Rush Limbaugh Interviews Ben Stein

[a_unique_person]

From all of this I've determined that Ben Stein is not an intelligent man; he just plays one on TV.

He sometimes has an intelligent scriptwriter?

 

[DOC]

Well, I've recently seen the movie and I recommend it to everyone, especially atheists.

There were some great visuals (computer generated) about the tremendous complexities that go on inside a cell. Stein interviews several people who were mysteriously let go after merely mentioning Intelligent Design. Others were afraid to even come on camera because of the repercussions... It said there is more intellectual freedom in Poland within the scientific community then there is in the US... It also had the author of the book "From Darwin to Hitler" in the film.

 

[DOC]

One of the people the movie says has suffered because of his statements about the possibilility of ID was Guillermo Gonzales, a published PHd. The film said he has done some work that led to the discovery of 2 planets. This article describes the hassles and even probable loss of tenure he has had to endure.

http://telicthoughts.com/gonzalez-the-controversy-over-id-at-isu/

 

[EvilSmurf]

Well, I've recently seen the movie and I recommend it to everyone, especially atheists.

There were some great visuals

(Stolen from Harvard with a Pro-ID voice over added)

about the tremendous complexities that go on inside a cell. Stein interviews several people who were let go

for reasons either completely or mostly unrelated to ID

after

advocating for

Intelligent Design.

The producers claim

Others were afraid to even come on camera because of the repercussions... It

said with extreme exaggeration

there is more intellectual freedom in Poland within the scientific community then there is in the US... It also had the author of the

poorly researched straw man

"From Darwin to Hitler" in the film.

I think I fixed that post.
DOC, learn about Expelled at the site I just linked to, here it is again for you: Expelled: The Movie

I fixed the fixing. Please do not interfere with others' quotes.

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: LibraryLady

 

[EvilSmurf]

One of the people the movie says has suffered because of his statements about the possibilility of ID was Guillermo Gonzales, a published PHd. The film said he has done some work that led to the discovery of 2 planets. This article describes the hassles and even probable loss of tenure he has had to endure.

http://telicthoughts.com/gonzalez-the-controversy-over-id-at-isu/

Wanna learn the truth about Gonzales too?
Here is his publication record:

Also, he brought in hundreds of thousands of dollars less than the average tenured professor in that department. He was told during each of his tenure reviews that he needed to bring in more grant money but still did not.

Also, if he didn't want his stance on intelligent design to effect his possibility of tenure why did he include the (Pro-ID, written for popular audiences) The Privileged Planet as part of his tenure application?

The facts about Gonzales can be found here.

 

[the PC apeman]

Well, I've recently seen the movie and I recommend it to everyone, especially atheists.

There were some great visuals (computer generated) about the tremendous complexities that go on inside a cell.

Yes, in the final film it's a cheap copy of work done by these folks.
(more)

 

[Empress]

Well, I've recently seen the movie and I recommend it to everyone, especially atheists.

There were some great visuals (computer generated) about the tremendous complexities that go on inside a cell.

Yes, many of us have seen those visuals (seeing as how they were done by Harvard), and are well-aware of the complexity of cellular biology. Isn't evolution and the diversity of life amazing?

 

[DOC]

I think I fixed that post.

Yes, you made 6 separate changes to my quote from post 22, which is actually against the rules.

And if the visuals of the workings of a cell were stolen from Harvard why don't they sue.

 

[the PC apeman]

And if the visuals of the workings of a cell were stolen from Harvard why don't they sue.

Ahem...

"This letter will also serve as notice to you that XVIVO intends to vigorously and promptly pursue its legal remedies for your copyright infringement, unless and until Premise Media, Rampant Films, and their officers, employees, and agents comply with the following demands:"​

 

[DOC]

Ahem...

"This letter will also serve as notice to you that XVIVO intends to vigorously and promptly pursue its legal remedies for your copyright infringement, unless and until Premise Media, Rampant Films, and their officers, employees, and agents comply with the following demands:"​

They must have worked it out because the film made it to the theatres and it has done reasonably well. And where does it say Harvard in the letter.

 

[JoeEllison]

Really? Wow. I've never read any of his stuff, so I appreciate your pointing this out. In my experience it's only Creationists who use the term, so I was unaware that anyone who accepted evolution ever used it. Learned something new today.

I think he always uses it in the correct sense of "what Darwin believed in the 19th century", and not as a description of modern science. I've heard him say things like "We've come a long was from Darwinism, but he had it basically right."

 

[pgwenthold]

Also, he brought in hundreds of thousands of dollars less than the average tenured professor in that department. He was told during each of his tenure reviews that he needed to bring in more grant money but still did not.

Anyone who knows anything about how promotion works in science in research institutions would see that Gonzalez isn't even close.

One of the most important requirements to do cutting edge astronomy research is to be able to look at the sky. In order to do that, you need time on a telescope. Not only did Gonzalez not acquire solid federal funding that one would need to sustain a viable research program, he couldn't even get telescope time, outside a few hours apparently on the scope where he did his post-doc (probably gotten for him by his post-doctoral adviser).

There is no evidence that he has any future in the field of astronomy. Promotions committees don't like to see that. There's no way in heck this guy would be promoted in any serious research institution.

 

[JoeEllison]

Anyone who knows anything about how promotion works in science in research institutions would see that Gonzalez isn't even close.

One of the most important requirements to do cutting edge astronomy research is to be able to look at the sky. In order to do that, you need time on a telescope. Not only did Gonzalez not acquire solid federal funding that one would need to sustain a viable research program, he couldn't even get telescope time, outside a few hours apparently on the scope where he did his post-doc (probably gotten for him by his post-doctoral adviser).

There is no evidence that he has any future in the field of astronomy. Promotions committees don't like to see that. There's no way in heck this guy would be promoted in any serious research institution.

So what, he failed because he was a failure who wasn't doing research, advising students, or bringing in grant money... it must really be because of the evil atheist conspiracy! Like every other creationist, Gonzalez is a liar at heart, and his whole story of discrimination is a fiction.

 

[the PC apeman]

They must have worked it out because the film made it to the theatres and it has done reasonably well.

I don't share your optimism that the legal questions have been worked out. I fully expect this and other copyright infringement lawsuits against EXPELLED to proceed.

And where does it say Harvard in the letter.

I chose not to highlight this small error that you and others have made. But have it as you will. I linked earlier to the XVIVO website which explains their relationship to the original animation and to Harvard University.

"Harvard University selected XVIVO, LLC, a Connecticut based scientific animation company, to customize and develop an animation that would propel Harvard's Molecular and Cellular Biology program to the next level of undergraduate education. XVIVO's recently completed animation, titled "The Inner Life of the Cell", has already won awards. The eight minute animation transports Harvard Biology students into a three-dimensional journey through the microscopic world of a cell."​

And, in the post you quoted, the linked letter makes it quite obvious that XVIVO and not [necessarily] Harvard owns the [a] copyright to the original animation.

"This letter will constitute notice to you, as Chairman of Premise Media Corporation, of the copyright infringement by your corporation, and its subsidiary, Rampant Films, of material produced by XVIVO LLC, in which XVIVO holds a copyright."​

PC

 

[Nogbad]

Although I have not heard of this movie I have looked it up on IMDb and Mojo etc. and it gets terrible reviews and would appear to be little more than a propaganda piece. It would also appear to have done a cut and paste job on Darwin to make him appear a eugenicist when nothing could be further from the truth.

Something for the already converted rather than a realistic attempt to talk to those with questions.

 

[soikins]

They must have worked it out because the film made it to the theatres and it has done reasonably well.

Yeah, and they managed to work it out more than a month before it debuted in the thaetres.

And where does it say Harvard in the letter.

It doesn't, but you might want to read Wikipedia article about "The Inner Life of a Cell":

David Bolinsky, former lead medical illustrator at Yale, lead animator John Liebler, and Mike Astrachan are some of the creators at XVIVO who made the movie. They created the animation for Harvard's Department of Molecular and Cellular Biology.

Most of the processes animated were the result of Alain Viel's, Ph.D. work describing the processes to the team. Alain Viel is an associate director of undergraduate research at Harvard University.

 

[negativ]

semi-on topic, from here:

Who Knows?

’Twas once upon the internet I chanced upon an argument;
A blog appeared to splinter into internecine wars.
’Twas all precipitated by a movie dedicated to
Portraying Darwinism as a truth-suppressing force.

A thousand comments did I read, another thousand did I feed
Into my aching brain, yet little progress did I find.
No sooner was a claim defeated, than it was again repeated;
Surely there’s a better way to influence a mind.

Oh Lord, I grew so weary of the cry: “It’s just a theory!” for
This charge is not dismissive in the scientific world.
And though this point was oft explained, it did not hinder those who claimed
That “Theory!” is rhetorical invective to be hurled.

My neurons whirled, my senses swirled; how did man come into this world?
I longed to take a nap, but someone said: “I’ve found a gap!”
And though the gap was quickly filled, there promptly came a voice more thrilled:
“Behold!” it cried, “I now have spied a flanking pair of gaps!”

And then, with logic so perverse it hurts to render it in verse,
The charge was made that atheism is religious faith.
And even Orwell would be awed by language so profoundly flawed,
For logically, religious faith is therefore non-belief.

To try to cast theology as natural philosophy
Is clearly what Intelligent Designers have in mind.
Their documented strategy to wedge their way to victory
Speaks volumes on the nature of Intelligent Design.

Though Darwin’s Evolution is an elegant solution to
The origin of species, still I hear some people say:
“There must be something greater, so there must be a Creator,” but
Creators need creators too; it’s turtles all the way.

And so it went, and so it goes, but how it all began, who knows?
I’ll check the blog tomorrow, just in case it’s been resolved.
And if, by then, we all agree on how the humans came to be,
We’ll try to answer how and why we lizardoids evolved.

 

[JoeEllison]

Well, I've recently seen the movie and I recommend it to everyone, especially atheists.

There were some great visuals (computer generated) about the tremendous complexities that go on inside a cell. Stein interviews several people who were mysteriously let go after merely mentioning Intelligent Design. Others were afraid to even come on camera because of the repercussions... It said there is more intellectual freedom in Poland within the scientific community then there is in the US... It also had the author of the book "From Darwin to Hitler" in the film.

Why do you support and encourage liars?

 

[Upchurch]

Stein interviews several people who were mysteriously let go after merely mentioning Intelligent Design.

Mysteriously?

Richard Sternberg

As stated above, Sternberg did not lose his office or his access to collections, he did not lose his job, he was not “fired” from the (unpaid) editorship of the journal (he had resigned six months before the publication of the Meyer article), and from the e-mails in the appendix to the Souder report, it appears that his colleagues were civil in their communications with him. The Smithsonian renewed his Research Collaborator status for another three years in 2006. It seems, then, that the worst that happened to Sternberg is that people said some unkind things about him in private email to one another. Since the same can be said of almost every person, it’s hard to see how this could be construed as “life ruining”. There is no evidence of any material harm done to Sternberg as a result of the publication of the Meyer article. And any damage done to his reputation would seem to have been self-inflicted.

Guillermo Gonzalez

As shown above, Gonzalez’s weak academic record at ISU would have been enough to deny him tenure. But did his views on intelligent design play a role? And if so, would this have been unreasonable? Gonzales submitted his book The Privileged Planet as part of his tenure materials: he obviously intended that his colleagues should consider his intelligent design work part of his scholarly productivity. For Expelled’s producers to castigate ISU for thus considering it places them at odds with Gonzales.

{snip}

A scientist should not expect his colleagues to ignore his advocacy of a perspective that those in his field have overwhelmingly rejected. For faculty members to have looked askance at Gonzalez’s acceptance and advocacy of a nonscientific movement is expectable. Of course, Gonzalez is free to disagree with the position of the American Astronomical Society, and does so when he insists in Expelled that “The questions that I ask in my Intelligent Design research are perfectly legitimate scientific questions.”

But if this is so, his failure to produce any results from that research would legitimately count against his tenure application, as would pursuit of any other failed research program. If, on the other hand, his work on intelligent design would not be considered science, his colleagues could legitimately consider how much time he was investing in non-scientific pursuits which could otherwise have been put toward writing grants, conducting research, or publishing research results. He cannot have it both ways.

In either case, his distracting work on an unscientific enterprise like intelligent design, combined with his declining publication record, his failure to obtain outside funding which would support graduate students and new research, and his failure to mentor graduate students to the completion of their degrees, all make it impossible for supporters to legitimately claim that the decision not to grant him tenure was unfounded.

That's just two of them. The rest are there as well.

You've been hoodwinked by this movie, DOC. They flat out lied to you on multiple points. Sorry.

 

[joobz]

You've been hoodwinked by this movie, DOC. They flat out lied to you on multiple points. Sorry.

I wouldn't say hoodwinked but willingly deceived. DOC believes untruths that support his prejudices. There are multiple examples of this behavior (e.g., his supposed atheist-suicide link, the fiction of the "good ol'days", native americans are better off because of christianity...) and it doesn't surprize me that he would hold up the nonsense that is expelled as "facts".

Indeed, it seems that he's treading the line of claiming that since this movie was in the theaters, it must be true.