I apologize if this post is lengthy, and especially if it doesn't make sense (typing between tasks at work so it may not be clear in some areas).
First off, I thought I was prepared for how bad this movie would be, but I was very wrong. I expected it to be a one-sided propaganda piece but never could have predicted just how skewed it would be. It did leave me with a couple of questions, though, which hopefully someone can help me with:
Could someone explain what he [presumably] meant by this? It seems to me that he's trying to argue that other science is lacking, and so theories based on that science must be lacking. Therefore, his own ideas must be as valid (if not more valid) than those theories. I'm curious, though, to see how he would attempt to explain the rigors of ID. Maybe I'm wrong in my interpretation.
My knowledge of ID is very limited, so I may be wrong about what it is. From what I could glean out of the film, ID basically states that natural processes could not have created things which are so complicated. Even the most basic cell is so complex that it must have been intelligently designed. I fail to see how this is science.
To me, the theory is either advocating a god of some sort (something able to create complex structures which we see in the universe around us, but something which itself simply exists and is unrestricted by the laws of the universe) or it is giving up on any attempt to explain things (the universe is too complex, so let's just say something deliberately created it this way) and is comfortable not having any deeper understanding of the way the universe works.
General Thoughts on the Film (feel free to skip if you want, I have no further questions)
They tried very hard to make it seem like there is some grand conspiracy against intelligent design. The term "Scientific Establishment" is used more times than I can count (a pet peeve of mine, along with the term "mainstream science"), as if there is some supreme darwinist council that controls all of the scientific community. It's ludicrous.
They argue "Freedom of Speech" time and time again, but what they are actually arguing is "Freedom of our speech (not yours!)". There are stories told of people losing their jobs for just mentioning ID (with a noticeable lack of the other side of the story). I think it's important to point out that the people in question are, in the area of science, representatives of the organization they work for. The organization has every right to sever ties with them if their ideas (scientifically) don't mesh. If I were to promote a pro-pedophilia stance, I shouldn't be shocked or outraged when I'm kicked off the PTA and lose my teaching job (an extreme example, no doubt).
The connections they drew between Darwinism and Nazism were tasteless. The bulk of the movie was less about ID, and more about smearing Darwinism in general. Just pathetic.
I found the interview with Dawkins to be the most entertaining point of the film. Stein really worked to try to get Dawkins to slip up, but he clearly didn't wake up early enough to get it done. I think Ben Stein came away from that interview looking more like an idiot than he realized, but I don't think his target market for the film will notice one bit.
First off, I thought I was prepared for how bad this movie would be, but I was very wrong. I expected it to be a one-sided propaganda piece but never could have predicted just how skewed it would be. It did leave me with a couple of questions, though, which hopefully someone can help me with:
1. At one point, Ben Stein is doing an interview with an ID proponent who works in France (I believe it was France...I wish I could remember the person's name). He (not Stein) says at one point,
Could someone explain what he [presumably] meant by this? It seems to me that he's trying to argue that other science is lacking, and so theories based on that science must be lacking. Therefore, his own ideas must be as valid (if not more valid) than those theories. I'm curious, though, to see how he would attempt to explain the rigors of ID. Maybe I'm wrong in my interpretation.
2. How is ID a scientific theory? The film basically ranted on free speech and how they should be free to explore their own theory, but it never gave specifics (about anything). Is there anything about the theory that can be tested?
My knowledge of ID is very limited, so I may be wrong about what it is. From what I could glean out of the film, ID basically states that natural processes could not have created things which are so complicated. Even the most basic cell is so complex that it must have been intelligently designed. I fail to see how this is science.
To me, the theory is either advocating a god of some sort (something able to create complex structures which we see in the universe around us, but something which itself simply exists and is unrestricted by the laws of the universe) or it is giving up on any attempt to explain things (the universe is too complex, so let's just say something deliberately created it this way) and is comfortable not having any deeper understanding of the way the universe works.
General Thoughts on the Film (feel free to skip if you want, I have no further questions)
They tried very hard to make it seem like there is some grand conspiracy against intelligent design. The term "Scientific Establishment" is used more times than I can count (a pet peeve of mine, along with the term "mainstream science"), as if there is some supreme darwinist council that controls all of the scientific community. It's ludicrous.
They argue "Freedom of Speech" time and time again, but what they are actually arguing is "Freedom of our speech (not yours!)". There are stories told of people losing their jobs for just mentioning ID (with a noticeable lack of the other side of the story). I think it's important to point out that the people in question are, in the area of science, representatives of the organization they work for. The organization has every right to sever ties with them if their ideas (scientifically) don't mesh. If I were to promote a pro-pedophilia stance, I shouldn't be shocked or outraged when I'm kicked off the PTA and lose my teaching job (an extreme example, no doubt).
The connections they drew between Darwinism and Nazism were tasteless. The bulk of the movie was less about ID, and more about smearing Darwinism in general. Just pathetic.
I found the interview with Dawkins to be the most entertaining point of the film. Stein really worked to try to get Dawkins to slip up, but he clearly didn't wake up early enough to get it done. I think Ben Stein came away from that interview looking more like an idiot than he realized, but I don't think his target market for the film will notice one bit.
