From Rebecca comes word that Genie Scott, a personal hero of mine, and her flunkies at the National Center for Science Education — a top-notch outfit that fights creationism — have created a new site called Expelled Exposed, debunking the garbage of the "Expelled" move.
Yay! This was a good move. All reality-based folks should make sure we link to this site, and steer people to it if this movie is able to bubble out of the murk and filth and into the public consciousness.
If you went to BadAstronomy.com and found yourself here, never fear: the BA Blog has moved to its new home at Discover Blogs. The original BA site (with the Moon Hoax debunking and all that) is still online, too.
Phil Plait, the creator of Bad Astronomy, is an astronomer, lecturer, and author. After ten years working on Hubble Space Telescope and six more working on astronomy education, he struck out on his own as a writer. He has written two books, dozens of magazine articles, and 12 bazillion blog articles. He is a skeptic, and fights misuses of science as well as praising the wonder of real science.
Contact me: The Bad Astronomer "at" gmail "dot" com
|
| Bad Astronomy is a Wikio Top Blog! Clearly, Wikio has excellent taste. | |
 | ||
 | Bad Astronomy was chosen as one of Time.com's Best Blogs of 2009. |
 |
"Reading this book is like getting punched in the face by Carl Sagan. Frightening, but oddly exhilarating."
-- Daniel H. Wilson, author of How to Survive a Robot Uprising
DISCOVERmagazine.com: Latest Articles on Space DISCOVER Blogs: The Loom
March 27th, 2008 at 4:19 pm
BA said:
“Yay! This was a good move.”
I read:
Yay! This was a good MOVIE. I really need to wear my glasses. Had me worried for a second there.
March 27th, 2008 at 4:30 pm
I also misread that line
March 27th, 2008 at 4:42 pm
Teach you two to pay attention.
Waytago, Genie!
March 27th, 2008 at 4:59 pm
I’m just afraid the people who really need to see that site will never get there.
Geez, I’m such a persistent cynic. I’m sorry. It’s my way.
March 27th, 2008 at 5:45 pm
This can only be a good idea.
Some day, I want to be such an awesome scientist that I can have flunkies too.
March 27th, 2008 at 5:56 pm
To bad NCSE does not have a fraction of the funding those guys have . Making a movie debunking all that’s shown in “expelled” , with real interviews of the scientists lured into this adventure would be a proper answer . Hey, aren’t they in favor of “equal treatment” for different theories ? Why not make mandatory pass THIS as a short before the movie : ” http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gzdv2dsPPKw “
March 27th, 2008 at 6:11 pm
I read:
Yay! This was a good MOVIE. I really need to wear my glasses. Had me worried for a second there.
Thank you — you made me laugh.
Yay NCSE!!! Love ‘em.
March 27th, 2008 at 6:34 pm
Oh my god, someone who saw the movie – write a review for imdb.com. quick!
I guess it would help a lot if skeptic people who know what they are talking about leave some reviews there, ’cause it will get a lot of publicity(=views).
However, I don’t think that the only review that’s there at the moment gives a good idea of how the movie is like.
So, after using the word “review” three times in three sentences (ok, four times in four *g*) i better stop and hope I made my point.
March 27th, 2008 at 6:55 pm
I’ve talked with enough Creationists to recognize their pattern. Most will watch Expelled and have all of their cherished memes exalted – proving, so they think, that they were right all along.
It won’t matter to many Creationists that the movie is bursting with obvious lies. Few rank-and-file Creationists will even recognize those lies.
There are plenty of intelligent Creationists. I really wish they would speak out against the utter nonsense being foisted by the unscrupulous.
March 27th, 2008 at 7:41 pm
very good move. Let’s spread the word!
March 27th, 2008 at 7:52 pm
Going through the links on the site, I was disappointed. I had hoped there would be a point-by-point examination. “Expelled Overview” comes closest, but all were more ridicule than actual examination.
Sigh.
Maybe I’ll end up renting it when it comes out on DVD and giving it the fine-tooth-comb treatment myself. I don’t want to buy it, in case the criticisms are accurate.
March 27th, 2008 at 8:31 pm
[quote]Maybe I’ll end up renting it when it comes out on DVD and giving it the fine-tooth-comb treatment myself. I don’t want to buy it, in case the criticisms are accurate.[/quote]
I know how you feel, that’s the problem with being a skeptic: You feel the need to see it for yourself! AARRGH!
I struggled with the same problem. You could always sneak into a free church screening. That’s what I might do.
March 27th, 2008 at 8:43 pm
@KC
I also agree with you statement, I was expecting a point-by-point rebuttal…perhaps I misunderstood Phil’s post
Phil, I’ll re-read your post, but what I read indicated that someone had written a point-by-point rebuttal, rather than a “summary” of various blogs, articles, etc..
On another note (which may explain the above), I also read “Yay, this is a good MOVIE”…tee hee..perhaps that does explain everything I’ve written
Pete
March 27th, 2008 at 8:53 pm
[i]I know how you feel, that’s the problem with being a skeptic: You feel the need to see it for yourself! AARRGH!
I struggled with the same problem. You could always sneak into a free church screening. That’s what I might do.[/i]
I Probably, Shouldn’t do that …
I’d Just Wind up Screaming, “LIARS,” at The Screen …
‘Cause a Jewish Man Making a Scene in Church; isn’t that How Jesus Got into Trouble?
March 27th, 2008 at 9:02 pm
I recommend everyone link to this site, but make your link text just the word “Expelled”. Hopefully we can increase its pagerank for that keyword so it will come up in Google searches right next to (or ideally, above) the home page of the movie.
March 27th, 2008 at 11:38 pm
What garbage are you referring to, Phil? Have you seen the movie?
I keep hearing about lies in the movie, which I assume do exist, but I am wondering why you’d point out those lies which Richie D., PZ and ilk are spewing since most here both endorse and spew them yourselves.
Which ones, then, are you referring to?
March 28th, 2008 at 2:24 am
Isn’t “flunkies” a bit pejorative in a way, I assume from the context, you don’t mean? Or is it a difference between British and American English?
March 28th, 2008 at 2:50 am
Brent, give it up. The only lying going on is entirely on the Creationist side.
March 28th, 2008 at 4:22 am
Well, if you aren’t willing to point out what “lies” you are talking about then I’m left to assume you can’t defend your point. Of course, the real problem is that nobody has even seen the film: Just more evidence that evolutionists don’t bother with trivial matters such as fact and evidence.
I’ll admit that this concerted effort to keep people from seeing it is a good thing as it simply makes clear that the whole point the movie wants to make is, in fact, fact. Beautiful.
March 28th, 2008 at 4:45 am
“lies which Richie D., PZ and ilk are spewing”
Like…? Don’t hesistate, please cite and link to full text (to avoid quote mining). Unsourced statements will be treated accordingly – dumped to trash.
March 28th, 2008 at 5:00 am
Angrynight:
Actually, so far I’ve heard zero mention of “Expelled!” in churches. That’s a big contrast to “The Prince of Egypt,” “The Passion of the Christ,” and “The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe.” If it wasn’t for BA’s blog, I wouldn’t know the movie existed. This is getting very little traction and as a consequence I expect it to be on DVD pretty soon.
BTW, I try to check-out / borrow / rent questionable books (this would be the first DVD) on the principle that if I strongly disagree, I don’t want to line their pockets. I made an exception with “The Secret” and have regretted it ever since.
March 28th, 2008 at 5:07 am
OK this is what I am going to do. I am going to watch this movie, mainly due to so much ranting about it that I feel I have to see it now. I am going to attempt to form an unemotional, rational, unbiased opinion about it. Then I am going to move on.
March 28th, 2008 at 5:44 am
Conspiracy Skeptic, Karl Mamer also takes on Expelled and the Vast Science Conspiracy on his latest podcast:
http://www.yrad.com/cs/
March 28th, 2008 at 6:00 am
Kristine Harley has seen it, has several blog posts on it, as well as links to other reviews.
One of the problems for getting out a minute-by-minute rebuttal is the way in which the screening of the propaganda piece is being handled, including the way the producers are trying desperately to only allow sympathetic “critics” to view it.
The whole story on how PZ Myers got Expelled from Expelled, but the producers somehow missed his guest, Richard Dawkins, is a riot. Science is not the only endeavor in which these boobs are utterly incompetent.
March 28th, 2008 at 6:05 am
Brent,
What is this “this concerted effort to keep people from seeing it”? Please provide evidence that there is an effort to prevent the movie from being shown, or that people are being prevented from seeing it.
The Fact is that no one is being prevented from seeing this movie. The concern is that the movie presents a highly distorted and blatantly false view of the state of academic science, including the quite despicable tactics used to garner interviews.
The outcry is for the other side to present its evidence to the contrary. The problem is that the pro-science side typically does not get to bankrolled by multi-million dollar fundamentalists, who for some reason have all this money and do not follow their God’s commandments to give all to the needy.
By the way, Richard Dawkins has seen it and reviewed it. And there are others. So your statement “the real problem is that nobody has even seen the film: Just more evidence that evolutionists don’t bother with trivial matters such as fact and evidence.” is false and that it is you who is ignoring fact and evidence.
March 28th, 2008 at 6:13 am
Pleco Said: “The Fact is that no one is being prevented from seeing this movie.”
Well… PZ Meyers (sp? Y’Know, the squid guy) is being prevented from seeing the movie. But I guess that really doesn’t go against your point
March 28th, 2008 at 6:49 am
If anyone is wanting a few more thorough reviews here are some links
Here
and here
March 28th, 2008 at 6:54 am
What is this “this concerted effort to keep people from seeing it”? Please provide evidence that there is an effort to prevent the movie from being shown, or that people are being prevented from seeing it.
Well there is a definite campaign to make sure that only those sympathetic to their idiocy being allowed in…. knowingly.
the PZ incident being the most notable but the NYT reporter is another.
The producers of this film have been, from the beginning, utterly dishonest and secretive about this film. It’s on par with how creationists/ Cdesign proponentsists act. They have no science to stand on so when they make a movie about how they were “discriminated” against because of their non science views, they have to lie and hide their movie from those that know the facts. In reality there is no discrimination. If they produce some reliable science then they will be taken seriously.
To date we are still waiting.
March 28th, 2008 at 8:01 am
A closer look at the Expelled Exposed site reveals that it is a placeholder. Right now it is just a set of links to other news reports. Eventually (like maybe once the movie is in general public release) the point-by-point rebuttal(s) will be posted. Until then, just link to the site from as many places as possible so it shows up in the search engines!
March 28th, 2008 at 8:09 am
Blizno said there are “intelligent creationists” out there.
Yes, they may be “intelligent” on some things, but biology, evolution,
and science in general are not among them.
They have an agenda, pure and simple, and like the fanatics who
kill abortion doctors in the name of God, they think that disobeying
their deity’s command not to lie or murder is okay so long as it is
for a “good” cause.
If only creationists could come up with some real evidence besides
“Oh life is SO complex, it HAD to be designed”, then they could
start playing in the same field as science. Otherwise they should
just get in line with the rest of the creation stories told all over
the world for centuries.
You might think they could try to find common ground by saying
that their deity started the world, but evolution explains how their
deity did it – but no, it is always an all or nothing thing with fanatics.
As Kyle Reese said in The Terminator, they cannot be reasoned with,
they cannot be bargained with, and they absolutely will not stop until
science and rationality is DEAD.
So, it is in the best interest of science and civilized society to make
sure the fanatics are kept down, or you can start enjoying the same
quality of life that people did in The Handmaid’s Tale. There is no
compromise here.
March 28th, 2008 at 8:11 am
Matherly and the Rev:
Oops, forgot about those lol…but yeah my point was more toward the general public.
As far as I can tell, this movie will be available, upon general release, to anyone and everyone who wants to go see it.
The sad part of this is that due to the pitiful amount of critical thinking being taught in our schools, a great many of those people who are not aware of the controversy associated with this movie will watch it and not do any research into the movie, and given a general predispoistion towards pious liars and against evolution/science, will walk away with a favorable view of the political and religious worldview this movie is pushing.
I do not have a positive outlook for the results this flop will have. “Hope for the best, plan for the worst.”
March 28th, 2008 at 8:21 am
Ben Stein was fine in “Ferris Bueller’s Day Off.” I always enjoyed “Win Ben Stein’s Money” on Comedy Central … at least when Jimmy Kimmel was his second banana. Yeah, I know he leans to the right, but so what? Even I’ve gotten more conservative on economic and “law and order” issues as I’ve gotten older.
But his involvement in this project mystifies me. I have a whole lot of questions I’d like to ask him, such as:
1: Do you consider yourself a Creationist?
2: If so, are you a “Young Earth” or an “Old Earth” Creationist?
3: Are “Intelligent Design” and “Theistic Evolution” the same thing?
4: Is it just possible that evolution, as understood today, is simply the way God chose to do things?
I don’t know how he might answer these questions. I suspect he would be evasive. But I more STRONGLY suspect that he got roped into this project for the money more than anything else … and perhaps to prop up is own sputtering career.
March 28th, 2008 at 8:22 am
Right on Rev. BDC!
“Concerted effort to keep people from seeing the movie” LOL!!
The degree of projection that people like Brent are capable of is just astounding.
My guess is he’s a troll, but that is my usual assumption anyway.
March 28th, 2008 at 8:24 am
The sad part of this is that due to the pitiful amount of critical thinking being taught in our schools, a great many of those people who are not aware of the controversy associated with this movie will watch it and not do any research into the movie, and given a general predispoistion towards pious liars and against evolution/science, will walk away with a favorable view of the political and religious worldview this movie is pushing.
Yes it will appeal to the rationally challenged, but judging from the reviews I’ve read it’s not only poorly done in content. It’s a horribly produced movie technically and ascetically.
One can hope that people can make the connection between poorly made movie and poorly constructed content.
March 28th, 2008 at 8:27 am
Well, if you aren’t willing to point out what “lies” you are talking about then I’m left to assume you can’t defend your point. Of course, the real problem is that nobody has even seen the film: Just more evidence that evolutionists don’t bother with trivial matters such as fact and evidence.
Brent. Please follow the links I gave.
The reviews lay out what a pitiful attempt at film making this is.
Oh, and yeah the arguments they make are stunningly stupid as well.
March 28th, 2008 at 10:02 am
I checked out the Internet Movie Database and I found the following “review” posted: Seems like most people did not find his review useful. (There IS hope!)
For you seekers of truth, here is the full review:
User Comments (Comment on this title)
5 out of 112 people found the following comment useful:-
I liked this movie, 20 March 2008
Author: dennisjames from United States
*** This comment may contain spoilers ***
On the surface many viewers may leave thinking EXPELLED: No Intelligence Allowed seems to merely pit Intelligent Design against Neo-Darwinism but the movie is so much more. Its main focus is on the censorship that Neo-Darwinists impose on academia and science by discrediting or eliminating anyone that believes a designer may have been involved in the creation of complex physical and biological systems. Mr. Stein travels the world interviewing both sides of the debate, then edits them together with movie clips and music to create a very entertaining film. The film will make you laugh, cry and shock many viewers with the comments by the experts of the Neo-Darwinism / Anti Religion science machine.
Richard Dawkins, author of The God Delusion and the Selfish Gene is allowed to talk at length without being edited, therefore viewers can determine for themselves precisely what his views are. When asked his opinion of the origin of life, Mr. Dawkins replied that nobody knows for sure, but suggested that perhaps we are biological seed from another planet of technologically advanced life-forms.
I feel the movie does a very good job of exploring the cause and effects that Neo-Darwinism has not only on science but also on society. There will be some that will try to discredit this film, but in my opinion, it gives the Neo-Darwinism / Anti Religion movement exposure to many that may not be aware of what is happening in science today.
Mr. Stein asked throughout the film, “what are they afraid of?” and “there must be more to the story” when referring to the way that Big Science treat those that believe there must be a free exchange of ideas that includes ID! It makes the point that scientists should be encouraged to following the facts where the facts lead them.
The film ends as Mr. Stein wraps up his thoughts while walking through Charles Darwin’s home and with a visit to his grave in Westminster Abby. Mr. Stein states that he did his part by making the movie and challenges viewers to take the ball and run with it.
END QUOTE:
Now, I ask you, how could this movie be anything but honest and fair?
Surely, Dawkins is a nut job and Ben Stein is our only hope for the truth.
March 28th, 2008 at 10:23 am
Going through the links on the site, I was disappointed. I had hoped there would be a point-by-point examination.
There will be. The full Expelled Exposed website will be launch around April 16, right before the movie comes out.
In the meantime, the Wikipedia entry on the movie is actually pretty good.
March 28th, 2008 at 10:55 am
“To bad NCSE does not have a fraction of the funding those guys have . Making a movie debunking all that’s shown in “expelled” , with real interviews of the scientists lured into this adventure would be a proper answer .”
You know, that’s what disturbs me; where IS the cinematic response to this pile of right-wing agitprop? Surely there has to be some monied individuals on our side who’d willing to back a pro-evolution documentary for general public consumption? Surely there has to be some film-writers, producers, and directors in “liberal” Hollywood who’d be willing to strike back against the Jesus-creep conservatives and this rotten little movie with a well-crafted response.
Or is standing up for science education not “sexy” enough for Glitterati?
March 28th, 2008 at 12:21 pm
Most of the “glitterati” is too stupid to understand science and religion.
Haven’t you been reading People magazine? They are all joining
Scientology, the latest fad cult for the Hollywood stars.
Many actors never completed college or even went to it, having
dropped out when things like thinking got too hard and they
went off and joined the drama club.
Ever see the idiots who go to dictator’s countries and come back
saying how wonderful things are there? See Sean Penn and Iraq
and Jack Nicholson and Cuba as just two examples.
These people are as deep as a kiddie’s swimming pool, so what do
you expect?
March 28th, 2008 at 12:49 pm
You know, that’s what disturbs me; where IS the cinematic response to this pile of right-wing agitprop?
Michael Moore?
March 28th, 2008 at 1:17 pm
@IRA
Try to refrain from sweeping generalizations about actors and people in the entertainment industry. Yes, there are some who are not too bright in certain areas, and yes, there are some who have not gone to college. However, to imply that a majority never went to college or dropped out, and that “thinking gets too hard” for them, well, you should back that up with evidence.
As a theatre techie hobbyist, I like to rib actors as much as the next person, but it’s all in play. And I have certainly met a lot of people who are actors, who went to and finished college, often in an intellectually challenging field, and who are really great people.
So, just because of a few nutsos in Scientology and those who are a bit radical and use their fame to draw attention to something, don’t expand their behavior and/or apparent lack of intelligence or common sense to cover all of the acting/entertainment world.
March 28th, 2008 at 1:20 pm
@IRA
And on an added note, going to and completing college does not necessarily mean that a person is smart. Take a look at Dr. Douglas Biklen of facillitated communication fame. Or any of the large number of people with all kinds of shiny letters after their names who get called out by the JREF, the BA, PZ, Skeptical Inquirer and so on.
Please be a little more respectful and avoid making such sweeping generalizations.
March 28th, 2008 at 3:26 pm
My Irony Alert from all this.
from
http://post-darwinist.blogspot.com/2008/03/intelligent-design-film-volunteers.html
From Denyse O’Leary’s website:
March 28th, 2008 at 5:15 pm
in response to “Mark A. Siefert” .
I’m really afraid its all a matter of numbers . So many people are willing to watch this , so many people are willing to watch that . Historically , intelligent people always have been part of the minority . Regrettable , but it’s a fact .
March 28th, 2008 at 7:47 pm
Never argue with a fool – those watching/listening/reading may not be able to tell the difference.
March 28th, 2008 at 11:20 pm
Pieter:
“Michael Moore?”
You know, as much as his politics disgust me, at least Moore has the star power and directorial credentials to pull an enjoyable pro-evolution-movie-for mass-consumption off.
March 29th, 2008 at 5:19 am
Sayeth Janie Belle :
“Science is not the only endeavor in which these *boobs* are utterly incompetent.”
Hey! I happen to love boobs!
.. & boobs are highly useful as well as fun too – after all we wouldn’t be mammels without them!
Insult ‘em somehow else please!
———————————————-
Wonder if this’ll survive the puritan filter / the scrutiny of the biologically-unwilling -to-accept???
March 29th, 2008 at 5:30 am
Well suprise, surpise, a movie comes out that gives an alternative view to the Darwinian Religion & guess what – the atheist scientists want tosqulch it.
They’ll try to mock and damn it in every way, from websites to protests, disruptions to rude remarks all without sdaring tosee it and certainly without daring to listen to that little voice buried deep in their hearts telling them :
“YES! There is a GOD! WHO created this universe!”
For they rebel & they are Lawless for they hate GOD’s Law and their hearts and are hardened & they Mock CHRIST the Redeemer & his HOLY FATHER.
… & they make ever clearer the veryu point themovie is making :
GODLESS, LOVELESS SCIENCE CANNOT HANDLE CRITICISM & WANTS TO SHUT DOWN ALL RELIGION!
The Eternal LORD works in mysterious ways.
He sees & knows you in your atheist pain & emptiness & will forgive you if you only turn to Him!
————————–
For these are the last days
Many mockers and scoffers
Filled with Satan’s rage and
Turning unto Man
For Divinity
Worship themsleves
& face the wages of Sin
for want of listening to
Christs knocking on the doorway to their Hearts
Praise the Lord Almighty & be Saved!
March 29th, 2008 at 5:58 am
# ZaphodBeeblebroxon 27 Mar 2008 at 8:53 pm
[i]
“You could always sneak into a free church screening. That’s what I might do.”
I’d Just Wind up Screaming, “LIARS,” at The Screen …
‘Cause a Jewish Man Making a Scene in Church; isn’t that How Jesus Got into Trouble?
[/i]
Shouting “Liars “at the screen may just get them assuming you mean the evil scientists!
They’ll probably think its a phantomine and start booing & hissing in all the apt spots – its about the right level for the Krazed Kreationist Klan.
As for Jesus – notexactly no. Itwasn’t what her was saying in Church thatwas theproblem -there were nochurches then .. Itwas tehJewish authorities who conspired tohave him murdered because hewas athreat to their power. Nasty power politics by the Sanhedrin – Sorry for those who think its always anti-semtic* to say “Jews killed Christ” but I’m afraid that’s the plain truth.
As for the Expelled (sub-title : From the bowels of a victim of severe dysentry?
) movie, there’s been no mention of it anywhere in Australia or indeed anywhere but here as far as I’m aware.
I think maybe its best NOT to give it any free publicity. Protests generally raise the awareness and profile of movies & get people thinking “What are
its opponents trying to hide.” Its a piece of propganda that’s preaching to
the converted and brainless & is no doubt aimed at provoking a response.
I’d knock it if anyone asks about it & point out its faults but I’d also try NOT to draw people’s attention to it because the less publicity & controversy it attracts :
- the quicker it sinks into well-deserved oblivion
)
- the less people see it & suffer the consequences
- the less money it makes
- the less its makers are rewarded – even with just attention
&
the less likely they are to want to make sequels .. (Heavens spare us!
That troll above (if his post survives) may well be an utter loon but he (presumably he) has just the one valid point in that scientists criticising this Expelled nonsense could be percieved (however wrongly) as trying to intolerantly suppress another side to a story just because they disagree with it…
————————–
* Anti-semitism actually means against the Semites; the thenic grouping
that includes the Palestineans & other Arab peoples as well as the closely related Jewish semitic sub-group. Ironically, the Israelis in their persecution of Palestineans are now the most anti-Semitic people of all.
March 29th, 2008 at 6:06 am
&**%^%%$#$$^@!! typos!
BA please, please give us the capacity to edit here! Please!
—- CORRECTED VERSION —-
As for Jesus – not exactly no. It wasn’t what he (originally had “her” Hmm.. maybe Jesus was _really_ a transgender woman !
) ..
Just thinking!
.. was saying in Church that was the problem – there were no churches then .. It was the Jewish authorities who conspired to have him murdered (well executed baselessly) because he was a threat to their power. Nasty power politics by the Sanhedrin – Sorry for those who think its always anti-semtic* to say “Jews killed Christ” but I’m afraid that’s the plain truth.
Mel Gibson’s “Passion” was I think a pretty accurate XN propaganda peice in that regard.
———————
“Expelled : From the stomach, bowels & bladders of some very sick mentally ill folks as they struggle to purge forth their toxic belifs in baloney.”
If you see this movie be sure to wear a tarpaulin to protect yourself from the flying muck and induced nausea. 0 stars 0 brains.
[My review.]
March 29th, 2008 at 6:21 am
Ok when I said :
“Sorry for those who think its always anti-semitic* to say “Jews killed Christ” but I’m afraid that’s the plain truth.”
I’ll add that specifically speaking it was the Jewish authorities – the Sanhedrin & Caiaphas mainly – and their lynch mob of Jewish fundamentalists to blame. Not all jews and every jew. Just a few Jews and leading Jewish rulers once a very long time ago – maybe, if XN acounstare accurate. & anyway so what. According to strict Bible believers it was all Gods Plan & God commanded & orchestrated his own sons torture & excution anyhow to spare everyone his own wrath. Nice Sky-daddy eh!
The intolerance of the Jewish religion (which among other things has, as essentially its whole basis, that their god God – Yahweh – is a racist and chooses only one group of all the people he supposedly created for special favours & attention) may have been a background factor but Judaism and the Jewish people cannot be blamed for supposed deicide as XN bigots have done throughout history. (Post A.D. history obv. anyway!
)
No group deserves to be persecuted or attacked based solely on their race – not Jews, Not Palestineans, not Americans, not Tibetans, not Chinese, not Australians, not Iraqis, Not Iranians, not Greeks, not Armenians, not Turks, not Vietnamese, not Mongolians, not Cubans, not CentralAfrican Republicans, NO-BODY!
We clear!? Hope so.
March 29th, 2008 at 6:40 am
StevoR noted :
[quote] The intolerance of the Jewish religion (which among other things has, as essentially its whole basis, that their god God – Yahweh – is a racist and chooses only one group of all the people he supposedly created for special favours & attention) may have been a background factor but Judaism and the Jewish people cannot be blamed for supposed deicide as XN bigots have done throughout history. (Post A.D. history obv. anyway! ) [unquote]
Yep. It always strikes me as odd that Jewish groups always cry racism at the slightest hint of rational scrutiny yet their very religion is based on racism.
NOTHING – Nothing but nothing but nothing ever justifies persecuting & killing people because they hold different beleifs or have a different skin colour or customs to yours but ..
..well rather than blame everybody else for their long history of NOT getting on with anyone else perhaps Jews should examine their own beliefs and behavors first.
Saying “We’re special! God chose us & only us!” isn’t going to endear you to anyone you meet who thinks differently. Dividing the planet into us & them; Jew & goyim is a racist and divisive concept in itself.
If anti-semitism – in the anti-Jews rather than anti-*Semites* sense of the word is ever to end then Jews are going to need to wake up to this truism and alter their perspective acordingly :
Yes they’ve suffered as the result of racism,
Yes the Shoah (Nazi holocaust) took place,
but …
No, they’re not alone in having bad things happen to them and
No they ain’t saints either &
Yes a lot of what they done directly creates the very problem of anti-semtism that they’re so quick to blame others and irrationality for.
Reality is the greatest cause and reason for anti-semitism inthe world today is the behaviour of the state of Israel.
Whats’ more, the victims of the Shoah would surely spin in their graves in shame if they knew what the Jewish state has done & is doing in their name.
No doubt, I too will now be called either an anti-semite or self-hating Jew as with any fair critic of that most unfair and racially discriminatory of all religions / ethnicities & its fascist military-theocratic bully state.
(BTW I’m neither & nor do I beat my wife which is that level of question too.)
March 29th, 2008 at 6:54 am
StevoR writes:
[[Sorry for those who think its always anti-semtic* to say “Jews killed Christ” but I’m afraid that’s the plain truth. ]]
Anyone who says “The Jews killed Christ” understands nothing about Christianity.
The Christian position is that all human beings killed Christ. Every time we sin we’re driving the nails in harder. Christ died for me, for you, for everyone on Earth past, present and future. We all killed Christ. Singling out one ethnic group as especially blameworthy is stupid. We don’t go around saying “The Italians killed Christ” because Pilate and his soldiers were Roman.
March 29th, 2008 at 6:58 am
Salaam, belying his name, writes:
[[Yep. It always strikes me as odd that Jewish groups always cry racism at the slightest hint of rational scrutiny yet their very religion is based on racism. ]]
No, Judaism is based on the revelation of God to Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, and the almighty hand of the Lord in leading the Hebrew people out of slavery in Egypt. By way of contrast, an example of racism would be posts like yours, in which you repeatedly diss Jews in general and then whine about how you get called anti-semitic. Yes, anti-semites like you are anti-semitic. Deal with it.
March 29th, 2008 at 10:18 pm
# Barton Paul Levensonon 29 Mar 2008 at 6:58 am
“Salaam, belying his name,”
So BPL you can’t even get my name right I see : b
Actually its
Salaam = Arabic for peace
Shalom = Hebrew for peace
& Peace = English for peace!
Then you resort to exactly the name calling w/o reason that I
predicted would be the response.
Thanks for proving me right!
As for The Crucifiction StevoR pointed out the XN notion & stressed that no group deserves to be be perscuted, nbotinbg not alljew ior every Jew just the Jewish leaders & mob of the time. Was Caiapbhas & the
Sanhedrin Jewish – of course.
Were they – setting aside the supernatural – responsible for executing the rebel Jew named Jesus (or perhaps more accurately Yoshua) because he threatened their power? Yes.
If you believe the Christian view then maybe we are all indirectly to blame -but the man who directly caused the crucifixion was, like Jesus himself, jewish. It is simply undeniable. Going the next step & blaming all the Jews for Caiphas’ actions is stupid and wrong but then that’s not what StevoR or myself would or have ever advocated.
Which of course would be crystal clear to you if you actually listened to
what we are saying instaed of shreiking abusive names at those who
disagreed with you.
March 29th, 2008 at 11:23 pm
Well, if someone is to make a rebuttal of Expelled, it should surely be called Expelled: the Report Card. *grin*
March 30th, 2008 at 6:48 am
Sorry I couldn’t get back to this in a timely fashion.
No, I’m not a troll.
I was referring the concerted effort to keep people from seeing the film that is being promoted, at least for now, primarily throughout the web. Perhaps you’ve heard of it SINCE IT’S THE TOPIC OF THIS VERY POST OF WHICH WE ARE NOW DISCUSSING!!!
How telling of your intelligence to suggest that there is no concerted effort of which I speak! There has also been talk of trying to find instances of copyright and other possible infringements to stop the film legally.
So, as I said, yet another example of how evolutionists cannot and will not look at actual facts and evidence.
March 30th, 2008 at 11:51 pm
@Brent: “So, as I said, yet another example of how evolutionists cannot and will not look at actual facts and evidence.”
[Citation Needed]
Brent, to date, there has never been *any* facts or evidence.
I’ll say that again. To date, there has never been *any* facts or evidence.
When all is said and done, it boils down to “god did it, bible says it, I believe it.”
That is not science.
March 31st, 2008 at 9:49 am
Rolando, to be more precise, scientists do look at facts and evidence, but then disregard what it otherwise obviously indicates because they’ve already predetermined to fit it to the evolution paradigm.
After well over a hundred years of trying, evolution still has no mechanism, no fossil evidence, nothing.
And by the way, I never said I needed science to tell me whether God is real or not. That is your problem, not mine. Did you forget who’s who here?
Oh, and speaking of “That is not science”, just how then is dark matter and dark energy science? There is no evidence for it’s existence other than the need for something to explain the way the big bang couldn’t possibly account for how the universe is put together. So, you infer this with no evidence at all because you need something to save your model, but then say that isn’t science when the I.D. crowd comes and says that due to irreducible complexity that there must in fact have been a designer. Why, how hypocritical of you.
March 31st, 2008 at 12:37 pm
There is no evidence of evolution, or divine creation. You have to belive both by faith! God creating the world makes so much more sence then the big bang “theory”. If it were true then I could put sweet potatos, surgar, and pie crust, turned my oven onto 425 then blew it all up I would get a sweet potato pie. Does that make sences? Plus even then I would have started the reaction it wouldn’t have happened on its own. The “theory” evolution also says that people evolved from single cell oginisms over billions of years. FYI the earth has only been around about 6,000 years. There is no way every thing around us could exist with out a creator. Truethfuly, there is only one reason people choose evolution over divine creation. They don’t want to admit God exists.
March 31st, 2008 at 1:15 pm
@Brent
Evolution does have a mechanism (natural selection). It is evidenced in the fossil record, and, it has been observed in the lab (immunobiology). Our vaccine technology is based on evolutionary observations and predictions.
Regarding irreducible complexity, could you please give an example? Please do not trot out the bacterial flagellum, as that has already been discredited. Other bacteria have mechanisms made up of a similar structure, but missing one (IIRC) part. In these, the mechanism is used to pierce other cells, rather than for propulsion. Evidence for this was presented in the Kitzmiller v. Dover case.
“scientists do look at facts and evidence, but then disregard what it otherwise obviously indicates because they’ve already predetermined to fit it to the evolution paradigm.”
Can you provide some examples of this?
I won’t address the dark matter issue, as I’m not familiar with it, but I’m sure the BA could inform you more. I seem to recall other posts on dark matter elsewhere on the site.
@Bble-is-trueth
“There is no evidence of evolution, or divine creation. You have to belive both by faith! God creating the world makes so much more sence then the big bang “theory”. If it were true then I could put sweet potatos, surgar, and pie crust, turned my oven onto 425 then blew it all up I would get a sweet potato pie. Does that make sences? Plus even then I would have started the reaction it wouldn’t have happened on its own. The “theory” evolution also says that people evolved from single cell oginisms over billions of years. FYI the earth has only been around about 6,000 years. There is no way every thing around us could exist with out a creator. Truethfuly, there is only one reason people choose evolution over divine creation. They don’t want to admit God exists.”
What is it about getting the Big Bang theory and evolutionary theory combined into a single argument by those opposed to either? Anyway, I really don’t understand your example of sweet potato pie. How does that have any connection at all with the Big Bang?
For your claim that the Earth is only 6,000 years old, please provide some evidence to back up your argument.
Finally, belief in a creator and acceptance of evolution are not mutually exclusive. One can believe that life was creted by God, but that the subsequent diversification was achieved through evolution. Many Christians fit into this category of belief.
Oh, and please proofread your posts before submitting them. The typos make it rather difficult to read.
April 1st, 2008 at 9:00 am
The big bang theory states that the universe was created when all the right elements came to gather and exploded. So if it happened then it would have to be able to happen again and with other elements. As for the evidence I for the earth being around only about 6,000 years I have a copy of a document that can be traced back through history to the beginning about 6,000 years ago. I know some people believe in both God and evolution, but these people aren’t truly Christians. By the way natural selection isn’t evolution.
April 1st, 2008 at 9:45 am
@Todd
Natural selection cannot create anything, though, so no, there is no mechanism for increasing complexity which TOE needs. Please don’t confuse “microevolution” with what we’re really discussing here. To throw out immunobiology and the fossil record is to do just that. The problem for TOE is that there is no mechanism that has ever been observed that can add information/complexity.
Well, I’m glad to hear that someone has finally discredited the bacterial flagellum (at least in your mind). Could you point out where that has been done? What you cite is just another example of a variation of what was already there, and from what it sounds like is more like “devolution”. The fact that you are conveniently overlooking is that the flagellum had to be constructed somehow to begin with. Evolution has nothing but wishful thinking in lue of any observable mechanism to address this.
As for examples of scientists overlooking what the facts would indicate, one would simply need to toss a dart at any paper published in any journal that mentions anything tied to evolution and/or the age of the solar system or universe.
So, to kill two birds with one stone; concerning dark energy, these articles should be enlightening. Some scientists are admitting that there is no real direct evidence for it, but simply a need; a need for something to explain other phenomena that threatens preconceived notions. Can someone say, “ad hoc”? Again, evidence that scientists look at data and then disregard what it indicates when it doesn’t lead in the desired direction (albeit the articles linked indicate that some scientists are willing to be honest about real problems &endash; kudos).
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v452/n7184/full/452158a.html
http://space.newscientist.com/article/dn11498-is-dark-energy-an-illusion.html
http://arxiv.org/abs/0704.2291
Despite what these links indicate, scientists are “certain” that dark matter and energy must exist.
April 1st, 2008 at 12:58 pm
Science is something you can repeat. (Haven’t you watched television or been to kindergarten?)
So if you can’t repeat it, it’s not science it’s faith. Ergo both evolution and creation are faiths.
Can’t you agree with that.
April 1st, 2008 at 1:05 pm
@Blondie
At least you understand the difference between faith and science.
April 1st, 2008 at 1:22 pm
@ Todd
It is spelled created not “creted”.
(If you are going to be hypercritical on the work of others, you should at least check your own work twice.)
Please use typographical errors not “typos”. You are not text messaging.
April 1st, 2008 at 7:53 pm
@Abby
First, regarding your evidence of the Earth being only 6,000 years old. I am assuming that you are talking about the Bible, a collection of works by multiple authors; a document that was compiled from among many more writings by various authors, some of which were excluded because they didn’t fit in with the message the compilers wanted to get across. Many of these writings, in turn, were likely based on oral tradition, humanity having been around a bit longer than writing. One may take it on faith that the Bible was divinely inspired, and that the writings are literally true. However, there is no evidence that the Bible is literal truth, unless one already accepts the existence of God and His infallible Word. If one never even critically questions the historical development of the Bible, or seriously considers the existence or non-existence of God, then it is difficult to accept any other possibility. Second, in regards to people that believe in evolution and God not being true Christians, that may be so according to your particular sect of Christianity IIRC, in order to be a Christian, one must believe that Jesus is the Christ, and that he was the Son of God and died for our sins. That’s it. Belief in evolution does not negate that or make a person not a Christian. Finally, I never stated that natural selection was evolution. I said that natural selection was a mechanism of evolution. I.e., living beings evolve through the process of natural selection (among other mechanisms, as well).
@Brent
I never stated that natural selection can create anything, nor does evolutionary theory make that claim. Natural selection operates on what already exists, whether traits that have been in the organisms for generations or a new mutation. Evolution also does not necessarily lead to increased complexity. In some instances, it can lead to simplified forms (e.g., cave fish with no eyes or non-functioning eyes, evolved from fish living in lit regions). I’m not really certain what you mean by “microevolution.” I seem to recall that that is a term introduced by proponents of ID and is not part of the theory of evolution.
On the bacterial flagellum, see the following for a couple examples of evolutionary explanations:
http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/abstract/0700266104v1
http://www.talkdesign.org/faqs/flagellum.html
On your comment about overlooking facts, you have not cleared up just what facts or evidence evolutionists overlook. Further, I am guessing, and correct me if I am wrong, that you believe these facts/evidence point to ID. How do you reach this conclusion? Designed by who/what?
Again, I am not going to argue the dark matter issue, as I am not knowledgeable in that area. I will leave that to someone else to debate, though I appreciate the links you provided to those articles.
One final note, regarding ID. If ID is a theory (in the scientific sense), what evidence does it have to support it? What predictions does it make? What research has been done to test those predictions, and what were the results? Please provide links to support your answers to these questions, so that readers may evaluate your evidence for themselves.
@Blondie
Thank you for catching my one misspelling. However, I do not feel I was being hypercritical. The sheer number of misspellings and grammatical errors in Bble-is-trueth’s post did make it very difficult to read. Had it been one or two minor misspellings, I probably would not have commented on it. However, I will admit that I made the assumption that they were a native English speaker, which I should not have done. If English is their second language, then my apologies for any offense I may have given. In the end, I am not demanding perfection; rather, I am asking for the posts to be more clearly written, so that I can better understand what exactly is their argument.
By the way, for those responding to me, while I do not currently believe in divine beings, I do not rule out the possibility of their existence. I just have not seen any evidence myself to suggest that there are any (or even one, for that matter). Also, keep in mind that acceptance of the theory of evolution does not negate, threaten or challenge in any way one’s belief in a Creator. Evolution does not touch on the origins of life. It simply explains how life can become diversified into the variety we see around us today.
Okay, I’ve gone on long enough. There is an abundance of information out there on evolution. More than needs be reiterated by myself, a mere lay-person. Abby, Brent and Blondie, I doubt that I will convince you of my position. And, unless you present me with some darn good evidence, I doubt you will convince me of yours. Furthermore, we’ve moved well beyond the scope of this thread and the BA’s post, which was to announce that there is a site examining the Expelled claims.
April 2nd, 2008 at 8:53 am
If I throw engines, metal boards, four tires, nuts and bolts, then you are saying in thirty years it will turn into a corvette.
April 2nd, 2008 at 2:26 pm
@Timmy
To whom are you addressing your question?
April 4th, 2008 at 12:03 pm
Sorry for the long delay, again …
Todd:
The problem with what you linked for me above is that, again, the first step to trying to debunk the irreducible complexity problems for the Darwinian mechanism is to mis-characterize it. It amounts to a very sophisticated straw-man, really.
The first link you gave is rather laughable. There is simply an assertion that because they could find some similar and less complex components that they must have then therefore been the precursor to the flagellum.
There is nothing remotely close here to showing there is a sufficient mechanism to produce the flagellum. It matters not one whit that they can find something lesser that is possibly a core component. Indeed, the rub here is that according to what is actually emperically known about mutations and selection is that these lesser components are 99.9 percent sure to have evolved from the flagellum!!! That is precisely what one should conclude; that these components exist much, much, much more probably as a gradual breakdown from the flagellum rather than a precursor to it. Thereby, you have conveniently backed up my claim that scientists routinely look at actual observable facts and then go 180 degrees against what that evidence suggests.
To note, the second link does the same thing. The author cites lesser components of the flagellum and then reasons that they were the “building blocks” for it, rather than the evolution (downward) of it, which is what one would reasonably expect from the observed way in which mutations and such actually work.
Please read the link I’ve provided which should at the least ensure you have a grasp of what Behe is really saying. Don’t let others mis-interpret, purposely in my opinion, what his argument really is.
Also, and I don’t know how many people know this, but Behe isn’t trying to argue against evolution altogether at all. He believes in it and common ancestry. He is just being honest about the observable and overwhelming problems that any known Darwinian mechanisms have.
April 8th, 2008 at 10:28 am
Here is some helpful information. Darwin said that if anyone could prove atoms were not the smallest things in existence than all he said about evolution would be proven false.
April 8th, 2008 at 2:05 pm
Couple quick notes.
@Abby
Please provide a reference for your comment about atoms.
@Brent
My quick perusal of the links I included (I admit I did not read in depth) led me to think that they are saying that it is very likely, not that it is 100% the case, that the flagellum evolved from some similar prior forms.
Second, you state that the simpler forms are 99.9% certain to have evolved from the flagellum. Please provide references to the well-controlled, peer-reviewed studies that make provide evidence of this. Without providing this evidence, your argument cannot stand.
I actually read Behe’s testimony from the Dover trial, and he seems, well, a bit confused about what exactly ID is and what it addresses and doesn’t address. To say the least, he performed poorly on cross-examination.
And going back to one of my previous posts:
“If ID is a theory (in the scientific sense), what evidence does it have to support it? What predictions does it make? What research has been done to test those predictions, and what were the results? Please provide links to support your answers to these questions, so that readers may evaluate your evidence for themselves.“
These questions have yet to be answered.
The simple complexity of an object or system, by the way, cannot determine that the object or system was designed, created or constructed by an intelligence. For example, crystalline structures are incredibly complex (e.g., a snowflake). Their complexity is a result of various environmental factors acting on the materials. It may be possible that some intelligent force is acting on it, but we have no way of determining this. So, what contribution does a statement that an “intelligence designed this” make to science? Again, see my questions above.
What evidence, besides supposed irreducible complexity, is there for an intelligent designer? And even if something appears to be irreducibly complex, if one claims that it must have formed as a whole through intelligent guidance because it is so complex and we have not seen anything like it develop in such a gradual process, keep in mind that the time scale we’re talking about for such changes runs well beyond numerous generations of human existence and very likely predates humans by millennia. Given the time scales involved, I do not see any problem in small, seemingly insignificant changes eventually leading to a complex structure that may or may not be related to the function of the initial form.
And finally, the Theory of Evolution, from my understanding, has moved on quite a bit from the way Mr. Darwin understood it.
April 17th, 2008 at 7:06 am
Hi, Todd. I’m sorry if you don’t appreciate this much, but I just don’t have the time to continue this discussion. I’m very sorry.
I’ll just leave you with two thoughts and a link.
One: As for the time scales involved making evolution more likely, you are seriously mistaken. There is a very well established science called Probability Theory which calculates the chances that something could likely occur. For life to have gotten started by chance, even giving all favorable conditions possible, it reduces the asserted 17 billion years of our universe to something like mere nanoseconds (less actually). It is astonishing. It makes all the estimated atoms in the entire universe look like nothing by comparison; nothing!!! Considering the almost complete lack of beneficial, not to mention the total lack of information gaining, mutations for natural selection to act on, the picture isn’t any better even if you start with an initial life form.
Two: I’m sincerely concerned when I see evolution advocates who are unaware of even basic empirical facts that even evolution believing scientists freely admit to. It screams that they have clearly not done the reading and research that they claim to have done, and shows their hypocrisy when they charge creationists/I.D. proponents with not doing the same. It is clear that they’ve only gone to the evolution advocates who predigest the “facts” for them. Unfortunately, these advocates are very reluctant to share anything that may upset their disciples total faith in the theory. Please understand that I’m not throwing stones here. I’m just surprised that you are apparently unaware that mutations are overwhelmingly negative (conferring disadvantages), sometimes neutral (providing neither advantage nor disadvantage), and so rarely are positive in any way that they virtually never occur.
This is where the link comes in: http://www.trueorigin.org/ng_ap01.asp
It is a very long article, and the information about mutations, well documented from evolutionary biologists, comes toward the bottom. This has been well known for a long time.
Again, I’m sorry to have to leave off here. If you’d like you can contact me through my blog.
April 17th, 2008 at 7:14 am
Hi, Todd. I’m sorry if you don’t appreciate this much, but I just don’t have the time to continue this discussion. I’m very sorry.
I’ll just leave you with two thoughts and a link.
One: As for the time scales involved making evolution more likely, you are seriously mistaken. There is a very well established science called Probability Theory which calculates the chances that something could likely occur. For life to have gotten started by chance, even giving all favorable conditions possible, it reduces the asserted 17 billion years of our universe to something like mere nanoseconds (less actually). It is astonishing. It makes all the estimated atoms in the entire universe look like nothing by comparison; nothing!!! Considering the almost complete lack of beneficial, not to mention the total lack of information gaining, mutations for natural selection to act on, the picture isn’t any better even if you start with an initial life form.
Two: I’m sincerely concerned when I see evolution advocates who are unaware of even basic empirical facts that even evolution believing scientists freely admit to. It screams that they have clearly not done the reading and research that they claim to have done, and shows their hypocrisy when they charge creationists/I.D. proponents with not doing the same. It is clear that they’ve only gone to the evolution advocates who predigest the “facts” for them. Unfortunately, these advocates are very reluctant to share anything that may upset their disciples total faith in the theory. Please understand that I’m not throwing stones here. I’m just surprised that you are apparently unaware that mutations are overwhelmingly negative (conferring disadvantages), sometimes neutral (providing neither advantage nor disadvantage), and so rarely are positive in any way that they virtually never occur.
This is where the link comes in: http://www.trueorigin.org/ng_ap01.asp
It is a very long article, and the information about mutations, well documented from evolutionary biologists, comes toward the bottom. This has been well known for a long time.
Again, I’m sorry to have to leave off here. If you’d like you can contact me through my blog.
I’m adding this last line in hopes that the WP duplicate post filter won’t eat this attempt also! Aaaargh!
April 17th, 2008 at 9:25 am
Sorry for the double post. The filter kept assuring me that my post was posted, but after multiple cache clearing and reloading of the page it refused to show.
Something was funky there for a while I think. I logged in with a different browser and was given another poster’s “hidden” email address. Not Good!
June 22nd, 2008 at 4:54 pm
Who in there right mind wold belive in evolution . i have planted things that go into a car and i still dont have a corvette . has any one who belives in evolution ever seen what a cell looks like it . a cell only could have been created by GOD.