The Expelled movie producers are, as we know from copious evidence, lying and evil.
Nefarious even. They placed ads for their antiscience propaganda piece on The Science Channel and NPR.
Evil does as evil is, so I’m not surprised they would try that. But I am really shocked that TSC and NPR would take their money. This movie is totally 100% against the missions of both The Science Channel and National Public Radio. It is seriously like taking the KKK’s money for ads, or from NAMBLA. Why would you do that?
I have not seen the TSC ads, but I was pretty surprised when I was poking around the NPR site and an ad for the movie popped up in a media player (I was looking for a podcast about the LHC, a scientific triumph, making the ad that much more appalling). PZ mentions it as well.
What they heck were they thinking?
I am too busy right now to draft up appropriate letters, but feel free to do so yourselves (after due diligence if you so desire). If I get a chance I’ll be taking care of that when I get back from Europe.
Hat tip to BABLoggee Randall Wald.
April 17th, 2008 at 9:11 am
I caught an add in my NPR stream of “Wait Wait” this weekend. I wrote an email to NPR about it a couple of days ago, but I haven’t gotten a response yet. (Well, OK, it’s been ~1 business day, so it’s too soon to assume that it’s being ignored.)
April 17th, 2008 at 9:19 am
I will confirm that this ad has been aired on the Science Channel. I have also seen the same ad on the History Channel as well.
April 17th, 2008 at 9:21 am
So, are the ads blanketing all media, or are they perversely targetting science-minded people?
Could it be that they actually believe their own propaganda? I see lots of their followers over on Pharyngula posting delusional comments about how this movie will “undermine materialism”.
April 17th, 2008 at 9:22 am
Saw it on History Channel last night during Monsterquest, where they were looking for Orang Pendek (”the real hobbit”). Very brief commercial. I almost missed it except for Stein’s unmistakable voice.
April 17th, 2008 at 9:22 am
Yeah, it’s bad, but really: as bad as the KKK? As bad as NAMBLA?
April 17th, 2008 at 9:37 am
Somebody call Ira Flatow, stat! I’m sure it would be great for a TOTN Science Friday bit…
April 17th, 2008 at 9:42 am
@Nemo
They might be trying to bait science minded people. They already know they’re going to get a strong showing from creationists and other Design proponents, they may be trying to get other science minded people who aren’t all that well versed in Evolution and don’t know all the lies and distortions present in the movie.
April 17th, 2008 at 9:46 am
In “Broca’s Brain” Dr. Sagan talked about Immanuel Velikovsky in relation to real science. Dr. Velikovsky proposed, among other things, that a comet was generated from Jupiter and made a bunch of orbits around the solar system helping to make those wonderful bible miracles (such as spewing manna).
Dr. Sagan wrote that he disliked that the scientific community tried to suppress Velikovsky’s work saying that this ran counter to science.
Perhaps, the same is true with “Expelled”. If the film stays in the light, it can be dealt with as the idiocy it is. If it is denied advertising on TSC, it would only bolster Stein’s absurd arguments for the existence of ‘Big Science”.
Besides, let them advertise on TSC and NPR, who cares; TSC gets their money and Stein gets no converts.
April 17th, 2008 at 9:47 am
I like the Science Channel, but it has credulous shows on UFOs and Bigfoot, so I don’t think advertising Expelled is really that out of character for them.
April 17th, 2008 at 9:53 am
I would be glad to take anyone’s money. I don’t see why NPR and TSC wouldn’t either.
Creationism isn’t quite as bad as advocating genocide against black people and jews or child molestation by men.
April 17th, 2008 at 9:56 am
I’ve seen some Google Ads for it on skeptical websites.
Maybe it’ll even show up here.
April 17th, 2008 at 10:02 am
@Robbie
True. Money is money is money. Why else do shows like UFO Hunters, Ghost Hunters, and all the other mumbo-jumbo end up on channels like the History Channel or the Science Channel? Or Deepak Chopra on PBS? Because, to network executives who are more concerned with making money, rather than the integrity of the channel, the source of the money doesn’t really matter much.
Now, there may be some out there with enough integrity to refuse to air commercials that run contrary to their channel’s message, but integrity is a flexible, bendy, fuzzy thing.
April 17th, 2008 at 10:04 am
@Arkonbey
Good point about claims of suppression. If science-oriented channels refuse to run the commercials, claims can be made of censorship and suppression of free thought.
April 17th, 2008 at 10:08 am
My Tivo allows me to skip all commercials, so I briefly see those ads on th e Science channel.
The problem is that if they refuse, then the ID proponents will again scream how “Big Science” is persecuting them.
So let them take the money. No problem here. I would like to think that most people watching the Science Channel are already aware of this movie.
I wish, however, that the Science Channel (and NPR too in interest of “balanced” reporting) would put PSA ads for ExpellExposed.com.
April 17th, 2008 at 10:13 am
I’ve seen the ad on Comedy Central, but perhaps that’s more appropriate.
April 17th, 2008 at 10:14 am
I say let these silly ideas be propagated everywhere and destroy them. Then, destroy them again when they come back a few years later. Don’t whine about the fact that you already destroyed an idea and it came back. It always will as long as there are uneducated people in the world, which there always will be.
To paraphrase Wendell Phillips, eternal vigilance is the price of science.
April 17th, 2008 at 10:16 am
I have even seen commercials for it on Comedy Central.
Sad day.
April 17th, 2008 at 10:21 am
This is where you see the true beauty of Expelled’s strategy. If scientists take the time to publicly debunk the claims it makes, that generates publicity and helps sell the idea that there is a real controversy. If everyone ignores the rubbish the film is spreading, these claims are allowed to stand, and furthermore the ID people can point to this silence as an effort to suppress their evidence.
This is a very nasty strategy. I wish I could think of a neat way to short-circuit it. The best answer I can come up with is to continue to debunk and just accept the fact that this runs the risk of validating the manufactroversy.
April 17th, 2008 at 10:22 am
Freakin’ Wooziers are taking over. I can’t watch a single show on any channel nowadays without being blasted with ads for creationism movies, homeopathic remedies, or shows “proving” the supernatural with such proofs as “Because I say so”.
… sounds like a job for the Skeptologists. Turn on the skepti-signal!
April 17th, 2008 at 10:25 am
Evil is a very strong and emotive word. Are these people knowingly and deliberately spreading misinformation for their own purposes or are they just incredibly deluded and ignorant of the world we live in?
Hard to believe but it might be the second option. Either way, they’re an interesting product of US education and society, and they’re getting a lot of media. Just what the blazes is going on over there?
April 17th, 2008 at 10:26 am
SpiderBrigade: “If scientists take the time to publicly debunk the claims it makes, that generates publicity and helps sell the idea that there is a real controversy.”
I don’t agree. I give the average person more credit than that (being one). Average people will buy the good arguments that are delivered confidently and with evidence. The more times you debunk ID and creationism, the easier it gets.
April 17th, 2008 at 10:28 am
I used to have a high opinion of Ben Stein, not any more.
Anyway the commercials have given me the chance to discuss the conflict (good enough word for it I guess) with my kids, whom (Who?) I am trying to raise with open, yet optomistic, minds.
JT
April 17th, 2008 at 10:39 am
More misrepresentations by BA about this film. Evil? Puhlease. Evil is snuffing out millions of Jews. Evil is late term abortion. Evil is flying a plane into a building killing 3,000 innocent people.
Making a movie is just making a movie. And ONCE AGAIN I will point out that the movie is about how people who believe in Intelligent Design are fired for teaching it in class.
This is as much an anti Science movie as Roots is a mini series that is anti-farming.
You really should stick to what you’re good at, B.A..
April 17th, 2008 at 10:47 am
A typical case of “pecunia non olet” I guess.
April 17th, 2008 at 10:49 am
Matt:
Stein and his cohorts are using arguments that have been proven demonstrably false many times over. Don’t you guys still have that commandment against lying?
April 17th, 2008 at 11:04 am
I think many of these channels simply take the revenue when they can and do not really care about what is being advertised unless it is obviously offensive. You had me agreeing with you though until you compared Creationists with racist lynchers of innocents and child molesters. Do you really believe that is a fair comparison?
April 17th, 2008 at 11:12 am
“You really should stick to what you’re good at, B.A..”
He is, Matt – he writes about what interests him.
April 17th, 2008 at 11:14 am
“Making a movie is just making a movie. And ONCE AGAIN I will point out that the movie is about how people who believe in Intelligent Design are fired for teaching it in class.”
And no, that isn’t the case. The movie falsely represents people who were fired for a number of reasons (e.g. failure to perform their job adequately) as being fired because of their beliefs.
April 17th, 2008 at 11:14 am
I also saw the ad on the Science channel. It was sort of funny. I liked Ben Stein before he hooked with these madmen. When I realized it was for THIS movie, I almost vomited. The ad gives the impression it’s a comedy, and nothing about creationism as I can recall. Hopefully it will bomb hard at the theaters.
April 17th, 2008 at 11:18 am
I would have to agree that I am a bit disappointed to. I realize this is his site and he can do what he wants when he wants and does not have to listen to anyone’s complaints. I just remember coming to this site to see pretty pictures of space objects and learning things about astronomy. Now I see a great deal of rhetoric about politics and anti-science.
Bummer, I believe is the appropriate word here.
April 17th, 2008 at 11:18 am
@Matt
At first, I thought you might be approaching this issue with a more open mind and were simply misinformed. Now, I think you are being wilfully ignorant of the facts. Expelled claims to be about how people are being suppressed because of their support for ID, however, there is more to the story than is being depicted. Please take some time to read through some of the information available at this link:
http://www.expelledexposed.com/index.php/the-truth
If you still have problems with the manner in which the BA is portraying the makers of this movie after reading through the information at that site (in addition to the single link I provided), then come back here and make your claims, supported by whatever evidence you feel justifies your opinions.
April 17th, 2008 at 11:21 am
It seems the producers may be taken to legal task for not seeking permisssion for featured copywritten music as well. That’s not very Christian, is it?
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/james-boyce/ben-stein-yoko-ono-on-lin_b_97174.html
John Lennon specifically
April 17th, 2008 at 11:22 am
Please keep in mind that ad space is sold by sales reps.
The people making decisions about content on “NPR” or “The History Channel” don’t have a role in gatekeeping what ads get on the air, especially when it’s ads for a movie.
April 17th, 2008 at 11:23 am
“More misrepresentations by BA about this film. Evil? Puhlease. Evil is snuffing out millions of Jews. Evil is late term abortion. Evil is flying a plane into a building killing 3,000 innocent people.
Making a movie is just making a movie. And ONCE AGAIN I will point out that the movie is about how people who believe in Intelligent Design are fired for teaching it in class.
This is as much an anti Science movie as Roots is a mini series that is anti-farming.
You really should stick to what you’re good at, B.A..”
There are degrees of evil. This is certianly not as eveil is the examples you brought up, not even in the same league, but it’s evil none the less.
Attacking and trying to suppress or destroy one of the backbones of modern science and human progress? That’s evil. Lying to do it? Even more evil. Tricking people under false pretenses and then quoting them out of context? Evil.
Doesn’t matter if they believe their own B.S. or not. You don’t get a pass for evil behavior because you’re an ignorant git with an underhanded religious agenda.
April 17th, 2008 at 11:26 am
“I would have to agree that I am a bit disappointed to. I realize this is his site and he can do what he wants when he wants and does not have to listen to anyone’s complaints. I just remember coming to this site to see pretty pictures of space objects and learning things about astronomy. Now I see a great deal of rhetoric about politics and anti-science.
Bummer, I believe is the appropriate word here.”
…
The only ‘bummer’ here is that people aren’t more outraged by the systematic assault on science and human progress by religious zealots and opportunists of all types and faiths.
April 17th, 2008 at 11:30 am
Matt Garrett -
In the last post you showed up in, I erroneously tried to give you credit for being a potentially critically thinking person.
I was wrong. Dreadfully.
So, it’s time to address you properly.
First, it’s not for YOU to determine Phil’s or anyone else’s definition of “evil”. For my money, any group that intentionally mis-represents itself in an attempt to deceptively con people into being interviewed for a documentary that initially presents itself as a two sided look at a topic but later reveals itself as one-sided propoganda for the purposes of political positioning, is… well… evil. Period. Any group that will intentionally make a knowingly erroneous connection between the holocaust and evolution merely for the sake of garnishing sympathy for its cause is… well… evil.
Second, making a movie is NOT just making a movie when your movie is a “documentary” with a political agenda. Michael Moore’s movies are not “just movies” and Al Gore’s movie was “not just a movie”, and were not marketed as such. They are not meant to be simple entertainment. They have an agenda and a message. And this film is no different… so don’t try to brush it off by classifying it in the same group as “War of the Worlds”. That’s missing the point.
And ONCE AGAIN I will point out that despite numerous invitations to do so, it is clear that you have not bothered to look at the “Expelled Exposed” website, where it CLEARLY states the facts that NONE of the people “Expelled” in “Expelled” were ever fired. Not one. Either their contracts ran out and were not renewed (Crocker), or were denied tenure (Gonzalez), or were simply roundly criticized for introducing anti-science into a science publication by side-stepping the process (Sternberg)… so, based on your extensive research and clear knowledge of the facts here, that you had to ONCE AGAIN point out, please tell me who was fired for teaching ID in class? I’ll wait while you search in vain for the answer.
Ugh… how do I even address this fine example of completely non-relevent and non-sequitor comparison. OK… try this: The purpose of “Expelled” is to push an agenda that allows anti-science to be taught in science classes. I’d call that a pretty direct link between the movie’s anti-science stand and it’s opposition to accepted scientific theory. How in the heck is that in any way like comparing Roots to farming? Seriously?
The leeway I had given you prior, Matt, has been used up. From this point forward, I will go on with the assumtpion that you have no interest in educating yourself about the issue, and are only concerned with defending ID and this movie in particular. And in that case, I will be more than happy to go toe to toe with you on any topic this covers. I will come at you with logic, reason, and facts that I will back up with peer-reviewed research and multiple sources… so if you want to continue to argue a position in favor of defending this movie and its premise… then I’m all for it.
Let’s dance.
April 17th, 2008 at 11:37 am
I’m not a fan of the movie or its message, but they have the right to their opinion. I think religion is dying a slow and very loud death, the few that remain are getting louder and more bold/desperate. Religion can be more dangerous that any “weapon” humans have created. People have killed millions of other people in the name of religion. Nevertheless, as people of science we have to keep an open mind to people’s beliefs even if the science, logic, and commonsense point elsewhere.
The commercials are just another advertisement for just another movie. Similar to when CBS buys a commercial on NBC, they are competitors but still advertise on each other’s channel. I see that all the time.
April 17th, 2008 at 11:42 am
BA:
Sometime flip through the ads in Scientific American, Discovery, Popular Science, and Popular Mechanics. Not all of them reflect the tone of the magazines. Most likely TSC and NPR took the ad because it’s money and because it’s not so odious as to turn away droves of viewers/listeners – or at least their advertising revenue departments see things that way.
Just a suggestion: The very *last* thing I think anyone wants to do is pressure media outlets not to take “Expelled” ads. Why? Because this plays right into their hands. The central premise of the movie is that there’s a concerted effort to promote evolution by excluding ID. They would point to an effort to remove their ads as more of the same.
April 17th, 2008 at 11:43 am
The science channel lost me when i saw a commercial for “Dr. Frank’s” homeopathic pain spray.
April 17th, 2008 at 11:44 am
@Matt Garrett:
While I haven’t seen “Expelled”, there’s been quite a few reports surfacing on how “Expelled” tries to paint evolution theory as an indirect cause for the Holocaust. If what I’m reading on the intertubes is correct, that’s pretty much how the film’s second half progresses.
I’m wondering if categorizing the film as being about persecuted ID proponents kind of glosses over some of the more, shall we say, “unique” messages of the film.
@everyone complaining about who is taking “Expelled” advertising:
I do agree that an organization called “The Science Channel” may want to think twice about taking ads for the film. Then again, it’s not like a federal Republican judge ever ruled that ID is simply creationism with a few words changed.
Oh, wait…
I’m not getting why it’s wrong for NPR to take “Expelled” advertising bucks. As far as I know, they don’t have any specific mission statement that would conflict with the themes of this film.
The cynic in me says they’re doing it partly to deflect the whole “godless librul radio” epithets thrown their way.
Commence yelling at me now
Matt A
April 17th, 2008 at 11:47 am
The problem with most of you is that you can’t separate various aspects of faith, ID, Christian, or whatever else you choose to call “them.” The fact is, it’s not one group of people. There are people of faith who are not Christian, Christians who don’t believe the Earth was created 6,000 years ago, and ID people who aren’t Christian. Yet, many of you continue to lump all of these groups together, call them names, put them down, etc. It’s the same argument heard a thousand times over on this board and others elsewhere. When you have the ability to truly understand all walks, then come back and have an intelligent conversation about something. Until then, most of you are just regurgitating the same argument over and over.
April 17th, 2008 at 11:48 am
Matt, whereas I do not like the word “evil” in general (it suggests a simplistic notion of morality), it is clear that you have not looked at the Expelled Exposed website. You keep repeating the same line of argument, even though you could have easily found the facts. They are only a click away!
April 17th, 2008 at 11:48 am
I will throw an addendum in though, I don’t actually blame the science channel, advertisements are a lot of times decided by people not directly affiliated with the channel, either the owning corporation has an agency that handles ad’s for all their channels, or often local cable companies sell the commercial time.
April 17th, 2008 at 11:49 am
The KKK? Nambla?
Ok, Phil, unlike Matt I am a friend of this site and its mission, but I think you have jumped the shark with these analogies. Foolish and dishonest the creationists are, criminals and terrorists they are not.
I have been an outspoken opponent of their schemes and lies for decades and I have done this in West Texas, which is not the friendliest environment for this kind of activism.
Believe me, I understand the temptation to lash out but we are supposed to the reality based community here. It would be a travesty if we were seen as the kooks in this struggle simply because we cannot keep our rhetoric within an order of magnitude of reality.
April 17th, 2008 at 11:49 am
KC -
I was just thinking the same thing. I’m often surprised by the ads that show up in magazines that seem to contradict the magazine’s stated goals or purpose. I find cigarette ads in fitness and sports magazines, for example.
Sales and marketing departments are almost never tied directly to programming and public relations departments.. .and especially with companies like Discovery Communications, LLC, the parent company for the Science Channel. Often the advertising is sold to the parent company and then distributed throughout all its networks. I think that is the case with the Expelled ads as well. You’ll likely see the add on all of the Discovery Network’s channels. And I’m sure that’s exactly what the parent marketing company intended.
I for one, will do my part to express my displeasure with schilling for this particular product, however, to Discovery Communications, LLC.
April 17th, 2008 at 11:49 am
I think that a better example of cases where you’d expect a lot of media outlets not to take ads is a hypothetical remake of “Birth of a Nation” (assuming the theme is kept the same). I suspect we’d all agree that most media outlets would be both well within their rights to pass on playing ads for such a piece and probably morally obligated to do so. It’s not “just a movie”, it’s espousing a very real (and wrong) ideology. Running ads for it implicitly (at least to some degree) condones and/or endorses the movie.
April 17th, 2008 at 11:54 am
Yeah, what Celtic_Evolution said. Squared.
April 17th, 2008 at 11:55 am
Phobos! I trusted NPR!
April 17th, 2008 at 11:58 am
I’ve seen it on the Dilbert blog, and just this morning someone put up a makeshift sign for it on a freeway overpass, just like the Ron Paul Revolution signs. It looked like stenciled spray paint on fabric, just like the RPR signs a few months ago. They’re clearly trying to play up some kind of grassroots/underground/revolution mystique.
April 17th, 2008 at 12:16 pm
Astroturfing. How dishonest. Who’d have expected dishonesty from the producers of Expelled?
Oh, right. Anyone who’s paying attention.
April 17th, 2008 at 12:19 pm
Wow! Scientific American’s Six Things in Expelled That Ben Stein Doesn’t Want You to Know is the top link at uber-conservative website Free Republic right now. The comments are an idiot-fest even by creationist standards.
It reminds me of a local school board meeting when evolution is on the agenda. Some of these people would defeat any effort at parody. They really do refer to evolution advocates as “godless libruls” pushing some sort of evil communist agenda.
I remember one bearded savant trying to persuade the school board that evolutionary theory should be banned because its ultimate purpose was “the promotion of illicit sex.” This left me wondering what I had missed (I was younger then) but his time ran out before I could ask.
April 17th, 2008 at 12:40 pm
Geez, Phil… I think I’ve shown here I am 100% pro evolution and thing Expelled is crap, but comparing them to KKK or NAMBLA is just the sort of histrionics that works *counter* to our purposes.
Oh, I give up… the skeptical community is never going to learn. Hopefully I can retire overseas before the USA becomes the Republic of Gilead.
Go ahead, folks. Keep trying to insult and swear and bully you way into prominence. Have fun with that.
April 17th, 2008 at 12:45 pm
And the Google ads on this site are sometimes quite inappropriate too!
April 17th, 2008 at 12:48 pm
Ok, Phil, unlike Matt I am a friend of this site and its mission, but I think you have jumped the shark with these analogies. Foolish and dishonest the creationists are, criminals and terrorists they are not.
I’m with you, Ad Hominid. How is it all that different than what the film does with it’s intercutting of evolutionists with Nazi death camps?
HYPERBOLE WILL GAIN OUR SIDE ***NOTHING***!
It is the side of the woo woos that can use hyperbole to great success because they don’t care about reality. The side of truth has to adhere to the truth and not make hysterical comparisons and claims. To do so is to become what we have beheld and it will not work.
April 17th, 2008 at 12:52 pm
KaiYveson: Phobos! I trusted NPR!
And that was your undoing.
Trust no one. Did you people learn nothing from the X-Files?
April 17th, 2008 at 12:55 pm
I remember one bearded savant trying to persuade the school board that evolutionary theory should be banned because its ultimate purpose was “the promotion of illicit sex.”
If only it really had that power.
A better line would be “the promotion of monkey sex.”
Yeah… hot, hot monkey sex… especially after an argument or tiff of some sort
Then it’s hot, hot, ANGRY monkey sex, and it doesn’t get any better than that, people.
April 17th, 2008 at 12:56 pm
It is quite obvious that Matt Garrett will not accept ANY criticism of his belief, whether about his Christian opinions or anything else that challenges them. Since the movie is a now-cherished part of that fantasy he holds dear, it is useless to attempt to change him or his “mind.” And this is the problem with many of these folk; there is NO reasoning with them. Agree with their positions and you’ll not have a problem; disagree and run up against a brick wall. It is best to save energy and ignore them.
I do think that to deny advertising to such quackery is a mistake; it is a good source of revenue, for one thing, and I think most of the rest of us can discern the difference between chicanery, dishonesty, lies and deceit and what isn’t. However, we are a minority in a horde of the uninformed and ignorant, and we need to change that.
If you really want to get your knickers in a bunch, try getting mad about what has become of the use of our public airwaves by the few media giants that now use those airwaves to foist off drivel like the “reality” shows and the crapola which ABC, CBS and NBC call “news” programs. If you watched the “debate” moderated by ABC “reporters” last night, you will find a serious reason to be upset. The behavior of the “moderators” was shameful: the topics were trite, regurgitated sound bites from the newest “gotcha du jour.”
One reason why it is so difficult to get anything resembling honest discourse or rational thought on television is that the entertainment giants which now own the few media outlets also control the FCC and the congress. Your public airwaves are now controlled by these folks who have no other reason to exist except the bottom line.
If science wants to make a dent in the brick wall of disinformation, misinformation, and flat out stupidity which is the mainstay of much of the media today, we will have to find a way to fund the programs. The religious programming aired nationally by Christians and others is PAID for. And that is the criterion; there isn’t any checks or regulations which take precedent other than the bottom line. So get out your checkbooks; hire some skeptics to come up with a program which will counter the drivel from the true believers, the righteously sure of themselves and their ideas. One show at a time.
April 17th, 2008 at 12:57 pm
Hate to do it, Phil… but I have to agree a bit with Quiet_Desperation and others on this one… I’m willing to defend, to a degree, your use of calling the film-makers “evil”, as it is a subjective term and one can make a case for using it, whether you agree or disagree.
But whether intentional or not, your use of KKK and NAMBLA as a comparison does seem over the top, although I’m willing to allow you to explain your decision to use that analogy before writing it off totally as unnecessary hyperbole.
April 17th, 2008 at 1:10 pm
J Jones:
True; Christianity (and faith in general) are NOT a monolith. True, there are (I suspect quite large number of) faith-holders who agree that evolution is the best description going for the diversity/diversification of species. BUT, they aren’t speaking up. By inaction, they are allowing the ID/Fundementalist factions to be their default “voice”.
I could be wrong. I wouldn’t mind being proven wrong. But I haven’t seen any evidence of the religious moderates calling shenanigans on the makers of Expelled.
April 17th, 2008 at 1:11 pm
Will M.: “If you really want to get your knickers in a bunch, try getting mad about what has become of the use of our public airwaves by the few media giants that now use those airwaves to foist off drivel like the “reality” shows and the crapola which ABC, CBS and NBC call “news” programs. If you watched the “debate” moderated by ABC “reporters” last night, you will find a serious reason to be upset. The behavior of the “moderators” was shameful: the topics were trite, regurgitated sound bites from the newest “gotcha du jour.””
I think they forgot they were moderating a Democratic debate, not a Republican one.
April 17th, 2008 at 1:19 pm
They are TROLLING. They are targeting people who disagree with the movie in hopes that those people will pay to see it, since they have a strong interest in the claims and conclusions of the movie.
You are TROLLING. You are comparing irrational people (awful as they may be) to child molesters and violent racist terrorists. You are hoping to engender anger and controversy – probably with the explicit or subconscious hope that more people will read your blog and you’ll make more money.
It’s working on me, I kind of want to see the movie to see how outrageous it is, and I keep reading your blog.
So kudos to both of you.
April 17th, 2008 at 1:59 pm
I think it is funny that as I read this blog, you are so normal. Then as soon as someone wants to have a different belief than the “Always right scientists”, you get all mad and start calling names and step back from grown up language. It seems an educated man would not get so angry and be able to conrol emotion.
April 17th, 2008 at 2:06 pm
Well, Nate, perhaps being called communists, fools, devils, perverts, and heathen conspirators in half the school board meetings and church bulletins in the country has tempted some of us to respond in kind.
I admonished Phil for his rhetorical excesses, and so have others here, but I seldom see the advocates of creationism doing the same with their own foaming-at-the-mouth hysterics. In fact, it seems to be the norm for them.
April 17th, 2008 at 2:11 pm
@Nate
Rule… please allow me to introduce you to the exception…
That point has already been made… several times. And while I agree in principal, it’s a little tiring hearing that complaint in pretty much every controversial topic, when the large percentage of the conversation is generally on topic. It’s an old and trite diversionary tactic. All a post like that does is deflects the issue and derails the discussion.
Name calling=bad. Got it. Moving on.
April 17th, 2008 at 2:51 pm
Am I the only one who was shocked to discover Ben Stein was a religious zealot? Maybe that seems a bit harsh, but he /is/ lending his name to an anti-evolution movie, so it seems accurate to me…
April 17th, 2008 at 2:54 pm
ID on par with pedophilia… hm, hyperbole much? It’s that kind of finger-pointing and exaggerated name-calling that make the rational side seem… well, irrational. You’re becoming what you hate.
April 17th, 2008 at 3:01 pm
I was a little steamed at first. Now that I’ve considered it, won’t NPR and TSC be the least effective places for Expelled to advertise? Aren’t they totally missing their target audience there? Isn’t it like they’re pissing money away? Let them give money to NPR. It’s a good cause and they aren’t actually getting much in return. The discovery network of channels is in it for the money and we all know that anyway.
In my opinion, it’s just more proof that there was no intelligence to expel in the first place.
April 17th, 2008 at 3:59 pm
I have returned for a short time! Good to see Quiet_Desperation and Ad Hominid keeping up the good fight for fair representation.
Yeah, they can be argued to be evil, but they’re not seriously arguing for stoning adulterers in the streets (yet). They’ve got plenty enough sins that we don’t need to hyperbolize…
That being said, free marketplace of ideas. You can’t save everyone from stupid ideas, much like you can’t save everyone from alcohol or tobacco or driving or marijuana or unprotected sex or not eating bran or eating too much bran or not going outside or going outside, but that’s life. Generally, you can’t save people from themselves, so make your argument the best you can and if they won’t see reason… well, that’s the consequences for you.
Of course, this gives me a thought. Strong-atheist private schools where, like at religious private schools people MUST pray, any mention of a God not put in a negative form is strictly forbidden? Sauce for the goose…
April 17th, 2008 at 4:33 pm
NAMBLA = “National Assembly for Molesting and Besetting Little Americans”?
April 17th, 2008 at 4:45 pm
@AgnosticOracle
You know, confused though they may be, even UFO and Bigfoot believers should be on the side of evolution. Bigfoot would presumably be an unknown or believed-extinct hominid, while flying saucers would presumably be piloted by beings who evolved independently from life on Earth. Neither seems compatible with creationism’s cramped universe.
April 17th, 2008 at 5:15 pm
Pieter Kok you said
NAMBLA = “National Assembly for Molesting and Besetting Little Americans”?
How dare you sir! This is an offense to those of us that are proud members!
NAMBLA
North American Marlon Brando Lookalike Assn.!
April 17th, 2008 at 5:20 pm
I just saw the preview (Discovery Channel, how could you?) and it is obvious to me that they are playing up the Ferris Bueller angle, making it seem like a wacky teen comedy. Man, are there going to be some pissed moviegoers tomorrow!
April 17th, 2008 at 5:25 pm
I find it rather disappointing that someone who is cursorily an advocate of science would recommend the censorship of dissenting points of view. Yes, creationism is absurd. Yes, this movie is propaganda. Yes, it is trying to brainwash people. But might I remind you that the hallmark of true science is it’s absolute openness to discussion and free criticism. Evolution is an admirable scientific theory precisely because it has been criticized since its conception, and has withstood those criticisms and proven them to be false or groundless. If you start to silence all dissenting voices, no matter how misinformed or malicious they may be, science devolves into dogma and becomes useless to us all.
Not to mention the practical consequences of sending letters or whatnot to have these ads pulled would be counterproductive. It would only publicize this movie more.
I am not religious, and I find most religious people and creationists quite absurd. But the separation of church and state in this country, and by extension the freedom of the press and media, implies no interference in religion or what crazy religious people try to propagate, not a calculated silencing of religion just because you happen to think it’s crazy, or that science is the ultimate truth.
April 17th, 2008 at 5:49 pm
For “science” advocates, there certainly are some incredibly narrow minded views in this particular set of comments!
Just one question: How many of you have actually seen the movie?
Yeah. That’s what I thought…
April 17th, 2008 at 5:50 pm
Cicely -
You’ve fallen into J Jones’ trap. You’ve accepted his premise that all Christians/religious believers are being lumped together with fundie YECs and IDots. This is generally false. A few posters may do that, but BA and most of us don’t. Unlike many of the YEC and ID blogs, BA never deletes posts just because they disagree with him, so everything is right here to see. J Jones’ complaint has been made many times, and has never been valid.
April 17th, 2008 at 5:57 pm
Ewe said:
For the record, Phil isn’t recommending censorship. Not letting a group use one’s own media is not the same as silencing the group. I am perfectly willing to let people say their piece, but I don’t have to put it on my website or bumper of my car and that’s the heart of what’s happening here.
For media outlets, there are many choices in what ads to take and they can’t take all of them. There’s always a choice, then, and some get left out for various reasons. Choosing to to not run an ad because you don’t like the product it promotes isn’t censorship and more than Phil rejecting ads for pornography or, say, one of Hogland’s books on this site would be.
April 17th, 2008 at 6:02 pm
Calm Down. Get over it. Move on.
April 17th, 2008 at 6:59 pm
You guys are helping their cause, the movie is suppose to show the stonewalling of “scientists” that believe in intelligent design. Just let it go. Let them make their case, and be done with it. I don’t personally believe it but hey, there was a time when everyone though sea monsters sunk ships and naked half chick half fish people lived in the sea. Be open to new ideas and let the people make up their own minds.
If you had your way this movie wouldn’t be made, if I had my way, the rock of love on VH1 wouldn’t exist. But I guess neither of us is getting what they want.
April 17th, 2008 at 7:19 pm
Nothing wrong with a bit of hyperbole. I’ve used it millions of times. If we aren’t going to compare the movie to big evil like the KKK and NAMBLA (either the North American Man Boy Love Association or the Brando one). So how far can we take the hyperbole?
It is as evil as…?
BTW, you can find out just how evil you are here
April 17th, 2008 at 7:27 pm
@ Matt:
EVEN if your assertion was correct, that these fine educators and scientists were fired for their belief in ID WAS correct (it isn’t), the educational institutions and the Smithsonian would STILL have complete justification in firing them, for the same reason that the Smithsonian, or any college would fire someone who was actively teaching Flat Earth, Phlogiston Chemistry, (as fact), or any of the other universally recognized false teachings that have been tossed on the dustbin of history.
April 17th, 2008 at 7:30 pm
@ Shane: Oh bugger, I just took your survey and it said that I am good.
I’m gonna have to cultivate my evilness more assiduously, I can see.
April 17th, 2008 at 7:38 pm
I wouldn’t be as shocked… If you check your listings, you’ll see that The Discovery Channel (No relation to the Disco’Tute, I thought) airs most mornings an infomercial by Joel Osteen… I haven’t had the gumption to wake up at such uncivilized hour to see whatever garbage he may be peddling, but it cannot possibly be a Pocket Skeptic-izer…
April 17th, 2008 at 7:50 pm
did anyone take fareinhiet911 seriosly, well a few did, but most people ignored it
April 17th, 2008 at 7:55 pm
Seeing the ad on Discovery doesn’t bother me anywhere near as much as the ads for those Kinoki foot pads. Expelled! is idiotic propaganda on the same level as the ouvre of Bart Sibrel, but the Kinoki foot pads are straight-up con jobs.
April 17th, 2008 at 8:08 pm
@Calli
I actually reported the Kinoki pads to the FDA. I recommend doing the same. Next time you see it, note the channel/network and the day and time it was aired, then contact the FDA’s Center for Devices and Radiological Health. The more reports there are, the more likely they’ll take action.
April 17th, 2008 at 8:46 pm
Buzz -
Nope; J Jones’ trap snapped shut on empty air. My post was largely for the benefit of passers-by, who might be ensnared. The part I was hoping Jones might respond to, was where I pointed out that the more moderate voices seem to be mute on the subject; maybe even post links to any place where they ARE speaking up. So far, I’ve never gotten a nibble on any site when I’ve invited the “moderates” to prove me wrong.
Maybe I’m being too subtle?
April 17th, 2008 at 8:51 pm
i am begining to think that phil’s ranting in his blogs are ment for us (his readers) to act and think in the rational and skeptical way, like a kind of skeptical conditioning. it seems that most people commenting here are pointing out the error in phil’s skeptical thinking, and noting Sagan is a good point, we as scientists, as skeptics cant supress knowlegde. we must encouage dialoge and debate. though i dont think i would do well in a debate with a fundie. and as Ann Druyan said we as a society will go through our usuall growing pains in tryin to keep up with this excedingly changing world, we will have our fits and starts.
April 17th, 2008 at 9:24 pm
Todd W. — my faith in the FDA’s ability to stop the Kinoki peddlers is pretty low these days. And I think there was already action against them a few years ago. Just like Zicam, the homeopathic cold remedy which is neither homeopathic nor a cold remedy. The FDA came down on them as hard as it could, but all it did was slow them down for a little bit. They’re back stronger than ever now.
April 17th, 2008 at 10:00 pm
@Carl
Intelligent Design is not a damn new idea. It’s an extremely old idea… pre-scientific, in fact. How many times do we have to debunk it?
@Blu-Ray-Ven
Are you kidding? I remember what it was like in the U.S. shortly before that movie came out: an atmosphere of political terror. And we went from that, to Kerry almost winning… largely, I believe, thanks to that movie. It reopened the door to widespread public dissent.
Do I think that Expelled will have that kind of impact? No. Do I think it will have any real impact? Probably not. It’s a minor motion picture — and, unfortunately, polls indicate that the U.S. public is already on the side of creationism, and pretty much always has been. Fortunately, the courts and the Constitution are holding it back. Meanwhile, to scientists, evolution is about as plain as heliocentrism, so it’s not going to have any effect there either.
April 17th, 2008 at 10:27 pm
This is why I love visiting this site…It never, ever has anything to do with “Bad Astronomy” (or bad science explained), It’s just becoming a ‘venting platform’ for narrow-minded, belief-bashing, suppressionists, who are afraid of IDEAS, that don’t conform to theirs…Freedom of speech, be damned !
Instead of rationally discussing differing “points-of-view”, They’ll just throw around a few KKK or NAMBLA analogues, and “run” like cowards. A credit to their ’so-called’ scientific community !
April 17th, 2008 at 10:50 pm
Please stop disgracing the good name of Phillip J. Fry. He wouldn’t be on your side.
April 17th, 2008 at 11:09 pm
Good to see Quiet_Desperation and Ad Hominid keeping up the good fight for fair representation.
Buh? I’m not sure what that even means. I just don’t want to see the side of truth stoop to the same tactics as those on the other side.
April 17th, 2008 at 11:52 pm
QD wrote:
Love it QD. Excellent backhander. Of course you’re going to be accused of calling people names because you implied that the other side are liars of questionable integrity or ethics.
April 18th, 2008 at 12:44 am
PJF, A very poor effort at trolling there. The majority of subjects covered recently have been about astronomy. Yet you couldn’t be bothered to post in any of them. You could at least get your facts straight.
April 18th, 2008 at 1:58 am
Just to clarify, IMHO. Phil wasn’t actually comparing Expelled to the KKK, et al. I think he was just saying that advertisers need to draw the line somewhere.
I haven’t seen the movie (is it actually even out yet?) but I’ve perused the Exposed website and I feel like I have the gist.
One question I have: Even if the holocaust WAS inspired by evolution (of course, it wasn’t), how does that make evolution false, or prove in any way the truth of ID? Even if The Origin of Species caused people to become serial killers, that doesn’t mean the science is flawed. I don’t get that particular angle for the IDists. We could likewise look at the Crusades or the Spanish Inquisition (quiet, you Python fanboys!) as reasons why Christianity should not be taught.
April 18th, 2008 at 2:01 am
*sigh* found an ad for Expelled here too:
(i saved a screen shot on my own site)
http://www.identity4.com/geeky_stuff/wtf_not_here_boo.png
…of all places…*grumble grumble*
April 18th, 2008 at 3:29 am
“Spanish Inquisition (quiet, you Python fanboys!) ”
Actually, I thought of Mel Brooks
The Inquistion (Let’s Begin)
The Inquisition (Look out sin)
We have a mission
To convert the Jew (Jew Jew Jew Jew Jew Jew Jew)
We’re gonna teach them (Wrong from right)
We’re gonna help them (See the light)
And make an offer that they can’t refuse.
(That the Jews just can’t refuse)
Confess…Don’t be boring
Say yes… Don’t be dull
A fact… You’re ignoring
It’s better to lose your skullcap than your skull (Or your gavalt)
The Inquisition (What a show)
The Inquisition (Here we go)
We know you’re wishing that we’d go away
But the inquisition’s here and it’s here to stay
The inquisition (Oh boy)
The inquisition (What joy)
The inquisition (Oi oi)
…and so on.
April 18th, 2008 at 4:24 am
But I am really shocked that TSC and NPR would take their money. This movie is totally 100% against the missions of both The Science Channel and National Public Radio. [...] Why would you do that?
Well, I dunno exactly what the funding deal is with NPR, but The Science Channel is a commercial operation. Their mission is not to educate, but to make money. Therefore, taking the money is totally 100% congruent with their actual mission. For them not to take it would be insane.
April 18th, 2008 at 4:58 am
Based on the comments in this thread, and without having seen the movie, my impression is that science must be worried about something, because you guys are yourselves making the case that science expels from consideration anything contradictory to scientific dogma.
You guys should step back and read these comments from an objective point of view:
Is it really? What is the “mission” anyway?
And if you have yet to see the movie, how do you know it violates the alleged mission?
In fact, how many of the responses above are from people who have seen the movie?
If you have not seen the movie, any criticisms are entirely manufactured FOR you,with less than zero critical thought invested in your “opinion” (self-righteous indignation notwithstanding).
Good luck with that – the reason this movie exists is because of the fear expressed in the hostility of any posts which dares to disagree with the great Bad Astronomer?
While my mother and I are both willing to endure any foul ad-hominem attacks anger compels, remember that sort of aggressive, emotional, irrational reactions will make their case, hurt your science and illustrate the point of the movie far more than it helps you discredit. On the contrary, ad hominem adds credibility.
“Not everything that counts, can be counted;
not everything that can be counted, counts.”
~ Who said that? (most definitely a scientist!)
April 18th, 2008 at 5:30 am
cicely: True, there are (I suspect quite large number of) faith-holders who agree that evolution is the best description going for the diversity/diversification of species. BUT, they aren’t speaking up. By inaction, they are allowing the ID/Fundementalist factions to be their default “voice”.
Some of us are. Some of us take on young-Earth creationists when we see them ringing in to post comments after online science articles. Some of us write to legislators in our own state and others. Some of us attend local YECist meetings with the intent of refuting the assertions of the speaker. Some of us are trying to present the facts honestly whenever they come up in conversation.
But we also want to have some integrity. I’d say I know a decent amount about evolution, for example, but I am by no means qualified to run around the country giving lectures on the subject. I also need to take time out of my week to work and feed a family.
By contrast, there are no qualifications for going on tour spouting the rhetoric of young-Earth creationism. And, as evidenced by the likes of Kent Hovind and Ken Ham, you can make a career out of that alone.
We would also like to exhibit a necessary Christian quality sadly lacking in American Christianity generally, but especially in movements like the young-Earth creationism camp: humility.
Do you understand the uphill fight we face? Can you see why it’s difficult to be as loud or as noticeable as those who spout nonsense and are showered with money, praise, and attention for their efforts by those devoted to the same cause?
Can you see why it’s a gross insult to say that Christians who accept evolution “aren’t speaking up”?
April 18th, 2008 at 6:05 am
I am shocked that you would call this movie evil and compare it to NAMBLA or the KKK. I am a strong Christian and believe in Creation, and guess what I am a Geology Major and intend to either work for NASA or go into teaching.
I loved coming to this site because I love astronomy and science and love to learn whenever I can. I am sure I will get into a ton of trouble once I enter my Master’s Program and submit my thesis for approval, however me believing in God in no way changes whether or not I hold to the idea of plate tectonics or the geological column, or any other scientific theory.
You are doing a great disservice using Ad hominem attacks when it comes to creation and is extremely offensive to those who have suffered from true evil like racists or pedophiles.
April 18th, 2008 at 6:50 am
Some “integrity” is . . . “know a decent amount about evolution” ???
Integrity is as it is; or not. In other words,
1. What is a decent amount of knowledge?
2. How does science measure knowledge?
3. Is there a known quantity for “decent?”
4. If so, in what unit quantity and for what purpose?
5. What is the scientific hypothesis for “decent?”
6. How will “decent” knowledge be replicated?
7. How does the quantity “decent” relate to comprehension and understanding “knowledge?”
April 18th, 2008 at 7:11 am
drew terry: Some “integrity” is . . . “know a decent amount about evolution” ???
No. Integrity, in this case, is admitting that your knowledge on the matter of evolution is rather limited, and that you have no qualifications to be deemed an authority on the subject. Pretending to be an authority on the matter — as many young-Earth creationist teachers do — would be a lack of integrity.
The quote you gave from Yogi Berra ignores the fact that honesty is also something to strive for, not merely something one already has. One can always be more honest than one is. (Anyone who says differently is lying to you.)
drew terry: What is a decent amount of knowledge?
It’s a comparative term, not a quantitative one. One might ask, in many contexts, how tall a hill must be before it is a mountain. And many times, there is no exact answer. (It may just be a mountain because the guy who named it called it a mountain, even though it’s shorter than that thing that other guy called a hill.)
As for appeals to science when it comes to “decent”, you’re barking up the wrong tree. I said, “I’d say I know a decent amount…”, making me the source of information, not science or any appeal to any scientific method or measurement.
April 18th, 2008 at 7:20 am
Now that I think about it (sorry), it was just a few centuries ago that Galileo was taking some heat for his heliocentric model of the solar system, and he still believed.
The comments on this blog are priceless.
Whoever else mentioned PP
Phil:
1. Have you seen the movie? (Y or N)
2. If Y, did you see the entire film? (Y or N)
3. Are you being compensated, either directly or indirectly, in any way to promote or malign, as the case may be, for surreptitious covert opinion propaganda? (Y or N)
4. If N, then please identify the alleged perpetrators of such revolting, heinous and brutally violent acts, whom you would accuse of what to equate to a rape victim or a victim and/or of violent and deadly force, in the oppression of former slaves and their descendants?
Thanks, Phil. I look forward to your response.
April 18th, 2008 at 8:15 am
One might be tilting at windmills; one might be alice in wonderland; one might be wondering what it is about science that appeals to your natural talents? I’m having a hard time understanding all of this. . .
Only an idiot compares a mountain and molehill over the definition and use of the word ‘integrity.’ Are you an idiot? I didn’t think so, and I am guessing you would agree with me. Let’s take a look and see what you wrote about integrity:
It is called a dictionary, and no, you don’t get to make up your own definitions – at least not if you aspire to be scientific. First, honest -
Don’t worry, I assume no one will actually read this, but this is the way I do it to do it right.
That is my personal integrity. Principles do not change because you think you can ‘get away’ with it.
Integrity is how do your principles compare, from what your principles are when no one is looking, to what your principles are when everyone is looking. To have integrity is to consistently over time apply self-regulated principles.
What is the dictionary definition of integrity?
To admit that you know nothing about a subject is being honest; if you admit it consistently, any time you know nothing, and are asked if “you know something about nothing you know” and you say, “I know nothing about anything -”
- that, is integrity.
Integrity is lacking whole; integrity is whether or not you admit to the lack of being honest, consistently; being honest, honestly, is integrity.
April 18th, 2008 at 8:20 am
One might be tilting at windmills; one might be alice in wonderland; one might be wondering what it is about science that appeals to your natural talents? I’m having a hard time understanding all of this. . .
Only an idiot compares a mountain and molehill over the definition and use of the word ‘integrity.’ Are you an idiot? I didn’t think so, and I am guessing you would agree with me. Let’s take a look and see what you wrote about integrity:
It is called a dictionary, and no, you don’t get to make up your own definitions – at least not if you aspire to be scientific. First, honest -
What is integrity?
To admit that you know nothing about a subject is being honest; if you admit it consistently, any time you know nothing, and are asked if “you know something about nothing you know” and you say, “I know nothing about anything -”
- that, is integrity.
Integrity is lacking whole; integrity is whether or not you admit to the lack of being honest, consistently; being honest, honestly, is integrity.
April 18th, 2008 at 8:27 am
@Calli
I know that it is sometimes disenchanting when thinking about how the FDA is doing, but that should not discourage you from reporting fraudulent drugs or medical devices.
I’m currently in school to become a member of the regulatory force (on the corporate side), so I’m learning about all the good and bad that both companies and the FDA can do. Yes, the Agency drops the ball on some things, but also bear in mind that they are sorely underfunded and understaffed, and that the volume of legitimate products is overwhelming, to say nothing of the plethora of quack products out there. They have their work cut out for them, and it’s just as much an uphill climb as it is to stem the tide of irrationalism.
April 18th, 2008 at 8:37 am
MattFunke -
Okay, let me try again.
What I’m seeing on the ‘net, on the issue of evolution (and Expelled: the Movie) is deep polarization; on the one hand, the evolution supporting, non-faithholding community, who are sometimes less than tactful in telling the “faith-heads” (NOT my phrase, there’s no need to jump me for it; I’m using it to illustrate my point) that they are wrong, and perhaps not the sharpest tacks on the wall. On the other hand, we have the extremist ID/YEC/”goddidit” camp, who are generally way less than tactful in telling the “evilutionists”/Darwin-worshippers (also not my phrase, ditto) that they are wrong, and going straight to hell, at which point they personally will find it a morally-acceptable time to laugh gloatingly at the sufferings of the “d*mned”.
I DO see the scientifically-minded non-religious trying to explain, sometimes with considerable patience, where the extremist-ID take on evolution, and the scientific APPROACH to evolution (hint: Darwin is NOT a god-replacement, and the Origin of Species is NOT the “received word”, or even the FINAL word on the subject), is mistaken (whether deliberately or otherwise). I see a FEW religious people complaining that they are being unfairly tarred with the same brush (and they are not wholely wrong). What I DON’T see is the scientifically-minded religious people (who I know to exist; I’ve spoken to several) taking much of a stand for the science, maybe pointing out that evolution isn’t even about the origin of LIFE (which is a separate matter), but a means by which species may alter over time. (And, oh, maybe telling them to get a grip. That would be nice, too.) And I would SO like to see it, if only in the interest of NOT tarring reasonable people unfairly.
I’m a big fan of integrity; I try to have some, myself. I know that I, like you, am not qualified to give knowledgable lectures on the subject. But I can Google like a maniac, and there are plenty of people on the ‘net who ARE qualified to do so, and who ARE doing so. And I do not feel that my integrity is in any way lessened by my referencing (with proper attribution, where appropriate) the points made by these people.
I also favor humility; I’d like to see more of it, in ALL camps. This is an uphill battle for everybody.
Lastly, I certainly wasn’t trying to grossly insult anybody. I try hard to choose my wording so as to not grossly insult anybody. Obviously, I missed the mark, this time. But I’m willing to tilt with this windmill as long as it takes.
April 18th, 2008 at 8:39 am
drew terry: Only an idiot compares a mountain and molehill over the definition and use of the word ‘integrity.’
I wasn’t. I was comparing mountains and hills over the definition and use of the word “decent”.
drew terry: It is called a dictionary, and no, you don’t get to make up your own definitions – at least not if you aspire to be scientific.
I never aspired to make a definition. That should have been apparent from the qualifying phrase “in this case”; I was trying to give a functional example.
Why you would criticize me for trying to create a definition (for “integrity”) and then use the dictionary’s definition of a different word (”honest”) is beyond me. What point are you trying to make?
drew terry: Principles do not change because you think you can ‘get away’ with it.
Agreed. As I do not think I can “get away with” pretending to be an expert on evolution. I’m an engineer, not a biologist.
Nor, for that matter, am I a grammarian. If your point was that the phrase “some integrity” is not strictly correct (since integrity refers to something complete), or that “decent” is not (except in slang) an adjective that refers to an amount of something… I understand your points, but aren’t they tangential to the subject matter here? If my post communicated the meaning I intended to everyone but the most particular about definitions, and the purpose of language is to communicate thought, didn’t I accomplish what I set out to do?
April 18th, 2008 at 8:47 am
Any idea that does not tolerate scrutiny is probably wrong.
There are those that are here that certainly is playing that game, but artfully hiding behind his rhetoric in order to distract people from that simple fact. It’s rather reminiscent of the “Emperor Who Wore No Clothes.”
April 18th, 2008 at 8:56 am
@ drew terry
Before you start demanding answers from Phil about whether or not he’s seen the movie, or whether he’s being compensated for his commentary (a very transparent and ignorant attempt at discrediting him without even the hint of proof as a premise for your question, by the way), please READ THE POST CLEARLY. Phil needs not to have seen one minute of the movie to be able to comment on the queezyness of seeing it advertised on mediums that are ostensibly interested in truth and science. The movie’s premise is not a secret and does not require viewing to be understood. And there is MORE than enough information from people who have seen the movie to be able to comment on the tactics used in producing, creating and marketing the movie, as already discussed in another thread here about the Expelled Exposed website (which I’m sure you’ve yet to visit)… so commenting on those facts does not require seeing the movie as a pre-requisite… at all. So you can climb down off your high horse now.
And as far as you commenting on Phil’s use of the KKK and NAMBLA in his post, well… frankly you’re just piling on, as most of us here including his regulars and supporters (myself included) have already questioned the wisdom of that choice.
This gem might have some merit if Galileo’s heliocentric model was based on BELIEF. But since it was based on scientific method and direct observation, we’ll just toss that reference into the bin of ignorance where it belongs.
Funny… I was thinking the same thing when I came across your post…
As for quoting Yogi Berra… not exactly the place I’d be getting my gems of wisdom from, there, drew… this is the same guy who said “nobody goes there anymore… it’s too crowded.”
So, ok… you’ve given us dictionary definitions of “honest” and “integrity”… great. So what’s your point? You want to take a look at those two definitions and apply them to the tactics used by the producers of this film? Be careful when you choose to use such terms to defend your position… they might be turned back around on the very thing you’d use them to defend.
April 18th, 2008 at 8:59 am
Of course you’re going to be accused of calling people names because you implied that the other side are liars of questionable integrity or ethics.
All I implied was that “the other side” does not have a hold of the truth. That does not preclude that they honestly believe in their version of reality. In fact, I think we generally agree that’s the whole problem- faith & belief.
Sometimes when you read between the lines you should only find white space.
A cigar is just a cigar, you know?
April 18th, 2008 at 9:00 am
cicely: What I DON’T see is the scientifically-minded religious people (who I know to exist; I’ve spoken to several) taking much of a stand for the science, maybe pointing out that evolution isn’t even about the origin of LIFE (which is a separate matter), but a means by which species may alter over time. (And, oh, maybe telling them to get a grip. That would be nice, too.) And I would SO like to see it, if only in the interest of NOT tarring reasonable people unfairly.
I’d like to see more of it, too. I’ll admit that those of us who are trying to engage the matter as people of faith with the ruthless application of the tools of science seem quite rare.
Some of us think it’s a good fight, though. Some, like myself, even remember a time when our brains were addled by deliberate deception, and the ensuing heartache when we were finally presented with the facts and the difficult decisions they imply. We want to help people out of their ignorance, but we also know it will hurt; we also know it’s worthwhile fighting those who want to teach more people that this creationist nonsense is scientific. Unfortunately for us, being gentle with those we talk to is tough, time-consuming, and quiet.
In that vein, please accept my apologies for jumping down your throat. I, too, lament the fact that the number of Christians willing to do something about this deliberate deception seem few. Please be assured that there are those of us who are trying to do something.
cicely: I’m a big fan of integrity; I try to have some, myself. I know that I, like you, am not qualified to give knowledgable lectures on the subject. But I can Google like a maniac, and there are plenty of people on the ‘net who ARE qualified to do so, and who ARE doing so. And I do not feel that my integrity is in any way lessened by my referencing (with proper attribution, where appropriate) the points made by these people.
Sure. I do the same. Or even refer to some excellent books written on the topics of evolution and, especially, speciation (since even creationists are reluctantly admitting that evolution happens — just not beyond a certain point).
April 18th, 2008 at 9:00 am
@MattFunke
I got what you were trying to say. So, your message came across. That’s the glorious thing about going beyond mere definitions and looking at the semantics and pragmatics of the language.
@drew terry
I can see that you are a prescriptivist, when it comes to language, rather than a descriptivist. Just FYI, dictionaries describe how language is used in writing. It does not dictate what should be used. As language changes, so, too, do dictionaries.
In your tirade about MattFunke using the wrong words or supposedly making up definitions, you are missing the point of what he was trying to say and ignoring the pragmatics (in the linguistic sense of the word).
What exactly are you trying to achieve by taking a rather aggressive tone and implying that he is an idiot? What point are you trying to make and how does it relate to his comments or the thread as a whole?
April 18th, 2008 at 9:07 am
Believe it or not, the vast majority of “people of faith” are not evil. They honestly believe that they are helping people by offering them a system of belief that offers them some level of comfort and support in a world that is often a pretty scary place.
However, the producers of “Expelled” seem to be in that minority that wants to crush any alternative way of thinking. To deliberately delude people away from provable facts, and instead keep them stupid so as to control them better.
Are they as bad as the KKK or NAMBLA? I’d say yes, simply because all of those organizations are dedicated to spreaking ignorrance, hatred and general chaos in thought.
April 18th, 2008 at 9:09 am
@Celtic_Evolution
I was going to say the same thing about quoting Yogi Berra. I mean:
“Half the lies you hear won’t be true, and half the things you say, you won’t ever say.”
So, the other half of the lies you hear will be true? And if you dont’ say half the things you say, then what do you do? I suppose that could be construed to be things you say with body language, or things you say in writing. But, according to the dictionary, that use of “say” isn’t really allowed:
“to utter or pronounce; speak”
Oh, wait…no, here’s a different definition:
“to express in words; state; declare; word”
Hmm…but that only takes care of the writing part, not the body language. Oh! Maybe this will work:
“to indicate or show”
Yes. I think that does nicely. Wow. So many different definitions on what “say” means! Wonder how that came about? Shouldn’t there only be one definition? Ah, yes. That’s right. Language changes as people use words in different ways! How could I forget?
April 18th, 2008 at 9:17 am
@ drew terry
And that’s just what you are doing… right?
Would you like a dictionary definition of hypocrisy?
April 18th, 2008 at 9:20 am
@CE
Now, now. Let’s be charitable. Perhaps by “you guys” he only meant some of the more vitriolic posters here, not those of us who also question the BA’s comparisons to KKK and NAMBLA. I have my doubts, though, and think that he may have meant everyone here (or rather, those who support evolution), regardless of their opinion of the BA’s post, but let’s at least give him the opportunity to explain himself.
April 18th, 2008 at 9:26 am
@Joe Meils
I agree… and I certainly don’t see most “people of faith” as evil. And I would say that there are people devoid of faith who are “evil”. It’s a people thing, really… but when people of faith use tactics of an “evil” nature to try to direct social or political policy… well, that’s when it goes too far for me, and it happens more and more these days. Hence the disdain for this movie on this and other websites.
That may be true to an extent, and that was probably Phil’s intent here… to make that parallel… but there’s a level that organizations like the KKK attain that takes it beyond simple “igonrance and hatred”, and makes the statement in this case more inflammatory than I am confortable with.
April 18th, 2008 at 9:29 am
@Todd W.
I guess I’m basing my response on the tone of his post… but you could be right, and perhaps my last post at drew was too vitriolic. I will concede that.
I still believe, however, based on his tone and content of his posts, that he is being no more objective in his reading of the posts than any of us, and to call us out for it is hypocritical.
April 18th, 2008 at 9:45 am
@CE
Quite true. His tone was rather, hmm, judgmental, I believe would be a good word for it. And I, too, think that he was being rather subjective in his reading of the thread as evidenced by this line:
“you guys are yourselves making the case that science expels from consideration anything contradictory to scientific dogma”
In reality, many people are stating that science considers and weighs, with scientific tools, contradictory things. Those that actually have some measure of validity to them are tentatively accepted and subjected to further review. Those that are outright shoddy get tossed. After all, why waste any more time on something that has no merit to it from the beginning? Why waste more time answering the same questions over and over again?
April 18th, 2008 at 9:50 am
It would might be helpful to head to http://movies.yahoo.com/movie/1809995068/info
and rate the movie an “F.” It’s already a “B-” with a lot of positive reviews.
I’m not sure, but I think yahoo movies is pretty popular, so getting the rating down might help.
Just a thought.
Koro
April 18th, 2008 at 9:54 am
@Todd W.
Exactly… and it was that line that got me riled up… anyone who actually takes the time to read the posts here with anything more than a cursory glance understands that his line “you guys are yourselves making the case that science expels from consideration anything contradictory to scientific dogma” is simply untrue… and that the CORRECT statement would be thus:
“Science expells anything from SCIENTIFIC consideration anything that is inherently not subject to proof or falsification.”
You make that claim, and not only will I not argue it, I will cheer wildly in support.
April 18th, 2008 at 9:55 am
@Koro
However, I would only advocate going there if one has seen it, first. While we have many critiques of it and the tactics used by the production staff, providing a review (or rating) of the movie itself without seeing it is dishonest.
Perhaps comments suggesting that people go to the Expelled Exposed website, however, may be justified.
April 18th, 2008 at 9:59 am
@ Koro
And I would add to what Todd W said, seeing as the movie has not been officially released yet, keep in mind that the most of the people who have seen it have done so at the behest of the people involved with the movie at screenings catered to groups who support the movies’ premise already.
I think you’ll find the opinions quite different once it hits general release. Just take a look at the mainstream media reviews already from Time, etc… not too glowing.
April 18th, 2008 at 9:59 am
Perhaps “It’s like BET running ads for the KKK, or ‘Dateline: To Catch a Predator’ advertising NAMBLA” would’ve been a more exact analogy.
April 18th, 2008 at 10:14 am
Just on a sort of side note, are there any evolutionary biologists or statisticians around? I’ve been going back and forth on evolution with someone in the Expelled Exposed by Scientists thread and could use the help of someone a bit more versed in either subject to help me.
April 18th, 2008 at 10:50 am
You know, I’m a pretty scientific and broad-minded guy, but I can see that the distortions are NOT all one-way on this thing. Here’s a few things you might look at, if you are capable of having an open mind.
1) The expelledexposed.com website actually admits that there is a scientific prejudice against religion, it just doesn’t understand what it admitted. Look at the following sentence with an open mind. Step back and look at it.
[blockquote]Testing requires holding constant some variables, and no one can “control” God; therefore, scientific explanations are restricted to the natural causes that are testable.[/blockquote]
Think about it for a moment, then come back.
Therefore, if the TRUTH is that God [or any other non-random force, whatever it might be] did anything, then that TRUTH will never appear in science. Science has selected deliberate blinders.
Think about that. Deliberate blinders.
let’s go back to TRUTH. Whatever really happened. Look it up, interesting word. It doesn’t depend upon belief, but it also doesn’t depend upon eliminating certain inconvenient possible causes before proposing and testing hypotheses.
In its current state, Science must accept any flimsy excuse, however improbable, rather than any hypothesis which includes a directed force. The above quote admits directly, that science is constitutionally closed to certain types of SCIENTIFIC inquiry.
In every age there are some questions that cannot be asked by the educated. Scientists of Galileo’s day wouldn’t look through his telescope because they knew, in theory, how the moon must look.
Perhaps Ben Stein is just participating in a slightly more honest inquiry.
2) “Global warming” /”Global Climate Change” science fails most of the same tests expelledexposed.com claims for how a science is supposed to act – it is filled with people lobbying for things, going to the public rather than peer reviews, throwing around untestable hypotheses that fail repeatability, testability, falsifiability, and so on. The people acting like scientists on that subject are the ones who are quietly working to put real science on either side of the non-scientific pro-anthropogenic “consensus”, a small minority of those involved.
There are some real scientists on each side, but there is clearly more BS science on the so called scientific “consensus” side at the moment.
3) In one of my jobs, I am a software contractor. When my contract is not renewed, I call it “getting fired”. So does every other contractor I know. More importantly, so does my wife.
“Denied contract renewal” is the social equivalent of being fired, with minor legal distinctions. So is “denied tenure”. Ask any teacher.
You can say that calling it “fired” is inexact, but you can’t claim it’s dishonest. That would plainly be a lie.
And scientists don’t do that, do they?
4) THE TRUTH. The earth is a software model simulating a more complicated physical and social system.
The software was written twelve yarns ago on the planet Grelmakk.
The Sol-Earth custom data file was instantiated three yarns ago, and is constantly undergoing upgrades and conversions to include earlier history.
The current hardware was constructed last yarn on Zartglegg.
It was rebooted this afernooon, shortly before I wrote this note.
April 18th, 2008 at 11:59 am
On topic, but so far not raised: I have a problem with putting the KKK and NAMBLA in the same category and label it “evil”. KKK members are racists, and one can argue (I would) that this is a choice. In my opinion the deserve all the scorn and ridicule they get, and more.
Paedophiles, on the other hand, do not have a choice: they are born that way. Now, we don’t call gays and lesbians evil (at least not in the civilized part of the world) because we know that they are born that way. Therefore, one should not a priori call paedophiles evil.
Of course, when paedophiles rape children they should be brought before the law. But as far as I understand, NAMBLA is a special issue organization that advocates lowering the age of consent (correct me if I’m wrong). If they can find enough support in society this may lead to a change in the law. There is nothing criminal or “evil” about that.
I am dead serious. I am sure there will be responses with anecotes about the bad things members of NAMBLA have done. I do not condone any of it, and I am not an apologist for this organisation. Paedophiles should keep their private bits private, but there is no need to make their difficult life worse than it already is.
April 18th, 2008 at 12:01 pm
@Dal Jeanis
Ok… I did. And I feel no different. Actually, it is you who is mis-representing the quote, and totally missing its point. In your misguided example, the TRUTH could be that a giant chocolate chip cookie could be governing all the laws of physics. And that statement is no sillier than what you said, frankly.
The point is, given that one can make any claim when the premise for said claim is inherently untestible and unfalsifiable, science, for the purposes of searching for truth, operates on the premise that any idea or theory is falsifiable, and must be put to that test in order to to be considered scientifically viable.
I see no problem whatsoever with putting on “deliberate blinders” when someone tries to get me to accept a patently silly, unprovable and untestable claim.
Well, as an IT manager that hires contractors regularly, I am sorry to tell you that you and your wife are just plain wrong. If you are told to leave or dismissed before your contract is up, then you were fired. The whole point of a “contract” as opposed to a permanent position is that contracts are generally designed to be temporary positions used to complete work with a finite completion time, such as installations and implementations. And every contractor I’ve ever hired understands that principal. Do you put “fired” on your resume after every contract job you’ve ever completed? If you’re being “honest”… why not? If you go around telling every prospective employer you have that you were “fired” after every contract you had expired and you weren’t renewed, well then you are either misguided ore being dis-ingenuous. And frankly the employer is going to wonder why you keep getting ” fired”.
Oh yes, I can… because it is, as I plainly demonstrated above.
As for tenure, it’s clear that you don’t at all understand the tenure process if you believe that you can equate being denied tenure with being fired. If you are a professor, and you are denied tenure, but you continue to teach your class… are you still employed? Are you still receiving a paycheck? It’s hardly the same as being fired. Ask anyone who’s ever been fired. My sister is a undergoing this very process at Cornell right now… she has been denied tenure and continues to lecture. It’s a tough process and application is not a guarantee of acceptance.
April 18th, 2008 at 12:15 pm
I find it rather incredible that there are only 9 comments on the IMDB page for this movie right now, but not that all are highly polarized.
April 18th, 2008 at 12:15 pm
@ Dal Jeanis
Huh? You call yourself scientific and make THAT statement? I call shenanigans! Science must accept NOTHING, Dal… that is the very basis of scientific process… and what it must accept least of all is any premise that is inherently unprovable or untestable. If you are truly “scientific”, that must be a very basic understanding for you. The quote you reference says no such thing, except in how you mis-interpreted it.
Malarkey! Citation, please… any verified reference that backs that statement will do.
Again, you resort to braod-stroke claims, but offer not even one single piece of anything that is other than your own personal opinion… no facts, no peer-reviewed studies… no evidence… just rhetoric… how is there “clearly more BS science” as you referred to in that last sentence? References, please…
April 18th, 2008 at 1:00 pm
As it happens (oops! That’s a CBC Radio programme), there is a sponsorship credit for Expelled attached to the “Loh Down on Science” podcast. I immediately went to the KPCC.org web site to lodge a complaint–note, not a “I shall no longer subscribe” threat–in which I directed whomever would be reading my message to the Expelled Exposed site and concluded with something like (because I did not save this nor send the message back to myself):
“Whatever funds or otherwise which the producers of that movie are giving to sponsor the “Loh Down on Science,” they cannot compensate for the damage to the reputations of KPCC, CalTech and Sandra Tsing Loh.”
CalTech is a co-producer of the podcast, and Loh is a graduate from there.
April 18th, 2008 at 1:14 pm
Yea, I can confirm that the ads run A LOT on the History Channel and the Sci Channel (I think Discovery as well). I get angry every time it comes on.
April 18th, 2008 at 1:21 pm
[...] Bad Astronomy blogger Phil Plait says that NPR and The History Channel taking advertising dollars from the makers of the anti-science movie “Expelled” is “seriously like taking the KKK’s money for ads, or from NAMBLA.” … Not all of his science-loving readers agree.http://www.badastronomy.com/bablog/2008/04/17/npr-science-channel-and-expelled/” rel=”dc… [...]
April 18th, 2008 at 1:24 pm
[quote]
[quote]Testing requires holding constant some variables, and no one can “control” God; therefore, scientific explanations are restricted to the natural causes that are testable.[/quote]
Think about it for a moment, then come back.
Therefore, if the TRUTH is that God [or any other non-random force, whatever it might be] did anything, then that TRUTH will never appear in science. Science has selected deliberate blinders.
Think about that. Deliberate blinders.[/quote]
Oh my goodness me, you mean science is prejudiced against [i]irrational superstition???[/i]
Screw it, I’m going back to divining my future by examing rabbit entrails. You’ve convinced me with your flawless analysis of teh evil sciences!!!!
April 18th, 2008 at 1:27 pm
[...] Get the whole story here… This entry was posted on Friday, April 18th, 2008 at 8:59 am and is filed under le Chat Marchet. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site. [...]
April 18th, 2008 at 1:28 pm
God forbid a scientist have his hypotheses questioned. I’m neutral on the movie, but from Phil Plait’s preferring to rant and rave rather than calmly refute and debate indicates he has little to no confidence in his beliefs. You prove your point far more effectively by debate than personal attacks.
To me, it seems too many scientists have little self-confidence and self-worth, taking any questioning of their work too personally. Skepticism in any form is fine by me. Remember, if something is true scientifically, it will always stand up to any questioning. Look at how many theories have been refuted throughout history.
April 18th, 2008 at 1:36 pm
Please do not compare the Klan to NAMBLA. It makes no sense at all and shows clear signs of an uninformed writer who holds an agenda.
The Klan, although hated by many, we’re not as low as Child Molesters. The Klan is a traditional Christian organization which used to have MILLIONS of members. Since the name can be taken by anyone, it has always been the idiots they let on TV.
You’d never see Jerry Springer have someone like David Duke on his show because he knows that it would destroy the false image of the Klan.
I know this is a shocking comment, but it’s the truth.
NAMBLA is NOT equal to the Klan.
April 18th, 2008 at 1:39 pm
Science is now a joke anyway. The companies that pay for studies only pay for the research that helps them sell thier products. Science has been turned into a weapon to be used against science and innovation, to defend the establisment.
April 18th, 2008 at 1:41 pm
I saw an ad for Expelled in a progressive independent paper here. As far as NPR goes, I think their listeners are informed enough to make decisions for themselves. Why not accept ad revenue? Even if Expelled is pure bologna, they also have a right to advertise and NPR should not set themselves up in a position of being chided for being unfair to ‘both points of view.’
April 18th, 2008 at 1:42 pm
@dockboy
“I’m neutral on the movie, but from Phil Plait’s preferring to rant and rave rather than calmly refute and debate indicates he has little to no confidence in his beliefs.”
People also rant and rave when they have explained things over and over and their listeners still just don’t get it. The Expelled people still do not admit to twisting anything or being deceitful, even though ample evidence has shown what they have actually done. Furthermore, ID has been refuted time and again, yet they still keep trying to put themselves forward as science, which they aren’t.
Considering these moves, the BA’s attitude, to me, doesn’t strike me as lack of confidence, but rather frustration. It’s like telling someone “Hey, don’t put your hand on the stove; it’s hot,” and then they go ahead and put their hand on the stove and burn it.
April 18th, 2008 at 1:46 pm
What needs to happen is that the History Channel does one of their the real story behind the movies. I recall them doing several shows about Da Vinci when Da Vinci Code came out. 300 had a 2-3 hour show about the real stand at Thermopolye. 10,000 BC also had a show. What they need now is a show about Expelled. That would be interesting to watch.
If only we could get the advertisers to show it as well.
April 18th, 2008 at 1:46 pm
dockboy: Remember, if something is true scientifically, it will always stand up to any questioning.
Well, okay. But you have to remember two things:
(1) Science never claims to have The Truth. At best, it sets a limit on the amount of error. That usually means that it has discarded a great deal that is erroneous and that doesn’t match the facts (e.g., that a flagellum or that blood clotting is somehow “irreducibly complex”). It doesn’t proclaim the truth; it converges toward the truth, and throws out a lot of stuff that isn’t truth along the way.
(2) That doesn’t mean that it will stop people from supporting long-disproven or long-discredited notions.
That’s why we stand against things like Expelled. It tries to assert that people who are employed in scientific endeavors should be permitted to spout rhetoric that has long been discredited under some misguided “first Amendment rights” banner.
You don’t get to say whatever you want and be assured of contract renewal or of tenure as a scientist… especially if what you say contradicts fact.
April 18th, 2008 at 1:52 pm
@ dockboy
Scientists build their entire careers around having their hypotheses questioned. It’s how they make their living… so I’m afraid I don’t quite follow your rant.
Argument from ignorance. Please read more than this one single post before making generalisitc claims. Take the post for the subject matter it covers and don’t throw a blanket over it and assume you know he’s never bothered to “calmly refute and debate” the topic. If you’ve read any of the many many posts on the subject, you’d know that he’s largely refrained from commenting directly on the movie itself (having not yet seen it) and re-directed to other commentary by those who have seen it. Posts such as this one and the “Expelled Exposed” post from earlier discuss facts and issues surrounding the movie, not the movie itself. Facts are your friends. Use them.
To me, it seems you clearly have a very poor and small sampling of “scientists”, based on that statement. More’s the pity.
April 18th, 2008 at 1:54 pm
This sort of bullying to silence opposing views is what’s antiscience. I don’t have a view on ID myself, but to label it’s proponents (some of whom are real scientists, and whose ranks have included Newton, Aquinas, and Plato) evil and compare them to the KKK is ignorant bigotry.
April 18th, 2008 at 1:59 pm
and more piling on… .
Judasmac… there’s a difference between hyperbole and poor choice of comparison and “bullying to silence opposing views”. Understand the difference?
And for you to call BA’s choice of words “ignorant bigotry” is hyperbole on the same level as what you are complaining about.
That’s a pretty strong statement to make for someone who “doesn’t have a view on ID”. Hmmm…
April 18th, 2008 at 2:01 pm
Uh-oh… it seems this thread has been linked to an ID sympathy site… and the Troll flood gates have opened… this should be an interesting next hour or so…
April 18th, 2008 at 2:04 pm
@CE
Maybe if someone sticks their finger in the hole, the flood will be kept at bay?
April 18th, 2008 at 2:08 pm
@Judasmac
TO be clear, in his post, the BA is not referring to all ID proponents. Rather, he is talking about the specific people involved with the production of the movie Expelled and how they have acted. Please try not to read into the post what isn’t there.
April 18th, 2008 at 2:08 pm
@ Todd W.
One can hope! Even Ben Stein would have found that last guy offensive!
April 18th, 2008 at 2:09 pm
@CE
Yep. I’m all for rational debate and argument, but civility, at least, is required.
April 18th, 2008 at 2:14 pm
Just a reminder to those coming in with vitriol ready to fly from their fingers:
http://www.badastronomy.com/bablog/2008/03/04/commenting-policy/
April 18th, 2008 at 2:19 pm
I know nothing about the movie and have yet to look it up which I will do. But you mentioned they are evil “as we know from copious evidence” Would you mind expanding a little on this evidence?
April 18th, 2008 at 2:28 pm
@Steve A
Go to http://www.expelledexposed.com for evidence.
April 18th, 2008 at 2:32 pm
The link is up in the BA’s post, too, just in case mine doesn’t work. Click on the hyperlinked Expelled in the first line.
April 18th, 2008 at 2:35 pm
@Steve A
You can also go to pharyngula.com for PZ Meyer’s take on things. He was interviewed in the movie and was expelled from a screening for which he followed proper RSVP protocol, just like everyone else at the screening. I would warn, however, that his website is, well, a bit more colorful than here, at times, particularly in the comments to his posts.
April 18th, 2008 at 2:36 pm
And I got the link wrong…again… here is the link to Pharyngula:
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/
April 18th, 2008 at 2:40 pm
evil? i guess the day-job isn’t paying as hoped. trying to give professional blogging a go now?
April 18th, 2008 at 2:43 pm
So, in a nutshell…
People make a movie that uses interviews gained under false pretenses and pushes an agenda to let a 2,000 year old religion do our science (and presumably, all other) thinking for us.
These same people offer good money (hey, advertising is expensive) to air commercials for this movie that will be seen primarily by those who are the harshest critics of that agenda.
The people who see these targeted ads ignore them because, really, ID?
Sounds like the folks behind the film may as well have set their advertising money on fire–except that they’re actually going to fund shows like The Universe. I don’t see how this isn’t a win-win for the science crowd and a “what was I thinking” for the idiot who paid them to run ads for the crapumentary.
April 18th, 2008 at 2:44 pm
Judasmac: I don’t have a view on ID myself, but to label it’s proponents (some of whom are real scientists, and whose ranks have included Newton, Aquinas, and Plato) evil and compare them to the KKK is ignorant bigotry.
Well, to be fair, how many of those “real scientists” predated Darwin?
What modern ID proponents have done is used deception and fakery to push an agenda clearly shown to be an attempt to get religious material in science classrooms in a Dover, PA trial, and to get evolution out. You can feel free to disagree with this, but please show us where you disagree, and why.
In case my links didn’t work:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kitzmiller_v._Dover_Area_School_District
http://www.antievolution.org/features/wedge.html
April 18th, 2008 at 2:50 pm
Yeah, right.
No, none of them are real scientists. Lots of engineers, though, sadly. Even a few MD’s.
We know a lot more now than we knew in the days of Newton (who long preceded Darwin, so it’s hard to see how you could sensibly invoke him). As for Aquinas and Plato, they never knew very much.
In any case, the characterization was not directed at them, nor even at present-day ID advocates in general, but specifically at the corrupt producers of Expelled.
April 18th, 2008 at 3:07 pm
ssnake said:
“Religion can be more dangerous that any ‘weapon’ humans have created. People have killed millions of other people in the name of religion.”
I ask:
1) Can you support your claim? Most historians agree that the Crusades took between 2 and 3,000 lives, and the Salem witch trials took approximately 20.
and claim:
2) On a good day, atheists like Stalin and Mau killed millions, amassing incomprehensible number of murders (which is well-documented history)
and conclude:
3) Ergo, let’s not use this as an argument to support the claim that religion is “more dangerous that any ‘weapon’ humans have created”.
Further,
I’d claim that atheism is worse. But in the end, ssnake’s premise was faulty and this thread is red herring. Let’s keep to the topic at hand, “Is intelligent design science?”
Has intelligent design made any novel predictions that later were substantiated? Interestingly, Darwinists long claimed that so-called “junk DNA” was without function and the result of random mutation. Because Darwinists believed such segments to be the result of random processes necessary for descent with modification, they were held up as shining examples of the randomness in our DNA.
Contrary to this, intelligent design proponents theorized that there was indeed purpose in these segments, which were designed. There is now emerging evidence that these regions may have significant roles in the control of gene expression.
This we have an example the science of intelligent design led to an accurate prediction.
By the way, lets all remember that science is, and always has been a PHILOSOPHY. Let’s let the philosophers decide what is, and what isn’t science.
April 18th, 2008 at 3:18 pm
Dear Bad Astronomer,
You also seem to be a Bad Writer. Before complaining about companies taking ad money from groups with dissimilar interests, make sure you are not doing it on your own site!
You mock these companies publicly yet you perform the same actions as they do…so congratulations you are just like them.
So how can you do that? Take money from atheist groups to advertise on your site while condoning the actions of a company taking funds from religious ones?
Sounds kind of ::cough:: HYPOCRITICAL ::cough:: to me
April 18th, 2008 at 3:39 pm
Surely you aren’t suggesting that those who create media and story content actually treat that content like it is profoundly impactful and meaningful?
This is one example of many where it’s all dollars and there is zero accountability. As long as the audience continues to pay or unless the audience competes or starts spending on a competing product, it doesn’t matter how much we complain. Do you now understand why I am working the way I am working?
April 18th, 2008 at 3:56 pm
Quit getting in a tizzy over a MOVIE. Why don’t people understand that documentaries are still MOVIES and their agenda is always to get people talking about the subject, not to present facts. The movie was never intended to provide the truth, only to raise peoples interest in a topic and instead of understanding that, all of you people who claim to be scientists aren’t smart enough to comprehend what the film really is. As for the advertising, NPR has to take those peoples money because the public for which their service is provided isn’t willing to pay them to stay in business. If you want them to decline advertising dollars, try giving them an equivalent amount.
Also, on an ironic note, the film is about supression and you “science-minded” people are doing everything you can to suppress it, so regardless of any factual representations it does or doesn’t have, by doing what you are doing, you are in fact validating the movie.
Get off your high horse and realize that you can’t wrap yourself in a blanket of science and call yourself intelligent.
April 18th, 2008 at 3:57 pm
One of my “atheist” friends turned me on to this movie and I was quick to find Expelled Exposed. I’m not going to necessarily take a particular stance. For one, I have not seen the movie yet. However, I have absolutely no plan to pay to see it. This is one time I feel like it is truly beneficial to rip this movie and cut income to it, as it appear undeserved.
I’m in full agreement that there is an attempt by the “religious zealots” to induce conflict and bring ID/Creationism to the lime light.
The theory of evolution wasn’t as widely accepted in its days of introduction. ID might not even be as widely accepted as the amount of media coverage it gets might suggest.
I wonder if there’s a full-on ID-research team who is looking for definitive proof of ID. I do know there’s a deal of research going into the origin of life, which in turn could point to how the universe came to being, whether it be ID or otherwise.
The point I would like to drive home is this question– What difference will it make if we know how the Universe was created?
I fail to believe it matters. People will still believe it or not, regardless of the amount of evidence you can cram down their throats. Conflicts, violence and all the “evils” of the world will persist, regardless of how the world was created.
A more important question is– How can we establish and maintain the happiness of each living creature?
By the way, I am Buddhist and evolution has absolutely no conflict with my beliefs. In a way, creationism doesn’t necessarily go against my beliefs, either. Although, they don’t quite line up with the Christian view. That is, I believe that we are going through the creation process right now. We are creating tomorrow, the future.
If you want to know why things are the way they are today, look at the past. If you want to know the way things will be in the future, look at the present.
Be the change you want to see.
April 18th, 2008 at 4:03 pm
(Over 160 replies that I didn’t read through since I just wanted to make a small point so I’m sorry if someone else already brought this up and I am just repeating it.)
Often times, the department in charge of selling ad space is completely separate from the department producing the content. Many writers in computer game magazines will slam gold farmers for MMORPGs, yet you’ll find plenty of ads from gold farmers in their publications. The reason is because the department selling ad space will give it out to anyone willing to pay the price. Their job is to maximize revenue.
I doubt that’s any different for television/radio. The people who sold the ad space for the Science Channel and NPR probably don’t have anything to do with the content of the Science Channel and NPR, and just selling any ad space out at as high of a price as they can.
Sometimes, when a company/person/etc. has a very negative reputation, the people “at the top” might instruct them not to take money from said company/person/etc., but that will generally only happen if they fear a PR backlash. I doubt this psuedomentary (I refused to call it a documentary since it isn’t – it fakes all of the aspects of a documentary, thus it’s a psuedomentary) is really going to cause NPR and The Science Channel any major public backlash.
April 18th, 2008 at 5:02 pm
I think that “Expelled” ad left out one part.
TEACHER: Okay, Ben, I’d like you to come up here and teach this class your theory of “Intelligent Design.”
BEN: Sure thing, teacher-duude. Okay, Intelligent Design says that everything is too complex to come about by chance.
TEACHER: What are the specifics?
BEN: The eyeball is too complex…
TEACHER: No Ben, I mean how does Intelligent Design work?
BEN: Well, Evolution can’t explain how life began.
TEACHER: I agree, but “abiogenesis” is not Evolution. In fact, Ben, Evolution talks about how life changed after life’s beginning. Now, give us some evidence.
BEN: Well, the flagellum is like a propeller.
(long pause)
TEACHER: And?
BEN: Well, that’s a fact.
TEACHER: No, Ben, that’s an opinion. Surely if your Intelligent Design theory is a scientific concept, then you should be able to tell me how it works, show the evidence, and show something other than “evolution is wrong.” What do you have to show that Intelligent Design is a valid theory.
BEN: Okay, here’s one. Everything looks designed.
TEACHER: That’s enough, Ben. Sit down….
BEN: Are you trying to shut me and Intelligent Design up?
TEACHER: No, Ben, I can’t shut you up because you have nothing real to say. The evidence for Evolution is vast, the theory is thus far valid. This thing called Intelligent Design is a joke, at best.
BEN: That’s not cool, duude.
TEACHER: This is the last time we have this conversation, Ben. Go the principal’s office, I’m going to take you out of my class. I hope you’re not seriously considering becoming a teacher. I can see that you’d be constantly duped by a slightly cunning student playing hooky.
There, deleted scene restored.
April 18th, 2008 at 5:27 pm
Kyle: “Quit getting in a tizzy over a MOVIE. Why don’t people understand that documentaries are still MOVIES and their agenda is always to get people talking about the subject, not to present facts.”
I don’t know you…but if you opinion about Michale Moore’s movies is the same, then I can respect your opinion, even if I disagree with it.
If your opinion of his movies is different from the one above, then you are another partisan hypocrite. Only you would know which it is.
April 18th, 2008 at 7:14 pm
Honestly, what I don’t get is the people that associate themselves with a religious cult (cult being defined as a system of worship in which a group of followers revere the same authority figure, among other definitions…and all religions are cults, some are merely more socially acceptable than others) yet 1) are moderately or well educated, 2) don’t really agree with the cult’s dogma on many things (e.g., religious people that understand evolution) and 3) rail against the fact that they are lumped into the same category as the majority of other cultists.
I honestly have zero sympathy for people that associate with such cults. If you don’t want to be lumped in with the psycho cultists, then don’t go loudly proclaiming yourself to be a card-carrying member of said cult. It’s as simple as that. Martin Luther King Jr. didn’t join the KKK, dress up in a white robe and hat and go, “I don’t agree with the Klan’s racism or violence, so you shouldn’t treat me as a member, but I’m going to constantly spout off about the fact that I am indeed a member.”
If you don’t wish to be treated like a religious nutcase zealot cultist, don’t frakkin’ join a religious cult in the first place. Sheesh.
April 18th, 2008 at 7:54 pm
So all you guys are saying is you have the right to bash a movie you have not seen for reasons you are unable to articulate, and instead would rather bash my use of the dictionary?
Good luck, guys, I’ve got better things to do, like watching paint dry.
April 18th, 2008 at 8:20 pm
Saw an ad on Comedy Central today- during the Daily Show.
April 18th, 2008 at 8:27 pm
@ drew terry
since you ignored me the first time, I’ll say it again:
Read.
The.
Posts.
If you do, you will see, as explained before, the movie itself is not being bashed. What is being bashed is the premise the movie is built on, the questionable production and marketing tactics the movie used to be made, and the inclusion of ads for the movie on mediums that should have better accountabilities (of course that last one is a matter of opinion I suppose).
NONE if those things requires seeing the movie in order to be commented on. Not one. If you still can not understand this very simple premise then I simply do not know how to help you.
Enjoy watching the paint dry… by the way… do you think you’ll need to actually see the paint to know it’s drying? Just curious.
April 18th, 2008 at 8:44 pm
One thing we can all agree on here is that ID is the truth, and that science isn’t relevant to life’s understanding at all. Bring on the pretty pictures and pointless explanations of the natural world!!!
April 18th, 2008 at 8:49 pm
Gak! I’ve just been clipped by a drive-by trolling…
Medic!
April 18th, 2008 at 10:39 pm
@drew terry
Celtic_Evolution addressed the movie related aspects of your posts by suggesting to read the posts, including the BAs previous posts on the topic of Expelled. I would also add the suggestion of visiting, as the BA and others have frequently suggested as well, visit the Expelled Exposed web site.
As to your claim that we are bashing your use of the dictionary, please take another look at the questions we asked: What is your point? I’ll quote on of my previous posts to you:
“In your tirade about MattFunke using the wrong words or supposedly making up definitions, you are missing the point of what he was trying to say and ignoring the pragmatics (in the linguistic sense of the word).
What exactly are you trying to achieve by taking a rather aggressive tone and implying that he is an idiot? What point are you trying to make and how does it relate to his comments or the thread as a whole?”
As to my later post re: Yogi Berra, I will admit I just needed to get a little snark off my chest. However, I was also trying to drive home my point that it is very difficult to take a prescriptivist stance on language, as it is such a slippery creature that is impossible to control.
April 18th, 2008 at 11:00 pm
Wow! So many professors on one forum. I love it. Evolution is so true!
I’m not religious. I’m not a scientist. I do have a brain. Intelligent design is about as right as the Theory of Evolution.
Now, before I get bombarded with name-calling, let me explain. The Theory of Evolution as a whole, not just adaptation, is flawed. I believe in adaptation…it’s self-evident. A dog becoming a fish…sounds biblical to me. That’s all.
So, Ben Stein makes a movie questioning your religious beliefs and it’s automatically deemed idiotic. Sounds like some of you are former Jerry Fallwell-ions.
April 18th, 2008 at 11:28 pm
n00854180t: Does he not realize that by that definition “pure science” think ranks as cult.
On this article itself. I think the point of the movie is being made by the article and therefore THIS is advertisement for the movie.
In that the point is that some in the science community is trying to silence any opposing point of view or debate in the gray areas where BOTH sides like to take leaps of assumption.
Failure to admit that there are gaps that can’t be explained has a tendancy to invalidate the argument as “one of faith” on the science side.
I for one have never feared someone challenging what I know to be true, because if i can’t defend the challenge then it probably wasn’t as true as I orginally believed. In the past 30 years even the “how man evolved” has changed DRASTICALLY. That means that what we knew to be the absolute truth 30 years ago is not true today.
Never fear being challenged unless you fear being changed.
April 19th, 2008 at 12:31 am
Geez Phil – this blog post is exactly what this movie is about. It’s not about ID, it’s about people like you totally freaking out over it.
Guess who said this: “In the absence of any other proof, the thumb alone would convince me of God’s existence.”
George Bush? Pat Robertson? Some Republican, half-goat/half devil creature?
How about Sir Isaac F-ing Newton.
What about this:”This most beautiful system (the universe) could only proceed from the dominion of an intelligent and powerful being.”
Karl Rove? Jeffrey Dahmer? Slobodan Milosevic?
Oops- Newton once again.
Alright, one more. No tricks this time. Who said this: “The system of revealed truth which this book contains is like that of the universe, concealed from common observation yet…the centuries have established its divine origin.”
Adolph Hitler? Saddam Hussiein?
No, actually it was Stalin. WRONG! Sorry, it was Newton.
If Newton were around today, trying to do the modern equivalent of what he did way back when, while still keeping his faith, he’d end up digging swimming pools for a living. No academic would give him a job.
April 19th, 2008 at 1:08 am
@shanghigh
You have yet to demonstrate that.
Well, it certainly doesn’t sound like evolution. You’ve got the direction backwards for a start, and you’ve omitted a few million steps.
April 19th, 2008 at 1:10 am
“If Newton were around today, trying to do the modern equivalent of what he did way back when, while still keeping his faith, he’d end up digging swimming pools for a living. No academic would give him a job.”
Why just Newton? Why don’t we go all the way back to Aristotle for our example of how to think?
April 19th, 2008 at 1:39 am
Sheesh Phil – you sure got them coming out of the woodwork.
April 19th, 2008 at 1:56 am
@Frank
And once again, Newton’s thinking was centuries before Darwin, even Mendel. Newton was a brilliant physicist and mathematician, but yes he believed in God etc, because there was no alternative hypothesis, as there is now. Sorry, not hypothesis, I meant theory. Check out http://www.notjustatheory.com
April 19th, 2008 at 2:56 am
Todd – I had a post almost finished and I don’t know what the hell happened. I know better. Anyway, that kind of a night. I’ll respond soon. Thanks.
April 19th, 2008 at 5:45 am
Fred F: Interestingly, Darwinists long claimed that so-called “junk DNA” was without function
Not so. We’ve known for a long time that noncoding DNA (the term used before “junk DNA”) has important functions. We call it “junk DNA” because:
* Sections can be removed or rearranged randomly with no apparent effect on the organism; by contrast, mutations in functional DNA are subject to selection.
* Some look exactly like sections of functional DNA with mutations — for example, stop codons early in the sequence (which shows that the rest cannot be functional in the same way as the DNA it resembles).
Fred F: This we have an example the science of intelligent design led to an accurate prediction.
If so, that’s not really remarkable. It’s not a different prediction from the evolutionary one — it’s a different prediction from your imagined evolutionary prediction, which was based on a flawed understanding of “junk DNA”. Try again.
Kyle: Get off your high horse and realize that you can’t wrap yourself in a blanket of science and call yourself intelligent.
We’re only “wrapping ourselves” to show that what these people are doing isn’t science, and that we do not wish to be associated with the despicable fraudulent tactics of these moviemakers.
Someone is attacking the object of our passion. Movie-goers may or may not know whether the claims of ID to scientific validity are valid or not. We speak up about it for them.
shanghigh: The Theory of Evolution as a whole, not just adaptation, is flawed.
Yes. The Theory of Universal Gravitation is also flawed. That doesn’t mean that we don’t think gravity doesn’t exist, or that we’re not substantially correct in our description of many details.
(Every human theory is flawed. They represent our best guess at an explanation of the facts we see. It’s not as if these explanations are written down on the Universe somewhere.)
shanghigh: A dog becoming a fish…sounds biblical to me.
Okay. But that’s not evolution. That’s some weird thing you invented that, to you, sounds like evolution.
shanghigh: So, Ben Stein makes a movie questioning your religious beliefs and it’s automatically deemed idiotic.
Evolution is not a religion. The theory of evolution is not a religious belief. There is no “ultimate reality” that it attempts to describe; there are no supernatural powers; there are no rituals; there are no adherents (who put “Evolution” in the “Religion” blank on the census?); it changes in the light of new evidence; it prescribes no morals; it does nothing to describe the role and responsibilities of humans; and it has been rejected as religion by the courts.
Expelled is idiotic because it claims to present a scientifically viable alternative to evolution. It does not. We would be every bit as justified in decrying a movie that claimed that astrology is a scientifically viable alternative to astronomy, claimed that astrologers had been unfairly fired from astronomical posts because of their beliefs, and deliberately misrepresented interviews with real astronomers to support their claims.
April 19th, 2008 at 6:40 am
I have not seen the movie Expelled (and I know for fact that most of you haven’t either) but from what I have seen in the ads it seems like everyone is getting their wires crossed here.
I.D. is not science, it’s philosophy. The theory or evolution is not philosophy, it’s science.
Science attempts to explain how things work.
Philosophy attempts to explain why things work.
So, for the love of everything that is holy, could you all please shut up? My Father didn’t invent this stuff for you “rats” to screw around with. And I didn’t hang on a cross for an entire day for this either.
If the scientists and the philosophers cannot play nice then I’m going to have to come down there take everyone’s apples away and keep raising oil prices.
April 19th, 2008 at 8:29 am
If you’re going to come here and comment on evolution, or anything else for that matter, you should have at the VERY least a rudimentory understanding of how it works… which you have clearly stated in that quote that you don’t. It’s statements like that, that get us so worked up in here. You want to come here and defend ID / Creationism but you’re too frakkin lazy to gain an actual understanding of how the issue that you’re attacking works. Probably the same reason you believe in ID. Someone told you, must be true. Lazy.
Really? How do you figure? As has been pointed out before, EVERY theory has gaps. And no reputable scientist would ever claim otherwise. Do ANY of you, ANY of you ID defenders have ANY idea how science and scientific process actually works? I’m so tired of explaining it over and over again. I’ll quote, as I’ve done before, Jeffrey Kluger from Time: “More dishonestly, Stein employs the common dodge of enumerating all the admittedly unanswered questions in evolutionary theory and using this to refute the whole idea. But all scientific knowledge is built this way. A fishnet is made up of a lot more holes than strings, but you can’t therefore argue that the net doesn’t exist. Just ask the fish.” See? ADMITTEDLY unanswered questions… scientists don’t try to hide from the gaps in a theory, they work tirelessly to try to explain them. It’d be far easier, and lazier, to go find a book in the dirt somewhere that gives them the answer they are looking for and just leave it at that, without question, but thankfully for the rest of us, that just don’t fly for a scientist.
You make this statement as a challenge that the scientific community fears… and in doing so display yet again that you have NO idea how science, or the scientific community, work. Being challenged and having your ideas and theories held up to standards of proof are the very building blocks of science. I get so tired of explaining to IDists who keep coming in here making craptacular claims that our problem is “the fear of evolution being challenged”. FAIL. Go ahead and challenge evolution, science has been doing that itself since Darwin first published his theory… but if you do so, you’d better come with something that wasn’t MADE UP and can’t even be tested. Otherwise it’s just not science. That’s the issue. Period. Anything else you IDists and “Expelled” defenders try to throw against the wall is simply a distraction, used to turn the focus away from that posiion from which you have no argument: That ID is not science, and should never, ever be allowed to be presented as science.
April 19th, 2008 at 8:34 am
Wow! How arrogently omnipotent of you! You must really be Jeebus!
I don’t think the IDists would agree that ID is philosophy… they do believe that ID explains how things work, AND why things work. It’s a 2 for 1!
April 19th, 2008 at 8:45 am
Jeebus: Science attempts to explain how things work.
Philosophy attempts to explain why things work.
Nice try, Jeebus. Let me introduce you to some folks.
This is Karl Marx. He is a philosopher. He attempted to show how people could build a better society. One of the ways this could be done, for example, was to give certain industries to the control of government (e.g., transportation). He never attempted to explain why capitalism would inevitably do a poor job, or why government would do a better one. He just explained how his ideal society would be constructed.
This is the Theory of Evolution. It is a scientific theory. It attempts to explain why very different animals have similar morphologies, why vestigial organs exist, why certain species persist while others die out, why organisms appear to be sorted in a nested hierarchy, and a host of other whys. It does not, however, explain how life arose in the first place.
Your pithy summary might make for a cute sound bite, but it isn’t the case at all.
April 19th, 2008 at 11:36 am
The way I see it, every dollar the producers spend advertising Expelled on those sources is one dollar they’re not spending it to advertise somewhere that might actually lead to ticket sales. While it’s odd certainly, if they want to throw away their money like that, I won’t complain.
April 19th, 2008 at 2:36 pm
The difference ‘Expelled’ will make
By William A. Dembski
FORT WORTH, Texas (BP)–Ben Stein’s new movie “Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed” opens this weekend in theaters. It explores the widespread persecution — destruction of livelihoods, careers and reputations — of scientists who doubt Darwin’s theory of evolution and think intelligence is needed to explain life’s origin and development.
Controversy surrounds this film. Reviews tend to be extremely positive or extremely negative.
Who likes it? People who think God may have had something to do with our being here and therefore find it reasonable that God may have left tangible evidence of His involvement in creation.
Who hates it? A science, education and media elite who prefer that God had nothing to do with it and think that nature must do all its own creating.
Who’s right? That’s the wrong question.
Anyone who has studied the history of science knows about “the pessimistic induction.” The pessimistic induction says that all scientific theories of the past have to varying degrees been wrong and required modification (some were so wrong that they had to be abandoned outright). No scientific theory is written in stone. No scientific theory should be venerated.
Every scientific theory should now and again be subjected to severe scrutiny. This is healthy for science.
Expelled, by contrast, points up the unhealthy state of contemporary science regarding biological origins. Our intellectual elite have insulated Darwinian evolution from scientific scrutiny. Moreover, they have institutionalized intolerance to any criticism of it.
Expelled documents this institutionalized intolerance and thereby unmasks the hypocrisy of an intellectual class that pretends to value freedom of thought and expression, but undercuts it whenever it conflicts with their deeply held secular ideals.
Spotlighting yet another sin of society is all fine and good. Happily, Expelled also suggests a way forward in the debate over biological origins. The most surprising thing viewers learn from watching the film is the flimsiness of the scientific evidence for thinking life can be explained apart from a designing intelligence — the other side’s rhetoric notwithstanding.
Take Jeffrey Kluger’s review of the film for Time Magazine:
“He makes all the usual mistakes nonscientists make whenever they try to take down evolution, asking, for example, how something as complex as a living cell could have possibly arisen whole from the earth’s primordial soup. The answer is it couldn’t — and it didn’t. Organic chemicals needed eons of stirring and slow cooking before they could produce compounds that could begin to lead to a living thing.”
Come again? Take some organic chemicals, slow cook them, give enough time, and out pops life?
This isn’t a scientific theory. This is an article of speculative faith.
In Expelled, Stein interviews atheistic scientist after atheistic scientist, and they all admit that they haven’t a clue how life arose.
There is no materialistic theory of life’s origin, and anyone who suggests otherwise is bluffing.
In creating conceptual space for Intelligent Design, Stein, and not the dogmatic defenders of Darwin, champions true freedom of thought and expression.
Will the movie succeed in opening up discussion about evolution and Intelligent Design? Here we need to be realistic.
As Thomas Kuhn, in his “Structure of Scientific Revolutions,” has clearly documented, those who support the status quo rarely change their views (and Darwinism is the status quo).
Or, as Kuhn puts it, ‘a new scientific paradigm succeeds on the graves of the old guard.’
Don’t expect the scientific community and intellectual elites to turn to Intelligent Design in response to this film. If anything, expect a backlash.
But that’s OK. The unwashed masses, in which I place myself, will love the film.
Ordinary people – who often pay the Darwinists’ salaries through their tax dollars – will rightly be incensed.
They’ll see that enough is enough: They will no longer be bullied by a Richard Dawkins, who tells them that if they don’t subscribe to Darwinian evolution, they’re either stupid, wicked, ignorant or insane.
They will start demanding that evolution be taught honestly — warts and all.
And young people will be encouraged to take up careers in science to restore its health and integrity.
Expelled’s impact will be felt immediately. But its long-term impact will be even greater. The film opens with documentary footage of the Berlin Wall going up and closes with it coming down.
The day Darwinism and Intelligent Design can be fairly discussed without fear of reprisal represents the removal of a barrier even greater than the Berlin Wall.
April 19th, 2008 at 2:59 pm
Celtic Evolution:
I disagree.
If you don’t think, you don’t know what “they” believe.
If you don’t ask, you don’t have the chance to listen.
Do you want to know?
Is don’t think good enough for you?
I like to think and not know; to know and not think.
If I don’t know, I think; I don’t think I know.
April 19th, 2008 at 3:51 pm
@ drew terry…
well, this is really, really lame.
First, in response to my points about your issues with us attacking the movie, and showing clearly that we were not doing that at all, instead of producing one bit of original debate or argument, you resort to regurgitating, word for word, an article by DEMBSKI??? You might as well show me an article critiquing the Bible written by the Pope. Are you kidding me? This article, IIRC, has already been refuted… ripped apart really, although the actual link escapes me… can one of my colleagues here help me out in pointing our easily manipulated friend drew to the article that addresses Dembski’s?
Either way, I have a hard time with your post… there are bolds and italices… I can’t tell what you’re emphasizing… and honestly, it doesn’t matter… what are YOUR WORDS on the issue, drew? Or are all you capable of is just listening to what the christian propaganda machine tells you without question. Every point made in that article is not only easily refuted, but in fact already HAS been in this thread and the last on the Expelled movie, and on the Expelled Exposed website. Most of Dembski’s attacks are attacks of word-play and semantics, smoke-and-mirrors and slight of hand aruments meant to distract… and still don’t address ANY issue presenting why anyone should consider ID as science when it STILL does not hold up to the fundemental premise that science must be testable and provable. I have yet to hear you or anyone else refute that fact. If it’s not testable… if it’s not science.
I’m really disappointed that you came at me with someone else’s words. And did so while CONTINUING to argue THE WRONG POINT (that we are not attacking the movie itself). Very disappointing, but not surprising.
Oh, and by the way, Ben Stein was never a scientist, so I’d hardly refer to him as a traitor… and your use of the word is gratuitous and without merit, as no-one n the scientific community has ever used the term to label him.
April 19th, 2008 at 3:57 pm
Well, you’re nothing if not clever, drew. What you are doing here is no different than what you did in spouting out definitions in dealing with Todd W eariler… you’re not arguing the actual points… you’re arguing the semantics of the way I articulated a thought that was pretty easy to understand without your irrelevant semantic nit-picks.
So let me re-phrase it for you:
I KNOW that IDists DO believe that ID explains both how things work and why things work. And I know this because I’ve been given ample evidence with both written and verbal confirmation that this is the case by ID supporters.
There.
Now, do you care to have an actual debate about the merits of this topic and discussion? Or would you like to continue being immaturishly semantic?
April 19th, 2008 at 4:05 pm
Two corrections from my first post in response to drew:
I meant to say “does not hold up to the fundemental premise that science must be testable”… not testable and provable. Provable is not really the right word to use here.
And in the same paragraph it shoudl read “If it’s not testable… it’s not science.”… I added an extra “if” in there… guess I was too lazy to proofread.
April 19th, 2008 at 4:28 pm
Gee, someone prove the Big Bang Theory for me. I subscribe to the Big Bang Theory, by the way. Big science fan here. But, uh, I’m looking for proof all the way to the beginning. Oh, one more thing – what happened before that?
By the way, who proposed what eventually became the Big Bang Theory? A Roman Catholic priest. DEAR GOD, NO!?!?!
April 19th, 2008 at 4:34 pm
Celtic Evolution:
Too lazy to proofread, too lazy to think.
I’ve got fresh paint to watch.
Have a nice day, gentlemen.
April 19th, 2008 at 5:53 pm
Celtic Evolution:
I’ll take immaturishly semantic for the Daily Double Eisegesis, thank you:
I refer to a dictionary when I am confused about the meaning of a word, as a standard of reference, especially when confused by the context of the word.
Whether anyone agrees or disagrees, there is no right or wrong.
If you deny that, you are already in denial.
I am logo-philic but no more extreme than other people are logophobic.
Not a grammaticaster, but not grammaphilic, either.
I’ve had bouts with logomaniacs; logomasochists; in denial of logophobia; paranoid pathological logodaedalianism.
I can be longiloquent; my family ipsedixitism.
My mother is hippopotomonstrosesquipededalian.
What else can I say?
What does it matter.
April 19th, 2008 at 6:00 pm
Celtic Evolution:
Methinks thou doth see the movie; lest thee verily protest inane hyperbole.
April 19th, 2008 at 6:01 pm
“Hippopotomonstrosesquipededalian” is actually spelled “hippopotomonstrosesquipedalian.”
I give you the benefit of the doubt because I remember you said you might be suffering from a little pneumonoultramicroscopicsilicovolcanoconiosis after your trip to Taumatawhakatangihangakoauauotamateaturipukakapikimaungahoronukupokaiwhenuakitanatahu last month.
April 19th, 2008 at 6:19 pm
Hey, there’s an idea. Teach Intelligent Design in the same class as Astrology. Ooh, also phrenology. We can even teach another alternative (on equal footing, to boot) creation theory: the Cosmic Egg.
What? There is a comparative religion class?
Darn it, I thought I was about to shake up the establishment there.
(end snark)
April 19th, 2008 at 7:50 pm
Without religion, there is no evil. It’s all relative.
April 19th, 2008 at 8:13 pm
drew terry -
why on earth would I have ever expected you to stick to the issues and debate the subject?… just as I expected.
In continuing your attacks on semantics and refusing to deal with any actual issue, you have done a very nice job proving my point for me, where you are concerned.
Oh, and methinks thou should look up the word “hyperbole” lest thou use it inaccurately. Oops! Too late. What in my criticism of your use of the word “traitor” was hyperbole, exactly. Wait… what am I thinking… that’s actually a direct question… you’re not going to answer that! How silly of me. Nice use of bold-type, though… I’ll give you that.
I’m done with you. Back under the bridge with you along with the other trolls.
April 19th, 2008 at 8:43 pm
@CE
I feel your pain, Celtic. At this point, as you noted, drew terry is not interested in contrbuting anything meaningful or substantial to the discussion. Instead, he merely offers up other people’s words and thoughts and saves his own to criticize other people’s use of language and to make ad hominem attacks.
Stop taking the bait. Don’t bother responding to him any more, no matter how frustrated you may get.
April 19th, 2008 at 8:55 pm
@ Todd W.
Done and done.
April 20th, 2008 at 1:26 am
Celtic Evolution:
You object to ‘hyperbole’ out of context.
See the movie for the context to make sense.
I don’t know what questions specifically are open; every rejection I submit is a legitimate response.
But I’m not here to defend what is attacked, because I did not comment to attack.
Besides, what is there to defend?
1. If you are focused on defending evolution, I’m not attacking evolution.
2. If you are focused on defending the scientists in the movie, I’m not attacking the scientists.
3. If you are focused on attacking the movie, I am not defending the movie.
4. If you are focused on defending attacking the movie without seeing the movie, I am attacking that.
All perception is subject to awareness of conscious vulnerability to the perfected fantasy of idealized ego-centric attachment to objectivity.
With a list of questions unanswered, I will pledge to stick to the list, answer each question.
One question at a time, until you decide the question is answered, or we don’t move to the next question.
Bottom line is, I am sincere but not in control; question my sincerity is out of my control. I cannot defend what I did not intend. If you think I live under a bridge, then I live under a bridge. What else can I say? All I know is, it does not matter.
I don’t control perception. And I am not presuming to control your perception of my perception. Really, I just want you to know, I know you know you’re in charge here. And I know what you know, you know what you know, and I know that’s all there is to know.
Why would I tell you what is clear you already know?
April 20th, 2008 at 6:05 am
@drew
Please do something that will fit your abilities better: Go see paint dry, as you have promised many times now.
April 21st, 2008 at 12:15 pm
You ought to see the movie, it brings up some good points. I found it very funny that “the great” Richard Dawkins actually made the point that there is a theory that an “intelligent” Alien race seeded earth and got the whole process started. Wow, really. That is easier to believe than an intelligent God created our universe??! Even that theory seems to say the complexity of humanity, creation, and the universe could not be accidental and must have been created by an intelligent being.
Ian
April 21st, 2008 at 12:24 pm
To Zeke,
I actually first heard about Expelled from the Science Channel so I guess their ad money is working, neo-evolutionists are not the only ones who enjoy science.
Ian
April 21st, 2008 at 6:00 pm
Ian, do I believe that aliens seeded this planet? No. Do I find it easier to believe than a god creating the universe. Absolutely. Naturalistic vs supernatural. Naturalistic explanation will always top supernatural.
April 21st, 2008 at 6:14 pm
What is the difference between god and aliens?
They are both abstract and beyond our present comprehension.
Aliens are supernatural until they are understood to be naturalistic.
April 21st, 2008 at 7:40 pm
April 21st, 2008 at 7:41 pm
Eh? I think you have that the wrong way round. There is nothing about aliens that needs to be attributed to some force beyond scientific understanding or the laws of nature.
Here’s another definition of alien for you:
April 21st, 2008 at 7:43 pm
Sorry about double post. Second post fixes the close blockquote tag.
Darn. I just scrolled up and saw the last comments from Celtic and Todd W. Sorry about feeding the trolls.
April 22nd, 2008 at 10:17 am
“If you are focused on defending attacking the movie without seeing the movie, I am attacking that.”
Who cares? (shrug) Intelligent Design Creationism is illegal to teach. Doesn’t matter how much anyone whines or complains, nor how many people go and see this movie. nothing will change that. The movie is advocating Intelligent Design. It’s also saying that ID is about God (they appear to have given up trying to hide that bit anymore – as if anyone didn’t already know).
If the IDer’s are complaining that their ID “science” is being “censored” (ironic, considering dissenting views don’t show up on Expelled’s blog) then all they need to do is one simple thing. And that would be to uh, DO some actual science.
April 24th, 2008 at 10:44 am
An evolutionist reviews the film and takes a healthy attitude:
“Someone or something, be it the Founding Fathers or merely our lucky stars, deserves thanks for dissent and the freedom we have to express it. In particular Ben Stein should be thanked for making Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed. I say this as a very firm Evolutionist who is not at all impressed with the arguments coming from ID proponents. I say this because however much I have accepted Evolution, I am a thousand times more a libertarian who believes that no solid theory need worry about dissent, and no uncertain theory should be free of it.”
http://www.filmschoolrejects.com/reviews/expelled-no-intelligence-allowed-movie-review.php
April 24th, 2008 at 10:45 am
BTW, Shane, I believe it’s only illegal to teach in schools below college grade. Maybe schools that receive federal funding, but I could be wrong about that.
April 25th, 2008 at 5:16 am
Funny, cuz the reviewer sounds just like an IDer…
April 30th, 2008 at 8:24 am
I am not all that concerned about it on the NPR website. There are plenty of shows on NPR especially here in Middle America that have religious themes. i doubt the movie also changes anyone’s mind either. NPR does however need the cash flow and if studios are willing shell out big bucks for simple banner ads on NPR then I am all for it.
I can’t really speak for cable channels, since I don’t have cable, but like NPR listeners, I doubt many will be swayed.
May 4th, 2008 at 11:16 pm
why the heck would they do such a thing i mean its almost just sounding like a major waste of money
June 13th, 2008 at 12:50 pm
Celtic_Evolutionon 18 Apr 2008 at 12:01 pm
I didn’t try to get you to accept anything. After all the seriousness of the first three points, and the nasty hyperbole going back and forth on this site, I felt some levity was in order and added point 4 to deflate the over-the-top seriousness.
On the other hand, various ID scientists do propose testable assertions. Sometimes those assertions do result in scientific discoveries. That advances science, even if only in terms of requiring other scientists to put better foundations under their theories. I know, you can take any ID assertion example
I don’t see you requiring any of the anti-ID posters to defend with statistics their claim (for exaple Nemos 18 Apr 2008 at 2:50 pm ) that “No, none of them [ID sscientists] are real scientists.”
Celtic_Evolutionon 18 Apr 2008 at 12:15 pm
That’s a history fact from high school science class, circa 1975. I believe in high school I could have told you the name of the refuser. If you honestly care to study the question, search Aristotle, authority, Galileo, telescope, moon. Feel free to report back with citations debunking, if you actually find any. Here are a couple websites with relevant quotes:
http://csep10.phys.utk.edu/astr161/lect/history/galileo.html
It is said that what Galileo saw was so disturbing for some officials of the Church that they refused to even look through his telescope; they reasoned that the Devil was capable of making anything appear in the telescope, so it was best not to look through it.
http://www.adam.com.au/bstett/ReligGalileoMyth95.htm
Certain secular astronomers even refused to look through Galileo’s telescope to verify his observations, whereas the Jesuit astronomers in contrast were willing to look through his telescope and “saw the phenomena for themselves, were convinced, and turned to honouring and feasting Galileo: after all, was he not Jesuit trained, a true son of the Church, whose fame brought distinction to the Order?” (Ronan, 1974, p. 127).
That’s more of my time than it deserves.
Celtic_Evolutionon 18 Apr 2008 at 12:15 pm
Most of what appears on this board is plain opinion. You owe me a keyboard on “peer reviewed studies”… you want me to prove that global-warmism-BS is more prevalent than anti-global-warmism-BS with a peer-reviewed study? Very droll.
But I’ll be more specific in case you missed the real life examples in front of you.
I define BS science as things claimed to be science that are not testable or falsifiable. For instance, the claim that global warming caused X or y hurricane, or an increase in the average intensity of hurricanes, etc. You don’t strike me as someone who puts his fingers in his ears and says “lalalala” jsut because he doesn’t want to be proven wrong. If you honestly watch the media, you have seen these claims.
They are BS by that definition. They are on the pro-global-warming-alarmism side, as I stated in my prior post. I have therefore demonstrated their existence and numerical magnitude. If you care to line up lists of claims on the anti-global warmism that were similarly reported in the media, then I’d be happy to look at them.
More likely, you will dodge by saying that they were “not scientific.” internationally reported scientific pronouncements by an international pseudo-scientific body that is devoted to the scientific subject under consideration are not “scientific” in your eyes, so they get a pass.
Well, look back at my quote. That’s all I said – more BS pseudo-science on the pro-alarmist side. I clearly didn’t make the impossible claim that that BS pseudo-science in question was good science or had proceeded scientifically and qualified as wonderful science. I just said there was more BS science on the pro-alarmist side.
We could discuss the incentives in science that lead to this crap, but that is a different subject entirely. To my mind, global warming science is a bit like the Tobacco Institute in terms of wanting particular results. The temperature of Mars is up a few degrees and we only have one car there. Why? I’d love a good study, but you won’t see one funded any time soon.
June 13th, 2008 at 1:11 pm
Oops – i lost the rest of the line ending “any ID assertion example”
Here’s a longer aside at that point-
I know, you can take any ID assertion example and deconstruct it. Either you claim “s/he’s not an ID scientist, s/he’s a real scientist” or “that assertion wasn’t an ID assertiion” or “evolutionary scientists never claimed that particular ID assertion wasn’t true” or whatever.
The point is, if ID scientists are proposing and testing hypotheses [sp?], then they are scientists, even if those hypotheses don’t meet your personal approval, and regardless of whether the hypotheses are found true or false. Same is true of classical-evolution scientists, regardless of whether they have opinions about the existence of one or more gods.
I don’t have any particular iron in that fire – I think evolution seems to reasonably cover change of organisms over time, and that it is vaguely possible that over huge amounts of time, that life might generate spontaneously. On the other hand, I don’t take as a given that nothing interfered in the process, that our universe has no God, or that the existence of God is untestable…which is primarily a religious question, and if scientists make that claim, they are making a religious claim, not a scientific one.
First, when a scientist says, “I am testing how this universe works when no God interferes with it,” he is doing science.
Second, when he says, “I have proven God is not necessary and therefore God does not exist,” he is doing religion. And if you look at his proofs, they are always tautological.
Lastly, when he says “I have proven that nothing has interfered in Earth’s evolution,” he is deluded. [There clearly isn't enough data for such an assertion, so no sane scientist would make such a claim.]
July 11th, 2008 at 8:52 am
Dear Expelled movie producers, please get yourself disillusioned.
November 27th, 2008 at 1:45 am
is every one here athiest?
December 2nd, 2008 at 3:09 pm
Here’s a great current events article demonstrating just exactly how bad the “science” on the “Anthropogenic Global Warming” side can be, and still be allowed the pretense of being “science”. “The World has Never Seen Such Freezing Heat” By Christopher Booker on the Telegraph.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2008/11/16/do1610.xml
For good science on the skeptic side, see http://www.climateaudit.org/ and http://wattsupwiththat.com