Expelled from Expelled!
04-20-08, 08:44 PM
#51
DVD Talk Legend
I have no trouble with the idea of Science being a way of studying God's Creation.
We can learn how light works, and use our telescopes to look at far galaxies, notice they are all red-shifted, and say, "Oh! God made a universe that is currently expanding!"
No problem.
Also, saying that ID makes no sense is not the same as saying that God did not create the universe. Pointing out that ID makes no sense is only saying that to believe in God, and that God made everything, based on this concept is idiotic.
Many people believe in God, and that God made everything, and are NOT idiots.
They can tell a drinking glass from a pile of gravel.
We can learn how light works, and use our telescopes to look at far galaxies, notice they are all red-shifted, and say, "Oh! God made a universe that is currently expanding!"
No problem.
Also, saying that ID makes no sense is not the same as saying that God did not create the universe. Pointing out that ID makes no sense is only saying that to believe in God, and that God made everything, based on this concept is idiotic.
Many people believe in God, and that God made everything, and are NOT idiots.
They can tell a drinking glass from a pile of gravel.
04-20-08, 09:01 PM
#52
DVD Talk Legend
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: 75 clicks above the Do Lung bridge...
Posts: 18,946
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes
on
2 Posts
Originally Posted by Mrs. Danger
I have no trouble with the idea of Science being a way of studying God's Creation.
We can learn how light works, and use our telescopes to look at far galaxies, notice they are all red-shifted, and say, "Oh! God made a universe that is currently expanding!"
No problem.
Also, saying that ID makes no sense is not the same as saying that God did not create the universe. Pointing out that ID makes no sense is only saying that to believe in God, and that God made everything, based on this concept is idiotic.
Many people believe in God, and that God made everything, and are NOT idiots.
They can tell a drinking glass from a pile of gravel.
We can learn how light works, and use our telescopes to look at far galaxies, notice they are all red-shifted, and say, "Oh! God made a universe that is currently expanding!"
No problem.
Also, saying that ID makes no sense is not the same as saying that God did not create the universe. Pointing out that ID makes no sense is only saying that to believe in God, and that God made everything, based on this concept is idiotic.
Many people believe in God, and that God made everything, and are NOT idiots.
They can tell a drinking glass from a pile of gravel.
but good post nonetheless...
04-20-08, 10:32 PM
#53
DVD Talk Limited Edition
Expelled Exposed website is an excellent place to see all the many ways in which this movie is wrong.
(For instance, this lifting of Darwin quotes and twisting them to make it seen like his views supported the genocide done year later by the Nazis, when Darwin's actual views were literally the opposite.)
(For instance, this lifting of Darwin quotes and twisting them to make it seen like his views supported the genocide done year later by the Nazis, when Darwin's actual views were literally the opposite.)
04-21-08, 04:07 AM
#55
DVD Talk Hall of Fame
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: Columbia, MD
Posts: 8,173
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Dr Mabuse
Ben Stein is nothing...
Einstein was a REAL idiot... he believed everything he did in science was the study of what was created by God... what a dunce...
Einstein was a REAL idiot... he believed everything he did in science was the study of what was created by God... what a dunce...
04-21-08, 07:50 AM
#56
DVD Talk Hero
Originally Posted by Duran
To say he believed everything was created by God, while technically true, is a gross mischaracterization. His "God" was more akin to the universe itself, and was nothing close to the personal God of the world's major religions.
http://www.tricity.wsu.edu/~dcarrell...esaboutgod.htm
"It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it." - [Albert Einstein, 1954, from "Albert Einstein: The Human Side", edited by Helen Dukas and Banesh Hoffman, Princeton University Press]
04-22-08, 10:47 PM
#57
DVD Talk Limited Edition
Given the level of respect shown to real science in this film, I wonder if Ben Stein and these filmmakers will next make a movie about science's "conspiracy" to force the heliocentric theory on everyone while completely ignoring and even persecuting people who support the geocentric theory.
Last edited by dhmac; 04-22-08 at 10:50 PM.
04-23-08, 07:36 PM
#59
DVD Talk Gold Edition
Originally Posted by Groucho
...I'm fan of Ben Stein -- I'm not sure if his presence elevates this movie's respectability, or lowers his own.
Or lowered my respect for him.
04-23-08, 07:42 PM
#60
DVD Talk Gold Edition
Originally Posted by movielib
...Einstein, unfortunately, often invited misinterpretations of his beliefs by using religious terms in unconventional ways.
Or something like that.
04-23-08, 07:54 PM
#61
DVD Talk Gold Edition
You know... just to throw a little gas on the fire, so to speak, I don't think it is up to science/evolutionists/etc. to prove God doesn't exist.
And not because you can't prove a negative.
But because, for the past few thousand years, all those who have asserted that God does exist... have never proved it.
So my attitude about all of it can be summed up like this... although I was born in the state of Ohio, I'm from Missouri.
And not because you can't prove a negative.
But because, for the past few thousand years, all those who have asserted that God does exist... have never proved it.
So my attitude about all of it can be summed up like this... although I was born in the state of Ohio, I'm from Missouri.
04-23-08, 10:15 PM
#62
DVD Talk Limited Edition
Originally Posted by Jon2
Like Einstein saying he had trouble with quantum mechanics because he "didn't believe God played dice with the universe."
Or something like that.
Or something like that.
His view was not one that believed in "revealed" religion, such as a God who reveals things to prophets or inspired a book to be written, and he definitely did not believe in what he called an "anthropomorphic" conception of God. (Einstein even said that such a personal view seemed rather naive to him.) So for anyone who believes in that sort of religion, which is what characterizes most major religions, Einstein's view would essentially be considered atheistic (and he was denounced as such when he published some writings on his religious views). And for people with such "naive" religious views (Einstein's description) to now try to claim him as one of their own is either extremely stupid or extremely cynical.
Last edited by dhmac; 04-23-08 at 10:17 PM.
04-23-08, 11:51 PM
#63
Expelled is Michael Moore filmmaking, only from the right. People interviewed from "their" side are portrayed as geniuses while the "other" side are clearly buffoons.
It's just lazy, sloppy "filmmaking" with zero insight whatsoever.
It's just lazy, sloppy "filmmaking" with zero insight whatsoever.
04-24-08, 05:18 AM
#64
Senior Member
Yoko Ono sues in NY over song in movie challenging evolution
NEW YORK (AP) — Yoko Ono is suing the producers of a movie that challenges the concept of Darwinian evolution, saying they used the song "Imagine" without her permission and led the blogosphere to accuse her of "selling out."
In a lawsuit filed in federal court in Manhattan, Ono accuses the producers of "Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed" of suggesting to viewers that those who guard John Lennon's legacy somehow authorized or sponsored the film.
The producers of the film, which features Ben Stein challenging Darwinian theories that prevail in academic circles and suggesting that life could have emerged through intelligent design, said they used only "a very small portion of the song."
"Based on the fair use doctrine, news commentators and film documentarians regularly use material in the same way we do," Premise Media said in a statement. "Unbiased viewers of the film will see that the 'Imagine' clip was used as part of a social commentary in the exercise of free speech and freedom of inquiry."
Ono's lawsuit claims the producers did not ask for permission either because they knew they couldn't get it or because they did not want to pay for the rights. It objects to the way "Imagine" is listed in the film's credits, saying it suggested to members of the news media and others that the song's use had been approved.
"Internet 'bloggers' immediately began accusing Mrs. Lennon of 'selling out' by licensing the song to defendants," says the complaint, filed this week.
The lawsuit calls "Imagine" Lennon's signature song, saying it "has become closely associated with and is synonymous with John Lennon."
The complaint, which also names other firms involved with the movie, asks the court to stop the filmmakers from distributing, selling and promoting the movie, and it seeks financial damages. It was filed on behalf of Ono, Lennon's sons Sean and Julian, and EMI Blackwood Music Inc.
"Expelled" earned the No. 10 spot at the box office this weekend, bringing in nearly $3 million in its first weekend in wide release. Stein, an actor, quiz show host and former speech writer for Presidents Richard Nixon and Gerald Ford, has been visiting some state capitals to screen the movie for lawmakers.
In a lawsuit filed in federal court in Manhattan, Ono accuses the producers of "Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed" of suggesting to viewers that those who guard John Lennon's legacy somehow authorized or sponsored the film.
The producers of the film, which features Ben Stein challenging Darwinian theories that prevail in academic circles and suggesting that life could have emerged through intelligent design, said they used only "a very small portion of the song."
"Based on the fair use doctrine, news commentators and film documentarians regularly use material in the same way we do," Premise Media said in a statement. "Unbiased viewers of the film will see that the 'Imagine' clip was used as part of a social commentary in the exercise of free speech and freedom of inquiry."
Ono's lawsuit claims the producers did not ask for permission either because they knew they couldn't get it or because they did not want to pay for the rights. It objects to the way "Imagine" is listed in the film's credits, saying it suggested to members of the news media and others that the song's use had been approved.
"Internet 'bloggers' immediately began accusing Mrs. Lennon of 'selling out' by licensing the song to defendants," says the complaint, filed this week.
The lawsuit calls "Imagine" Lennon's signature song, saying it "has become closely associated with and is synonymous with John Lennon."
The complaint, which also names other firms involved with the movie, asks the court to stop the filmmakers from distributing, selling and promoting the movie, and it seeks financial damages. It was filed on behalf of Ono, Lennon's sons Sean and Julian, and EMI Blackwood Music Inc.
"Expelled" earned the No. 10 spot at the box office this weekend, bringing in nearly $3 million in its first weekend in wide release. Stein, an actor, quiz show host and former speech writer for Presidents Richard Nixon and Gerald Ford, has been visiting some state capitals to screen the movie for lawmakers.
04-24-08, 12:21 PM
#65
DVD Talk Special Edition
Originally Posted by cerulean
Anyone know how "Imagine" is used in the movie? If the song isn't discussed specifically, then the filmmakers will lose, right?
John Lennon's "Imagine" is played (original version) over B&W scenes of what looked like communist China, with a parade of soldiers. The lyrics to the song were subtitled on the bottom of the screen. I think I remember a shot of Stalin saluting somewhere in here as well. The part of the song played was of course "...and no religion too...", implying that no religion equals communist China.
No court case is ever certain. The filmmakers will have to either defend themselves in court or try to settle. It will be hard for the filmmakers, though, because they're using an unlicensed song in a for-profit commercial film.
Last edited by dugan; 04-24-08 at 12:33 PM.
04-24-08, 05:58 PM
#66
Originally Posted by cerulean
Anyone know how "Imagine" is used in the movie? If the song isn't discussed specifically, then the filmmakers will lose, right?
In the film, about four lines from "Imagine" played with lyrics on screen used in a critical context. "Imagine there's no Heaven .. Nothing to kill or die for .. And no religion too."
It was definitely critical, and within the law under the fair use doctrine.
04-24-08, 06:10 PM
#67
DVD Talk Special Edition
Originally Posted by Finisher
"The producers cited the fair use doctrine, which allows the use of copyrighted materials for the purposes of commentary and criticism."
Whether their use of the song was "critical" is one of many factors the court will consider.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_use
Last edited by dugan; 04-24-08 at 06:28 PM.
04-25-08, 03:20 AM
#68
DVD Talk Hall of Fame
Originally Posted by Finisher
It was definitely critical, and within the law under the fair use doctrine.
04-25-08, 07:48 PM
#69
DVD Talk Legend
Yeah, if I was going to use a song for a movie, I'd be very careful about getting the proper licenses and permissions.
Check this out about the new X-Men cartoon trailer using songs from Foo Fighters.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wolveri...rs_Controversy
I think even if Yoko approved of the song's use, the record company might not and would have sued for compensation. RIAA seems to deal with this often to protect artists' work.
Check this out about the new X-Men cartoon trailer using songs from Foo Fighters.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wolveri...rs_Controversy
I think even if Yoko approved of the song's use, the record company might not and would have sued for compensation. RIAA seems to deal with this often to protect artists' work.
04-28-08, 09:16 AM
#70
DVD Talk Ultimate Edition
Originally Posted by Mrs. Danger
ID doesn't even hold up to its own logic.
http://feeling-bloggy.blogspot.com/
The whole thing makes me think of those UFO believers that point to anything and everything as evidence of alien spacecraft. There may be real evidence, but it is lost in the sea of silliness.
http://feeling-bloggy.blogspot.com/
The whole thing makes me think of those UFO believers that point to anything and everything as evidence of alien spacecraft. There may be real evidence, but it is lost in the sea of silliness.
Many people slamming ID here are missing the main point of the movie, I think: Some VERY smart people with PhDs are being fired for even mentioning ID. In the academic world, freedom of ideas and discussion should be encouraged, not crushed. These were not people pushing their own agenda on a daily basis, from what I can tell (any more than anti-ID people push theirs), yet they were either terminated or their contracts "not renewed." Or, as Stein put it, "Freedom of ideas is just fine, as long as you're on THIS side of the wall."
Those in academia or science who are secure in their beliefs shouldn't fear alternate ideas being mentioned, and simply calling pro-ID scientists "idots" or firing them IS a problem that the movie highlighted very well.
04-28-08, 09:46 AM
#71
Senior Member
There has been much discussion that some of those that were "fired" were not actually fired -some of them were never even paid employees of the place from which they were supposedly fired.
Except that Sternberg did not lose his job. He didn’t even lose his unpaid courtesy position at the Smithsonian. In fact, even after everything that happened, the Smithsonian still extended an invitation after his Research Associate position had expired to remain as a Research Collaborator.
From
http://scienceblogs.com/dispatches/2..._sternberg.php
Except that Sternberg did not lose his job. He didn’t even lose his unpaid courtesy position at the Smithsonian. In fact, even after everything that happened, the Smithsonian still extended an invitation after his Research Associate position had expired to remain as a Research Collaborator.
From
http://scienceblogs.com/dispatches/2..._sternberg.php
04-28-08, 11:43 AM
#72
DVD Talk Special Edition
Originally Posted by uteotw
Actually, it's several Darwinists in the movie who speculate aliens may have "deposited life material" on earth, which is kinda funny.
Originally Posted by Richard Dawkins (on his website)
Stein asked whether I could think of any circumstances whatsoever under which intelligent design might have occurred... [so] I constructed a science fiction scenario... Well, you will have guessed how Mathis/Stein handled this... I won't get the exact words right... but Stein said something like this. "What? Richard Dawkins BELIEVES IN INTELLIGENT DESIGN." "Richard Dawkins BELIEVES IN ALIENS FROM OUTER SPACE."
The people behind this film can, of course, refute these accusations by releasing the unedited interviews. I predict they never will.
Last edited by dugan; 04-28-08 at 12:31 PM.
04-28-08, 07:19 PM
#73
DVD Talk Gold Edition
Originally Posted by Finisher
"The producers cited the fair use doctrine, which allows the use of copyrighted materials for the purposes of commentary and criticism."
In the film, about four lines from "Imagine" played with lyrics on screen used in a critical context. "Imagine there's no Heaven .. Nothing to kill or die for .. And no religion too."
It was definitely critical, and within the law under the fair use doctrine.
In the film, about four lines from "Imagine" played with lyrics on screen used in a critical context. "Imagine there's no Heaven .. Nothing to kill or die for .. And no religion too."
It was definitely critical, and within the law under the fair use doctrine.
If my understanding of "Fair Use" is correct, I believe that "use of copyrighted materials for the purposes of commentary and criticism" is only allowed when those factors (commentary and criticism) are being applied to the subject being used.
In other words, the producers of Expelled would have the right to use segments of "Imagine" if their film were a commentary and/or criticism of the song "Imagine" or John Lennon. Fair Use does not give them the right to use "Imagine" the way they did. The movie is essentially a critique of evolution, not Lennon's song... however critical they may be about the song.
I can understand why some have a problem with "Imagine" for religious reasons (I have issues with it, but not religious ones), however the song takes no stance on ID or evolution. I know a lot of ID advocates say ID is not about religion or God, but about teaching an alternative theory. Unfortunately, if the producers share that view, then the way they used "Imagine" belies that.
Last edited by Jon2; 04-28-08 at 07:23 PM.
04-29-08, 01:17 AM
#74
DVD Talk Hero
Sounds like the sequence in question is indeed offering criticism of Lennon's song. It's saying, "Here's a popular and highly-regarded song that espouses certain ideals...and here's our criticism of what the world would be like if those ideals were realized". Seems like a decent case for Fair Use to me.
04-29-08, 11:47 PM
#75
DVD Talk Gold Edition
Originally Posted by Numanoid
Sounds like the sequence in question is indeed offering criticism of Lennon's song. It's saying, "Here's a popular and highly-regarded song that espouses certain ideals...and here's our criticism of what the world would be like if those ideals were realized". Seems like a decent case for Fair Use to me.
Besides it's absurd to associate Imagine with the Nazis. Nazi Germany wasn't athestic. It was a Christian nation... or so they proclaimed themselves to be.
Just how "Christian" they actually were will be left to history's judgement.
Last edited by Jon2; 04-30-08 at 12:08 AM.