eXpelled!

[dan]

I've seen a couple of Moore documentaries (not by my own will, either, Bowling for Columbine and Fahrenheit 9/11) and the two are not at all comparable. Yes, both have a view and use the documentary as a tool of persuasion rather than solely as information, however, here are the 2 PRIMARY differences.

1) Moore claims to be presenting nothing but facts and that the reason the movie makes things look a certain way is because they are. Stein comes out at the very beginning and says that he has a certain view, and that if you think differently, that's ok. He makes no claims of total impartiality (thought he tries to be fair, which leads me to number 2).

2) Moore took clips from various interviews, photo ops, and his own footage, and chopped it together, often sans context, to paint whatever kind of picture he wanted. For a good example, in 'Mike and Me,' he claimed throughout the movie to be seeking an interview with what's-his-face when, in actuality, he had already been granted said interview before they even started filming the movie. He just left that part out. On the other hand, in Expelled, Stein gives at least some context to all of the quotes from his opponents, and if it is a hatchet job, then it's the most beautiful hatchet job I've ever seen and I'll readily admit to being taken in by it. In all of the interviews with his opponents, he gave ample opportunity for them to clarify anything that sounded implausible or just plain stupid, while he challenged many of the claims of those he agreed with. As I said, he makes no claims at impartiality, but he does TRY quite hard to be very even handed. If anything, I'd say he was nicer to the Darwinists than he was to the IDers.

OK, let me modify my statement a little. Well, first of all, making a direct link between Moore and Stein is a mistake, Stein didn't direct Expelled, and he's one of three writers, so it's not like it's entirely his project, he's just the most easily recognizable creative force behind it.

Moore is, indeed, more deceptive than Stein appears to be, though I haven't researched Expelled as much as Bowling... or F9/11. What I was trying to say, which I worded poorly, is that this is a strongly opinionated piece, using facts that have been assembled to support the filmmakers' agenda, and disregards facts that might not support them, much like a Michael Moore film.

[dan]

Also, Hobbit, the movie you're thinking of is Roger & Me, and yeah, if I had to pinpoint a single moment when I decided I was done with Michael Moore, it was finding out that he had done the interview, thus negating the entire point of the movie.

[Hagbard Celine]

I've seen a couple of Moore documentaries (not by my own will, either, Bowling for Columbine and Fahrenheit 9/11) and the two are not at all comparable. Yes, both have a view and use the documentary as a tool of persuasion rather than solely as information, however, here are the 2 PRIMARY differences.

1) Moore claims to be presenting nothing but facts and that the reason the movie makes things look a certain way is because they are. Stein comes out at the very beginning and says that he has a certain view, and that if you think differently, that's ok. He makes no claims of total impartiality (thought he tries to be fair, which leads me to number 2).

2) Moore took clips from various interviews, photo ops, and his own footage, and chopped it together, often sans context, to paint whatever kind of picture he wanted. For a good example, in 'Mike and Me,' he claimed throughout the movie to be seeking an interview with what's-his-face when, in actuality, he had already been granted said interview before they even started filming the movie. He just left that part out. On the other hand, in Expelled, Stein gives at least some context to all of the quotes from his opponents, and if it is a hatchet job, then it's the most beautiful hatchet job I've ever seen and I'll readily admit to being taken in by it. In all of the interviews with his opponents, he gave ample opportunity for them to clarify anything that sounded implausible or just plain stupid, while he challenged many of the claims of those he agreed with. As I said, he makes no claims at impartiality, but he does TRY quite hard to be very even handed. If anything, I'd say he was nicer to the Darwinists than he was to the IDers.

...

[Hobbit]

OK, let me modify my statement a little. Well, first of all, making a direct link between Moore and Stein is a mistake, Stein didn't direct Expelled, and he's one of three writers, so it's not like it's entirely his project, he's just the most easily recognizable creative force behind it.

Moore is, indeed, more deceptive than Stein appears to be, though I haven't researched Expelled as much as Bowling... or F9/11. What I was trying to say, which I worded poorly, is that this is a strongly opinionated piece, using facts that have been assembled to support the filmmakers' agenda, and disregards facts that might not support them, much like a Michael Moore film.

Yeah, I never claimed it's unbiased. It is, however, revealing, and since the things said against the movie are the same things Darwinists say IN the movie, I tend to agree with the conclusion of the movie, namely, that ID is as valid a theory for the origin of life as any other, and its downright demonization in mainstream academia is wrong.

[dan]

Yeah, I never claimed it's unbiased. It is, however, revealing, and since the things said against the movie are the same things Darwinists say IN the movie, I tend to agree with the conclusion of the movie, namely, that ID is as valid a theory for the origin of life as any other, and its downright demonization in mainstream academia is wrong.

Switch 'ID' with 'Bush started the Iraq war under false pretenses' and you've got every liberals' reaction to Farhenheit 9/11.

[diuretic]

Yeah, I never claimed it's unbiased. It is, however, revealing, and since the things said against the movie are the same things Darwinists say IN the movie, I tend to agree with the conclusion of the movie, namely, that ID is as valid a theory for the origin of life as any other, and its downright demonization in mainstream academia is wrong.

ID is as valid as any other creation myth throughout history. But it isn't science. That's the objection.

[Hagbard Celine]

ID is as valid as any other creation myth throughout history. But it isn't science. That's the objection.

Yay! You'd think we were trying to explain higher math concepts the way this fact is not understood.

[dan]

http://corner.nationalreview.com/pos...FiZDE2NjM3NWE=

Stein: When we just saw that man, I think it was Mr. Myers [i.e. biologist P.Z. Myers], talking about how great scientists were, I was thinking to myself the last time any of my relatives saw scientists telling them what to do they were telling them to go to the showers to get gassed … that was horrifying beyond words, and that’s where science — in my opinion, this is just an opinion — that’s where science leads you.

Crouch: That’s right.

Stein: …Love of God and compassion and empathy leads you to a very glorious place, and science leads you to killing people.

Crouch: Good word, good word.

Yeesh!

[Hagbard Celine]

http://corner.nationalreview.com/pos...FiZDE2NjM3NWE=



Yeesh!

Are you surprised? That's typical troglodyte rubbish for you.

[glockmail]

Are you surprised? That's typical troglodyte rubbish for you.

In a world without ethics Stein's statement is completely true. And the foundation for ethics is Judaism-Christianity.

[dan]

In a world without ethics Stein's statement is completely true. And the foundation for ethics is Judaism-Christianity.

You seriously think that none of Ben Stein's relatives have come into contact with a scientist since the Holocaust? Really?

[glockmail]

You seriously think that none of Ben Stein's relatives have come into contact with a scientist since the Holocaust? Really?

I think you missed Stein's point, which is that without ethics, science would be evil.

[dan]

I think you missed Stein's point, which is that without ethics, science would be evil.

But, the assumption there is that Hitler held no regard for Christianity at all, which is incorrect.

And, anyway, fine, Stein's immediate example of science is the Holocaust. Well, when I think of Christians, I think of the people that blow up abortion clinics. Is that an accurate representation of the ideology as a whole?

This statement....

…Love of God and compassion and empathy leads you to a very glorious place, and science leads you to killing people.

Is just plain irresponsible in its narrow-mindedness.

[glockmail]

But, the assumption there is that Hitler held no regard for Christianity at all, which is incorrect.

And, anyway, fine, Stein's immediate example of science is the Holocaust. Well, when I think of Christians, I think of the people that blow up abortion clinics. Is that an accurate representation of the ideology as a whole?

This statement....

Is just plain irresponsible in its narrow-mindedness.

Hitler had zero regard for Christianity. He took small portions of its history and bastardized it to suit his agenda. Same as clinic bombers do in more modern times.

I think what Stein is doing is demonstration the absurd by being absurd. He is using the same type of logic that the anti ID groups are doing.

[Hagbard Celine]

Science has nothing to do with the holocaust. Stein's comment is asinine.