on the message. Jeanette of the NY Times slaps the tag “sleazy” on the film. Funny, but that’s the word I often hear attached to Michael Moore’s rants and one-sided productions.
Kay,
Your autodidactically challenged self needs to learn to research. Or, as Abe Lincoln might put it, “it is better to remain quiet and be thought a fool than to speak and remove all doubt.”
If you do a quick Google search on the terms “Schermer Pepperdine Stein” you will find a Sciam (Scientific American) article by Michael Schermer describing how he was lied to by Stein for an interview that was fraudulently cut by Stein. Furthermore Stein purports to show how he’s a victim of “exclusionary tactics” when in fact he’s paid a room full of extras in a staged event at Pepperdine.
Ben Stein can tell the difference between fact and fiction, and he regularly uses this to defraud the innocent. Take my advice, don’t ever buy a used stock certificate or a certifiably lunatic theory from this flim-flam Tee Vee man.
Not only is Stein promoting a fraudulent concept of “Intelligent Design”, he’s guilty of fraud every step of the way to make his point! At least he gets an A+ for consistency.
Not that this will stop the Elmer Gantryesque among Central Oregon’s Jim Bakker and Jimmy Swaggart set from promoting Stein to their flocks for an $8.50 fleecing at the local fantasy farm.
Here’s my take on what is being expelled by Stein. He has nothing but utter disdain for the American public, thinking that they are a bunch of twinkies who couldn’t think themselves out of a bis-poly bag. Thus, in order to keep the public from paying attention to the economic reality that they are being flayed alive by Ben Stein’s friends, Stein has set up a clever parlor game for the weak-minded to spend weeks and months in their pews, prayer circles and pronouncements pouncing upon. In the meantime, the real Intelligent Design is the tax haven stuctures being set up by Stein’s friends so that when they finally do totally destroy the U.S. Treasury they will be nowhere to be found with the loot. Now that is real Intelligent Design. And a really evolutionary advance on the most blatant corruption of former Gilded Ages.
Excellent post, Ray. Ben Stein is a former speech writer for Richard Nixon. That kinda tells us all we need to know about HIS character, doesn’t it? Stein is a fraud.
Re “intelligent design”: Richard Dawkins in “The God Delusion” has some funny comments about how the human body is an example of not-very-intelligent design. For example, clearly we were not “designed” to walk around on our hind legs, and our habit of doing it creates all sorts of problems from herniated discs to hemorrhoids.
Just one more comment: The NY Times has a story today about a 23-year-old soldier who is suing the Army because he allegedly was harassed and discriminated against for being an atheist. One major allegedly told him he was “not holding up the Constitution and are going against what the founding fathers, who were Christians, wanted for America” and threatened to bring charges against him. A sergeant allegedly threatened to “bust him in the mouth.” He finally was shipped out of Iraq after being repeatedly threatened by other soldiers. More: http://tinyurl.com/6p377w.
I’m sick and tired of Christian fundamentalists whining about how they’re being “persecuted” by “secular humanists” when they seem to be the ones doing most of the persecuting.
HBM
The young specialist in the NYT story will find that the road less traveled will lead to discrimination, ridicule, threats, and harassment. Stein’s fundamentalist whine is the Conservative Christian belief that if they are not allowed to proselytize or proclaim their belief in any and all forums at any time, they are being persecuted. In its most basic form, my disbelief (and that’s what it is–no talking cloud, flying dead guy or talking snake for me, please) is a threat to their tenuous faith for which no valid empirical proof exists. Intelligent design–master watch maker–old white guy in a robe: they are all beliefs ‘revealed’ to the believer. It is irrational–and I long ago determined that argument is unnecessary. I threaten them and their faith–they cannot threaten my own healthy skepticism.
“In its most basic form, my disbelief … is a threat to their tenuous faith for which no valid empirical proof exists.”
Bingo. I’ve noticed that the more extreme and absurd their beliefs are (literal truth of Genesis, literal hellfire, etc.) the more angry and defensive people get when they’re challenged.
It is disappointing that we can’t seem to have a serious rational discussion about topics like this. I have several close friends who are scientists working in the college/university setting. They also have serious scientific doubts about neo-darwinism, and they have had to tred very carefully lest they lose their jobs, be denied tenure, or be shunned by their colleagues. This is a real phenomenon, and an unfortunate one. My freinds are good people. They are very intelligent and knowledeable, and they do great science. They do have religious beliefs, but they hardly fit the stereotype of the ignorant fundamentalist that is invoked so often in posts like those above. Reading posts like those by Ray Duray, Stephen Cramer and HBM, I am struck by the ignorance, arrogance, clumsy rhetoric and general lack of philosophical or theological understanding they display. I noticed the same thing as I read The God Delusion by Richard Dawkins. I suggest you take the time to read some of the material by people like William Dembski, Stephen Meyer, Jonathan Wells, or Alister McGrath, all of whom are featured in the movie. These are very intelligent and highly educated individuals who would take issue with comments about a “tenuous faith for which no valid empirical proof exists.” There’s a lot more going on here that smart people vs. dumb people. It involves epistemology, worldviews and culture wars, and it deserves a serious discussion not a rhetorical bar fight.
Aaron, what is “neo-Darwinism” and how does it differ from plain ol’ Darwinism?
Also I don’t understand why we have to bring philosophy and theology into this. The validity of the theory of evolution is a scientific question, not a theological or philosophical one. It must stand or fall on the empirical evidence. So far, it’s still standing.
Finally, it’s quite possible to believe in both God and evolution. Millions of people do. The only thing evolution challenges is a literalist interpretation of Genesis.
If there was a single shred of empirical proof:
1. Relying on or derived from observation or experiment: empirical results that supported the hypothesis.
2. Verifiable or provable by means of observation or experiment: empirical laws.
that god exists, none of this would even be an argument. Instead, deists rely on transcendental arguments. There is the watchmaker/intelligent design argument that there is perceived order all around us–it cannot be a random event–ergo god exists. There is the ‘white light at the end of the tunnel’ argument that comes from people who have crossed over or died and returned with descriptions from the other side. There is the argument that all men yearn for an answer–that the drive to understand existence and give life meaning is of divine origin. But there is no proof of any of this.
Yes. Extremely intelligent people believe in god for a myriad of reasons–they search for answers. But the nature and limits of human understanding and knowledge don’t, for me, create or generate belief.
People who believe in a creator–and that is the word–creator–have put themselves in a box that they must justify, explain, and defend. No one, has ever been able to do so with empirical data. They use faith to do so–not data.
I recognize that we do not understand the true nature of the universe–but I choose to look at it through a lens that is clear of the taint of faith in an almighty being. The true majesty of the unknown is the physical universe–truly infinite and beyond comprehension. It may be cyclical–it may be transitory–it may be timeless. My universe does not require a creator. Then the argument becomes, who or what created the creator–and ‘always was and always will be’ is not the credo that cuts it for me.
The highly intelligent and highly educated may ‘take issue’ with my belief, but they cannot provide me with empirical proof.
The only culture war I see–and have been observing all of my life, involves the true believers who, though seemingly intelligent and educated, have a blind spot in the vision they use to observe the world around them.
Aaron, the arguments of Dawkins and the rest are arrogant–almost as arrogant as the arguments of men claiming to understand the intent of an almighty being responsible for a universe beyond understanding. Stein’s movie is NOT a serious discussion–it IS a rhetorical bar fight.
Okay, I Googled “neo-Darwinism” and found an article by Tom Bethell, described as the Washington correspondent for American Spectator (a well-known right-wing publication), titled “An examination of the cultural implications of neo-Darwinism and creationism.” The first sentence says:
“The most important claim by evolutionists is that all of life on earth evolved over a long period as a result of a series of random events.”
This is a gross misunderstanding of evolutionary theory. As Dawkins and others have explained, the process of evolution is not “random”; mutations occur at random, but the process by which the adaptive ones are selected and the maladaptive ones are rejected is anything but random.
“To come straight to the point,” Bethell continues, “the big cultural implication of such a doctrine is simply this: If the neo-Darwinian claim is true and all creatures great and small are here on earth as a result of a long chain of improbable accidents, then we have little reason to believe that God exists or that life has any meaning whatever.”
This is also false. Evolutionary theory provides an explanation for how the life forms we see around us (including ourselves) got here; it does not answer the question of how life arose in the first place, much less how the universe got here. It is only certain sects of Christianity that see evolutionary theory as necessarily implying an atheistic worldview.
As for the claim that evolutionary theory, if true, would rob life of all meaning, that’s just silly, as witness the millions of people who accept it and still live full, enjoyable and meaningful lives.
There are many other absurdities in Bethell’s article, and those who want to read them can do so here: http://www.leaderu.com/real/ri9701/bethell.html.
Wow, this is fun! I wish we could sit down over a beer and discuss this at greater length and in greater detail. Anyhow, yes, the term ‘Darwinism’ is fine as far as I’m concerned, but darwinism was born in the mid-nineteenth century, before we understood genetics. The term ‘neo-darwinism’ seems to be favoured by many scientists, especially biologists, because it’s a bit more precise and up-to-date as it has to do with genetic mutation and natural selection as the mechanism of evolution.
Why bring philosophy and theology into this? Philosophy is important for at least a couple of reasons. First, philosophy is about critical thinking, sound reasoning and cogent argumentation. These unfortunately seem often to be lacking in discussion of this topic. For example, in some of the posts above I spot a number of common logical fallacies (e.g. red herrings, straw men, false premises, question begging, ad hominem arguments, etc.). Second, philosophy is important because this topic has a lot to do with the philosophy of science. Stephen Cramer asks for empirical proof and even gives a helpful definition. But this raises a question. Should we embrace empiricism as the favoured theory of knowledge? That is highly debatable and many philosophers and scientists would say “no.” But this brings us into the realm of epistemology, and epistemology has a prominent place in the philosophy of science.
Theology is relevant because, as I read the posts above, I see more that has to do with theology than with science. I see comments about religion, various religious beliefs/doctrines, and about religious believers themselves. The comments are unfairly dismissive and mocking, and they betray a lack of serious engagement. What I percieve here are stereotypes and characatures. That’s not helpful or constructive.
Concerning religious believers and evolution, yes many believers have little or no objection to the theory. In fact many of those in the Intelligent Design camp believe in evoltuion in varying ways and to varying degrees. The question is, do we have the freedom to question the dominant paradigm? I hope so, because that is how science (and human knowledge in general) progresses.
I recommend getting better acquainted with these issues, including the science, the philosophy of science and the relationship between science and faith. Some writers I have found helpful include the following: J.P. Moreland, William Lane Craig, John Polkinghorne, John Lennox, Alvin Plantinga, C. John Collins, Alister McGrath, Del Ratzch, William Dembski, Stephen Meyer, and Michael Behe.
Also, are you familiar with Anthony Flew? There’s a name for you to google. He is a very famous philosopher who used to be one of the most outspoken atheists. Recently he anounced that he has become convinced, due to arguments from design, that God exists. He wrote a book about it that just came out recently.
“But this raises a question. Should we embrace empiricism as the favoured theory of knowledge?”
Until something better comes along, I must. It’s the only method I know of that has at least the promise of letting us understand, however imperfectly, how the real world works. There may be other worlds — it’s impossible to rule that out because it’s logically impossible to prove
a negative — but we have no verifiable way of knowing anything about them.
And I would be happy to have a beer with you any time.
How about McMenamin’s patio on a Friday? I’ll go the first round!
Aaron
Concerning Anthony Flew: In another letter to Carrier of 29 December 2004 Flew went on to retract his statement “a deity or a ‘super-intelligence’ [is] the only good explanation for the origin of life and the complexity of nature.” “I now realize that I have made a fool of myself by believing that there were no presentable theories of the development of inanimate matter up to the first living creature capable of reproduction.” wrote Flew. He blames his error on being “misled” by Richard Dawkins, claiming Dawkins “has never been reported as referring to any promising work on the production of a theory of the development of living matter”.
Flew is/was brilliant–but he’s getting old–some allege senile–and I believe his thinking is getting muddled. He has, however, denied both ontological and (until 2004) teleological proofs for most of his life. In a December 2004 interview he said: I’m thinking of a God very different from the God of the Christian and far and away from the God of Islam, because both are depicted as omnipotent Oriental despots, cosmic Saddam Husseins.
Like all philosophers he wants to explain–when knowing is really beyond him. Interviewed at the time of his conversion in 2004 he was described alternatively as confused and befuddled.
But he has yet to provide the proof so loudly acclaimed.
Stephen: Now that I am retired and a gentleman of leisure I am available any time. We might want to re-think the patio location, however, in view of the loveliness of the Bend “spring.”
Anthony Flew is a former atheist who became a self-described “Deist,” i.e., someone who believes God created the universe but now plays no role in its management. I guess it’s scientifically and logically possible to believe in such a god, but the question I would have is: “What’s the point?” If there’s a god “out there” but he/she/it has nothing to do with us or the world we live in, it’s pretty much the same as having no god at all, isn’t it?
HBM
DING!!
This was Flew’s original argument, posited in the early 50’s while a ‘young Turk.’
What is the point and purpose behind a belief in an invisible, undetectable, uninvolved gardener?