EXPELLED Release refers to ARTL Marathon!

Status
Not open for further replies.

Jefferson

Administrator
Staff member
Administrator
Super Moderator
EXPELLED Release refers to ARTL Marathon!

This is the show from Wednesday April 16th, 2008.

BEST QUOTE OF THE SHOW:
According to one prominent U.S. movie theater chain, people are even sending emails to boycott Expelled. Now this is the beautiful people who believe in free speech, tolerance and diversity. Right? They're the ones who want the movie censored. ...If there's a book in a library in a children's school promoting homosexual behaviour and we say, "That book shouldn't be there," they start screaming, "Censorship!" And now they go to a movie chain where presumably adults go to buy tickets to see movies and they want this movie censored. ...They're hypocrites.

SUMMARY:

* American RTL Action Files FEC Complaint: Two weeks ago, Steve Curtis filed a complain against Hillary Clinton's campaign on behalf of American RTL Action. Judicial Watch filed a similar complaint two days ago. U.S. campaign finance law prohibits foreigners from raising funds to influence U.S. elections, yet Hillary had Elton John headline her April 9, NYC fundraiser that pulled in $2.5 million. Developing...

* EXPELLED Press Release Mentions Movie Marathon: Premise Media, the production company that made Ben Stein's Expelled, today issued a press release that mentions American RTL's movie marathon! The second paragraph of the release states, "Atheists are 'crashing' 'Expelled' screenings and conference calls; critics are slamming it; and leaders are raving about it. One organization is urging theaters to reject the film, while another is holding a movie marathon for all 15 "Expelled" showings at their theater."

That other organization of course is American Right To Life, fighting to end "legalized" abortion in varied and creative ways. Please read American Right To Life's great press release at CNBC.com or at a dozen other major news sites (AOL, Forbes, Houston Chronicle, LA Times, etc.) and at blogs like GenerationXpose, Kevin Miller, and the PassionatePro-lifer.

Bonus audio: listen to this show to hear the sound of $1,000-worth of movie tickets. This fun Expelled movie marathon starts Friday morning at 11:30 at a theater near you!

Denver Bible Church is taking their whole congregation to see the 11:30 a.m. show on Sunday morning! Wow. A church going to the movies instead of holding their Sunday morning service. That's different (and fun)! Please see Expelled this opening weekend at a theater near you or if you're in the Denver area, please visit in theater Bob E, Will Duffy, Joel F, Brian J, and many others at:

Arvada's Olde Town 14
5550 Wadsworth Blvd. | map
Seating: Stadium, Rockers (necessary for marathons : )
Listening devices available

Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed (PG) 1hr 30min
Friday: 11:30am, 2:00, 4:30, 7:00, 9:30
Saturday: 11:30am, 2:00, 4:30, 7:00, 9:30
Sunday: 11:30am, 2:00, 4:30, 7:00, 9:30

* Motive Entertainment Marketing: the firm running the marketing campaign for Expelled is Motive Entertainment, the Los Angeles-based firm which also directed the marketing campaigns for Mel Gibson's The Passion of the Christ, the Tom Hanks/Robert Zemeckis film Polar Express and the record-breaking Walden Media/Disney epic series, The Chronicles of Narnia.

Today's Resource: Enjoy the BEL Science Pack and watch tremendous documentary DVDs, listen to Bob's Genesis: Creation study album, read the best book on creation/evolution ever written, and hear a debate on the Age of the Earth!
 

Toast

New member
I saw a trailer for this movie when I attended a creation presentation presented by Dr Jackson, a creation scientist. This guy was awesoem to listen to, and the movie looks cool too.
 
Last edited:

aharvey

New member
EXPELLED Release refers to ARTL Marathon!

This is the show from Wednesday April 16th, 2008.

BEST QUOTE OF THE SHOW:
Quote:
According to one prominent U.S. movie theater chain, people are even sending emails to boycott Expelled. Now this is the beautiful people who believe in free speech, tolerance and diversity. Right? They're the ones who want the movie censored. ...If there's a book in a library in a children's school promoting homosexual behaviour and we say, "That book shouldn't be there," they start screaming, "Censorship!" And now they go to a movie chain where presumably adults go to buy tickets to see movies and they want this movie censored. ...They're hypocrites.
Let me see if I have this straight: Bob thinks that boycott and censorship are the same thing?!? Boycott: when you voluntarily refuse to do business with someone with whom they disagree and censored: when you are involuntarily excluded from information by someone else? Or is he perhaps assuming that the "brightest audience in the country" doesn't grasp that these are in fact nearly opposite concepts?

But I have to say (with the obvious caveat that I haven't seen this movie) that it seems to me that the producers of Expelled are not necessarily the big ID advocates that everyone on both sides assume they are. Mark whats-his-name refers to the film as a "farcical documentary;" the roll-over Ben Stein's mug on the movie web site is more than a touch goofy; some of the stunts that they've been pulling in the movie's build up (most oddly, the manufactured "expelling" of PZMyers from a "private" screening, tickets for which were available to the public). I think there's a real chance that they're laughing at everybody.
 

Ash1

New member
Boycotting Vs. Censorship

Boycotting Vs. Censorship

Let me see if I have this straight: Bob thinks that boycott and censorship are the same thing?!? Boycott: when you voluntarily refuse to do business with someone with whom they disagree and censored: when you are involuntarily excluded from information by someone else? Or is he perhaps assuming that the "brightest audience in the country" doesn't grasp that these are in fact nearly opposite concepts?

aharvey,

The logic does seem sloppy, but it has some truth to it. Why are the atheists boycotting? Is it because they want more people to see Expelled? I haven't looked into it, but it seems like they're boycotting because they want it to fail, and ultimately don't want people to see it.

But I have to say (with the obvious caveat that I haven't seen this movie) that it seems to me that the producers of Expelled are not necessarily the big ID advocates that everyone on both sides assume they are. Mark whats-his-name refers to the film as a "farcical documentary;" the roll-over Ben Stein's mug on the movie web site is more than a touch goofy; some of the stunts that they've been pulling in the movie's build up (most oddly, the manufactured "expelling" of PZMyers from a "private" screening, tickets for which were available to the public). I think there's a real chance that they're laughing at everybody.

Are you serious? This sounds like a conspiracy theory.
 

aharvey

New member
aharvey,

The logic does seem sloppy, but it has some truth to it. Why are the atheists boycotting? Is it because they want more people to see Expelled? I haven't looked into it, but it seems like they're boycotting because they want it to fail, and ultimately don't want people to see it.
Sorry, this doesn't even qualify as an apologia. The most that boycotting and censoring have in common is that they are actions taken by somebody who objects to something. Period. The actions themselves are polar opposites: in one, I choose to not do something; in the other, I prevent you from doing something.

So the only element of truth present in this discussion is that yes, people (and not just atheists, though Bob failed to mention that either!) are boycotting this movie. Because they disapprove of it. The only possible way Bob can accuse these people of therefore being hypocrites, because they also object to censorship, is that they 1) object to something and are doing something about it while also 2) objecting to someone else's objecting to something else and doing something else about that! And if that's the case, then Bob has just become a self-defined hypocrite, wouldn't you say?

C'mon, Ash1, do you really think there's the slightest legitimacy to saying that if you think censorship is bad then you're a hypocrite if you object to anything?

Are you serious? This sounds like a conspiracy theory.
You mean the movie? Could be. I think they were just out to make a buck and some noise, and stumbled on the perfect topic. But if you are referring to my suggestion that these filmmakers may not be the creationist's best friend after all, well, I gave you a few of my reasons. More than I can say about your reply!
 

Ash1

New member
What?

What?

Sorry, this doesn't even qualify as an apologia. The most that boycotting and censoring have in common is that they are actions taken by somebody who objects to something. Period. The actions themselves are polar opposites: in one, I choose to not do something; in the other, I prevent you from doing something.

aharvey,

Are you sure you read my post? The goal is to make sure people don't go to see the movie so that it fails. If it fails, a lot less people can see it in the US, and few if any can see it overseas--thus "preventing" others from seeing it. Many atheists are furious about this movie and are trying anything they can to shut it down. From getting a Harvard-linked company to sue them for "stealing" a cell animation video, to playing a short clip of Lennon's Imagine without permission. Do you think they would care about these things if the movie was about Mickey Mouse?

So the only element of truth present in this discussion is that yes, people (and not just atheists, though Bob failed to mention that either!) are boycotting this movie. Because they disapprove of it. The only possible way Bob can accuse these people of therefore being hypocrites, because they also object to censorship, is that they 1) object to something and are doing something about it while also 2) objecting to someone else's objecting to something else and doing something else about that! And if that's the case, then Bob has just become a self-defined hypocrite, wouldn't you say?

You know what, I don't know what you're trying to say here, but I'm too tired to sift through it. What I do know is that you and other atheists on this site can get nit-picky to a ridiculous degree.

C'mon, Ash1, do you really think there's the slightest legitimacy to saying that if you think censorship is bad then you're a hypocrite if you object to anything?

The idea of the boycott is to make the movie fail, is it not? If they're just doing it for a good time, then I'll admit there's no logic in what Bob said.


You mean the movie? Could be. I think they were just out to make a buck and some noise, and stumbled on the perfect topic. But if you are referring to my suggestion that these filmmakers may not be the creationist's best friend after all, well, I gave you a few of my reasons. More than I can say about your reply!

I don't mean the movie, I mean your silly theory. I doubt the producers are creationists by any stretch, and they may not be chummy with them, but I do think they are against censoring ideas or evidence that degreed scientists might have that strongly suggest design in nature. I've heard the producers and Stein interviewed enough to be convinced of that. If they can make a lot of money in the process, that's great. They obviously added humorous portions to the film to draw in a larger audience. That doesn't mean they think the core content is silly.
 

aharvey

New member
aharvey,

Are you sure you read my post? The goal is to make sure people don't go to see the movie so that it fails. If it fails, a lot less people can see it in the US, and few if any can see it overseas--thus "preventing" others from seeing it. Many atheists are furious about this movie and are trying anything they can to shut it down. From getting a Harvard-linked company to sue them for "stealing" a cell animation video, to playing a short clip of Lennon's Imagine without permission. Do you think they would care about these things if the movie was about Mickey Mouse?
Yowza. So you also don't see the difference between "boycott" and "censorship"? I guess Bob knows his audience better than I do!

You know what, I don't know what you're trying to say here, but I'm too tired to sift through it. What I do know is that you and other atheists on this site can get nit-picky to a ridiculous degree.
Yeah, "boycott", "censorship," what's the diff? If all those atheists (define:anyone who doesn't read the Christian Bible the way you do) would just keep their yaps shut, life would be the bomb.

The idea of the boycott is to make the movie fail, is it not? If they're just doing it for a good time, then I'll admit there's no logic in what Bob said.
Stop being a knee-jerk Bob-defender and think about what you are saying. Who protests about anything "just for a good time"? The idea is to express your objections to something. How can you possibly have a problem with people who find this movie objectionable expressing that by refusing to financially reward its makers? And how can you honestly consider that at all comparable to forcibly denying the public access to something?

I don't mean the movie, I mean your silly theory. I doubt the producers are creationists by any stretch, and they may not be chummy with them, but I do think they are against censoring ideas or evidence that degreed scientists might have that strongly suggest design in nature. I've heard the producers and Stein interviewed enough to be convinced of that. If they can make a lot of money in the process, that's great. They obviously added humorous portions to the film to draw in a larger audience. That doesn't mean they think the core content is silly.
Well, as they say, words do speak a whole lot louder than actions, so I guess what they said in their promotional interviews to drum up interest in their own movie would have to be a lot more compelling than their actions. :rolleyes: I'm sure you're also right that there's no irony intended in the concept of a pure one-sided movie accusing scientists of unfairly favoring only one side of an issue!

Here's a funny thought, though. If there's so much positive evidence in favor of ID that's being suppressed by mainstream science (this is a central premise of the movie, right?), then why does the Discovery Institute keep such a tight lid on the research it claims to support and do? Why are their conferences and conventions so secretive? Use your brain, child!

Observation: There's virtually no evidence providing positive support of ID published in the mainstream scientific literature.

Hypothesis 1: No such evidence is available.
Hypothesis 2: Some, perhaps even mountains, of evidence is available, but is being suppressed by a scientific community.

So far, so good. The movie is clearly going to argue in favor of the second hypothesis, but although the obvious test would be to show some of that suppressed evidence, but I'm willing to bet that the movie will not do that! Which brings me to a second equally apparent observation:

Observation: There's virtually no evidence providing positive support of ID anywhere, including hard or soft publications by ID PR mouthpieces like Discovery Institute.

Hypothesis 1: No such evidence is available.
Hypothesis 2: Umm....
Help me out here! If mountains of such data actually existed, then how is it possible that its existence is no more apparent in the domain of its biggest advocates?

Surely if IDers are capable of grabbing the public's attention with claims that their data are available but being suppressed by an evil scientific conspiracy, they would be capable of using that face time to present the available data!
 

Bob Enyart

Deceased
Staff member
Administrator
aharvey, I agree with you, of course; when you're right, you're right...

aharvey, I agree with you, of course; when you're right, you're right...

aharvey said:
Let me see if I have this straight: Bob thinks that boycott and censorship are the same thing?!? Boycott: when you voluntarily refuse to do business with someone with whom they disagree and censored: when you are involuntarily excluded from information by someone else?
You are correct of course, that a boycott and censorship are two completely different things. I stated basically the same thing on the show, but in the excerpt you read, you have to read between the lines, it's in the elipsis "..." as in:
Jefferson said:
They're the ones who want the movie censored. ...If there's a book in a library in a children's school promoting homosexual behaviour and we say, "That book shouldn't be there," they start screaming, "Censorship!"
The most pure form of censorship is when the government prohibits your expression. If a library decides (or is lobbied) to refuse to carry my book The Plot, I don't call that censorship, because I'm not a whiner.

I was pointing out the hypocrisy of the beautiful people who claim they stand for open-mindedness, freedom of speech, tolerance, and diversity, trying to get a viewpoint shut out of a public forum (theater), and yet the same crowd screams censorship when Christians try to protect children from sexually immoral books in a library.

aharvey, thanks for thinking clearly on this issue.

-Bob Enyart
KGOV.com

p.s. I haven't had time to read the rest of this thread; if you've pointed any of this out later, then sorry for the rehash. -BE
 

Pekkle

New member
According to one prominent U.S. movie theater chain, people are even sending emails to boycott Expelled. Now this is the beautiful people who believe in free speech, tolerance and diversity. Right? They're the ones who want the movie censored. ...If there's a book in a library in a children's school promoting homosexual behaviour and we say, "That book shouldn't be there," they start screaming, "Censorship!" And now they go to a movie chain where presumably adults go to buy tickets to see movies and they want this movie censored. ...They're hypocrites.

We want this movie censored? I wouldn't go that far, maybe just a clause at the beginning of every screening saying that the film is a dishonest unscientific propoganda film, and that anyone who see's it will be worse off for it indeed.

Have you heard of all the copyright infringement the producers of this movie are being sued for?

We don't want it censored because it is challenging evolution, we want it censored because it is dishonest as it tries to, peddling fallacies for fact.

The argument is mostly emotional, trying to link the efforts for an arian race and the associating nazism with evolution. Dishonest.

If any creationist scientist wanted to come up with a theory explaining the process and and details of how a deity would create the earth, and then provide proof for it they would not be "expelled". They would be treated with the same skepticism that every paper goes through. Thus is the scientific method.
 

Bob Enyart

Deceased
Staff member
Administrator
Pekkle, Dawkin's intelligent design admission is Startling!

Pekkle, Dawkin's intelligent design admission is Startling!

Pekkle said:
We want this movie sensored?
Pekkle, are you a sensor? I'm an intuitive.
Pekkle said:
I think it is a dishonest unscientific propoganda film, and that anyone who see's it is worse off for it indeed. Have you heard of all the copyright infringement the producers of this movie are being sued for?
"On April 14, 2008, Premise Media filed a lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas seeking declaratory judgment that there is no copyright or other infringement." -Premise Media on Yahoo Finance News

Pekkle, I've seen the movie ten times in the past two days, and any claim by Richard Dawkins that he was somehow tricked is so utterly untenable as to fall flat upon the first screening. He knew exactly the topic (science vs religion) and his admission that microbiology could reasonably provide evidence of a higher intelligence that "designed" life on earth is STARTLING, and presents a phenomenal climax to a powerful film.

-Bob Enyart
Denver Bible Church & KGOV.com

p.s. I'd give more details, but I'm in a hurry. Our whole church congregation is... off to the movies! -BE
 

Flipper

New member
I'm a little startled by this apparent implication of comments on this movie that scientific matters should be decided by the court of public opinion. If creationism is so obvious, why are the creationists not setting up their own institutions and labs?

The answer is, of course, that they are. But the fruits of these programs have been meager indeed, so far. And, if I am not mistaken, groups like AiG demand doctrinarial obedience in their membership - you can't be an evolutionary biologist and be in AiG unless it it is in the capacity of a YEC. Should we be calling foul on that?

I certainly wouldn't want to see the movie censored. On the other hand, I think the Nazi/Darwinism link is weak and also spurious reasoning.

One key reason being that whether the Nazis used Evolution to justify their own actions says absolutely nothing about the truth of the theory. Furthermore, the father of Protestantism, Martin Luther, played a far more critical part in bolstering the anti-Jewish propaganda of the Third Reich, as this quote from the Wiki makes quite clear:

. Hitler's Education Minister, Bernhard Rust, was quoted by the Völkischer Beobachter as saying that: "Since Martin Luther closed his eyes, no such son of our people has appeared again. It has been decided that we shall be the first to witness his reappearance ... I think the time is past when one may not say the names of Hitler and Luther in the same breath. They belong together; they are of the same old stamp [Schrot und Korn]". [53]....

...Some scholars have attributed the Nazi "Final Solution" directly to Martin Luther.[58]. Others refute this point of view, pointedly taking issue with the thesis advanced by Shirer and others. [59]

The prevailing scholarly view[60] since the Second World War is that the treatise exercised a major and persistent influence on Germany's attitude toward its Jewish citizens in the centuries between the Reformation and the Holocaust. Four hundred years after it was written, the National Socialists displayed On the Jews and Their Lies during Nuremberg rallies, and the city of Nuremberg presented a first edition to Julius Streicher, editor of the Nazi newspaper Der Stürmer, the newspaper describing it as the most radically antisemitic tract ever published.[61] Against this view, theologian Johannes Wallmann writes that the treatise had no continuity of influence in Germany, and was in fact largely ignored during the 18th and 19th centuries.[42] Hans Hillerbrand argues that to focus on Luther's role in the development of German antisemitism is to underestimate the "larger peculiarities of German history[47]"...

...William Nichols, Professor of Religious Studies, recounts, "At his trial in Nuremberg after the Second World War, Julius Streicher, the notorious Nazi propagandist, editor of the scurrilous antisemitic weekly, Der Stürmer, argued that if he should be standing there arraigned on such charges, so should Martin Luther. Reading such passages, it is hard not to agree with him...

And it's certainly not like there weren't pogroms and massacres of the Jews at the hands of Christians long before Darwin was born. And the reason there aren't any Cathars these days is because the Catholic church killed almost every Cathar and suppressed the remnants of Catharism.

So it seems, as On The Origins of Species was not on display at the Nuremberg Rally, there is more of a case to be made for the progenitor of Protestantism as providing key ideological underpinnings for the final solution.

And, unlike On The Jews And Their Lies which was just the ugly opinion of one bitter man, the preponderance of scientific evidence is overwhelming in favor of evolution. It is a crying shame if the Nazis misunderstood and misused the theory, but that really says nothing about its correctness, does it? I mean, if you claim to care about the truth, I would suggest that you must allow that to be correct.
 

PlastikBuddha

New member
The obvious solution is for someone to step up and a make a really good film detailing the strengths of ToE in an easy to digest format to counteract this bundle of celluloid codswallop. Of course, things like "facts" and "evidence" and "science" aren't quite as entertaining as having the dead-voiced Ferris Bueller guy explain how evolution caused the holocaust, but it's better than letting America slide even further into ignorance. Too bad Gould's dead- he'd have made a great movie. His essays are always lively, informative, and within the reach of anyone with an interest in biology. :think: Who's up for a movie version of The Panda's Thumb?
 

aharvey

New member
You are correct of course, that a boycott and censorship are two completely different things. I stated basically the same thing on the show, but in the excerpt you read, you have to read between the lines, it's in the elipsis "..." as in:

The most pure form of censorship is when the government prohibits your expression. If a library decides (or is lobbied) to refuse to carry my book The Plot, I don't call that censorship, because I'm not a whiner.

I was pointing out the hypocrisy of the beautiful people who claim they stand for open-mindedness, freedom of speech, tolerance, and diversity, trying to get a viewpoint shut out of a public forum (theater), and yet the same crowd screams censorship when Christians try to protect children from sexually immoral books in a library.

aharvey, thanks for thinking clearly on this issue.

-Bob Enyart
KGOV.com

p.s. I haven't had time to read the rest of this thread; if you've pointed any of this out later, then sorry for the rehash. -BE
Bob,

Well, allow me to continue thinking clearly. Being open-minded does not mean thinking all viewpoints are equally valid; advocating freedom of speech does not mean thinking it's okay to present viewpoints deceptively; tolerance does not mean agreement; and none of these imply that one can't protest against disagreeable ideas dishonestly presented! If you really do "get" the difference between encouraging a boycott and censorship, then your charges of hypocrisy must rely on all of these things being true, which they clearly are not (take at least half a second to suppress that involuntary mocking response to think about this before responding!).
 

aharvey

New member
aharvey, uh.... is this all ya got? :shocked:
What more do you want? I flushed out the mighty Bob, forcing him to acknowledge that he had erred equating the nearly opposite concepts of (voluntary) boycotting with (involuntary) censorship. Then, when he tried to explain it away by saying what he really meant was that people who claim to be in favor of free speech are hypocrites if they protest against this movie, I pointed out that being in favor of free speech does not mean you can't actively protest against something you find offensive. Again, Bob must not think that highly of his bright audience if he expects them to uncritically swallow the line that people who claim to be advocates of free speech are hypocrites if they exercise their own right to free speech!
 

Jefferson

Administrator
Staff member
Administrator
Super Moderator
This is just SO much fun watching atheists throwing hissy fits over this movie.
 

Flipper

New member
Who's throwing a hissy-fit? I complained about Michael Moore's Fahrenheit 911 as well, for exactly the same reasons - it's propaganda, pure and simple. Worse, it's lying propaganda. Of course, many Christians don't seem to mind that when it's lying for their side. For some reason.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top