Sign In
Register
Help
Is Ben Stein a "rebel" for this "generation"? Will he tackle "Big Science" and its Darwinian claims? All will be made clear on Darwin's birthday, February 12, 2008. (If the filmmakers had waited one more year, they could have released the film on his bicentennial.)
The film is written by Ben Stein, Kevin Miller (local boy from Abbotsford, former reviewer for Hollywood Jesus and The Joy of Movies) and self-made millionaire software developer Walt Ruloff (also a local boy, from Bowen Island).
Links to threads on 'Evolution, 'a critique of Intelligent Design, 'Battle of the New Atheism', 'Intelligent Design 101' and 'The Daily Show's Schmevolution week'.
Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed ben stein docuganda for intelligent design!
MultiQuote
#2
Posted 26 August 2007 - 02:18 AM
Very interesting.
While I'm so tired of all the pointless debates surrounding I.D., creationism, evolutionism, etc that I no longer care how my species came into being... I thought I.D. got a pretty unfair thrashing in the court of public opinion. It will be good to see someone in the quasi-mainstream discuss it... um... intelligently.
The (pathetic) Dawkins quote on the film's webpage suggests that this film will simply be using I.D. as a jumping point to discuss the bigger question of God in science. Which should make it interesting and controversial. I'm hoping the intelligence of the discussion lives up to the film's marketing.
While I'm so tired of all the pointless debates surrounding I.D., creationism, evolutionism, etc that I no longer care how my species came into being... I thought I.D. got a pretty unfair thrashing in the court of public opinion. It will be good to see someone in the quasi-mainstream discuss it... um... intelligently.
The (pathetic) Dawkins quote on the film's webpage suggests that this film will simply be using I.D. as a jumping point to discuss the bigger question of God in science. Which should make it interesting and controversial. I'm hoping the intelligence of the discussion lives up to the film's marketing.
#3
Posted 26 August 2007 - 09:03 AM
A few comments from PZ Meyers, one of the film's interviewees. He claims that the filmmakers misrepresented themselves when they asked to interview him:
QUOTE
Why were they so dishonest about it? If Mathis had said outright that he wants to interview an atheist and outspoken critic of Intelligent Design for a film he was making about how ID is unfairly excluded from academe, I would have said, "bring it on!" We would have had a good, pugnacious argument on tape that directly addresses the claims of his movie, and it would have been a better (at least, more honest and more relevant) sequence. He would have also been more likely to get that good ol' wild-haired, bulgy-eyed furious John Brown of the Godless vision than the usual mild-mannered professor that he did tape. And I probably would have been more aggressive with a plainly stated disagreement between us.
#4
Posted 27 August 2007 - 12:06 AM
I certainly hope it's not the "creationist propaganda film" that PZ Meyers claims. Odd that he assumes that a film defending I.D.'s media rape is creationist propaganda.
(And, to be honest, I didn't see much misrepresenting done in the initial contact... except for the name of the project, which I assume was retitled after Ben Stein was added at some point. Mr. Meyers's judgment on this issue appears clouded by his pre-judging of this film as anti-science creationist propaganda.)
(And, to be honest, I didn't see much misrepresenting done in the initial contact... except for the name of the project, which I assume was retitled after Ben Stein was added at some point. Mr. Meyers's judgment on this issue appears clouded by his pre-judging of this film as anti-science creationist propaganda.)
This post has been edited by theoddone33: 27 August 2007 - 12:14 AM
#5
Posted 27 August 2007 - 01:04 AM
QUOTE(Peter T Chattaway @ Aug 25 2007, 11:44 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
Is Ben Stein a "rebel" for this "generation"? Will he tackle "Big Science" and its Darwinian claims? All will be made clear on Darwin's birthday, February 12, 2008. (If the filmmakers had waited one more year, they could have released the film on his bicentennial.)
No kidding? That would mean Darwin and Abraham Lincoln were born on the same day. Never realized that.
#6
Posted 27 August 2007 - 02:11 AM
opus wrote:
: A few comments from PZ Meyers, one of the film's interviewees. He claims that the filmmakers misrepresented themselves when they asked to interview him . . .
Yeah, if he's correct in his description of what happened, then it's pretty lame that the film's promotional materials would claim that the film "confronts" scientists like him.
Incidentally, Meyers asks where the funds for this movie are coming from. To that, I say, look at the writing and producing credits. Walt Ruloff is a software developer and self-made millionaire who lives on Bowen Island, near Vancouver (and co-writer Kevin Miller is a freelance writer from Abbotsford, near Vancouver -- so there's a couple of local connections there). For example, a gossip column quoted at this website says: "According to my spies, the story began a long time ago when software developer Walt Ruloff sold a program to Microsoft for $120 million U.S. with his share being somewhere around 80%." There's a brief bio at the website for Premise Media, the company producing this film, too.
I'm not saying ALL the money is coming from Ruloff, but I don't think we have to look too far to speculate as to where this movie's budget is coming from.
mrmando wrote:
: No kidding? That would mean Darwin and Abraham Lincoln were born on the same day. Never realized that.
Wikipedia says you are correct. And when has it ever lied to us?
: A few comments from PZ Meyers, one of the film's interviewees. He claims that the filmmakers misrepresented themselves when they asked to interview him . . .
Yeah, if he's correct in his description of what happened, then it's pretty lame that the film's promotional materials would claim that the film "confronts" scientists like him.
Incidentally, Meyers asks where the funds for this movie are coming from. To that, I say, look at the writing and producing credits. Walt Ruloff is a software developer and self-made millionaire who lives on Bowen Island, near Vancouver (and co-writer Kevin Miller is a freelance writer from Abbotsford, near Vancouver -- so there's a couple of local connections there). For example, a gossip column quoted at this website says: "According to my spies, the story began a long time ago when software developer Walt Ruloff sold a program to Microsoft for $120 million U.S. with his share being somewhere around 80%." There's a brief bio at the website for Premise Media, the company producing this film, too.
I'm not saying ALL the money is coming from Ruloff, but I don't think we have to look too far to speculate as to where this movie's budget is coming from.
mrmando wrote:
: No kidding? That would mean Darwin and Abraham Lincoln were born on the same day. Never realized that.
Wikipedia says you are correct. And when has it ever lied to us?
#7
Posted 27 August 2007 - 03:36 AM
QUOTE(Peter T Chattaway @ Aug 27 2007, 12:11 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
Yeah, if he's correct in his description of what happened, then it's pretty lame that the film's promotional materials would claim that the film "confronts" scientists like him.
I work in a similar industry, and I know it's fair to say that in the context I'm familiar with... marketing and production aren't always on the same page.
I don't recall reading anything on that blog post that made me think that the film's producers "lied" about their intentions, as Meyers stated. He may very well be right that there was some intentional deception, but I certainly hope he's more convincing in the film for the sake of his side of the argument.
That bit about Microsoft was interesting, but I couldn't find anything to substantiate it on the Internet other than various people repeating the rumor. Too bad, I was curious what specific software Ruloff sold to Microsoft. Sounds more like he deals in companies than software, though. (But where his money came from doesn't really matter to a discussion of the film... it's just a point of interest for me.)
#8
Posted 27 August 2007 - 04:09 PM
theoddone33 wrote:
: That bit about Microsoft was interesting, but I couldn't find anything to substantiate it on the Internet other than various people repeating the rumor. Too bad, I was curious what specific software Ruloff sold to Microsoft. Sounds more like he deals in companies than software, though.
His bio at the Premise Media site is not copy-and-paste-able, or I would have done that in my earlier post, but in that bio, it says:
: That bit about Microsoft was interesting, but I couldn't find anything to substantiate it on the Internet other than various people repeating the rumor. Too bad, I was curious what specific software Ruloff sold to Microsoft. Sounds more like he deals in companies than software, though.
His bio at the Premise Media site is not copy-and-paste-able, or I would have done that in my earlier post, but in that bio, it says:
His most successful venture was a software company called ITLS which he founded at the age of 26 in 1991. It grew to become the worldwide de-facto standard in logistics operations for fortune 2000 companeis. The company was sold in 1998 with more than 350 employees.Maybe that's the sale in question?
#9
Posted 29 August 2007 - 10:41 AM
QUOTE(Peter T Chattaway @ Aug 27 2007, 01:09 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
theoddone33 wrote:
: That bit about Microsoft was interesting, but I couldn't find anything to substantiate it on the Internet other than various people repeating the rumor. Too bad, I was curious what specific software Ruloff sold to Microsoft. Sounds more like he deals in companies than software, though.
His bio at the Premise Media site is not copy-and-paste-able, or I would have done that in my earlier post, but in that bio, it says:
: That bit about Microsoft was interesting, but I couldn't find anything to substantiate it on the Internet other than various people repeating the rumor. Too bad, I was curious what specific software Ruloff sold to Microsoft. Sounds more like he deals in companies than software, though.
His bio at the Premise Media site is not copy-and-paste-able, or I would have done that in my earlier post, but in that bio, it says:
His most successful venture was a software company called ITLS which he founded at the age of 26 in 1991. It grew to become the worldwide de-facto standard in logistics operations for fortune 2000 companeis. The company was sold in 1998 with more than 350 employees.Maybe that's the sale in question?
I think the best thing to do is to ask Ruloff himself who funded the film. As for PZ Myers and others who claim we used deceptive techniques to get the interviews, don't make up your mind until you've heard both sides of the story. As far as I'm concerned, such claims are an outright deception and an obvious attempt by these individuals to simply cover their butts and undermine the content of our film through a personal attack. While I was not present at PZ's interview, I was present at both of our interview with Richard Dawkins. And he was given every opportunity to grill us both before and afterwards on who we were and what the film was about. If he bothered to look at the film's description on the Rampant web site (which I know PZ Myers and Eugenie Scott did), it makes no bones about the film's content (and we told him and other interviewees that one of the main purposes of the film was to capitalize on the controversy of this topic, so it was not going to be a fluff piece). The only thing that is unclear from the description is the film's position on the topic. However, I can honestly say that the positions of many people on our team have changed throughout the filmmaking process as we met with dozens of interviewees in our struggle to find the story. I can say the same thing about the title of the film. That did not arise until quite late in the process. Films operate under working titles all the time, so no surprise there.
Moreover, unlike some of today’s documentary filmmakers, we are making every effort to ensure that everyone interviewed for this film is presented in a way that is entirely consistent with their public stance on the issue. It’s difficult for me to understand why anybody like PZ Myers who is so publicly outspoken about the topics this film covers would be concerned about appearing in a film that will give their views an even wider audience. Perhaps it may be that they don’t want the public to become aware of what happens to a scientist who dares to disagree with their views.
#11
Posted 29 August 2007 - 03:54 PM
KevinMillerXI wrote:
: I think the best thing to do is to ask Ruloff himself who funded the film.
Sure -- got his number?
: However, I can honestly say that the positions of many people on our team have changed throughout the filmmaking process as we met with dozens of interviewees in our struggle to find the story. I can say the same thing about the title of the film. That did not arise until quite late in the process. Films operate under working titles all the time, so no surprise there.
One thing I'm wondering is when (and how) Ben Stein got involved in the film. I assume he doesn't conduct the interviews -- or at least some of the interviews -- since Myers seems to have been caught off guard by Stein's involvement in the movie. (And also since there is no footage in the trailer of Stein himself doing the "confronting".)
: I think the best thing to do is to ask Ruloff himself who funded the film.
Sure -- got his number?
: However, I can honestly say that the positions of many people on our team have changed throughout the filmmaking process as we met with dozens of interviewees in our struggle to find the story. I can say the same thing about the title of the film. That did not arise until quite late in the process. Films operate under working titles all the time, so no surprise there.
One thing I'm wondering is when (and how) Ben Stein got involved in the film. I assume he doesn't conduct the interviews -- or at least some of the interviews -- since Myers seems to have been caught off guard by Stein's involvement in the movie. (And also since there is no footage in the trailer of Stein himself doing the "confronting".)
#12
Posted 29 August 2007 - 06:49 PM
QUOTE(Peter T Chattaway @ Aug 29 2007, 12:54 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
KevinMillerXI wrote:
: I think the best thing to do is to ask Ruloff himself who funded the film.
Sure -- got his number?
: However, I can honestly say that the positions of many people on our team have changed throughout the filmmaking process as we met with dozens of interviewees in our struggle to find the story. I can say the same thing about the title of the film. That did not arise until quite late in the process. Films operate under working titles all the time, so no surprise there.
One thing I'm wondering is when (and how) Ben Stein got involved in the film. I assume he doesn't conduct the interviews -- or at least some of the interviews -- since Myers seems to have been caught off guard by Stein's involvement in the movie. (And also since there is no footage in the trailer of Stein himself doing the "confronting".)
: I think the best thing to do is to ask Ruloff himself who funded the film.
Sure -- got his number?
: However, I can honestly say that the positions of many people on our team have changed throughout the filmmaking process as we met with dozens of interviewees in our struggle to find the story. I can say the same thing about the title of the film. That did not arise until quite late in the process. Films operate under working titles all the time, so no surprise there.
One thing I'm wondering is when (and how) Ben Stein got involved in the film. I assume he doesn't conduct the interviews -- or at least some of the interviews -- since Myers seems to have been caught off guard by Stein's involvement in the movie. (And also since there is no footage in the trailer of Stein himself doing the "confronting".)
If you really want Walt's number, I can e-mail it to you offline. However, it's easily available on whitepages.ca. Regarding Ben Stein, he actually conducted a number of the interviews for this film, traveling across the US and Europe to do so. As for how, when, and why Ben got involved, I'd rather have him speak to that when he issues a public statement in the near future.
#13
Posted 31 August 2007 - 12:41 AM
It's always fun to see who pops up here to talk about films they've been involved with. Thanks for stopping by, Kevin.
I'm certainly looking forward to this film... hoping it will be a balanced, intellectual look at a topic which has had far too little of both balance and intellect put forth in its discussion.
And I do hope someone will keep this thread updated when Ben Stein's statement comes out... I'm interested in the extent of his involvement as well.
I'm certainly looking forward to this film... hoping it will be a balanced, intellectual look at a topic which has had far too little of both balance and intellect put forth in its discussion.
And I do hope someone will keep this thread updated when Ben Stein's statement comes out... I'm interested in the extent of his involvement as well.
#14
Posted 31 August 2007 - 03:37 AM
KevinMillerXI wrote:
: As for how, when, and why Ben got involved, I'd rather have him speak to that when he issues a public statement in the near future.
Will this be one of his blog posts, or something different?
theoddone33 wrote:
: I'm certainly looking forward to this film... hoping it will be a balanced, intellectual look at a topic which has had far too little of both balance and intellect put forth in its discussion.
Intellectual, sure, but balanced? Is "balanced" an apt description of what we see in the trailer posted above?
I make no assumptions, BTW, regarding whether "balance" is what this or any other film ought to strive for. There is a place for polemics, and there is a place for neutrality. But this film does not seem to be coming at the subject from the "neutral" angle.
Then again, I suppose it is possible the film might be "neutral" with regard to the actual science while adopting a "non-neutral" approach to academic politics.
: As for how, when, and why Ben got involved, I'd rather have him speak to that when he issues a public statement in the near future.
Will this be one of his blog posts, or something different?
theoddone33 wrote:
: I'm certainly looking forward to this film... hoping it will be a balanced, intellectual look at a topic which has had far too little of both balance and intellect put forth in its discussion.
Intellectual, sure, but balanced? Is "balanced" an apt description of what we see in the trailer posted above?
I make no assumptions, BTW, regarding whether "balance" is what this or any other film ought to strive for. There is a place for polemics, and there is a place for neutrality. But this film does not seem to be coming at the subject from the "neutral" angle.
Then again, I suppose it is possible the film might be "neutral" with regard to the actual science while adopting a "non-neutral" approach to academic politics.
#15
Posted 31 August 2007 - 05:28 AM
Well as I think I've mentioned above, I'm certainly hoping the film isn't a one-sided bit of "Creationist propaganda", as PZ Meyers seems to believe. Nevermind that he doesn't wish to distinguish between "person who lends I.D. intellectual credence" and "creationist". That's him not being balanced. I hope the film does not miss the parts of the issue I'm actually interested in hearing about beause it's full of one-sided tunnel vision.
That's what I mean by balanced. The opposite of what most other public discourse on this subject has been.
That's what I mean by balanced. The opposite of what most other public discourse on this subject has been.
QUOTE
Then again, I suppose it is possible the film might be "neutral" with regard to the actual science while adopting a "non-neutral" approach to academic politics.
That sounds pretty good, given what I'm hoping for out of the film.
#16
Posted 01 September 2007 - 05:00 PM
theoddone33 wrote:
: Nevermind that he doesn't wish to distinguish between "person who lends I.D. intellectual credence" and "creationist".
Speaking as an evolutionary creationist and ID skeptic myself, I don't see why IDers should be offended by the term "creationist". If the shoe fits, wear it.
And the question, as I understand it, is not whether ID is "intellectual", but whether it is "scientific". Philosophy and religion have always had intellectual credibility. The question is whether ID belongs to the philosophy/religion department, or to the science department. And as far as I can tell, ID is generally more meta-scientific than scientific, per se.
But the fact that biologists have philosophical or religious opinions that go beyond their fields of expertise does not mean that they should be disqualified as biologists. If Richard Dawkins or Stephen Hawking can keep their science degrees despite their polemicizing and/or speculating about theological matters, then so could any IDer, it seems to me.
: Nevermind that he doesn't wish to distinguish between "person who lends I.D. intellectual credence" and "creationist".
Speaking as an evolutionary creationist and ID skeptic myself, I don't see why IDers should be offended by the term "creationist". If the shoe fits, wear it.
And the question, as I understand it, is not whether ID is "intellectual", but whether it is "scientific". Philosophy and religion have always had intellectual credibility. The question is whether ID belongs to the philosophy/religion department, or to the science department. And as far as I can tell, ID is generally more meta-scientific than scientific, per se.
But the fact that biologists have philosophical or religious opinions that go beyond their fields of expertise does not mean that they should be disqualified as biologists. If Richard Dawkins or Stephen Hawking can keep their science degrees despite their polemicizing and/or speculating about theological matters, then so could any IDer, it seems to me.
#17
Posted 02 September 2007 - 04:58 AM
QUOTE(Peter T Chattaway @ Sep 1 2007, 03:00 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
Speaking as an evolutionary creationist and ID skeptic myself, I don't see why IDers should be offended by the term "creationist". If the shoe fits, wear it.
Then we're probably in similar camps on the issue. I take issue with the terminology because "creationist" tends to imply some sort of Judeo-Christian legend and I.D. does not make any specific claims of this nature beyond the claim that evolution is not sufficient to have produced life on this earth.
The linking of I.D. and Christianity is something that's been manufactured by Christians and latched on to by the media. It's led a gullible judge to determine that I.D. shouldn't be mentioned in schools, and led Pat Robertson to make some ridiculously stupid comments. The Kansas situation was one big circus, and I'm hoping this film goes some way to clearing up all the misconceptions surrounding and resulting from that mess... without explicitly backing I.D.
The worst thing that could happen is that this film muddies the waters more by linking I.D. to religion. Or indeed proves itself to be "creationist propaganda" as Meyers assumes. But since the film claims to be intelligent, I'm hopeful that it will not go down that road.
#18
Posted 02 September 2007 - 05:13 AM
QUOTE(Alan Thomas @ Sep 1 2007, 07:34 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
"I have read your book, and I do not think it is science." Sound familiar? But this time it's sex research.
Mmm, that's a ridiculous situation. Character assassination is apparently a great way to defend your lifestyle from non-attacks. Those trangender women leading the charge are doing a much greater disservice to transgender women in general than Dr. Bailey, I conclude.
#19
Posted 02 September 2007 - 10:41 AM
Alan Thomas wrote:
: It's not just evolutionary biology; freedom of inquiry is under assault all over.
: "I have read your book, and I do not think it is science." Sound familiar? But this time it's sex research.
Certainly the dismissal of IQ studies sounds familiar -- Steve Sailer and his buddies have gotten no small amount of disrespect for asserting that studies indicate a, shall we say, diverse concentration of mental and physical abilities along racial/ethnic lines. (So you see, it isn't only IDers who get treated like "intellectual terrorists"; committed Darwinists also have to deal with Big Science types who fear the full application of Darwinian science.)
theoddone33 wrote:
: Then we're probably in similar camps on the issue. I take issue with the terminology because "creationist" tends to imply some sort of Judeo-Christian legend and I.D. does not make any specific claims of this nature beyond the claim that evolution is not sufficient to have produced life on this earth.
Right, which is why I call it more meta-science than actual science. ID essentially says, "We can't figure out how we got from A to B, so we're going to give up inquiring and say that God, or an alien, or something else did it." And that's where mathematics, philosophy, religion, and other non-physical sciences kick in. And it's fine for scientists to ruminate on the implications of their science for philosophy and religion. But should "giving up" be taught as a discipline WITHIN a science class? Or should science students be encouraged to keep on gathering data and proposing theories that might fill those gaps in our knowledge?
: The worst thing that could happen is that this film muddies the waters more by linking I.D. to religion.
I haven't watched the trailer in a few days, but if memory serves, there's a bit where Ben Stein gives a lecture saying that Big Science wants to keep "God" out of the classroom. That seems like a link to religion, to me. (Even if the word "God" does not necessarily commit the speaker to a particular religion's understanding of God.)
: It's not just evolutionary biology; freedom of inquiry is under assault all over.
: "I have read your book, and I do not think it is science." Sound familiar? But this time it's sex research.
Certainly the dismissal of IQ studies sounds familiar -- Steve Sailer and his buddies have gotten no small amount of disrespect for asserting that studies indicate a, shall we say, diverse concentration of mental and physical abilities along racial/ethnic lines. (So you see, it isn't only IDers who get treated like "intellectual terrorists"; committed Darwinists also have to deal with Big Science types who fear the full application of Darwinian science.)
theoddone33 wrote:
: Then we're probably in similar camps on the issue. I take issue with the terminology because "creationist" tends to imply some sort of Judeo-Christian legend and I.D. does not make any specific claims of this nature beyond the claim that evolution is not sufficient to have produced life on this earth.
Right, which is why I call it more meta-science than actual science. ID essentially says, "We can't figure out how we got from A to B, so we're going to give up inquiring and say that God, or an alien, or something else did it." And that's where mathematics, philosophy, religion, and other non-physical sciences kick in. And it's fine for scientists to ruminate on the implications of their science for philosophy and religion. But should "giving up" be taught as a discipline WITHIN a science class? Or should science students be encouraged to keep on gathering data and proposing theories that might fill those gaps in our knowledge?
: The worst thing that could happen is that this film muddies the waters more by linking I.D. to religion.
I haven't watched the trailer in a few days, but if memory serves, there's a bit where Ben Stein gives a lecture saying that Big Science wants to keep "God" out of the classroom. That seems like a link to religion, to me. (Even if the word "God" does not necessarily commit the speaker to a particular religion's understanding of God.)
#20
Posted 02 September 2007 - 03:10 PM
I know I'm probably just baying into the wind here, but I have never heard any ID proponent use the phrase "give up" or anything like it to describe their position. ID does not say, "let's not bother looking into this," ID says that when you've looked into it, design is a legitimate hypothesis.
