Perhaps you’ve heard of the movie "Expelled", an attempt by the liars at the Discovery Institute to once again spread their abysmal crap about intelligent design. The star of this movie is Ben Stein, a guy I have tried to like over the years despite his having been a Nixon speechwriter, but who might as well smother kittens at this point, such are his chances at redemption.
PZ and others have been all over this movie and how everyone involved has been lying non-stop to get interviews and promote it. As usual, I have to ask: why is the Ninth Commandment considered to be optional by religious fundamentalists?
Anyway, Bay of Fundie has a great take-down of Stein and the movie on his blog (some NSFW language). He even has links to destroy the usual ID/creationism memes, though it’s like trying to dig a hole in water.
I can make a few absolutely certain predictions about this movie. I will bet that:
1) It will not do terribly well in theaters.
2) The Disco ‘tute will claim it did.
3) When they finally have to admit it is tanking, they will claim it’s the evul evilutionists who suppressed it.
Any takers? Bueller? Bueller?
January 18th, 2008 at 7:22 pm
This movie depresses me. I actually *liked* Ben Stein until I learned about this ridiculous movie.
January 18th, 2008 at 7:35 pm
My prediction: They will market this movie to churches up and down the country and organize special showings for church groups.
Stein will get a lot of free publicity on talkshows because of his controversial views which will make him an interesting guest.
I’d be surprised if this movie wasn’t profitable.
January 18th, 2008 at 7:38 pm
It’ll do depressingly well in the Bible Belt.
But I suspect most people will avoid it, either out of apathy or the realization that it’s all a pack of lies.
January 18th, 2008 at 7:38 pm
my Sentiments exactly Lledowynn..I won’t be able to watch any of his stuff anymore…
January 18th, 2008 at 7:44 pm
This puts me off my fresh, fried lobster. It’s depressing as hell to now have my perception of Ben Stein further tainted as I have enjoyed his mono-toned, dead-pan characters in movies and commercials.
January 18th, 2008 at 7:50 pm
Have you heard about the plan to PAY SCHOOLS to make it a field trip (at parent’s expense, of course) Linkety: http://slog.thestranger.com/2008/01/you_couldnt_pay_me_to_give_ben_stein_mon
January 18th, 2008 at 7:53 pm
Ben Stein – Further proof that education only makes you educated. Not smart.
Admittedly, I did find the bit about ID research being used for cancer treatment a bit more offensive than the rest. The ID answer would be, what, ‘pray harder’?
January 18th, 2008 at 7:54 pm
Stein: [T]here is this big issue about RNA and DNA, and whether RNA and DNA can respond to changes in the world around them. I think we say it can respond to changes in the world around them and that neo-Darwinians say it can only do that by random chance…
Bueller?
Lysenko?
Lysenko?
J/P=?
January 18th, 2008 at 8:02 pm
Neo-Darwinians? Does this mean we get to race motorcycles against neo-conservatives and neo-Reaganites in neo-tokyo?
January 18th, 2008 at 8:21 pm
I used to like him so much too… I’m so disappointed.
January 18th, 2008 at 8:58 pm
Well, that completely shatters my entire perception of him…
January 18th, 2008 at 9:24 pm
Over the Xmas holiday, I received a FWD email allegedly transcribing comments Stein had made on a TV interview, which basically were a pro-Christian, anti-’war on Cristmas’ rant. I sent a response to the sender, carefully pointing out the logical flaws in Stein’s points, and summarizing that we needn’t be Christian to try to view each other as ‘brothers and sisters’ on the same planet, and that we should try to take a more harmonious view year-round, not just at Christmas time.
I honestly thought that the comments weren’t entirely Stein’s, that someone else had injected their own commentary into his.
Now, I’m guessing that maybe it was legitimately his commentary.
Anyone else get that email? It was fairly pathetic, inmy opinion, because it made it seem like non-Christians can’t be good to one another. (It seemed to acknowledge that Jews MAYBE could, but the best way was the Christian way.)
January 18th, 2008 at 9:25 pm
I’d like to know what makes Ben Stein qualified to even discuss this? As far as I know he is not a scientist. He should not be making such silly statements. I would not make such stupid statements about something I don’t know anything about.
January 18th, 2008 at 9:34 pm
FSM dammit! I kinda liked the guy too. Didn’t see him around too much, just a sort of model of the very boring guy pimping eyedrops, websites and doing funny voice acting by acting exactly like the guy in the office you wish to talk to the least. He must not have done too much harm pushing his views because I’d heard nothing of it until now, a few googles cleared it up quickly but then that means he can’t be gathering major media time either.
I’m not even sure they will have the guts to say it tanked because evolutionists are repressing them. The tide, even among belivers, seem to be turning a bit. But then who knows – Disco will surely say what they usually say as will many others. I doubt those wheels will get much more traction. Then perhaps I’m just feeling good today.
January 18th, 2008 at 9:35 pm
Say what you will about Nixon, he was neither naive nor given to flights of fancy. I can imagine his reaction to his protege’s creation crusade:
“What is this (expletive deleted)? This is supposed to be a (expletive) public issue? Is the illiterate rube vote that important? Why don’t you whine about Santa (expletive) Claus or the Easter Bunny being locked out while you’re at it?”
January 18th, 2008 at 10:12 pm
Ben Stein has been claiming that ID proponents’ first amendment/ free speech rights are somehow being violated by the evil “Darwinists.” As a former lawyer, he should also realize that the first amendment right to freedom of speech has nothing to do with this issue. While you should be (and in fact are) free to say whatever you want, you do not have a constitutional right to have your crackpot superstitious belief in pseudoscience endorsed by the scientific community or taught in public classrooms. The first amendment only comes into play when the governmnent censors speech. What’s wrong with this guy?
January 18th, 2008 at 11:08 pm
Rebecca over at skepchick posted Stein’s email yesterday, and I sent him an email saying that he lied to get interviews and obviously was ignorant of science having debunked all these ID claims within the last 20-30 years, and he responded by calling me a fool and saying that the movie wasn’t even done yet (of course the email Rebecca got may have been wrong, and it could be someone else, its hard to imagine his email is actually BenStein@aol.com)
January 19th, 2008 at 12:28 am
[...] I’ve been Bad Astronomered! Welcome to everyone coming here from Phil Plait’s [...]
January 19th, 2008 at 12:52 am
He’s perfect choice for a part in a movie such as this (Emmy winning attorney speech writer turned actor). I used to watch Stein’s TV show way back in the 20th century and was baffled when he came out for Bush. But then I remembered how he was one of the great Nixon apologists (precisely why he continues the Republicans-do-no-wrong stance). His creationist stance appears to align with the view of those (albeit a small minority) in the Judaic community that feel the holocaust can be blamed on Darwin. This is, however, a commonly held belief amongst radicals of the extreme right (Coulter). Stein being Republican and Jewish, and smart enough to work backward to make his arguments….
Stein impressed me as a kook years ago.
January 19th, 2008 at 2:27 am
Um… that game show where you could win his money was fun. It was Jimmy Kimmel’s first TeeVee show.
Mmmyep…
Like others, I am disappointed. I never even heard him talk about evolution/creationism.
Does he punctuate points in the film with a deadpan “Wow”?
January 19th, 2008 at 3:18 am
Instead of (*)hat, the more visual (_)*(_)
And hey, the fact that the guy worked for Nixon simply doesn’t register? Are you all too young, or simply jaded by everything that’s happened since?
January 19th, 2008 at 10:46 am
I’ll watch the movie, then make my decision. Maybe between the lies and kitten killing there might be something to learn.
January 19th, 2008 at 11:37 am
Showtime will probably show it someday probably along with Flock of Dodo’s to be “Fair and Balanced” I’ll wait till then.
January 19th, 2008 at 2:07 pm
bad jim:
Hm. I always thought the emoticon for “(*)hat” was <3
January 19th, 2008 at 3:40 pm
I refuse to listen to B. S. ( an accidental mot, but true nonetheless) until he gets a new voder, or gets his present unit upgraded to make him sound like a human being!
One of his claims is that ‘Darwinists’ receive ‘lush positions’ for suporting the supposed orthodoxy. So, is he claiming that scientists are well-paid (har-de-har), or that dealing with this rubbish drives you to drink?
January 19th, 2008 at 5:34 pm
No takers,
Not even at 20-1.
That’s really sad, if you’re not an IDIOT!
I’m just sayin’
rod
January 19th, 2008 at 7:32 pm
0-99 ticket stubs submitted = $5 per ticket stub
Interesting math skills. How does a school send in zero stubs and still get $5 per stub? This rebate thing doesn’t seem to be too intelligently designed. Maybe we need to take it on faith that somehow this makes sense.
January 20th, 2008 at 2:58 am
The BA asked :
“Perhaps you’ve heard of the movie “Expelled”, an attempt by the liars at the Discovery Institute to once again spread their abysmal crap about intelligent design.”
Not until you mentioned it, no.
Which raises a slight question or potential problem in my mind – is it possible that in fighting the ID-crapationist baloney we actually give it the oxygen of publicity or cultural awareness? Does bringing this nonsense up, even to debunk it, keep it alive while ignoring it like a drunken man’s rantings may cause it shut down out of the sheer : “This is a non-issue, everyone with 1/2 or less of a brain knows that whacko religious literalism was disproved by science ages ago …” factor?
In Australia – admittedly a loo-oong way from the US’s Bible Belt Ground Zero-IQ – we hear very, very little about all this stuff. Once in a very long while in the TV or print news we’re told about some silly XN xtremist propaganda theme park purporting to be a natural history museum or that some unlikely to win (ye gods I sure _hope_ unlikely to win!) US presidential candidate doesn’t believe in the earth being round+ or Sun rising in East or evolution … But its rare its not abig thingand very little gets made of it.
The only place I hear much about ID-Creation-myth-as-Science is … well here. (& occassionally on otherscience blogs liek PZ’s or suchlike.)
So :
Am I just lucky to be so distant?
Are we making storms in teacups and too much over nutters who’ll fall over soon enough from their own (utter-to-the-power-of-50,000) stupidity?
Or are some – too many of some – Americans really that dumb as to fall for this ID bunk?
What do y’all reckon?
——————
+ Yes, okay technically Earth ain’t a sphere but an oblate spheroid but y’know somehow that’s not what I meant and a case of round = close enough! Plus I really don’t think the Retardican Right is using Jupiter’s polar flattening as a fact /analogy to Earth’s non-quite-sphercial-ness as their point more just the Earth was flat in the Bible = Earth’s flat now.
That may not be quite their level / topic of argument .. but .. Sigh.. it _is_ pretty close ..
How could any American be so dumb as to vote for Bush & his Taleban mirror image mob? Really???
January 20th, 2008 at 3:36 am
Umm … I’ll say at the start that I disagree with all the Krazy Kreationist Krud but when you ask :
” … the movie “Expelled”, an attempt by the liars at the Discovery Institute to once again spread their abysmal crap … how everyone involved has been lying non-stop to get interviews and promote it … As usual, I have to ask: why is the Ninth Commandment considered to be optional by religious fundamentalists?”
I’ll give you a straight answer : They’re NOT lying.
I think they are telling the truth – AS THEY SEE IT.
If you honestly believe something and it turns out to be false – for example : SN 1987 A which we’re told was a type II Supernova actually turns out to be a type Ia supernova that just co-incidentally happened to be in the line of sight just as the star was covered by an interstellar dust cloud or suchlike … Or, more prosaically, if you tell someone the price of eggs is a dollar fifty and really thinking that but find later it was three dollars or something else… – well its not a _lie_ just wrong information.
I think the ID-Creationist’s really believe in their message.
Probably.
Most of them at least – I can’t see too many really accepting science all along and just preaching baloney for the fun of it.
They start out with the premise (one we may not share but its their premise and what they truly beleive) that the Bible is literally correct in every detail from Adam through to Apocalypse. That sceince is wrong and scientist either mistaken or lying and evolution false.
They’ve got closed minds, they’ve got ignorance – willful ignorance perhaps – but I’ll give those devils their due … they are not lying.
Way I view it : Lying requires bad faith.
The IDers may not be good in anything else but they’re good in faith ..
They’re just telling everyone that what they believe is right when in our view its wrong.
Of course, some of the Creationists, in turn, could (and sometimes do) call scientists and folks like Phil Plait “liars” because – AS THEY SEE IT (& yes, I have to emphasise those words & again repeat it is not how I see things personally) – from their perspective, _we’re_ the ones lying or mistaken about what’s true and they’re correct.
Which is wrong for the exact same reason.
The Bad Astronomer additionally blogged :
“Ben Stein, a guy I have tried to like over the years despite his having been a Nixon speechwriter, but who might as well smother kittens at this point, such are his chances at redemption.”
No condoning cruelty to kittens (even Octo-kitties) even in jest thanks!
Smothering kittens would definitely worsen his chances of redemption far more than making bad and little viewed nonsense movies in my view!
Don’t encourage him, don’t give him even faintly implied permission -remember these fruitloops do take things literally!
Finally, the BA also wrote :
” When they finally have to admit it is tanking, they will claim it’s the evul evilutionists who suppressed it.”
Don’t give ‘em ideas – or lines! Please! :-O
January 20th, 2008 at 4:00 am
So the Discovery Institute fundamentalist liars are calling their movie “Expelled.”
Is that subtitled :
“From the dysentery-infested bowels of a sick bull?”
January 20th, 2008 at 5:13 am
Devils sorta relucatnt barrister said:
“They’ve got closed minds, they’ve got ignorance – willful ignorance perhaps – but I’ll give those devils their due … they are not lying. ”
I disagree.
The DI fellows claim authority in a topic in which they remain willfully ignorant. That is lying.
Authors and commentators like Behe, Dembski, Wells, Johnson and Egnor have had their rhetoric shredded time and time again.
They never address the genuine, substantive criticisms of the claims they make. They never accept corrections to their strawman portrayals of modern biology. They have never even actually published what “ID theory” is supposed to contain (it is always presented as the alternative to evolutionary theory, but they ignore the non-sequitur that EVEN IF there is anything wrong with evolutionary theory, it does not follow that one must perforce conclude design).
Thus, the leaders of the ID movement cannot sincerely believe that the drivel they spout is true, or logical, or in any way valid science. If they were sincere, they would engage in the scientific process.
ID creationism is a political tactic to get “materialism” replaced by a more “spiritual” culture. Look up “the Wedge strategy” on wikipedia.
Or follow this link:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wedge_strategy
The followers, on the other hand, probably do sincerely believe that what the leaders are telling them is true. Which is why it is so important for good science education to become the norm rather than the exception in America’s high schools.
January 20th, 2008 at 8:01 am
Let’s not forget that they had to lie about the nature of the film to many of the people they interviewed, just to get the interview. One would be hard stretched, I would say, to believe they were filming a documentary “about the disconnect/controversy that exists in America between Evolution, Creationism and the Intelligent Design movement,” as Mark Mathis explained the film (under the title Crossroads) when the end result is advertised as “a startling revelation that freedom of thought and freedom of inquiry have been expelled from publicly-funded high schools, universities and research institutions.”
They’re liars. Whether they believe in ID and whatever else the DI is selling or not, they lie time and time again to actually get it out there.
January 20th, 2008 at 11:53 am
I can’t begin to understand their base-line position of ’science=materialism’. Anyone?
January 20th, 2008 at 1:18 pm
I hate to say it, but the criticisms of Creationism:
As you can see, ID creationism fails on three counts:
1. It has not been repeatedly tested.
2. It is not widely accepted.
3. It can not be used to make predictions about natural phenomena,
all apply to Evolution also… And all three are logical fallacies…
Robert
January 20th, 2008 at 3:29 pm
Wow, Phil, now you and PZ are calling Ben freakin’ Stein a “liar” too…
When will it get through your thick skulls that maybe everyone who doesn’t agree with the THEORY of evolution is a “liar” or “doomed”…
I want it on the record from you phil, is everyone who is skeptical of the THEORY of evolution a “liar”?
And since when is it cool to flat out accept one THEORY, but then exclude all others? How can you call yourself scientific?
Don’t you hear how ridiculous it sounds—- when you and PZ sit there, as supposed educated atheists, calling all sorts of good people “liars”.
dude, you guys are becoming a joke, and exactly what you claim to hate…. i.e.. bigots
January 20th, 2008 at 4:26 pm
“I can’t begin to understand their base-line position of ’science=materialism’. Anyone?”
Science without God=Materialism. According to IDCers, anyway.
Robert:
Evolution,
1. Has been repeatedly tested.
2. Is widely accepted by the scientific community (maybe not by creationists, but who cares)
3. It can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena.
January 20th, 2008 at 4:38 pm
Stein also did some tv and radio interviews about his views and the movie a few months ago. He is really not very bright. He claims science does not take ID seriously out of bigotry. He really has not thought about the issue or read the transcripts from the Pennsylvania trial. Any intelligent person would drop the issue fast if they had. ID is a dead end street and contains no science, end of story. The bad thing is that the folks with his view are spreading a distrust of the very people that save lives(medicine and biology). It sickens me to see our culture become a train wreck after leading and improving the world for so long. This has to change. The results of this could be devistating to say the least.
January 20th, 2008 at 4:58 pm
Robert: How are they logical fallacies? You’re talking about scientific method.
Secondly, you’re completely wrong about it applying to evolution.
Read a book.
Thank you,
Rob
January 20th, 2008 at 5:12 pm
Mike J, you are increasingly becoming a caricature of creationist illogic.
Have I ever said, anywhere, that all people who believe in creationism are liars? Anywhere?
I have never said that, and in fact I have been clear multiple times that not everyone who believes in creationism is a liar. They are all wrong, every one of them, but that doesn’t make them liars.
However, even a trivial amount of research when it comes to the Disco ‘tute, AiG, and the rest of the leading lights of creationism will make it crystal clear that they are in fact liars. Try looking up what a diploma mill is, as just one very easy example.
And the fact that you are still unclear on the scientific definition of the word “theory” makes you look even worse.
Honestly, I’m can’t imagine how many times I have to tell you this: do some research before posting here. Even just a wee little bit.
January 20th, 2008 at 5:59 pm
“And since when is it cool to flat out accept one THEORY, but then exclude all others? How can you call yourself scientific?”
(ahem) And to which other “theories” are you referring to, Mike J? Perhaps you could tell us a little more about them? (snicker, giggle)
January 20th, 2008 at 6:27 pm
I guess that the whole bit about giving false information about the nature of the film in order to get interviews doesn’t make these people liars then.
Oh, they were lying for Jesus.
That makes it all ok then.
January 20th, 2008 at 8:52 pm
PHIL:
1)You can’t push on a rope
2Yyou can’t urinate upwind(well, you CAN, but you’ll get all wet)
3)you can’t pull on supermans cape and
you can never,ever change the mind of a TRUE BELIEVER, no matter what non sense they believe.
,,,but I greatly admire that you try,,,
Mike J: Not everyone who comes here is an atheist. Some are agnostic, Jew, Muslim, Hindu,,,etc, but most recognize the validity of the scientifc method.
,,,by the way, faith is usually expressed much more in words than in deeds, and deeds are really the only way to tell REAL Christians from noisy blobs of protoplasm.
,,,and from those of us who have tried to directly expierience the ONE,,,ALL THE WORDS of every human religion are merely the crudest approximation of an infinite reality,,,so THERE Boo!
GAry 7
January 20th, 2008 at 9:21 pm
(open letter, sent to benstein99@aol.com)
Dear Ben,
I’ve been a fan and a reader of your blog for years, but I’m extremely disheartened to read of your role in creating the upcoming movie “Expelled”. Sir, evolution is fact. If you believe otherwise, you are underinformed, and I would therefore urge you to learn some more about science before publicly taking such a position. You have a unique opportunity as a public figure, and I believe a moral obligation, to promote scientific literacy in our society.
Here’s a good book to that effect: http://www.amazon.com/Demon-Haunted-World-Science-Candle-Dark/dp/0345409469/ref=pd_bbs_sr_2?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1200886080&sr=8-2
Please read it.
Best Regards,
Jason Thane
Seattle, WA
January 20th, 2008 at 11:09 pm
Jason T, good on ya. We can use a lot more of action like that.
Y’all listening?
January 21st, 2008 at 12:14 am
Thanks for the link. Nigel Depledge. I read through it and read some of the other comments and I see your point.
I am, however, not sure you’ve quite grasped mine.
From our scientific point of view (POV) the discovery Institute and the IDCer’s (Intelligent Design Creationists) are lying – as we see it. We follow the scientific method and logic and reason and see them as not only wrong but liars for arguing a case where _we_ see NO case to make -based on our way of thinking.
Their way of thinking is different. They are ignorant, close-minded fanatics – but I do think they are _sincere_ ignorant, close-minded fanatics. As fundamentalists (wrong but honestly committed) they do not accept any science that refutes the Bible – eg. & esp. evolution. To them, such science must be false and must be lying or mistaken. Why? The Bible tells em so. God, in their hearts and minds (or imaginations) tells them so. To them if nobody else they’re right and defending what they see as the Truth. If they have to use dirty tactics to acheive this (like say suicide bombing or political wedging) then that’s okay because in their eyes they’re fighting for the side of what’s rightand good and true and doing Gods work. They base this on faith, and god and if soemof them know they aresometimes telling “white lies” then they excuse it as acceptable for the Greater Truth or some such BS – BS I think they genuinely if stupidly believe.
This is my point I don’t think they see themselves as lying. (or even know when they are?) They may be deluded, stubbornly willfully deluded perhaps – but their mindset is so vastly different to ours we may as well be on separate planets. (Ah yes if only they were… Neptune might just be far enough enough away …
)
This whole issue is at the intersection of & involves the political & scientific & religious.
They want to pit religion against science and have religion win in the political arena. They see themselves as waging a political war (hence the Wedge strategy) in the cause of their Truth against what they see as scientific falsehood.
This idea & conception is absurd. To us. To them its real and they see everything through that ideological prism. They are wrong – but from their standpoint they aren’t telling telling lies.
& in fairness some radical atheists like Richard Dawkins and a few other scientists do seem to be fighting a war against religion again as much in the political sphere as much as anywhere else.
Perhaps then we too must accept a certain level of ideological blindness or seeing things through X-xcoloured glasses. We think we’re right &, of course, we would. They think they’re right – & of course they would.
Objectively … well, philosophically speaking, genuine objectiveness is very hard to get and especially when as with this, things have been so polarised and heated. Each side sees themsleves as absolutely Right and the other side as absolutely Wrong.
(Of course, our side really is Right but hey, that’s still the situation!
)
Nigel – Semantically I disagree with your disagreement with me :
“The DI fellows claim authority in a topic in which they remain willfully ignorant. That is lying.”
Not quite. Close, aguable perhaps but not by my definition that :
Lying is when you tell somebody something that you know to be wrong and don’t actually beleive yourself.
The DI believe their rubbbish. They claim to be authorities because they claim to Know from a POV which we don’t share with based on evidence we consider no evidence at all.
We’re right but they’re sincere in their delusions.
Course, that is just semantics … but still.
January 21st, 2008 at 5:47 am
Robert said:
“I hate to say it, but the criticisms of Creationism:
As you can see, ID creationism fails on three counts:
1. It has not been repeatedly tested.
2. It is not widely accepted.
3. It can not be used to make predictions about natural phenomena,
all apply to Evolution also… And all three are logical fallacies…
Robert”
Well, Robert, guess what? You’re wrong.
1. Evolutionary theory has been repeatedly tested. Every time a new fossil is unearthed or a new genome is sequenced, it could (in principle) be refuted. To date, no contradictory data have come to light, despite the huge amount of biological data that have been acquired since the theory was proposed.
2. Evolutionary theory (in its modern incarnation that includes such items as DNA, recombination, genetic drift and punctuated equilibrium) is accepted by all scientists (to about 4 significant figures). The couple of hundred actual scientists that have signed the “dissent from Darwin” statement represents a trivial minority of scientists. Evolutionary theory is also overwhlemingly accepted by rational and critical thinkers. It is only widely rejected by those who (1) do not know what it is; or (2) have an alternative agenda.
3. Evolutionary theory was used to predict that fossil beds of a certain age would contain a fish – tetrapod transitional form. Lo: Tiktaalik (look it up on Wikipedia).
January 21st, 2008 at 5:52 am
Mike J. said:
“I want it on the record from you phil, is everyone who is skeptical of the THEORY of evolution a “liar”?
And since when is it cool to flat out accept one THEORY, but then exclude all others? How can you call yourself scientific?
Don’t you hear how ridiculous it sounds—- when you and PZ sit there, as supposed educated atheists, calling all sorts of good people “liars”.
dude, you guys are becoming a joke, and exactly what you claim to hate…. i.e.. bigots”
The scientific theory of evolution is one of the best pieces of science that exists. It is the unifying principle of biology, and explains many disparate observations. There is no alternative. (An before you claim that there is, I hope you are prepared to provide a detailed description of the scientific alternative, including a precise defintion of all terms you wish to use . Remember also that ID is not science and actually has no scientific content, and that all “scientific creationism” options are flatly in contradiction with known facts).
Conclusions arising from evolutionary theory, such as common descent, have been proven beyond any reasonable doubt.
But don’t take my word for it – go to Talk Origins and look at some of the evidence for yourself.
Anyone who denies the applicability of evolutionary theory is, as far as can be determined, denying reality. Therefore, they are either hugely ignorant or they are lying.
January 21st, 2008 at 6:12 am
Robert posts:
[[1. It has not been repeatedly tested.
2. It is not widely accepted.
3. It can not be used to make predictions about natural phenomena,
all apply to Evolution also… And all three are logical fallacies…]]
1. Evolution has been repeatedly tested. On many occasions, evolutionary biologists have made predictions that have panned out — that the common ancestor of ants and wasps would have particular characteristics (they found one in amber in 1967 and it did), that intermediates between land animals and whales would have certain characteristics (they found a bunch in the ’80s and ’90s and they did), that overuse of pesticides and antibiotics would result in pesticide-resistant insects and antibiotic-resistant microbes arising (and they did).
2. It is certainly widely accepted by biologists. 99% or more.
3. See #1.
January 21st, 2008 at 6:13 am
Devils sorta reluctant barrister said:
“Their way of thinking is different. They are ignorant, close-minded fanatics – but I do think they are _sincere_ ignorant, close-minded fanatics. As fundamentalists (wrong but honestly committed) they do not accept any science that refutes the Bible – eg. & esp. evolution. To them, such science must be false and must be lying or mistaken. Why? The Bible tells em so. God, in their hearts and minds (or imaginations) tells them so. To them if nobody else they’re right and defending what they see as the Truth. If they have to use dirty tactics to acheive this (like say suicide bombing or political wedging) then that’s okay because in their eyes they’re fighting for the side of what’s rightand good and true and doing Gods work. They base this on faith, and god and if soemof them know they aresometimes telling “white lies” then they excuse it as acceptable for the Greater Truth or some such BS – BS I think they genuinely if stupidly believe. ”
I see your point here, and I agree with you about the rank-and-file creationists, but it is the leaders who I believe are lying, because they actually do know better.
You also said:
“Lying is when you tell somebody something that you know to be wrong and don’t actually beleive yourself.
The DI believe their rubbbish. They claim to be authorities because they claim to Know from a POV which we don’t share with based on evidence we consider no evidence at all. ”
Hmmm … I’m not so sure about this bit.
When ID was being touted as a “scientific” alternative to evolution, the leading lights published critiques of evolutionary theory (e.g. No Free Lunch by W.A. Dembski and Darwin’s Black Box by M. Behe). In response, scientists have torn apart the arguments in these books. I mean, literally shredded. They are factually wrong on many counts, they claim that evolutionary theory claims things that it actually does not claim, and their writing contains more logical fallacies than you can shake a stick at. The authors have failed to acknowledge the critiques (except in the most trivial of cases); they have, in fact, continued to publish essentially the same deeply-flawed arguments.
Now, asidfe from what one may personally believe, if your “science” gets torn to pieces by critiques of the scientific community, the least you should do is address the criticisms. The behaviour of these fellows has convinced me that they know they cannot rebut the criticisms, so they choose to ignore them. Thus, they know that what they publish is wrong. Whatever you personally believe, if you make a claim that you know to be wrong, I call that lying.
Additionally, the DI fellows have repeatedly claimed that IDC makes no claims about the designer, that it does not have to be God. Most of them have gone on record (in front of partisan audiences, for the most part) stating that they believe the designer to be God. And, oddly, none of them has made any credible suggestion about who else the designer might be. Yet, at the same time, they have steadfastly refused to entertain the concept that there might be more than one designer. Thus, despite the claim that the designer might not be God, I am convinced by their behaviour that they all consider the designer to be God.
Despite their claims that IDC is not religiously-based, it actually is religiously-based. (This was a finding of the Dover court case). Since they know their own motivation better than anyone else, that claim was therefore also a lie.
January 21st, 2008 at 6:24 am
Barton Paul Levinson said:
“2. It is certainly widely accepted by biologists. 99% or more.”
My guesstimate is 99.99975%. There are probably at least 800,000 biological scientists in the world, and only 2 or 3 (to the best of my knowledge) do not accept the fundamentals of evolutionary theory.
January 21st, 2008 at 9:42 am
And the fact that you are still unclear on the scientific definition of the word “theory” makes you look even worse.
————————————-
Good point phil… lets see here..
Evolution… never been observed
Evolution… never been tested in the lab
Evolution… never been duplicated naturally or artificially
Evolution… mathmatically impossible
Evolution… the only thing that atheists are willing to believe (sorry im just skeptical of that little fact)
Evolution… actually is a hypothesis that has been elevated to the status of a “theory” even though its never been observed taking place, been tested in the lab, or duplicated at all. Also most math buffs will tell you that it is statistically impossible for “evoltuion” to take place even once, let alone billions of times for every animals.
Also if you just do a quick equation, you will see that EVERY animal must have , or be going through evolution, therefore the amount of time it would take for several billion different life forms to evolve from “the soup” (which has never been observed or tested either) would be in the trillions of years (assuming the big bang, chemical (abiotic) evolution, and planetary evolution also had to take billions of years as well)…
Also before the trillions of years of evolution, you would also have to dole out about 10 billion years after the big bang, to have chemicals evolve, and planets to form, just so you could have the “soup” form, in order for the billions of life forms to mutate from the one single “soup” that you all BELIEVE in (and yes you do BELIEVE in the soup, because you’ve never seen it or tested it)… i.e.. it is your god that you have no proof of.
No proof of the soup, yet you still tell everyone they are wrong if they don’t believe in it like you believe in it.
I challenge you phil, show me proof of your god, the soup. Back up your claims that creation didn’t take place.
Please explain how, naturally, something came out of nothing at the beginning of the universe.
Please remember, that space cannot appear without, matter, and matter cannot exist without space, and space and matter cannot exist without a “time” to put them at (i.e.. after you have space, and matter, the problem becomes WHEN do you place the space and matter in time).
So space, matter, and time must have been “created”… as logically speaking the could not “just have always been there”… the only two choices are that the “universe has always just been here”, or that the “universe came from nothing”.
Both are illogical choices, only one has a logical explanation though… the logical explanation of course is that an “outside force” beyond space, time, and matter (i.e. beyond the natural universe) brought it all into existence somehow.
Evolutionists like yourself believe that (according to your science textbooks) that space time and matter were just compressed down to a small dot… your side doesn’t even address the logical problem of where the dot came from. You guys just “say it was there”.
Word to the wise, none of that is science.. believing in an unseen soup, believing in a big bang that came from a dot, and a dot that “was just always there”… believing all chemicals somehow evolved from Hydrogen, and believing that the planets formed from debris falling over billions of years.
You believe all these took place, each one taking billions of years consecutively… just add it all up, you’ll see that the age of the universe would be in the tens of trillions of years. My point is … if you take the whole enchilada offered by the evolution belief system, you have to stretch reality so far, that you leave science, and enter the realm of “scientology”.
ARe you a scientologist phil? ;^) AFter all, they believe things that are just as crazy as believing in soup, and dots!
January 21st, 2008 at 9:51 am
You forgot prediction #4:
4) It will be run extensively and promoted by local church groups.
-OEJ
January 21st, 2008 at 9:54 am
Mike J, even a perfunctory glance at your latest comment shows it to be full of logical speciousness, creationist propaganda, and just plain errors. I could spend all day on it, but I have better things to do. Anyone else want to take this on as an exercise in trivial debunking?
January 21st, 2008 at 10:28 am
Mike J. frequently engages in sex with antelopes.
Prove me wrong.
January 21st, 2008 at 11:58 am
God … never been observed
God … never been tested in the lab
God … never been duplicated naturally or artificially
God … mathmatically impossible
God … the only thing that theists are willing to believe
So you think God must not exist as well?
Mike J is an EVIL ATHEIST! All good Christians BEWARE! His words are LIES!
January 21st, 2008 at 1:47 pm
Mike J, despite your most recent philosophy masterclass, you seem to have a very weak understanding of science. Go read Sean Carroll’s book on general relativity, and learn how space and time can form out of “nothing”. There is even the possibility of space and time without matter (for example in anti-De Sitter -AdS- space).
January 21st, 2008 at 1:57 pm
Oh, Mikey…
>”Evolution… never been observed”
Wrong
>”Evolution… never been tested in the lab”
Wrong
>”Evolution… never been duplicated naturally or artificially”
Nonsensical statement
>”Evolution… mathmatically impossible”
Wrong
>”Evolution… the only thing that atheists are willing to believe”
Wrong. Don’t forget, religious people can accept evolution too.
>”life forms to evolve from “the soup” (which has never been observed or tested either)”
You’re conflating evolution with abiogenesis again…
>”would be in the trillions of years”
Wrong
>”and yes you do BELIEVE in the soup, because you’ve never seen it or tested it)… i.e.. it is your god that you have no proof of.”
Abiogenesis IS a hypothesis, and that’s the way science works. While we know evolution occurred, we don’t know for sure how life first appeared – yet. What was your alternative “theory” again?
>”I challenge you phil, show me proof of your god, the soup. Back up your claims that creation didn’t take place.”
There’s no reason why God couldn’t have used evolution to get us here. Evolution says nothing about God. Evolution doesn’t disprove God. NOTHING can. Therefore it isn’t testable. That is why it is unscientific.
>”Please explain how, naturally, something came out of nothing at the beginning of the universe.”
Please explain how God SUPERnaturally made something out of nothing at the beginning of the universe. You are also aware that evolution and the Big Bang are two separate theories, yes?
>”So space, matter, and time must have been “created”… as logically speaking the could not “just have always been there”… the only two choices are that the “universe has always just been here”, or that the “universe came from nothing”. Both are illogical choices, only one has a logical explanation though… the logical explanation of course is that an “outside force” beyond space, time, and matter (i.e. beyond the natural universe) brought it all into existence somehow.”
Where did God come from? He can’t have always just been there, surely. So what created God? And what (and here’s the important part) EVIDENCE do you have of this “outside force”, other than your complete and total inability to comprehend science?
>”your side doesn’t even address the logical problem of where the dot came from.”
Again, we don’t know – yet. But substituting that with “GODDIDIT” does not help scientific progress in any way whatsoever.
Also, this site debunks pretty much all of your nonsense here:
http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Hangar/2437/
Come back when you’ve learned something, Mikey.
January 21st, 2008 at 2:14 pm
> I can’t begin to understand their base-line position of ’science=materialism’. Anyone?
Philosophical materialism: that which is observable and physically interrogable in nature is all that exists. There are no spiritual nor supernatural agents, objects, or forces in the world.
Science is very much materialistic. Naturalistic materialism is its realm of inquiry by definition. If anyone wants to apply a ‘deeper meaning,’ they have to do it themselves by making up sky fairies or universal flows or karma or whatnot. Whether or not these things actually have any truth value in a philosophical sense is irrelevant because in the reductionist naturalistic materialist system of science, they can not be interrogated and are thus not acceptable explanations for phenomena.
This basically comes down to science not being able to say that God exists, but being more than capable to say that praying for health is about as effacacious as hoping for good health.
—
TAKING THE MIKE J. CHALLENGE!
> Evolution… never been observed
False. Purely natural speciesation has not been observed, and this suffers more from the indistinct definition of “species” more than anything else. Evolutionary adaptation has been observed in everything from influenza to human beings themselves (note how, for example, as time progresses, the average eyesight of humans in First World countries has been progressively getting worse).
> Evolution… never been tested in the lab
False. Every new fossil classifies as a lab test; every computer model of speciesation and evolution of “irreducably complex” structures like flagellae and complex eyes classifies as a lab test. They have all come out in favor of evolution.
> Evolution… never been duplicated naturally or artificially
Extremely false. Orange trees are a naturally capable but artificially realized evolutionary hybrid of pears and tangerines, I believe. All human food crops and animals have been artificially evolved to better suit our needs. Dogs were artificially evolved from wolves. Animals have been found to adapt–”microevolve”–in response to changing climactic or environmental conditions. Macroevolution is only microevolution over extended periods of time. It is too much to ask of a mere two hundred years of scientific inquiry and many fewer years of concentrated efforts to displayed Observed Proof Of Speciesation Happening Right Now.
> Evolution… mathmatically impossible
False. If evolution were truly random and not guided by environmental pressures and survival requirements, then you would be correct. It is not, however, random and most mutations are either of null value or harmful (where they are, if nature runs its course, purged). Successful mutations, however, ‘pass the test’ and continue, thus making the argument of evolution being random a total strawman: there is a filter involved, and filters preclude randomness.
> Evolution… the only thing that atheists are willing to believe (sorry im just skeptical of that little fact)
False. They’re also generally willing to believe in the theory of universal gravitation, germ theory, thermodynamic theory, aerodynamic theory…
> Evolution… actually is a hypothesis that has been elevated to the status of a “theory” even though its never been observed taking place, been tested in the lab, or duplicated at all.
See above. Repetition does not denote evidence nor otherwise reinforces an argument.
> Also most math buffs will tell you that it is statistically impossible for “evoltuion” to take place even once, let alone billions of times for every animals.
This is assuming evolution to be a truely random sequence. It is not. Please show evidence that a sorting function makes self-ordering of data statistically impossible.
> Also if you just do a quick equation, you will see that EVERY animal must have , or be going through evolution, therefore the amount of time it would take for several billion different life forms to evolve from “the soup” (which has never been observed or tested either) would be in the trillions of years (assuming the big bang, chemical (abiotic) evolution, and planetary evolution also had to take billions of years as well)…
Provide evidence. Also, do not assume linearity in the progress of evolution; as each species can be the common ancestor of an entire family of new species, the progress of evolution is probably exponential (which appears to be borne out by the progress of diversity in the fossil record), barring extinction events.
> Also before the trillions of years of evolution, you would also have to dole out about 10 billion years after the big bang, to have chemicals evolve, and planets to form, just so you could have the “soup” form, in order for the billions of life forms to mutate from the one single “soup” that you all BELIEVE in (and yes you do BELIEVE in the soup, because you’ve never seen it or tested it)… i.e.. it is your god that you have no proof of.
Strawman. I’ve never seen nor tested the existence of Timbuktu. Does that automatically imply that it does not exist? The primordial soup theory is a purely naturalistic explanation for naturalistic phenomena which can be tested, and is in the process of being tested. Should it fail utterly, a new hypothesis will have to be developed.
Contrast with belief in a God, which is a supernatural organism that cannot be interrogated but its actions in reality can. All current evidence tends to indicate that the origin of life can be explained through naturalistic means without resorting to a supernatural creator. I’ve never seen, nor can I test the existence of God, and thus can make no comment on Its existence except one of faith. However, we can observe the world around us and test whether phenomena are the acts of some God or some naturalistic cause. Prayer to cure the sick or the self does not work any better than generally wishing well and works definitively worse than naturalistically derived medicines and treatments.
The belief in God as a universal concept and the belief in the primordial soup as a theory are two very different things. One is a belief completely predicated on faith for the time being; the other is interrogable and, should reality say otherwise, be disbelieved.
> No proof of the soup, yet you still tell everyone they are wrong if they don’t believe in it like you believe in it.
Evolution is not contingent on primordial soup. Evolution is not equivalent to the ultimate origin of life. There are evolutionary biologists who dispute the soup theory and suggest some of their own (like the primordial sandwich; crystalline structures in sulfuric vents; so on and so forth).
> I challenge you phil, show me proof of your god, the soup. Back up your claims that creation didn’t take place.
Show me proof that the soup is Doctor Plait’s god. Since you are making this assertion, it should be backed up by evidence. Beyond that, show me undeniable proof of your God, the Creator.
> Please explain how, naturally, something came out of nothing at the beginning of the universe.
Time and space are unified; the universe is a closed four-dimensional object. Before the universe, there was no time, therefore, there is, as far as our ignorance allows us to say, no “before” the universe. It seems we’ve moved on from biology to cosmology/
> Please remember, that space cannot appear without, matter, and matter cannot exist without space, and space and matter cannot exist without a “time” to put them at (i.e.. after you have space, and matter, the problem becomes WHEN do you place the space and matter in time).
Space is not predicated upon the existence of matter, nor is time an entity separate from space, as far as our current level of ignorance allows us to say. Based on this concept, the last quoted statement is absurd.
> So space, matter, and time must have been “created”… as logically speaking the could not “just have always been there”… the only two choices are that the “universe has always just been here”, or that the “universe came from nothing”.
As distasteful as ex nihilo arguments are, things come from and fall back into nothing all the time, particularly “quantum foam.” It appears uncertain at this time that we can interrogate anything prior to time being equal to zero in this universe, where our mathematical understanding reality breaks down. This is generally regarded as admitted and a reason why cosmologists still have jobs.
Both “from nothing” and “always been” have been posited with a straight face and the scientific argument continues, and will probably continue for a long time, somewhat akin to the proportion of God and Man in Jesus in the late early Christian church. This dispute does not automatically disprove either concept, however, nor preclude other possibilties we have not conceived of yet.
> Both are illogical choices,
Only because they conflict with our concept of causality, which derives from our evolution inside a system already in motion. As said previously, at time equals to zero everything breaks down.
> only one has a logical explanation though… the logical explanation of course is that an “outside force” beyond space, time, and matter (i.e. beyond the natural universe) brought it all into existence somehow.
This is merely a way to force a situation currently beyond our comprehension, where the rules of reality as they stand right now make no sense, make sense to our perceptions of the rules of reality as they stand right now. We cannot conceive of there being no time and no space, and it makes no sense to us, where event A2 is brought about by cause A1, that there could be something with no cause. Therefore, we create and rationalize an external being to give our effect a cause to make things more comfortable for us. It may be more logical, but our logic is predicated on our perceptions and our evolution inside our system, and simply because something is logical does not make it true.
>> Evolutionists like yourself believe that (according to your science textbooks) that space time and matter were just compressed down to a small dot… your side doesn’t even address the logical problem of where the dot came from. You guys just “say it was there”.
This is because there was no time in the ‘period’ of the dot. There was no ‘before’ the dot. Time did not exist, and so the everyday concept of a string of causality breaks down completely. Just like with your God. He was always there; nothing created Him because if He were created He would not be God. You simply shift the argument from realtime to Godtime, and you cannot interrogate Godtime any more than we can interrogate the no time at t=0.
> Word to the wise, none of that is science.. believing in an unseen soup, believing in a big bang that came from a dot, and a dot that “was just always there”… believing all chemicals somehow evolved from Hydrogen, and believing that the planets formed from debris falling over billions of years.
It is science because it is an explanation based on purely naturalistic phenomena and have, to date, held up against scientific inquiry.
> You believe all these took place, each one taking billions of years consecutively… just add it all up, you’ll see that the age of the universe would be in the tens of trillions of years.
The only evidence we have for this is your assertion, which appears to be based on false assumptions of how the system works.
> My point is … if you take the whole enchilada offered by the evolution belief system, you have to stretch reality so far, that you leave science, and enter the realm of “scientology”.
Red Herring. Scientology is a New Religious Movement (the right-think term for ‘cult’) which has practically nothing to do with science.
> ARe you a scientologist phil? ;^) AFter all, they believe things that are just as crazy as believing in soup, and dots!
Character assassination only weakens your argument.
January 21st, 2008 at 2:48 pm
Centipede, I think you should be a little more careful with your biology. Oranges and pears aren’t even in the same Order. They’re as closely related as Mike J. and an antelope.
January 21st, 2008 at 4:18 pm
[...] Comment on Ben Stein, (*)hat by The Centipede I’ve never seen, nor can I test the existence of God, and thus can make no comment on Its existence except one of faith. [...]
January 21st, 2008 at 8:19 pm
Mike J said:
>When will it get through your thick skulls that maybe everyone who doesn’t agree with the THEORY of evolution is a “liar” or “doomed”…<
Not everyone who is a creationist/IDer is a liar, but it does seem to happen occasionally….
From Kitzmiller vs Dover School Board:
“Both Defendants and many of the leading proponents of ID make a bedrock assumption which is utterly false. Their presupposition is that evolutionary theory is antithetical to a belief in the existence of a supreme being and to religion in general.
Repeatedly in this trial, Plaintiffs’ scientific experts testified that the theory of evolution represents good science, is overwhelmingly accepted by the scientific community, and that it in no way conflicts with, nor does it deny, the existence of a divine creator.
To be sure, Darwin’s theory of evolution is imperfect. However, the fact that a scientific theory cannot yet render an explanation on every point should not be used as a pretext to thrust an untestable alternative hypothesis grounded in religion into the science classroom or to misrepresent well-established scientific propositions.
The citizens of the Dover area were poorly served by the members of the Board who voted for the ID Policy.
It is ironic that several of these individuals, who so staunchly and proudly touted their religious convictions in public, would time and again lie to cover their tracks and disguise the real purpose behind the ID Policy.”
Decision by Judge John E Jones III (against ID)
January 21st, 2008 at 9:52 pm
I’ve always hated Ben Stein. Watch him when he turns up as a commentator on cable “news” programs and you’ll see that he’s always been an @$$hat.
January 22nd, 2008 at 12:40 pm
Darth Robo writes:
[[Where did God come from? He can’t have always just been there, surely. ]]
Why not?
January 22nd, 2008 at 1:52 pm
A saw a trailer for this on Apple a couple of months ago. You mean it’s not a spoof/comedy?
January 23rd, 2008 at 5:12 am
Yes, but it’s not intentional.
Barton:
“Why not?”
Sorry, I was using Mike J logic. Not very scientific, I know. And alas, it seems that Mikey has done his disappearing act again, no doubt to spout off the same crud again at some point in the future despite the fact it was already debunked here. Fundies are nothing if not predictable.
January 27th, 2008 at 4:39 pm
HE HAS AN ASTRONOMY BLOG AND WRITES THIS CRAP????
WHY ARE YOU WASTING YOUR TIME ASSWIPE?
PHIL YOUR SUCH A FAKE ASTRONOMER!
January 27th, 2008 at 4:42 pm
good one shaz ..nice waste of a phd phil
February 10th, 2008 at 1:29 pm
Seems to me one of the big issues here is that there are a lot of people out there that have trouble not having 100% complete answers. Everything has to be a Yes or a No, not a maybe, or neither, or both. I’ve never understood that.
Also, Ben Stein on O’Reilly. I didn’t realize Bill was such a complete and utter idiot… http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sDIwm_1bAEU
March 1st, 2008 at 9:21 am
I was so disappointed to learn that the teacher from one of my all time favorite movies (Buller?…Buller?…) was into this load of crap about “intelligent design”. I mean seriously? how can people be so stupid as to actually consider ID a “theory”? it isn’t. it’s all a gigantic fairy tale. science is real, and it works. ditto for evolution.
/argument