• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Rush Limbaugh Interviews Ben Stein

DOC said:
I bet the people in the film who claim their life was adversely affected by supporting ID don't think so.
Click to expand...

Yes, but those people are lying pieces of garbage, so who can tell what they think? Probably, they are laughing at people like you, who believe their lies. Sucks to be you, dude.
 
Here's an article from 2005 where it said William Dembski was not allowed to teach because of his ID beliefs.

Box1. Cast out from class.
From the following article:Intelligent design: Who has designs on your students' minds?
Geoff Brumfiel
Nature 434, 1062-1065 (28 April 2005)


"In contrast, William Dembski, a mathematician at Baylor University in Texas and another prominent intelligent-design researcher, says that he is no longer allowed to teach on campus. "Essentially I've had about a five-year sabbatical," he complains. Stories such as Dembski's make some intelligent-design supporters fearful of expressing their views in public. One researcher, approached by Nature for this article, declined to be interviewed because he did not yet have tenure.

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v434/n7037/box/4341062a_bx1.html
 
Dembski on Intelligent Design

William Dembski, who has had 3 front page stories in the New York Times, was interviewed in Ben Stein's film "Expelled".

Here is something that William Dembski wrote according to Conservapedia:

"Materialistic ideology has subverted the study of biological and cosmological origins so that the actual content of these sciences has become corrupted. The problem, therefore, is not merely that science is being used illegitimately to promote a materialistic world view, but that this world view is actively undermining scientific inquiry, leading to incorrect and unsupported conclusions about biological and cosmological origins. At the same time, intelligent design (ID) offers a promising scientific alternative to materialistic theories of biological and cosmological evolution -- an alternative that is finding increasing theoretical and empirical support. Hence, ID needs to be vigorously developed as a scientific, intellectual, and cultural project.

http://www.conservapedia.com/William_Dembski
 
Last edited:
DOC quoting demski said:
"Materialistic ideology has subverted the study of biological and cosmological origins so that the actual content of these sciences has become corrupted.
Click to expand...
This is domonstrably stupid nonsense. genetic disease, viral resistance and our understanding of how to deal with them are a direct result of evolutionary theory.
DOC said:
The problem, therefore, is not merely that science is being used illegitimately to promote a materialistic world view, but that this world view is actively undermining scientific inquiry, leading to incorrect and unsupported conclusions about biological and cosmological origins.
Click to expand...
Patently false.
chromosome 2 fusion, ERVs, multifunctional-moonlighting proteins among many many others observation are directly in line with evolution.
DOC said:
At the same time, intelligent design (ID) offers a promising scientific alternative to materialistic theories of biological and cosmological evolution -- an alternative that is finding increasing theoretical and empirical support.
Click to expand...
foolish nonsense. Intelligent design has not offered up any scientifically testable hypothesis and does not even attempt to. the only hypothesis made was irreducible complexity. Yet, no structure has demonstrated such behavior.
DOC said:
Hence, ID needs to be vigorously developed as a scientific, intellectual, and cultural project.
Click to expand...
Make a hypothesis, test it and report the results. It's a simple process. Don't whine that science is being mean. If you can't do these things, it's a clear indication that the basic theory is unsound.

DOC, I really don't expect you to read my reply. I simply wrote a rebuttal to illustrate how transparently stupid demski's statement is. It only seems intelligent to some because he uses big words. I'm actually embarrassed for those who think there is something meaningful there.
 
DOC said:
William Dembski, who has had 3 front page stories in the New York Times, was interviewed in Ben Stein's film "Expelled".
Click to expand...

Dembski is either a bald faced liar, ignorant, or both. Its real simple: Science only deals with material explanations because those are the only ones that can be tested and verified using empirical methods. Science is not interested in Teleology for a simple reason: you cannot test or verify teleological explanations using empirical methods. Period.

According to Dembski's reasoning, Newton, an incredibly devout Christian, had it all wrong because he didn't attempt to incorporate teleological explanations into his equations, even though he was quite sure that God was behind the mechanics and said so explicitly in The Pincipia.

But for Dembski and his fellow goons at the DI, that is not enough. They want to shoehorn a _necessary_ God into every aspect of science and "culture". Most of them don't even understand evolution well enough to have real arguments, they don't do any real research, and at the end of the day they are nothing more than a group of religious zealots without the moral courage to admit it. They are beyond pathetic.
 
DOC said:
"Materialistic ideology has subverted the study of biological and cosmological origins so that the actual content of these sciences has become corrupted. The problem, therefore, is not merely that science is being used illegitimately to promote a materialistic world view, but that this world view is actively undermining scientific inquiry, leading to incorrect and unsupported conclusions about biological and cosmological origins. At the same time, intelligent design (ID) offers a promising scientific alternative to materialistic theories of biological and cosmological evolution -- an alternative that is finding increasing theoretical and empirical support. Hence, ID needs to be vigorously developed as a scientific, intellectual, and cultural project.
Click to expand...


...a quick translation/summation of what Dembski is really communicating in this passage:

I don't find evidentiary materialism convenient since it doesn't prove my theory. Since I can't provide compelling evidence for my theory, the need for material evidence must be flawed. I deserve 'my 15 minutes of fame' (but I'll settle for whatever infamy I can scrounge up).​

:rolleyes:
 
Last edited:
MattusMaximus said:
No, you merely seem to confuse fantasy with reality. You claimed the movie was "doing relatively well", but even by the standards of the very people who released it, it's a dud.

Here, the math is very simple...

"Expelled" producers' claim (before release): this movie will be a success if it makes $12 million in its first weekend!

Reality (four weeks after release): total amount grossed = $7.2 million
Click to expand...

I would say a movie that is the 12th highest grossing "documentary" of all time could be considered doing relatively well.

http://www.boxofficemojo.com/genres/chart/?id=documentary.htm

The movie did better than Michael Moore's Roger and Me and was only 200,000 dollars behind # 10 Hoop Dreams.
 
Last edited:
Considering Hoop Dreams played in 262 theaters (for an average of $29,888 per screen) and Roger and Me played in 265 theaters (for an average of $25,307 per screen) while Expelled played in 1,052 theaters (for an average of $7,238 per screen), it's not very impressive.

Heh, March of the Penguins made over ten times as much in theaters. Penguins.

Double heh, if you adjust for inflation, Roger and Me kicks butt on Expelled.
 
And don't forget that Expelled was heavily hyped by Christian media and churches for months prior to release while Roger and Me, etc. were "arthouse" movies that relied on word of mouth and reviews rather than pastors extolling their flocks to see them.
 
No matter how you cut it, out of all the of documentaries ever made it the 12th highest grossing according to MOJO. So I stand by my original statement that it has done relatively well.
 
Last edited:
DOC said:
I would say a movie that is the 12th highest grossing "documentary" of all time could be considered doing relatively well.

http://www.boxofficemojo.com/genres/chart/?id=documentary.htm

The movie did better than Michael Moore's Roger and Me and was only 200,000 dollars behind # 10 Hoop Dreams.
Click to expand...
Don't forget that it made only 1.3 million more that the Aristocrats, a documentary about a dirty, dirty joke.

But it seems more people care about Tupac than ID, as a movie about him made ~$100,000 more than Expelled.
 
Hokulele said:
Considering Hoop Dreams played in 262 theaters (for an average of $29,888 per screen) and Roger and Me played in 265 theaters (for an average of $25,307 per screen) while Expelled played in 1,052 theaters (for an average of $7,238 per screen), it's not very impressive.

Heh, March of the Penguins made over ten times as much in theaters. Penguins.

Double heh, if you adjust for inflation, Roger and Me kicks butt on Expelled.
Click to expand...
I did some quick number crunching and found out that
Adjusting for inflation (assuming a constant 2.5% inflation rate), Expelled does do worse than Roger and me. However, interestingly, it is still ranked #12 overall.

This changes a lot when you do consider how many theaters it played in.

Ranking the top 95 documentaries (I had to remove 5 of them because they do not have theater count information) of all time based upon the dollars/theater I found out that Expelled doesn't fair so well.

On total sales/total theaters, Expelled ranked #87, just loosing to Metallica's some kind of monster tour. On Opening day sales/opening day theaters, Expelled ranked # 90. If you inflation adjust these numbers, the ranking drops further down to #92 for both measures. Remember these numbers are out of 95 total movies.

As such, it is clear that Expelled's total ticket sale success is due to marketing savy and the convincing of 1000 theaters to run the movie.
 
In truth, I am happy that expelled was released. It's complete failure (out of the theaters by ~ week 4) makes it clear that the general public doesn't buy the nonsense. The movie made it clear that ID has failed at science and now must resort to propoganda, lies and fear mongering to advance the theory. The movie's attempt at conflating the holocaust with evolutionary theory is one of the most historically inaccurate and callously cruel things that a person could do. It makes me wonder about the morality of Ben Stein and the directors.
 
DOC said:
No matter how you cut it, out of all the of documentaries ever made it the 12th highest grossing according to MOJO. So I stand by my original statement that it has done relatively well.
Click to expand...

And out of the carcinogenetic products sold the the consuming public cigarettes remain the 1st highest casualty causing. So what?

Just because 50 trillion flies eat **** and 4 out of 5 dentists recommend Colgate does not mean that either **** or Colgate is something we should embrace or laud for its success in consumption.
 
UnrepentantSinner said:
4 out of 5 dentists recommend Colgate does not mean that either **** or Colgate
Click to expand...

I've always wondered about that. We're supposed to assume that most dentists recommend their toothpaste over the other toothpastes, but it's not stated. I wonder...

4 out of 5 dentists recommend using "our toothpaste":
- vs. doing nothing at all.
- vs. hitting oneself in the head with a hammer.
- because the 5th dentist was out to lunch at the time.
- as an industrial solvent.
- or the boogeyman will get you.
- because we paid them to.
- for a laugh.
- etc.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom