comment #1

le corbeau says ...

Yeah, Darwinian. A belief in laissez-faire economics was supposed to be "Darwinian," survival of the fittest and screw the poor. Ironically, as Jonah Goldberg's Liberal Fascism demonstrates, Progressives had internalized much more ruthless notions of eugenics inspired by a Darwinian view of the universe. But somehow Andrew Carnegie building libraries so the poor could pull themselves up was a Social Darwinist bad guy, while Margaret Sanger trying to keep African-Americans and immigrants from reproducing was a Progressive feminist heroine.

comment #2

rocco says ...

I've never agreed with you more, Wells.

comment #3

CinemaPhreek says ...

Yet more proof that even highly intelligent people (Stein) should stick to subjects they know about (economics) and steer clear of others that are best left to discourses among friends, if only to avoid looking foolish.

I would find it surprising, but then again remember the leading conservative voice on the Supreme Court, Scalia does not understand the difference between evolution and origin of life.

comment #4

mutinyco says ...

Only an ape would believe we're not apes.

comment #5

Glenn Kenny says ...

Stein's also a cowriter on the picture. Those must be some goodies.

comment #6

Walter Sobchak says ...

Don't monkey with another monkey's monkey, unless you want a gorilla on your hands.

- Johnny Paycheck

comment #7

Edward says ...

I don't claim to be an expert on the subject, but I've never heard the position in this argument that a Supreme Being created the world through an evolutionary process. Started everything with "The Big Bang" and then left creation alone or maybe tweaked here and there, but basically left it alone.

If people feel good when they read The Bible, fine; but don't shove it in my face. It's a book which has some wonderful ideas. Some great stories and some pretty good sex scenes too.

Saw an interesting explanation of the flood on Trinity Broadcasting one afternoon. They presented some interesting science, but there are a lot of holes in their version; especially since they discount the Summarian tale Noah is probably based on.

comment #8

PoisonSkin says ...

I figured he's just kind of a dick and here was something to be shitty about.

It's taken forever for this to come out. I think they missed their window. People aren't acting as crazy as they were a couple years ago about this kind of bullshit.

comment #9

Pinko Punko says ...

Ben Stein is just a boring ol' right winger who sometimes likes to play contrarian. He doesn't even believe a lot of the ID stuff that the film suggests should be taught in schools.

Also, Mg- I love that you just namechecked that scholarly MASTERWORK, Liberal Fascism. The Pantload has very long tentacles indeed.

comment #10

christian says ...

I've seen lots of the raw foootage of this and boy, watching Ferris Bueller's economics teacher go up against scientists is funny.

comment #11

renorambler says ...

Equating Social Darwinism as part of Darwin's Theory of Evolution has gotten a lot of people in trouble over the years. Folks that are a lot brighter than many appear to be who comment on this site.

A small reminder: The theory of evolution is no longer Darwin's. It has been refined over the last 150 years (Gasp! That's what science does folks!) or so to its current state which is embraced not just by those nerdy science professor types but the majority of folks who happen to believe that the last 600 years (Scientific Revolution and Enlightenment - anyone heard of those?) have provided great progress for our species. I'm not saying there aren't problems with our current state of the world but anybody who is still embracing the views of the fanatics who are pushing creationism need a time machine to take them back to 1000 A.D. where they belong.

comment #12

Mr. Muckle says ...

"The irony is that I happen to believe in intelligent design also, in a sense. There is obviously a unified flow and an absolute cosmic commonality in all living things and all aspects of the architecture."

Nice, Jeff.

I also think some might be on the right track to question the timeline of all this. They say the world was created a few thousand years ago, including all the "evidence" that leads others to believe it's been much longer. That's possible of course, given that the creation of anything at all makes the creation of anything else possible.

But they don't have a sophisticated appreciation of the nature of time. From another perspective, here is creation brand new from moment to moment. An omnipotent creative force would not be limited by time. What's to prevent a new creation every moment?

"Yesterday," or a million yesterdays, is only a thought in the present, an image in memory. That image can be simple or "scientific." Likewise, the future is another thought, projected from the same storehouse of memory. So time is nothing but thought.

Look closely at film. Every frame is distinct and different, each one projected for only a moment. Because of biological limitations (persistence of vision) and willing suspension of disbelief, we regard it as a continuous and dramatic event and take whatever meaning from it that we are predisposed to take.

But talk about false evidence. It's all up in our noggins. There is no definitively solid, objective creation in the last analysis. It's all an effect of consciousness.

comment #13

D.Z. says ...

Mgmax: "while Margaret Sanger trying to keep African-Americans and immigrants from reproducing was a Progressive feminist heroine."

She was progressive for giving those women the opportunity to decide when they wanted to have those children.

comment #14

austin111 says ...

W himself is one of the best reasons not to believe in something called "intelligent" design.

comment #15

pm123 says ...

You can't blame the "ID" people - they're just fervent believers who feel no obligation to understand or conform to the scientific method. The real blame belongs with the 40% or so of the American public that claims to believe this nonsense. Our culture is miserably ignorant of what science is and how it works. A good scientific theory is not one that can be PROVEN, but one that can be DISproven. Evolution is such a great theory because it can be TESTED, and because parts of it can be disproven and modified and reworked. In other words, because it can EVOLVE. ID is NOT science, because it cannot be tested, and hence cannot be disproven.

comment #16

Sharpel007 says ...

Anybody know if Stein is still teaching at Pepperdine?

comment #17

Sharpel007 says ...

It must be pretty big truck of Cash, cause less we forget Stein was also a speech writer for Nixon, and wrote his resignation speech. And comes across as very Nixonian in every thing since. So considering his old school republican roots does not seem the type to run and push W crazier church baiting tactics, but hey old age does odd things.

comment #18

MovieBob says ...

Intelligent Design is basically hooey, but FWIW, Jeff, your "version" of it is actually pretty close to the original conceptions of the idea before the neo-creationists got involved and did to IT what Nazis and Eugenicists did to Darwin.

comment #19

le corbeau says ...

"She was progressive for giving those women the opportunity to decide when they wanted to have those children."

Whether they wanted to or not.

comment #20

le corbeau says ...

Was that supposed to be some sort of rebuttal, Punko?

comment #21

Ray says ...

What intelligent designer would give Ben Stein that voice???

comment #22

HoopersX says ...

I think the main problem that Intelligent Design has is it's inheirent lack of flexibility. Just like most things Religion, there is a rigidness to all the dogma that refuses to acknowledge the infinite possibilities. Wells makes a very cogent point that I personally feel much more comfortable with. I don't think much of the "infalibility" of the Bible, Koran or any other book written by man. However, I do find it difficult to imagine that everything progressed to this point in history on it's own. I've always believed that there was some kind of higher power. The manner in which that higher power ultimately contributed to our current state is certainly open to debate. And this is where religion and ID have a major disconnect for me. ID, to me, smells of a kind of surrender by the fanatics. They couldn't prove their point on face value(i.e. the bible is flawed when taken as fact), so they tried to adjust their theory to gain broader appeal by co-opting parts of evolution, thereby invalidating the core of their arguement(in my humble opinion).

comment #23

Pinko Punko says ...

Mg,

I'm not gonna have an extended flamewar on this ish, I think we can safely conclude that we don't agree with one another, that I don't agree with your politics, and that I many times enjoy reading your comments on film, and that I actively ignore what I think are deeply unfortunate political points you occasionally try to make, just like we all let Jeff's cobaggery fall by the wayside as we keep coming back for more.

comment #24

Wrecktum says ...

"Whether they wanted to or not."

I assume you're talking about Sanger's eugenics philosophy. Sanger is not universally hailed by all liberals, as you know. And Carnegie was certainly no social darwinist. The opposite, in fact.

The terms "darwinian" and "social darwinism" are sooooo early 20th century that when I see them used, the argument is completely called into question.

comment #25

Edward says ...

Nicely put Mr. Muckle and HoopersX. This was a good topic. Film, religion, philosophy and theology. Who could ask for anything more?

comment #26

Marty Melville says ...

Lionel Chetwynd? Yikes, say no more.

comment #27

Terry McCarty says ...

Jeffrey wrote:
What I don't get is why a sophisticated brainy fellow like Ben Stein would make a movie for Bible-belt types.

Speaking of which, didn't Orson Welles narrate a documentary based on fundamentalist author Hal Lindsey's end-of-days THE LATE GREAT PLANET EARTH?

comment #28

Nate West says ...

Ben Stein may be rightwing, but in Sunday's New York Time, in a "letter to John McCain," Stein writes:

"The first step toward putting our house in order, once we are past the seemingly looming recession, is much higher taxes on the truly rich and serious enforcement to prevent offshore tax evasion. To put it even more starkly, the government--which is us--needs the money to keep old people alive, to pay for their dialysis, to build fighter jets and to pay our troops and pay interest on the debt. We can get it by indenturing our children, selling ourselves into peonage to foreigners, making ourselves a colony again, generating inflation--or we can have some integrity and levy taxes equal to what we spend."

comment #29

Arizona Joe says ...

Ben Stein is a really smart guy, and I rue having missed the chance to take his SEC law class at Pepperdine Law.

I am nonplussed, like Wells. How does a brilliant Jew like Ben get hooked up with these fundamentalist dumbasses?

comment #30

le corbeau says ...

Wrecktum, I don't disagree with you that the term misleads, in fact that was kinda my point, but it's certainly out there still and a search for Carnegie and "social darwinism" turns out plenty of instances of him being discussed in that context.

Punko, you're free to reject its thesis, of course, but it's a well-researched book with a lot of interesting material (even if you don't buy the conclusions drawn from them) that deserves more than juvenile references to "doughy pantload"-- which, as wit goes, is not exactly Lubitsch.

comment #31

BurmaShave says ...

I'm surprised no one has mentioned how Ben Stein has apparently tricked scientists into appearing in this film by telling them it was a documentary called CROSSROADS about where faith and science can find common ground, and then re-editing their words to make it seem like they doubted Darwinian theory. Once a scumbag, always a scumbag.

comment #32

Zimmergirl says ...

Great discussion here. "Only an ape would believe we're not apes." Bravo to that. The funny thing is, most people DO believe heartily in Darwin's version of things they just don't realize it. They receive medical services, etc.

The trouble with believing in intelligent design, as has been written here already, it leads to a social hierarchy that has humans right at the top. We may be the smartest species but so far, folks, we're a blip. We got nothing on the cockroach, just saying.

The funny thing is, if more ignorant folks accepted evolution and didn't feel affronted by the idea that we're "monkeys," (apes, if you please) they would realize that there is a reason for the dark skin in Africa, the light skin in Europe and the plethora of teen pregnancies everywhere.

We are ultimately a dumb species, evolution-wise, because we are on the way towards wiping out our own species -- maybe in 100 million years, if we're still around, we can start talking about success and intelligent design. As it is, the candle burns at both ends - we will not last the night.

comment #33

le corbeau says ...

Terraform Mars Now!

comment #34

Bocephus says ...

Our reality is a chemical reaction, almost like an onion. At the middle is a singularity, constantly creating and pushing out layers of time-space, like bubbles. The bubbles are squeezed between the layers above them and the newer layers being created below. Our universe is one of those bubbles. Galaxies are smaller chemical reactions occuring in the universe, producing things like stars and planets. On the planets, even smaller reactions create gasses, water, atmospheres, and very rarely, life. At some point, our layer reaches the end of this reaction and bursts like any bubble would, all of our matter diffusing to be used in some other mysterious chemical reaction that we could never know.

Religion bores me. Personally, I think it is much more exciting to be be riding on the wave of a chaotic chemical swirl, possessed of consciousness stolen from some cosmic accident, completely in control of your own destiny and owing all your accomplishments and mistakes to noone but yourself.

comment #35

BurmaShave says ...

Life is a cookie.

comment #36

le corbeau says ...

"Religion bores me. Personally, I think it is much more exciting to be be riding on the wave of a chaotic chemical swirl"

Although talk like that tends to bring out the snark in me, I must admit that that is one of the things that made me an atheist long ago, the idea that it would just be too disappointing and anticlimactic for all this to have existed only for 6000 years and only for the purpose of ending it all shortly thereafter and sending the good'uns to heaven and the bad'uns to hell. It'd be like The Godfather ending after 25 minutes with Vito getting whacked at the wedding-- c'mon, there's so much potential here, you're going to end it that early and that's all it's going to be about?

comment #37

JohnCope says ...

"...the idea that it would just be too disappointing and anticlimactic for all this to have existed only for 6000 years and only for the purpose of ending it all shortly thereafter and sending the good'uns to heaven and the bad'uns to hell."

That's a pretty simplistic view of religious philosophy.

comment #38

le corbeau says ...

But an accurate criticism of the millenialist worldview, which is all I was seeking to provide in the comments section of a movie blog.

comment #39

christian says ...

Let me reiterate: I've seen a lot of this footage and the scientists come across as calm, reasonable and without a seeming political bone in their body. But Stein's method is to try and gotcha! these folk with positively Hannity-esque and American Spectator logic. It's sad and hilarious. Of course, I'm sure the editing will take care of most of Stein's bonehead tactics. And I'm not an atheist.

Stein should stick to hawking cold medicine or whatever pro-science ads he's doing these days. He was cooler when he was pimping his screenplays thru Hollywood in the 80's.

comment #40

Pinko Punko says ...

Mg,

But D. P-Load is a classic of the genre.

The thing about Stein is he is a reactionary about anything regarding Israel, has a huge Nixon boner (of insane proportions) but he will actually propose certain rationale fiscal reform, such as limiting the income gap.

Christian, most of the scientists in the film thought they were being interviewed for a different film, so they didn't even know how it would turn out.

comment #41

Richardson says ...

"Punko, you're free to reject its thesis, of course, but it's a well-researched book with a lot of interesting material (even if you don't buy the conclusions drawn from them)"

I believe that you meant to write "even if you don't buy the pre-decided conclusion that he cherry picked his research to fit".

comment #42

christian says ...

Ah yes, Goldberg's LA Times column today is yet another re-heated bit on Why Liberals Can't Use The Word Patriotism. It's as insightful as Tyra Banks.

comment #43

le corbeau says ...

I believe I meant to write "the reflexive attacks on this book by people who haven't read it say nothing useful about the book's merits or flaws, but say a great deal about the people who feel the need to attack even the idea of its thesis."

Ironically, all the Obama-heads would learn a lot about Hillary (and a little about Obama) from it that they've never heard anywhere else-- not all of it unfavorable by any means, certainly not simple-minded-- but like Intelligent Design types, they wouldn't dare let opposing views pollute the purity of their faith.

comment #44

lindenen says ...

Excerpt from the textbook liberals have spent 50+ years defending. If Gregory Peck had known what was in that textbook, he would not have chosen to star in Inherit the Wind:

http://volokh.powerblogs.com/archives/archive_2004_11_00.shtml#1099763167

"Hunter's Civic Biology, p. 195-196

The Races of Man. — At the present time there exist upon the earth five races or varieties of man, each very different from the other in instincts, social customs, and, to an extent, in structure. These are the Ethiopian or negro type, originating in Africa; the Malay or brown race, from the islands of the Pacific; The American Indian; the Mongolian or yellow race, including the natives of China, Japan, and the Eskimos; and finally, the highest type of all, the caucasians, represented by the civilized white inhabitants of Europe and America."

There is more of this stuff at the link. The textbook was a racist eugenics tract. There was none of what we would consider evolution.

"Parasitism and its Cost to Society. — Hundreds of families such as those described above exist today, spreading disease, immorality, and crime to all parts of this country. The cost to society of such families is very severe. Just as certain animals or plants become parasitic on other plants or animals, these families have become parasitic on society. They not only do harm to others by corrupting, stealing, or spreading disease, but they are actually protected and cared for by the state out of public money. Largely for them the poorhouse and the asylum exist. They take from society, but they give nothing in return. They are true parasites."

comment #45

SpinDozer says ...

Yes, Comrades, we must be ever vigilant against the Counter-Revolutionary Imperialist Running Dogs who would outlaw our 2nd most sacred text, Hunter's Civic Biology. Rumours have reached our ears that the fearsome Libertarian Intelligensia have penetrated our Clever Ruse to reintroduce this most noble work into every school in the country, and we may yet fail, Vigilance!

comment #46

lindenen says ...

A movie about what actually happened would be delicious. You could put a little kid in a commercial reading that racist stuff and people's jaws would drop.

comment #47

lindenen says ...

LOL Vigilance!

comment #48

le corbeau says ...

Okay, SpinDozer, you did make me laugh this time. Hunter's Civic Biology must be stopped! And then we're going after the Iowa Basic Skills Test, vanguard of the Stalinist juggernaut...

The eugenics stuff in Liberal Fascism is pretty jawdropping, but a big part of Goldberg's point is that midcentury fascism's defeat in war rid statism of its harsher side; now when the state wants to smother you in its embrace, it's so gosh darn nice about it.

comment #49

christian says ...

"If Gregory Peck had known what was in that textbook, he would not have chosen to star in Inherit the Wind..."

Apparently he did and then chose not to.
Spencer Tracy, not so aware.

comment #50

lindenen says ...

Bizarro. Why have I always though Gregory Peck was in that movie. What the hell am I thinking of? Oh well, I suck.

comment #51

affiliatesreview says ...

really good post :) Thank you
Best regards!
----------------
Free pc games
Affiliate review