DISQUS

Matthew · 1 year ago

He's probably a gold digger.

Rob Hunter · 1 year ago

Wow. Very well-written review, even if you are wrong in more than a few instances. A couple quick thoughts...
Evolution has nothing to do with the origin of life. The beginning of the universe is a different scientific field altogether.
Intelligent Design is creationism. Period. To say life was designed implies implicitly there was a creator.
It is, and should be, kept completely out of the science classroom because ID proponents offer no science behind it. Saying simply "this shows evidence of design" does not warrant it being taught or discussed in science classes. If it were mandatory to include it in class then it would also be necessary to throw in magic, aliens, The Matrix, and the possibility that life as we know it is simply one long wetdream rolling through Neil's head.
Even with the gaps, evolution is accepted as fact by the scientific community. But that doesn't mean they're not open to evolving their knowledge base as new information is discovered and tested.
And Stein does in fact claim a connection between Darwinism and Nazis behaving badly, if not verbally, he does so with precise and intentional editing. The connection is shoved into the viewers eye sockets.
All that said, I think the movie does work as a comedy.

Cole Abaius · 1 year ago

Why did it have to be a wet dream?

Matthew, prepare for an avalanche of dissent. I don't know many people who liked this as a movie let alone as a decent educational movie about ID.

1. Stein confuses the issues of evolution, ID and creationism with all the subtlety of a jackhammer. He keeps changing the rules.

2. He parades through a small handful of academics that were fired for varied reasons and claim to be persecuted because of their beliefs.

3. The science community accepts evolution as a daily, visible means of progression. The debate is on what brand is correct - which is where Darwinism gets challenged. He opined a Natural Selection while others believe Neutral Selection is a better model. Stein misses this point because he stays on the surface.

4. ID is creationism. And it's without any empirical proof.

Have we come up with a genre for this type of non-fiction film (and those of Michael Moore)? Faux-cumentary maybe? Not-cumentary?

I doubt they'll let us call it propaganda.

Robert Fure · 1 year ago

Don't forget to add 'An Inconvenient Truth' to your list of falseumentaries.

Matt Garrett · 1 year ago

But you're missing the complete point of the movie, Cole, as do most critics of ID. The movie is about dissent. It's about having the right to present an alternate or dissenting view in the educational spectrum, not because evolution is fact or ID is faith, but because, as the reviewer stated:

"... no solid theory need worry about dissent, and no uncertain theory should be free of it."

Education can be had by discussing opposing viewpoints and drawing conclusions from the process, not shutting down the discussion by prohibiting the dissent because you don't agree with it.

El Bicho · 1 year ago

Unfortunately for Ben, I pretty much got all this from the trailer, so I don't see a reason to go now. Even if dissenters find evolution flawed, and it very well may be, you don't get to replace it with a different flawed system. Just so I am clear, I didn't see where you stated that any of those fired had their bosses interviewed. Were they given the chance to respond?

"All too often ID proponents are cast as Creationists in disguise, trying to slip religion into schools through the back door."

Until you show me an ID supporter who is an atheist, your suggestion of libel is hyperbole.

"Why did it have to be a wet dream?"

It's a fair assumption. Have you not seen all his Hot Chick/Michael Bay posts?

Cole Abaius · 1 year ago

Matt, I don't miss the point at all. I just highly disagree with it. ID doesn't deserve a second look from the scientific community because it isn't science. Furthermore, it certainly doesn't belong in our classroom as if it's been vetted in the same way.

Dissent isn't being prohibited in any way here. ID had it's chance to prove itself, and it epically failed. Time to move on.

And the movie isn't about dissent, it's about pushing an agenda. I have complete confidence that proponents of evolution have no worry about dissent from ID, but we cannot mistake their dismissive attitudes of it as uneducated of biased. They dismiss it because it's been shown to be unsound. What those in the science community are afraid of is our children having ID presented to them as science when it is clearly not.

There's no conspiracy here to keep ID out of science anymore than there's a conspiracy to keep the heliocentric view of the universe out of science. They've been run through the system and deemed unfounded, without empirical evidence.

Should any idiot have free speech to make a movie? Sure. But that doesn't entitle him or his opinion to acceptance. Sorry ID.

Plus, I often find that dissenting for dissenting's sake is tiresome and useless. Come up with a theory as strong as evolution, and then the community will talk.

And Fure, you're just upset that all the acid rain you get is dissolving your El Camino. But don't fret! It's still easy to pick up the ladies without a dope ride when you've got that 'stache. You of all people should know that.

Neil Miller · 1 year ago

@El Bicho...

Thanks. Good to see that I still get a little bit of respect around here.

Oh, wait...

ScreenRant.com · 1 year ago

LOL, get read for a LONG list of comments. There aren't many positive reviews of this movie out there. I gave it one as well and it generated the most comments ever on my site. :-)

Vic

joeshmoe · 1 year ago

Are you on crack?