Ben Stein's Next Movie

Here's an early trailer:

Comments

[Jim Walsh]

God, Stein is such a tool. Oh, and Nixon was a sweetheart of a guy. Right Ben, sure...

[Jonathan Hohensee]

I got a lot of goodwill towards Ben Stien from Win Ben's Money, and I've been avoiding this movie as much as I can so I can keep my love for him.

[The Winter Soldier]

Love one of the tag lines. "Ben Stein is an ignorant fool." Yes. Yes, he is . . .

[Zeno]

The high female german voice on that that serious-looking man is...priceless.
"We cannot accept to treat..."

[Krunk]

Love how Dawkins declares himself a "sex maniac" while wearing sunglasses. Classic.

[JW]

Fuck, that constant Thorogood riff was annoying.

What in the hell is this stork theory they were they talking about? I couldn't make it past halfway.

[Atheistzombie]

It's clearly a jab at the current stupid Ben Stein movie "Expelled", in which the arrogant douche, Ben Stein, promotes (less than) Intelligent Design.

[Akira MacKenzie]

Meanwhile, science educators, like Chis Comer in Texas, are armed twisted into resigning by Creationists for sending an e-mail:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sQacQy1KJ9M

Biologist P.Z. Myers (who was interviewed for "Expelled" along with Richard Dawkins, Michael Shermer, and Eugenie Scott under false pretenses) applies for and gets seats for a pre-release screening and is tossed out of the theater on the order of the producer, Mark Mathis.

Who the hell are the ones being "expelled" here, Ben?

[david]

Sigh. Ben is actually one helluva guy -- smart, funny, and politically usually on target. But this garbage...damn. Just damn.

[Soda]

Even "stork theory" can't avoid the "infinite regress" problem. Damn you, Dawkins, you sex maniac!

[Akira MacKenzie]

Oh, about the clip?

Hilarious! Given the Religious Right's attitude about sex, the parody might be close to the truth.

[peachy]

"Stop praying to that stork!"

[Taktix?]

Is it just me, or is lying to people considered un-Christian-like?

I mean, if ID is such a valid theory, why would they need to deceive it's detractors?

It's rare to see such hypocrisy worn on one's sleeve like this.

[Taktix?]

Oh, just got a chance to WTFV. Mark Mathis is still a douche, but my previous post was a bit off topic.

Happy "freedom friday," everyone.*

*Freedom Friday being today, the release date of Expelled, according to the commercials.** It's going to be fun listening to people like Rush Limbaugh push this movie today.

** I also enjoy they producers need for "freedom" in the title, when the actual topic has little to do with freedom. I fear the Fox News drones of the world will misconstrue the term freedom until it has no meaning any more. Wait, maybe that's the point...

[noise1010]

My neighborhood movie theater (Seattle) is playing the new movie. On its marquee:

"Expelled - No Intelligence"

[the innominate one]

Taktix? | April 18, 2008, 8:17am | #
Is it just me, or is lying to people considered un-Christian-like?

I mean, if ID is such a valid theory, why would they need to deceive it's detractors?

It's rare to see such hypocrisy worn on one's sleeve like this.

Not when it comes to the anti-evolutionists, Taktix.

[Jamie Kelly]

I've actually met Ben Stein (and interviewed him) in northern Idaho, where he keeps a home. The man is freakin' hilarious. And he's one smart dude in the realm of politics and economics.
But Jebus H. Krispies, he's gotta get off this ID shit. He's only helping to make Republicans look like irrational idiots.

[twv]

The bulk of Republicans ARE irrational idiots. They are reactionaries. They don't really believe in limited government; they believe that Big Government when constructed by Democrats is BAD. They aren't for free markets; they are against whatever shcemes a Democrat might propose.

And, above all else, they are ruled by fear.

Fear not only of Socialism, but of freedom, too. Most of all they fear social anomie and chaos caused, in part, by rejection of That Old Time Religion. Even when it is demonstrably the case that the Old Time Religion is without foundation, its myths falsified by hundreds of discoveries, and doesn't make much sense on the surface anyway.

Ben Stein is merely revealing how deep that fear is, how deep the ignorance on the right generally is. He is doing a poblic service.

[twv]

Uh, "public," NOT "poblic."

(I can't use the "preview" function on my most-used browser. That's my excuse for typos.)

[A.Christian]

It seems that the humor in this is that "stork theory" is analogous to "creationism theory" -- both are substantively and similarly implausible -- and that by using the more obviously implausible stork theory as analogy, this absurdity is revealed, and the humor is generated therefrom.

However, it also seems that the analogy upon which this is based is a false one. First, we've all witnessed the cause and effect events of baby creation, but no one has witnessed the formation of the human species. Baby creation theories can and are tested in a laboratory, due to the fact that the phenomenon is repeatable and regular. Theories regarding the original formation of the human species (for obvious impractical reasons) are not. Moreover, where many competing theories are not disproven by contradictory observed phenomenon, it seems more proper to not claim that the unpopular ones are, in fact, disproven.

As a faulty analogy on substantive grounds, then, we are left with the analogy only on intuitionist grounds: creationism is obviously wrong, christians are obviously morons, just as stock theories and theorists are. As such, therefore, the humor is ad hominem at its basis, and not analogous absurdity after all.

In closing, since it has been observed that the most common and very ironic response to the charge that an argument is ad hominem is a more obvious and vicious repeat of the same, this writer will patiently await the inevitable: flame away.

In Liberty,
A Christian

[Patrick Meighan]

"It seems that the humor in this is that "stork theory" is analogous to "creationism theory" -- both are substantively and similarly implausible -- and that by using the more obviously implausible stork theory as analogy, this absurdity is revealed, and the humor is generated therefrom..."
--A Christian

"Analyzing humor is like dissecting a frog. Few people are interested and the frog dies of it."
--EB White

[torrentprime]

"A C": Creationism is not opposed as science because of bias against Christians; it's opposed because it's lacking in (any) actual scientific evidence. There's no "there" there, and thus is easily refuted. Kind of like your post.

[the innominate one]

Moreover, where many competing theories are not disproven by contradictory observed phenomenon, it seems more proper to not claim that the unpopular ones are, in fact, disproven.

Please list what type of "contradictory observed phenomenon" you would have to observe to disprove creation and/ or intelligent design.

First, we've all witnessed the cause and effect events of baby creation, but no one has witnessed the formation of the human species. Baby creation theories can and are tested in a laboratory, due to the fact that the phenomenon is repeatable and regular. Theories regarding the original formation of the human species (for obvious impractical reasons) are not.

As you admit, there are obvious impractical reasons that we cannot observe unique historical events, such as the formation of the human species. However:

1. evolution is more than the formation of the human or any other species

2. evolution is observed regularly under both natural and experimental conditions

3. speciation has been observed

4. facts consistent with predictions made from evolutionary theory are constantly being observed which constitute evidence for historical events of evolution.

Finally, which version of creationism or Christianity would you like to institute? There is little agreement to be found among "creationists" sensu lato and "Christians" in the details.

[KobeClan]

Question for all you intellectually superior libs:

"What is gravity?"

Don't describe its properties, tell me what it is.

The smartest people to ever walk this planet can't answer that but you can tell me there is no God??

I have $10'000 I will donate to your favorite charity if you can answer that simple question.

[fishbane]

The smartest people to ever walk this planet can't answer that but you can tell me there is no God??

I can tell you a lot about gravity. I can't tell you very much about it without becoming extremely technical. And I can tell you that there isn't an ordered theory that fully encompasses everything about gravity.

I can also tell you that, because you have lived long enough to learn to type and (apparently) formed an opinion based on at least basic reading skills, you've generally been respectful of gravity. Those who aren't tend not to get to reproductive age (oops, it is slipping in, ahem).

I haven't tried this one out yet. It is a systemic analogy. Completely invalid for defending the nexus of theories that creationists call evolution, but hey, systemic analogies are good enough in ID publications, so it should be fine here.

Posit a car, driven by you, over the speed limit. Repeatedly. Sometimes, you're busted, sometimes you're not. How to explain that? On the one hand, you might observe when police were more interested in your neighborhood than others. Or read police and media reports about traffic safety, or crime, or other things. Or talk to people with similar experiences, or talk to cops, or even try taro readings. Or any other number of things to attempt to figure out why a mysterious variable seemed to produce different results for what looks like the same behaviour on your part.

On the other, you might throw up your hands, declare an invisible intelligence is doing it, and spend tons of time attempting to belittle people who actually try to figure out what the cops are up to. Heck, you might even set up foundations dedicated to that cause, or make movies.

Because stranger things actually have been done in the name of junk science. cf. Lysenko. Although, honestly, the ruthless economist wonders if Lysenko's garbage wasn't less damaging than creationism - admittedly expensive shows like Stein's is the tip. Generations of kids fed garbage for science isn't exactly likely to be producing the next generation of Evil Biotech Startups to patent everything we need to keep the upward trend in life expectancy. Lysenko's failures were largely relegated to public hurrahs and quiet words to other scientists to hurry the fuck up and figure out what works after about 10 years. We're anywhere near that bad off yet, of course, with creationism. But co-evolving parasites are far worse than those killed off quickly.

[MysteryFish]

@KobeClan

Gravity is the general term for the attractive force between any two objects.

Cut a check to PA Child's Play, if you please.

[A.Christian]

Another notion that strikes me is how much this old dispute about education underlines the need for libertarianism, both as a moral precept, and as a pragmatic means to moral ends. In short -- would we be having this dispute about what exactly is taught to children about the origin of the universe if the schools were not government-run monopolies? The very existence of the debate is but a symptom of our big problem with big government.

Imagine the inevitable outcome if government produced our music for us, or our literature. We might be sitting in forums like this one debating how much public money should go to produce romance novels versus science fiction, with the minority feeling understandably slighted by the reality. And then, of course, holy wars would likely be started over whether copies of the Bible should be funded for the public, or whether in the current climate funding should be stopped altogether for the Koran.

Thank God we don't have to have that debate, given that book production and distribution is relatively private. And pray that someday education attains the same universal status to make debates such as these far less consequential.

In Liberty,
A.Christian

[Ashley]

Ben Stein: Retarded. Image is up for grabs.

[B]

No, Ben, say it isn't so. When are these idiots who advocate the teaching of Intelligent design as a science alongside that of evolution going to fucking get it through their thick fucking skulls that it is not a science. What testable hypotheses are they putting forth? What repeatable results are they producing? This shit is not fucking science and should never be considered as such. That we are still having this fucking debate in 2008 shows how fucking pitiful the schools in this country really are.
As for the part of making Republicans look like idiots, all I can say is this man does not represent what I think, and I personally know of no Republicans who actually believe that ID is a legitimate science.

[TrickyVic]

"""The smartest people to ever walk this planet can't answer that but you can tell me there is no God??"""

You have it backwards. We don't start with an assumption that people try to disprove. You have to prove it, at least give some premises that support your conclusion that God exists.

[Nathan]

Yippee!!! More insults and less intelligent conversations.... It irritates me. Creationism is the only logical conclusion... Im sorry