Mind providing examples of these from the film? To anybody who's seen it and isn't of the mind (or lack thereof) to accept its propaganda blindly, the movie is clearly a plee for the acceptance of ID as legit science. If this weren't the case, the movie would focus on 'scientific oppression' on fronts other than ID vs. evo.
Not only that, but the movie has been billed as a documentary about the crossroads of science and religion, and ID and evolution. So to say that that's not the subject is to ignore the entire premis of the film.
I have watched the movie and I disagree with the characterization of the movie as a plea to treat intelligent design as legitimate science. Rather, Ben Stein presents the movie in a different manner. Ben Stein's presentation rests upon the assumption the
brand of intelligent design his movie is focusing upon has not received proper scientific scrutiny by the scientific community but rather has been censored from the begining. In other words, the scientific community has not properly analyzed the claims and evidence but rather summarily dismissed the idea. Ben Stein's film, then, present the idea there has not been an adequate scientific inquiry into a specific kind of intelligent design to ascertain whether it is legitimate science. For Ben Stein, the question it is legitimate science has yet to be answered by the scientific community because the scientific community has just summarily dismissed the idea without properly analyzing the evidence and claims.
the movie is clearly a plee for the acceptance of ID as legit science. If this weren't the case, the movie would focus on 'scientific oppression' on fronts other than ID vs. evo.
Well this is not very persuasive, it is a non-sequitur. I have read these arguments before, usually espoused to assert someone has an ulterior motive, on the basis the reasoning and principles espoused by the individual could logically extend to other issues, and since the person did not address those issues, then they must have some other agenda than the one expressed. This is essentially the argument you make and it is a faulty argument. You do not provide any good reason to believe the reason Ben Stein made this movie is to have the scientific community at least analyze the claims and evidence as opposed to summarily dismissing it, and your argument above does not qualify as a "good reason."
Here is a parallel argument.
A legal scholar, who is running for political office, decides to write a derisive paper about the injustices perpetuated by states and the legal field upon a certain racial minority among many different minorities, and states he is doing so to hopefully do away with the injustice. The legal scholar's criticisms can be applied generally as a repudiation of this unjust treatment in regards to other people and races as opposed to the specific race he has chosen to focus upon. On this basis, we conclude he must have a hidden agenda, in addition to his stated agenda and purpose, and we then conjure up an agenda, such as pandering to this specific racial group.
But really based on this logic why stop with this ulterior agenda? Such reasoning permits us to speculate all day long as to what really motivated him to type this scathing rebuke of the legal system in regards to one race but not more generally. Maybe he did so because he was not aware such a phenomenon occurs elsewhere, therefore, he did not address it uniformly. Maybe such an injustice does not occur elsewhere, therefore it is not addressed. Mabye he did so because he does not like the other races. Maybe he did so because he has personally seen members of this race treated poorly and consequently, decided to specifically focus upon their plight. Maybe it his approach will get the people's attention, by focusing upon it in the manner he chose as opposed to the alternative approach of doing it more generally. Or, maybe he did it precisely for the reasons he stated and no other.
We have no proof or evidence, mind you none, to support ANY of those other motives, agendas, or reasons. Rather, we just ASSUME they exist on the basis he did not more generally apply his approach.
We could, on this basis, impeach President Lincoln's expressed purpose for his desire to free the slaves. After all, while Pres. Lincoln told us he was doing so because notions of liberty and freedom dictate such action (he famously referenced the Declaration of Independence that all men are created equal and endowed by the creator with inalienable rights of life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness), but he must have had an ulterior agenda/motive because he did not apply this logic to other areas, where it could be so applied. Such as interracial marriage and reproduction, voting, serving as jurors, participating in the political system, choosing to go to any college, school, restaurant, where to live, and so forth. He said,
"I will say, then, that I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the White and Black races - that I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of making voters or jurors of Negroes - nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to inter-marry with White people; and I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the White and Black races which will ever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality, and in as much as they cannot so live, while they do remain together, there must be the position of superior and inferior, and I, as much as any other man, am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the White race."
Well, on this basis, President Abraham Lincoln must have had some other agenda than the one he expressed in freeing the slaves on the basis he quite simply failed to make his logic more generally applicable where it could be done so. Yet, I have no evidence or proof of there existing any other reason, motive, or agenda as serving for him to free the slaves and likewise at this time no evidence exists to support the idea Ben Stein had some other agenda than the one he expressly stated.
Rather, here are the major issues and sub-issues addressed in the movie.
1. Conceptualizes intelligent design...specifically, intelligent design is not and does not necessarily involve the creation account in Genesis. Some proponents of intelligent design actually repudiate the creation account in Genesis. The movie goes on to explain intelligent design within the context of evolution.
2. The movie then seeks to define evolution.
3. The movie does not refute, debunk, undermine, or challenge the validity of evolution. Yes, it looks at SOME of its claims skeptically but does not assert evolution never occurred, transpired, or happened.
Those are the sub-issues. The main two issues are the following.
1. The scientific community is censoring itself in regards to intelligent design, specifically, it is just summarily dismissing it and its evidence without actually analyzing the claims and evidence and
2. Where did the life come from? In other words, whatever the scientific community believes or perceives to be the START of life, amoeba, single cell, whatever, where did it come from, how did it get here, how was it created or how did it come into existence? Some scientists assert based on the information of the cell, how information is stored and created in the cell, etcetera, is evidence for an intelligent designer.
You have just completely mischaracterized the movie and on what basis? Well, you have a basis but it is not a good one at this time.
