ID Does Hollywood
Alexander
wafted whimsically through UcD and thence to Post-Darwinist:
http://post-darwinist.blogspot.com/
" Major feature film defends intelligent design - to be released on
Darwin's birthday, 2008"
Apparently a number of groups are coming together to launch a film
specifically around the issues of ID. Well I say 'issues' - what they
are harping on about is categorically not the scientific basis for/
against ID but the 'controversial' treatment of people like Gonzalez
and Sternberg et al. From the blog:
"Here's some other information that I learned at a briefing this
evening, hosted by Discovery Institute and attended by Premise
principals:
Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed stars Ben Stein in old-fashioned
student dress, getting himself kicked out of school, and taking dead
aim at the American elections in 2008 (intelligent design vs.
evolution has already become an issue.)
This is the site: http://www.expelledthemovie.com/ which will go live
with more info shortly.
The film, directed by Nathan Frankowski, features people like Rick
Sternberg, Guillermo Gonzalez, and Caroline Crocker, scientists
victimized by the Darwin cult. Stein also confronts a number of
cultists, including the Smithsonian congregation that drove out Rick
Sternberg (and called security on the film crew), as well as Richard
Dawkins."
Not being a yank I'm assuming Ben Stein referred to is this guy:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ben_Stein
I have no idea if his involvement has any specific resonance or
meaning. Apparently he's also one of the voices in the Fairly Odd
Parents. This was news to me. It would also seem somehow
appropriate to involve him in any film about ID.
Anyway - the interesting thing here is the specific political ambition
behind the film, it's timing and the message it wants to send.
Nothing to do with science, just a push to establish an environment
where the 'darwinists' are shown as circumscribing the reach of
science.
This looks like it could be a fairly big deal - it's not funded by DI,
although they hosted. Some guy called Walt Ruloff - a self made
millionaire and software developer. I had a quick look around but
couldn't find any strong links to DI - I'm assuming this is another
'plausible deniability' exercise where they can claim more supporters
than they actually have who aren't associated with them. The company
behind the film - Premise Media - I couldn't locate but I haven't
looked that hard.
The final plank in this little development is that apparently
(according to Denise) the company 'Motive Entertainment' is developing
the marketing campaign. I'm assuming she means Motive Marketing
( http://www.moviemarketing.biz/ ) - the marketing group behind the
religious marketing of films like Narnia and The Passion Of The
Christ.
I've mentioned before how much I felt Dover would only shift the
balance and style of the ID campaign into 'softer' issues, avoiding
any pretence of science (yea ok - that wasn't that big a shift, but
you know what I mean). The worrying aspect here is the specific
political angle supported by what could be a fairly strong grass roots
campaign. The idea that a scientific agenda can be dictated by a PR
campaign is quite a scary one and having seen how the US political
landscape can be shaped by religious motivations I can see how this
could become an issue. Hope NCSE and others are going to be across
this - not just the film but the move to make it a political talking
point over the next year or so.
The website for the film will be hosted here:
http://www.expelledthemovie.com/
Frank J
> Not one to mutter darkly about blogs etc. but this caught my eye as I
> wafted whimsically through UcD and thence to Post-Darwinist:
>
> http://post-darwinist.blogspot.com/
>
> " Major feature film defends intelligent design - to be released on
> Darwin's birthday, 2008"
>
> Apparently a number of groups are coming together to launch a film
> specifically around the issues of ID. Well I say 'issues' - what they
> are harping on about is categorically not the scientific basis for/
> against ID but the 'controversial' treatment of people like Gonzalez
> and Sternberg et al. From the blog:
What else can one do when one knows that one has no alternate theory,
and that the best one can do outside of cranking out non-peer-reviewed
pop pseudoscience books is to recycle a pathetic review (Meyer's) that
adds nothing to the knowledge base, and presmably hand-pick the
reviewes just to be sure it gets through.
I often thought of writing a whiny book about how what I thought was
my best idea got shot down by that mean and nasty reviewer back in
'81. But why wallow in self-pity. It's bad enough that I have to see
him every day in the mirror.
>
> "Here's some other information that I learned at a briefing this
> evening, hosted by Discovery Institute and attended by Premise
> principals:
>
> Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed stars Ben Stein in old-fashioned
> student dress, getting himself kicked out of school, and taking dead
> aim at the American elections in 2008 (intelligent design vs.
> evolution has already become an issue.)
>
> This is the site:http://www.expelledthemovie.com/which will go live
> with more info shortly.
>
> The film, directed by Nathan Frankowski, features people like Rick
> Sternberg, Guillermo Gonzalez, and Caroline Crocker, scientists
> victimized by the Darwin cult. Stein also confronts a number of
> cultists, including the Smithsonian congregation that drove out Rick
> Sternberg (and called security on the film crew), as well as Richard
> Dawkins."
>
> Not being a yank I'm assuming Ben Stein referred to is this guy:
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ben_Stein
If that's him, I'd be really disappointed that he would sell out. I
know that his field is economics and not science, and thus could
easily be fooled by the ID crowd given his conservative politics.
Maybe a long talk with his "Wonder Years" co-star Danica McKellar
might set him straight. She just wrote a book encouraging girls to
learn math. So I would guess that she appreciates scienec and would
not like how it's misrepresented by anti-science activists.
>
> I have no idea if his involvement has any specific resonance or
> meaning. Apparently he's also one of the voices in the Fairly Odd
> Parents. This was news to me. It would also seem somehow
> appropriate to involve him in any film about ID.
>
> Anyway - the interesting thing here is the specific political ambition
> behind the film, it's timing and the message it wants to send.
> Nothing to do with science, just a push to establish an environment
> where the 'darwinists' are shown as circumscribing the reach of
> science.
>
> This looks like it could be a fairly big deal - it's not funded by DI,
> although they hosted. Some guy called Walt Ruloff - a self made
> millionaire and software developer. I had a quick look around but
> couldn't find any strong links to DI - I'm assuming this is another
> 'plausible deniability' exercise where they can claim more supporters
> than they actually have who aren't associated with them. The company
> behind the film - Premise Media - I couldn't locate but I haven't
> looked that hard.
>
> The final plank in this little development is that apparently
> (according to Denise) the company 'Motive Entertainment' is developing
> the marketing campaign. I'm assuming she means Motive Marketing
> (http://www.moviemarketing.biz/) - the marketing group behind the
Richard Clayton
I hope not. I'd lose a lot of respect for Ben Stein if he pitched his
hat in with the ID crowd.
--
[The address listed is a spam trap. To reply, take off every zig.]
Richard Clayton
"Freedom is the right of all sentient beings." — Optimus Prime
Ron O
> Not one to mutter darkly about blogs etc. but this caught my eye as I
> wafted whimsically through UcD and thence to Post-Darwinist:
>
> http://post-darwinist.blogspot.com/
>
> " Major feature film defends intelligent design - to be released on
> Darwin's birthday, 2008"
>
> Apparently a number of groups are coming together to launch a film
> specifically around the issues of ID. Well I say 'issues' - what they
> are harping on about is categorically not the scientific basis for/
> against ID but the 'controversial' treatment of people like Gonzalez
> and Sternberg et al. From the blog:
This is nothing new it is just part of the same old same old
obfuscation scam that the creationists have been running since day one
of their modern political scams beginning with scientific
creationism. They've known from the beginning that science didn't
support them, so they have always harped about peripheral issues as a
major part of their propaganda that just amount to blowing smoke over
their short commings. If they actually had something to discuss we
would have seen it by now. Why would they keep it secret when they
needed to defend themselves in court? Some of them (like Philip
Johnson and Meyer, the "godfather" of the ID scam and the director of
the "science" wing of the Discovery Institute scam outfit,
respectively) have admitted that ID has nothing equivalent to offer
and is premature to teach to students at this time. These guys knew
that ID was sunk years ago or they wouldn't have had to cook up the
teach the controversy replacement scam that they have been using to
run the bait and switch on the creationist rubes for the last half
decade.
>
> "Here's some other information that I learned at a briefing this
> evening, hosted by Discovery Institute and attended by Premise
> principals:
>
> Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed stars Ben Stein in old-fashioned
> student dress, getting himself kicked out of school, and taking dead
> aim at the American elections in 2008 (intelligent design vs.
> evolution has already become an issue.)
>
> This is the site:http://www.expelledthemovie.com/which will go live
> with more info shortly.
>
> The film, directed by Nathan Frankowski, features people like Rick
> Sternberg, Guillermo Gonzalez, and Caroline Crocker, scientists
> victimized by the Darwin cult. Stein also confronts a number of
> cultists, including the Smithsonian congregation that drove out Rick
> Sternberg (and called security on the film crew), as well as Richard
> Dawkins."
Lame people that have been caugth lying to their support base while
still trying to wallow in their religious convictions as some excuse
for their dishonesty can call other people members of a "cult."
Pretty sad even for losers like they have at UD.
>
> Not being a yank I'm assuming Ben Stein referred to is this guy:
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ben_Stein
>
> I have no idea if his involvement has any specific resonance or
> meaning. Apparently he's also one of the voices in the Fairly Odd
> Parents. This was news to me. It would also seem somehow
> appropriate to involve him in any film about ID.
>
> Anyway - the interesting thing here is the specific political ambition
> behind the film, it's timing and the message it wants to send.
> Nothing to do with science, just a push to establish an environment
> where the 'darwinists' are shown as circumscribing the reach of
> science.
>
> This looks like it could be a fairly big deal - it's not funded by DI,
> although they hosted. Some guy called Walt Ruloff - a self made
> millionaire and software developer. I had a quick look around but
> couldn't find any strong links to DI - I'm assuming this is another
> 'plausible deniability' exercise where they can claim more supporters
> than they actually have who aren't associated with them. The company
> behind the film - Premise Media - I couldn't locate but I haven't
> looked that hard.
>
> The final plank in this little development is that apparently
> (according to Denise) the company 'Motive Entertainment' is developing
> the marketing campaign. I'm assuming she means Motive Marketing
> (http://www.moviemarketing.biz/) - the marketing group behind the
> religious marketing of films like Narnia and The Passion Of The
> Christ.
>
> I've mentioned before how much I felt Dover would only shift the
> balance and style of the ID campaign into 'softer' issues, avoiding
> any pretence of science (yea ok - that wasn't that big a shift, but
> you know what I mean). The worrying aspect here is the specific
> political angle supported by what could be a fairly strong grass roots
> campaign. The idea that a scientific agenda can be dictated by a PR
> campaign is quite a scary one and having seen how the US political
> landscape can be shaped by religious motivations I can see how this
> could become an issue. Hope NCSE and others are going to be across
> this - not just the film but the move to make it a political talking
> point over the next year or so.
>
> The website for the film will be hosted here:http://www.expelledthemovie.com/
I wonder if they will have Stephen Meyer quoted as claiming that
teaching ID in the public schools is "premature?" They have to have
Philip Johnson yacking about ID. He is the guy that the other ID scam
artists acknowledge as the "godfather" of the ID scam. Won't he have
to repeat his admission that there never was any science to back up
the scam? Will they let him put the blame on the science dweebs like
Dembski and Meyer for not producing any science worth talking about?
The ID scam obviously was working and fooling a lot of people, but it
was just their bad luck that they were just blowing smoke and lying to
everyone about their "science." Did they expect the science to just
drop out of thin air and come to their rescue? Why didn't Meyer and
Johnson come out with their admissions only after ID fell on its face
in court, and not before they ran the bait and switch scam on the Ohio
rubes? A majority of the Ohio State board members bought into the ID
scam and were willing to teach it to the kids in Ohio, but what
happened? Why did Meyer have to run the bait and switch and give them
a lame obfuscation scam that didn't even mention that ID had ever
existed? Why did a majority of the board members take the switch when
they knew that the guys giving them the replacement scam had just lied
to their faces about ID? Do you think that they are going to
interview the Ohio or Dover board members to get their view of the ID
scam? Will Meyer give his explanation for why they were working up
the teach the controversy replacement scam as far back as 1999, but
just didn't bother telling anyone that ID was cooked until after Dover
forced them? What is the ID scam artist's explanation for the fact
that the replacement scam doesn't even mention that ID ever existed,
but is being perpetrated by the same guys that perpetrated the ID
scam?
This documentary could be a real eye opener, but I doubt that any of
the really good stuff will get in. Want to bet?
Ron Okimoto
Kevin Wayne Williams
> On Aug 12, 5:00 am, Alexander <alexanderhud...@btinternet.com> wrote:
>> Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed stars Ben Stein in old-fashioned
>> student dress, getting himself kicked out of school, and taking dead
>> aim at the American elections in 2008 (intelligent design vs.
>> evolution has already become an issue.)
>>
>> This is the site:http://www.expelledthemovie.com/which will go live
>> with more info shortly.
>>
>> The film, directed by Nathan Frankowski, features people like Rick
>> Sternberg, Guillermo Gonzalez, and Caroline Crocker, scientists
>> victimized by the Darwin cult. Stein also confronts a number of
>> cultists, including the Smithsonian congregation that drove out Rick
>> Sternberg (and called security on the film crew), as well as Richard
>> Dawkins."
>>
>> Not being a yank I'm assuming Ben Stein referred to is this guy:
>>
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ben_Stein
>
> If that's him, I'd be really disappointed that he would sell out. I
> know that his field is economics and not science, and thus could
> easily be fooled by the ID crowd given his conservative politics.
A shame, because he is intelligent and well-spoken. "Win Ben Stein's
Money" was one of the few game shows that I ever made a point of watching.
KWW
Alexander
Not especially. You're right its more of the same but the point I was
trying to put across was that it's being made at a highly politically
sensitive time. Dover hasn't dented their ardour or capacity to
dissemble and they still have a lot of support.
Involving a credible, if biased, media marketing group, an established
and apparently well liked media figure and focussing on negative
campaigning is quite a heady mix.
I agree with you it's a scam - to a certain extent. The trouble with
scams though is that they work. Otherwise we would not have the 419's
and a large variety of other advance fee frauds being perpetrated.
Unfortunately it seems to be the US that principally falls for them -
scams of a religious or political nature seem to be no exception.
I'm not saying that this new development has anything to do with the
veracity of the ID case - I'm saying that it has the potential to
impact negatively on public perception and then, by default, impact on
scientists. This means they have to firefight their way out of
political embargos on their work because there are more canny pressure
groups than they can muster working away out there. The sanction on
stem cell research is just one case in point of how this can happen.
I keep saying this - the scientific community has to ask itself why
this problem just doesn't roll over and die seeing as the science is
so robust. The answer is that it has nothing to do with science and
simply reiterating the scientific response won't make it go away. It
is a religious, political and social issue. Address that and you
might see a resolution to the problem. This is why it's not a 'scam'
in the traditional sense - there are too many people out there who
actually believe in the stuff they are putting out from the
creationists/ID camps. and who genuinely believe that it's the
answer. Behe is definitely a 'believer' for example but Dembski just
comes across as self-aggrandizing.
You aren't up against con men - you are facing something much more
significant which is smart people with an agenda who are prepared to
undermine the current establishment to get their way but who are also
convinced what they are doing is right. This is much more dangerous
in my view than simply being 'snake-oil' salesmen.
Ron O
Sorry, but I didn't want to detract from your warning.
It is the latest in their smarmy scam, what else can anyone say? Are
they going to put forward the brilliant science that even the ID scam
artists are finally admitting that they never had? In the end any
honest court (courts can change and rulings can be overturned) will
just look at these boobs and point to them and say "Hey, aren't you
the fellas that ran that dishonest creationist ID scam? And, you over
there, you were part of the scientific creationist scam too. What the
heck are you boobs trying to pull?"
They can make documentaries and try to rewrite history, but there
isn't a bone headed idiot stupid enough to pass into the high courts
that couldn't see what they are. There could be ones that would
rather look the other way, but no one with an ounce of sense will be
fooled. The guys running the "teach the controversy" scam are the
same perps that ran the ID creationist scam. Even their staunchest
supporters know that, so what honest chance do they have? They have
to believe that there are enough dishonest people willing to support
their dishonest effort. Maybe they will get enough, I don't know.
That is the sad issue at hand. These are a group of people that have
decided to lie instead of face the issue honestly and head on. No one
is going to change them. We just have to hope that there aren't
enough dishonest or clueless people to shift the balance in their
favor.
Ron Okimoto
VoiceOfReason
wrote:
> Frank J wrote:
> > On Aug 12, 5:00 am, Alexander <alexanderhud...@btinternet.com> wrote:
> >> Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed stars Ben Stein in old-fashioned
> >> student dress, getting himself kicked out of school, and taking dead
> >> aim at the American elections in 2008 (intelligent design vs.
> >> evolution has already become an issue.)
>
> >> with more info shortly.
>
> >> The film, directed by Nathan Frankowski, features people like Rick
> >> Sternberg, Guillermo Gonzalez, and Caroline Crocker, scientists
> >> victimized by the Darwin cult. Stein also confronts a number of
> >> cultists, including the Smithsonian congregation that drove out Rick
> >> Sternberg (and called security on the film crew), as well as Richard
> >> Dawkins."
>
> >> Not being a yank I'm assuming Ben Stein referred to is this guy:
>
> >>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ben_Stein
>
> > If that's him, I'd be really disappointed that he would sell out. I
> > know that his field is economics and not science, and thus could
> > easily be fooled by the ID crowd given his conservative politics.
>
> A shame, because he is intelligent and well-spoken. "Win Ben Stein's
> Money" was one of the few game shows that I ever made a point of watching.
> KWW
Maybe someone can demonstrate to him that if he aligns himself with a
pack of con artists and pseudo-wackos, his popularity will take a nose
dive.
Geoff
> Not one to mutter darkly about blogs etc. but this caught my eye as I
> wafted whimsically through UcD and thence to Post-Darwinist:
>
> http://post-darwinist.blogspot.com/
>
> " Major feature film defends intelligent design - to be released on
> Darwin's birthday, 2008"
That there is no entry on IMDB for the movie does not bode well for it.
Alexander
If it never materialises I wonder if it turns into one of those 'well
it was a joke to fool all you credulous evolutionist types'.
It's about their level - we'll see.
Pip R. Lagenta
<pockZIGe...@verizon.net> wrote:
>Alexander wrote:
>> Not one to mutter darkly about blogs etc. but this caught my eye as I
>> wafted whimsically through UcD and thence to Post-Darwinist:
>>
>> http://post-darwinist.blogspot.com/
>> Not being a yank I'm assuming Ben Stein referred to is this guy:
>>
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ben_Stein
>>
>> I have no idea if his involvement has any specific resonance or
>> meaning. Apparently he's also one of the voices in the Fairly Odd
>> Parents. This was news to me. It would also seem somehow
>> appropriate to involve him in any film about ID.
>
> I hope not. I'd lose a lot of respect for Ben Stein if he pitched his
>hat in with the ID crowd.
I have long felt that Ben Stein was a "Right Wing Nut Bar". But if he
has, indeed, cast his lot in with the ID folks, then he is a "Nut Bar"
without qualification.
>
--
內躬偕爻,虜,齯滌`偕爻,虜,齯滌`偕爻,虜,齯滌`偕爻,虜,齯滌`偕爻,
Pip R. Lagenta Pip R. Lagenta Pip R. Lagenta Pip R. Lagenta
�虜,齯滌`偕爻,虜,齯滌`偕爻,虜,齯滌`偕爻,虜,齯滌`偕爻,虜,齯滌
-- Pip R. Lagenta
President for Life
International Organization Of People Named Pip R. Lagenta
(If your name is Pip R. Lagenta, ask about our dues!)
<http://home.comcast.net/~galentripp/pip.html>
(For Email: I'm at home, not work.)
Desertphile
<alexand...@btinternet.com> wrote:
> Not one to mutter darkly about blogs etc. but this caught my eye as I
> wafted whimsically through UcD and thence to Post-Darwinist:
>
> http://post-darwinist.blogspot.com/
>
> " Major feature film defends intelligent design - to be released on
> Darwin's birthday, 2008"
>
> Apparently a number of groups are coming together to launch a film
> specifically around the issues of ID. Well I say 'issues' - what they
> are harping on about is categorically not the scientific basis for/
> against ID but the 'controversial' treatment of people like Gonzalez
> and Sternberg et al. From the blog:
>
> "Here's some other information that I learned at a briefing this
> evening, hosted by Discovery Institute and attended by Premise
> principals:
Yeah. These Creationists can SHUT UP ALL CRITICS ONCE AND FOR ALL
just by producing some evidence for their claims. What the hell
are they waiting for?
--
http://desertphile.org
Desertphile's Desert Soliloquy. WARNING: view with plenty of water
"Why aren't resurrections from the dead noteworthy?" -- Jim Rutz
Frank J
> On Sun, 12 Aug 2007 02:00:26 -0700, Alexander
>
>
>
>
>
> <alexanderhud...@btinternet.com> wrote:
> > Not one to mutter darkly about blogs etc. but this caught my eye as I
> > wafted whimsically through UcD and thence to Post-Darwinist:
>
> >http://post-darwinist.blogspot.com/
>
> > " Major feature film defends intelligent design - to be released on
> > Darwin's birthday, 2008"
>
> > Apparently a number of groups are coming together to launch a film
> > specifically around the issues of ID. Well I say 'issues' - what they
> > are harping on about is categorically not the scientific basis for/
> > against ID but the 'controversial' treatment of people like Gonzalez
> > and Sternberg et al. From the blog:
>
> > "Here's some other information that I learned at a briefing this
> > evening, hosted by Discovery Institute and attended by Premise
> > principals:
>
> Yeah. These Creationists can SHUT UP ALL CRITICS ONCE AND FOR ALL
> just by producing some evidence for their claims. What the hell
> are they waiting for?
Well, you see, they never heard of these 29+ potential falsifiers:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/
Now that they have, they will abandon their pathetic god-of-the-gaps,
cherry picking, bait-and-swich terminology and quote mining and do
some real science.
And I can sell you YouTube real cheap. ;-)
> Desertphile's Desert Soliloquy. WARNING: view with plenty of water
> "Why aren't resurrections from the dead noteworthy?" -- Jim Rutz- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -