Printable Version of Topic

-Antievolution.org Discussion Board
+--Forum: After the Bar Closes...
+---Topic: Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed. started by oldmanintheskydidntdoit


Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on Aug. 12 2007,07:23

O'Leary breathlessly announces a new ID film. Obviously all that ID based peer reviewed research leaves them craving a break...


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
The film, directed by Nathan Frankowski, features people like Rick Sternberg, Guillermo Gonzalez, and Caroline Crocker, scientists victimized by the Darwin cult. Stein also confronts a number of cultists, including the Smithsonian congregation that drove out Rick Sternberg (and called security on the film crew), as well as Richard Dawkins.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



A "major feature" film defends intelligent design, no less.

O'Leary also notes

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
The film has already received endorsements from Michael Medved, Peter Furler (of Newsboys)and J.I.Packer. It is not funded by Discovery Institute but by software entrepreneur Ruloff who lives on Bowen Island in British Columbia, Canada, and a team of supporters.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



It's come to something when you've got to note that this time your propaganda is not funded by the usual suspects.
Posted by: Louis on Aug. 12 2007,07:40

YAWN.

Wake me for the second reel.

Why didn't they go the whole propaganda hog and ressurect Leni Riefenstahl for the director's chair? After all wasn't she merely a misunderstood and misused propagandist film maker? Shouldn't birds of a misunderstood feather flock together?

Do I win an award for such an early Godwin?

Louis
Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on Aug. 12 2007,07:46

I think what they don't mention will be more important then what is in the film.

The funding issue for GG for example. He dun't got none....
Posted by: Louis on Aug. 12 2007,08:16

Yes, the accurate reflection of the fact he was denied tenure for failing to bring in the sweet, sweet funding will be replaced by the innaccurate claim that evil Darwinian atheists who hate Jesus materialists hell bent keen on keeping kookery, falsheood, non-science, religious claims and utter drivel The Truth (TM patent pending) which includes Jesus no religious material at all out of science.

Why do these bozos think this shit works?

Louis
Posted by: qetzal on Aug. 12 2007,09:14

Quote (Louis @ Aug. 12 2007,08:16)
Why do these bozos think this shit works?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Probably because it does work among the faithful.
Posted by: Louis on Aug. 12 2007,11:12

Quote (qetzal @ Aug. 12 2007,15:14)
Quote (Louis @ Aug. 12 2007,08:16)
Why do these bozos think this shit works?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Probably because it does work among the faithful.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Damn! I KNEW I'd forgotten some demographic!

Louis

P.S. Sorry I should have made it clear that I was talking about science. You're totally right of course, the faithful love their propaganda.
Posted by: clamboy on Aug. 13 2007,19:41

Ooooh, this waste of time, material, and effort, excuse me, film, has been endorsed by Michael Medved???

Wow. Wowee wow wow.

What a...hmm, "coup" is not the right word, nor is "achievement"...okay, how's this:

"An endorsement from Michael Medved?!? Wow, what a stinking pile of 'So fucking what'."
Posted by: Lou FCD on Aug. 18 2007,14:36

Oh yeah, they've got a summer blockbuster on their hands there.

or not.
Posted by: Wesley R. Elsberry on Aug. 22 2007,14:41

< Ben Stein Calls for No Censorship; Volunteers; Has Open Comments >

How long will that last?

Remember to copy any pearls you write back here.
Posted by: Richardthughes on Aug. 22 2007,14:53

"This includes the ability to inquire whether a higher power, a being greater than man, is involved with how the universe operates. This has always been basic to science. ALWAYS."

It sounds like philosophy to me Ben, not science. You are perhaps confusing the two. Science is concerned with natural world:

< http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/science >

If God exists then surely it is outside of the physical universe?

Also, I don't thin you understand what 'hypothesis' means. In scientific terms, it doesn't mean belief:

"A tentative explanation for an observation, phenomenon, or scientific problem that can be tested by further investigation."

Did they test their hypothesis? Did it become a theory?

People are of course free to believe what they would like. Science is actually evidence based, and ID has none - it is simply an argument from incredulity.
Posted by: Richardthughes on Aug. 22 2007,14:55

And the blog says:

"Rich Says: Your comment is awaiting moderation. "


Bwahahahahaha bad creobot tards:
Posted by: Wesley R. Elsberry on Aug. 22 2007,15:02

Somebody ought to post a link to the thread here that's all UD bannings...
Posted by: Richardthughes on Aug. 22 2007,15:12

Also see here:

< http://www.expelledthemovie.com/bigscienceacademy_expelled.php >

Bono - Prominent scientist.

Einstein - "God does not play dice" quantum mechanics denier. I jest, but I don't think he believed in a personal God:

"I cannot imagine a God who rewards and punishes the objects of his creation, whose purposes are modeled after our own - a God, in short, who is but a reflection of human frailty. It is enough for me to contemplate the mystery of conscious life perpetuating itself through all eternity, to reflect upon the marvelous structure of the universe which we can dimly perceive and to try humbly to comprehend even an infinitesimal part of the intelligence manifested in Nature." Albert Einstein

Galileo -
< http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galileo_Galilei#Church_controversy >
Posted by: Richardthughes on Aug. 22 2007,15:18

Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Aug. 22 2007,15:02)
Somebody ought to post a link to the thread here that's all UD bannings...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Done:

Here's how the ID community handles censorship / different viewpoints:

< http://www.antievolution.org/cgi-bin....;t=5141 >

Thanks.
Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on Aug. 22 2007,15:30

ooh this is fun.  any advice on how to improve my undercover tard cloaking device?



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Can't wait to see the movie.  I'm sure it will blow the socks off those evilutionists who deny the all=mighty purposeful hand of god who has clearly invested a lot of his(her?) time in designing the phalluses of katydids and tinkering with the chimpanzee genome to fool materialists.  

Athiest darwinist materialists have held the pulpit for too long, with their evidence and predictive power.  The tide is turning in churches and homeschooled classrooms across the globe, upholding the observation that all true science is given to us from God and is an exploration of his glory and omnipotence.  Only fools demand evidence to believe something.  

Additionally, with the growing impetus behind Intelligent Design (including a real science journal and lots of internet weblogs that thankfully don't worry about the opposing views to their arguments) soon we can be sure to see some real ID research from the growing number of ID labs in the United States.  All Science So Far!!!

Stifling dissent is unamerican and unchristian.  Intelligent design has nothing to do with religion, there are even atheist pleasurians in the fold.  In short, it is all about the maths.

See here for more about censorship and Darwinism.

[URL=http://www.antievolution.org/cgi-bin/ikonboard/ikonboard.cgi?act=ST;f=14;t=5141
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Posted by: Rob on Aug. 22 2007,16:13

Ben Stein:  

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Under a new anti-religious dogmatism, scientists and educators are not allowed to even think thoughts that involve an intelligent creator. Do you realize that some of the leading lights of ?anti-intelligent design? would not allow a scientist who merely believed in the possibility of an intelligent designer/creator to work for him? EVEN IF HE NEVER MENTIONED the possibility of intelligent design in the universe?EVEN FOR HIS VERY THOUGHTS? HE WOULD BE BANNED.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Instead of denigrating these employers who fire people for their unspoken thoughts, we should be leveraging their mind-reading powers in more productive ways, like prisoner interrogation, or finding out whether the writers of Lost actually have a story plan.
Posted by: Wesley R. Elsberry on Aug. 22 2007,16:34

PZ Myers was interviewed, and a segment appears in "Expelled". However, he was < not interviewed for "Expelled" >:

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Why were they so dishonest about it? If Mathis had said outright that he wants to interview an atheist and outspoken critic of Intelligent Design for a film he was making about how ID is unfairly excluded from academe, I would have said, "bring it on!" We would have had a good, pugnacious argument on tape that directly addresses the claims of his movie, and it would have been a better (at least, more honest and more relevant) sequence. He would have also been more likely to get that good ol' wild-haired, bulgy-eyed furious John Brown of the Godless vision than the usual mild-mannered professor that he did tape. And I probably would have been more aggressive with a plainly stated disagreement between us.

I mean, seriously, not telling one of the sides in a debate about what the subject might be and then leading him around randomly to various topics, with the intent of later editing it down to the parts that just make the points you want, is the video version of quote-mining and is fundamentally dishonest.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------




Posted by: Kristine on Aug. 22 2007,17:13

Quote (clamboy @ Aug. 13 2007,18:41)
Ooooh, this waste of time, material, and effort, excuse me, film, has been endorsed by Michael Medved???

Wow. Wowee wow wow.

What a...hmm, "coup" is not the right word, nor is "achievement"...okay, how's this:

"An endorsement from Michael Medved?!? Wow, what a stinking pile of 'So fucking what'."
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Haha. Medved in bed with righter-christers agin. What a stinking pile of "so fucked, what?"

His right-wing fanatic friends behaved like yowling cats in Jerusalem during the New Year's countdown to Y2K. You made your bed (again), Medved. :)
Posted by: "Rev Dr" Lenny Flank on Aug. 22 2007,17:52

Quote (Rob @ Aug. 22 2007,16:13)
Ben Stein: ?

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Under a new anti-religious dogmatism, scientists and educators are not allowed to even think thoughts that involve an intelligent creator. I
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Well, I certainly do hope, with all sincerity, that this film gets a full and complete showing, in court, the next time some idiotic school board tries to bullshit everyone into accepting some ID "science textbook" because "ID ain't about religion or god, no sirree Bob, and it's just them atheist darwinists and activist judges who think so."

These morons STILL have no clue at all why they keep losing.

Surreal.

I thank God, every single day, that fundies are so utterly completely unalterably irredeemably mind-numbingly jaw-droppingly stupid.
Posted by: Reciprocating Bill on Aug. 22 2007,20:01

Quote (Richardthughes @ Aug. 22 2007,16:18)
 
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Aug. 22 2007,15:02)
Somebody ought to post a link to the thread here that's all UD bannings...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Done:

Here's how the ID community handles censorship / different viewpoints:

< http://www.antievolution.org/cgi-bin....;t=5141 >

Thanks.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Holy shit.

I visited my creations to find them badly corrupted by the bizarre character set issue that has lately afflicted the board. Search and replace fixed most of the character substitutions (I've learned from Pandas), but this board software does not handle long links well very well (often breaking them into segments such that they are no longer recognized as links) so I was sawing legs of a four-legged table for quite some time (every correction seemed to introduce new errors). They're not completely fixed but I'm gonna leave it alone until the charset issue is corrected.
Posted by: stevestory on Aug. 22 2007,20:06

Quote (Kristine @ Aug. 22 2007,18:13)

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


thanks. that made my week.
Posted by: someotherguy on Aug. 22 2007,20:25

Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Aug. 22 2007,16:34)
PZ Myers was interviewed, and a segment appears in "Expelled". However, he was < not interviewed for "Expelled" >:

   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Why were they so dishonest about it? If Mathis had said outright that he wants to interview an atheist and outspoken critic of Intelligent Design for a film he was making about how ID is unfairly excluded from academe, I would have said, "bring it on!" We would have had a good, pugnacious argument on tape that directly addresses the claims of his movie, and it would have been a better (at least, more honest and more relevant) sequence. He would have also been more likely to get that good ol' wild-haired, bulgy-eyed furious John Brown of the Godless vision than the usual mild-mannered professor that he did tape. And I probably would have been more aggressive with a plainly stated disagreement between us.

I mean, seriously, not telling one of the sides in a debate about what the subject might be and then leading him around randomly to various topics, with the intent of later editing it down to the parts that just make the points you want, is the video version of quote-mining and is fundamentally dishonest.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Even for creationists, I find this kind of behavior to be somewhat shocking.
Posted by: Richardthughes on Aug. 22 2007,21:51

comments are up on his blog...
Lots of science questions from scientists and a few "right-ons" from, erm, engineers?
Posted by: Freelurker on Aug. 23 2007,00:35

Quote (Richardthughes @ Aug. 22 2007,22:51)
comments are up on his blog...
Lots of science questions from scientists and a few "right-ons" from, erm, engineers?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


No, the "right-ons" are from creationists.
Posted by: Richardthughes on Aug. 23 2007,00:37

Quote (Freelurker @ Aug. 23 2007,00:35)
Quote (Richardthughes @ Aug. 22 2007,22:51)
comments are up on his blog...
Lots of science questions from scientists and a few "right-ons" from, erm, engineers?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


No, from creationists.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Same thing!*



*disclaimer. If you're a rational engineer disgruntled at my comment, please keep building safe bridges.
Posted by: Freelurker on Aug. 23 2007,01:28

Richardthughes,

As I've said here before, engineers and scientists are natural allies in this dispute. When the IDist engineers talk about engineering they misrepresent it as much as they misrepresent science. I have pointed this out over at UD several times, with some limited success.

You don't hear more from the mainstream engineers simply because the IDists aren't calling for reforms of engineering. (They conveniently ignore the fact that engineering is at least as materialistic as science is.)

Oh, and F*** you. :angry:
Posted by: Richardthughes on Aug. 23 2007,01:43

Quote (Freelurker @ Aug. 23 2007,01:28)
Richardthughes,

As I've said here before, engineers and scientists are natural allies in this dispute. When the IDist engineers talk about engineering they misrepresent it as much as they misrepresent science. I have pointed this out over at UD several times, with some limited success.

You don't hear more from the mainstream engineers simply because the IDists aren't calling for reforms of engineering. (They conveniently ignore the fact that engineering is at least as materialistic as science is.)

Oh, and F*** you. :angry:
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Not enough CSI in that for me to decode!

;)


< http://www.puzzlexpress.com/cgi-bin/query.cgi?query=f%3F%3F%3F >

Hoping for "Fund" or "Feed"!!  :p
Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on Aug. 23 2007,02:51

Mario A. Lopez shows us that ID is more about appearances in the comments


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Hello Mr. Stein,

I am glad to see that you have joined in the battle against the Darwinian Gestapo. The great thing about all of this is that they have already admitted to the ?appearance? of design in nature, and better still, lack the mechanism to account for it.

These are exciting times.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Is that kinda like how ID has the "appearance" of intelligence but it vanishes on closer examination?

And Darwinian Gestapo? Something of an insult to the real people who were tortured by the real Gestapo methinks....
Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on Aug. 23 2007,08:58

Is that mario lopez from saved by the bell?  He is a genius.





Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on Aug. 23 2007,09:28



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Errrm, ID doesn't have anything to do with religion or God.  It has to do with defeating materialism, which is anti-religion and anti-God.  See it doesn't have anything to do with it.  

And it's all science so far!!!  the Explanatory Filter can identify design, except in cases where it doesn't, and your credit card number either has Complex Specified Information in it, or it doesn't.  You just have to ask the right IDist and be prepared for the definition and talking points to change.

And it is completely compatible with evolutionary theory, except in cases where it isn't.  Depends on who you ask in the BIG TENT of Intelligent Design.  Some are young earth creationists (based on the evidence, of course, given in Genesis), some are Old Earth Creationists (based on the evidence, of course, given in Genesis) and some (one) are atheist pleasurian polymaths, and many many many many more (the rest) are just regular old bible-believing plain folks that don't have time to wade through facts and the logical structure of propositions.  Science=Democracy!  All Science So Far!!!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Posted by: Richardthughes on Aug. 23 2007,16:03

< http://www.rottentomatoes.com/vine/showthread.php?t=577874 >
Posted by: Richardthughes on Aug. 24 2007,11:37

This fella is an engineer:


< http://expelledthemovie.com/blog/2007/08/21/bens-blog/#comment-366 >




---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I am a 35 year practicing engineer and work with permutations of these laws daily. I?m glad they are there or I couldn?t do my job!!

1. The second law of thermodynamics and the law of entropy preclude creation without a creator.
2. The laws of probability preclude even one simple protein strand from assembling itself (if 1/10^50 is commonly accepted as the level of absolute impossibility, the odds of a single very small protein assembling itself is in the range of 1/10^150), let alone complex proteins or a DNA chain.
3. The law of irreducible complexity precludes gradual evolution of innumerable living constructions.
4. The law of information is absolute proof of intelligent design. These learned men would scoff at anyone claiming the Encyclopedia Britannica (do they still sell those door-to-door or even publish it any longer or is it all on the web now?) spontaneously assembled itself. However they have no problem believing a strand of DNA, a compilation of precise information that makes the Britannica look like a Dr. Seuss book, just decided to come together one day.


---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Please, please don't 'engineer' anything that the public might use..
Posted by: J-Dog on Aug. 24 2007,12:36

Quote (Richardthughes @ Aug. 24 2007,11:37)
This fella is an engineer:


< http://expelledthemovie.com/blog/2007/08/21/bens-blog/#comment-366 >


 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I am a 35 year practicing engineer and work with permutations of these laws daily. I?m glad they are there or I couldn?t do my job!!

1. The second law of thermodynamics and the law of entropy preclude creation without a creator.
2. The laws of probability preclude even one simple protein strand from assembling itself (if 1/10^50 is commonly accepted as the level of absolute impossibility, the odds of a single very small protein assembling itself is in the range of 1/10^150), let alone complex proteins or a DNA chain.
3. The law of irreducible complexity precludes gradual evolution of innumerable living constructions.
4. The law of information is absolute proof of intelligent design. These learned men would scoff at anyone claiming the Encyclopedia Britannica (do they still sell those door-to-door or even publish it any longer or is it all on the web now?) spontaneously assembled itself. However they have no problem believing a strand of DNA, a compilation of precise information that makes the Britannica look like a Dr. Seuss book, just decided to come together one day.


---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Please, please don't 'engineer' anything that the public might use..
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


From his ramblings, it looks like he is perfectly suited to design bridges like the 35W in MN.

Although I have to admit, at least he didn't bring a banana to his argument...
Posted by: Wesley R. Elsberry on Aug. 25 2007,18:38

One wonders why Ben Stein has such concern over IDC advocates variously underwhelming tenure review committees with a whole lot of didn't do squat since hired, trying to force people to like them despite playing shady politics with peer review, or telling students that "There really is not a lot of evidence for evolution," while ignoring the general expulsion of scientific views from the current administration. Whether the issue is public health (epidemiology of AIDS, "abstinence only" sex education, etc.), environmental issues (gutting the Endangered Species Act), or climate change (telling scientists what their results are or just to shut up), these things are manifestly happening and are causing actual damage.

Where's the "Expelled" project for exposing the right's war on science?
Posted by: Nomad on Aug. 25 2007,20:36

Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Aug. 25 2007,18:38)
Where's the "Expelled" project for exposing the right's war on science?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I'm sure there's an independent film out there somewhere that deals with the results of two Bush White House terms on the federal science agenda.  I've been seeing things like this showing up on a cable channel, possibly sundance.  There was one on the Patriot Act, there was one on the history of Karl Rove..  I can't recall seeing one specifically about science, but I suspect it's out there.

Truth be told, if anything I think the fundies are behind in the propaganda film business.  Perhaps the bible colleges need to start adding art courses.  They could start up their own independent movie circuit, I'd suggest somewhere in Florida as a good first venue.  Call it something like the Independent Thought Festival, where, of course, every movie would say exactly the same thing, rehashing the same arguments that were debunked decades ago.  It could be a whole new thing for them, supplementing the tedious pseudo-textbooks and occasional lawsuit fiasco.

I suspect Rupert Murdoch might be up for sponsoring something like that.
Posted by: Richardthughes on Aug. 26 2007,12:37

JAD shows up:

< http://expelledthemovie.com/blog/2007/08/21/bens-blog/#comment-634 >

Loves it so!
Posted by: Arden Chatfield on Aug. 26 2007,12:51

Wow, that's the most succinct, least weaselly statement of Javison's barmy views I've ever seen:

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
While there is no tangible evidence for a living God, it is unthinkable that one would even dream of denying a past presence for one or more such entities. Yet that is exactly what such compulsive atheists as P.Z. Myers, Christopher Hitchens and Richard Dawkins continue so arrogantly to proclaim. Several months ago I managed to introduce on RichardDawkins.net forum the following thread for discussion - God or Gods are dead but must have once existed. During about a week it attracted over 60,000 views after which I was summarily terminated along with my viewing rights to his forum. I achieved a similar honor at ARN and have been banned from all the major forums with the exception of ISCID's brainstorms where I am still allowed to hold forth. While I am a Creationist, I have rejected both the Darwinian and the Christian Fundamentalist camps, which apparently is the primary reason I am anathema to both. I welcome any comments at ?brainstorms, here, or anywhere else. I will probably not respond to anonymous posters. A person who cannot put his name to his words is a coward. The internet teems with such. It should never have been permitted.
A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable.
John A. Davison
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



(my boldfacing)

I do wish VMartin (of course his real full name) would tell us whether he agrees that God is dead and that 'there is no tangible evidence for a living God'. :p
Posted by: Richardthughes on Aug. 26 2007,15:04

Slimey Sal links to this in his posts:

< http://media.coralridge.org/customp....ucation >


No religion there, then..
Posted by: Henry J on Aug. 26 2007,18:28

So is Davison like a parahna to both current science and the ID/C movement?

Henry
Posted by: J-Dog on Aug. 26 2007,19:59

Quote (Henry J @ Aug. 26 2007,18:28)
So is Davison like a parahna to both current science and the ID/C movement?

Henry
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


As a matter of fact, Davison is so pathetic he could even be a pirahia to paranhas.
Posted by: Hermagoras on Aug. 26 2007,20:23

Quote (Richardthughes @ Aug. 26 2007,15:04)
Slimey Sal links to this in his posts:

< http://media.coralridge.org/customp....ucation >


No religion there, then..
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


D. James Kennedy (the link Sal provides) is one of the sleaziest, most dangerous figures of the American religious right.  He's not as famous as, say, James Dobson, but his show is viewed by many millions every week, and he knows a lot of DC insiders.  (He's been sidelined with a heart attack for some months, but his show goes on.)
Posted by: Richardthughes on Aug. 27 2007,14:47

New advert in the Tardshoppe window:

< http://www.evolutionnews.org/ >
Posted by: Richardthughes on Aug. 27 2007,22:13

Wes, I think JAD has a man crush:

< http://expelledthemovie.com/blog/2007/08/21/bens-blog/#comment-763 >

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
John A. Davison Says:

...It is hard to imagine dumber scientists than Richard Dawkins, Wesley Elsberry and P.Z. Myers, atheists all.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------




Meeeeeeoooooooow!

Edited so as not to give a forum to the bewildered.
Posted by: Henry J on Aug. 27 2007,22:48

Weren't phlogiston theory (chemistry) and ether theory (physics) mistakes due to insufficient data, rather than hoaxes?

Henry
Posted by: Wesley R. Elsberry on Aug. 27 2007,22:55

JAD's just as well-informed about current evolutionary biology as he is about < my personal beliefs >.
Posted by: Nerull on Aug. 28 2007,17:20

< http://scienceblogs.com/pharyng...._be.php >

Producer Mark Mathis apparently doesn't have the time to write a real reply to someone interviewed for the movie (PZ) or to Richard Dawkins, apparently.
Posted by: C.J.O'Brien on Aug. 28 2007,18:15

Kennedy was on Fresh Air - the radio interview show. I've never heard Terry Gross actually get rattled before (well, except for by Gene Simmons, but that was a little different).

He is frightening.
Posted by: Reciprocating Bill on Aug. 28 2007,21:40

Quote (C.J.O'Brien @ Aug. 28 2007,19:15)
Kennedy was on Fresh Air - the radio interview show. I've never heard Terry Gross actually get rattled before (well, except for by Gene Simmons, but that was a little different).

He is frightening.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Once he has recovered, let's lock James D. Kennedy and Gene Simmons (in full KISS regalia) in a room for an hour and see what comes out.

(Both do some pretty strange things with their tongues, neither very appealing.)
Posted by: guthrie on Aug. 29 2007,03:57

Quote (Henry J @ Aug. 27 2007,22:48)
Weren't phlogiston theory (chemistry) and ether theory (physics) mistakes due to insufficient data, rather than hoaxes?

Henry
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Yup.
Posted by: Richardthughes on Aug. 30 2007,14:09

JAD has a rare moment of unintentional clarity:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
The internet is specifically designed for insecure blowhards who can?t cut the mustard in the real world!

---------------------QUOTE-------------------




< http://expelledthemovie.com/blog/2007/08/21/bens-blog/#comment-902 >

TA comes up with this nugget:




---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Tom Aquines Says:

August 30th, 2007 at 10:22 am
If evolution were true, mothers would have three arms.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



< http://expelledthemovie.com/blog/2007/08/21/bens-blog/#comment-902 >
Posted by: Glen Davidson on Aug. 30 2007,15:42

Is anybody saving that thread anywhere?  Certainly by any scientific and philosophical sense, Ben is being slaughtered, while creos and IDiots merely parrot their long-destroyed claims, or far more commonly, whine that we point out their deficiencies in intellect and argumentation.

They're doing a good job at not censoring the discussion at this moment, but I can see how it all might conveniently disappear at some point in the future.

Glen D
Posted by: Glen Davidson on Aug. 31 2007,13:23

Wesley suggested on one blog that we archive our posts on Ben Stein's blog here. ?Because I don't trust it all to disappear some time in future, I'm going to take him up on it. ?The last post hadn't been approved at the time I copied it to here:

?

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Glen Davidson Says:

August 24th, 2007 at 12:32 pm
Perhaps the most telling reason why ID is not only useless but wrong, is that the evolutionary patterns among the eukaryotes are substantially different from those in the prokaryotes. Notably, we see the appearance much horizontal transfer among the asexual (but conjugating) bacteria and archaea, and almost solely vertical transfer among the sexual (it appears that all asexual eukaryotes had sexual progenitors) eukaryotes, regardless of what level of evolution is considered.

If the Grand Designer were in fact designing through evolution, why does it choose to produce the patterns expected from the differing mechanisms among eukaryotes and prokaryotes? Why virtually no horizontal transfers in the vertebrate lineage, why a difficult-to-sort out pattern of evolution in prokaryotes, due to their rampant promiscuity?

It looks as though known mechanisms might be responsible for the evolution of eukaryotes and the evolution of prokaryotes. It takes quite a designer to so carefully design evolution just as if it were the known and established mechanisms were operating over the course of earth?s history.

That?s what we?re ?censoring,? of course, a ?theory? that has utterly failed to explain anything at all, only claiming that the predictions of modern evolutionary theory ?can fit? with the lack of predictions about their ?designer?. Of course it can, because the IDists haven?t said anything substantial at all.

Why not simply resort to Last Thursdayism or Omphalos creationism? It?s the same reasoning, that all of the predictions of science are meaningless because an undefined and unconstrained designer could make it all look like it?s old, and that Darwinian mechanisms have operated in organisms through all time.

Glen D
[URL=http://tinyurl.com/2kxyc7
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



?

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Glen Davidson Says:

August 24th, 2007 at 1:16 pm
I commend Ben Stein for running a blog which allows all comments, presumably within certain reasonable rules of dialog. We?re really not used to this from pro-ID spokespersons.

And I do hope that Ben interviewed Dembski, whose own blog is the opposite of open, having expelled nearly all critics of ID. Indeed, this was done recently in the discussions about this movie on Uncommon Descent, Bill Dembski?s blog. See Dembski expel the inconvenient critic here:

< http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelli....-133745 >

You have to scroll up to see what ?Rocket? had said that ?merited? this censorship.

Meanwhile, Panda?s Thumb and Pharyngula remain open to virtually all comments, except for the truly trollish ones. It is rare that Paul Nelson and Sal Cordova avail themselves (the rest of the DI tribe do not at all, even if Dembski did in the past) of such openness, generally preferring (or so I have to assume) the secret conversations held by highly restricted net groups. I only know about these latter because a former member of one, David Heddle, tired of the limits of discussion enforced by that group, and complained publicly as he was ousted for disagreeing with them. Heddle?s a good source to look up on the web as a critic of ID censorship, who still sympathizes with cosmological ID (probably biological as well, but he doesn?t discuss it much, if ever).

Okay, so forums are open to the IDists, they just don?t use them much. Forums are closed to us (Dembski?s blog kicks us off piecemeal), so that ID doesn?t have to face sound criticisms.

Any chance that Stein will cover these important details, if not in the movie, at least in a future blog?

Glen D
[URL=http://tinyurl.com/2kxyc7
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



?

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Glen Davidson Says:

August 29th, 2007 at 11:19 am
Again, were Ben concerned over the real freedom issue, he?d be skewering IDists for censoring so many of their blogs. Dembski?s blog is well-known to be censored, and I linked to an example of this in #395.

ARN is the only ID forum I know about which is relatively uncensored. But, as any pro-science poster there knows, writing of the intellectual dishonesty of the IDists who post there is often censored, even though that?s the only remaining issue at stake once all of the ID ?arguments? have been properly answered (and I don?t go there any more because of it).

One of the potentially best places for ID to be discussed, at Behe?s forum on Amazon, has had the comments disabled. Anyone can see this here (at least at the time of this posting):

< http://www.amazon.com/Edge-Ev....&sr=8-1 >

Gee, you?d think that the ?censored IDists? would jump at the chance to provide all of the ?censored evidence? which supposedly is ?prohibited? by the big bad anti-religionists (you know, including the 40% or so of scientists who are religious). But no, Behe hides behind a wall that keeps out all of the questions that he can?t answer (like why the Designer made yet another prediction of evolution come true, malarial parasites doing what evolved organisms do, taking energy and matter in any manner possible, but being limited to derived and modified components to do so), the requests for evidence that he can?t supply.

Indeed, there is a lack of openness and freedom which is worth investigating. It?s being caused by the IDists, who have never been able to compete in a the legitimate evidence-driven discourse of science.

Glen D
[URL=http://tinyurl.com/2kxyc7
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



?

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Glen Davidson Says:

August 29th, 2007 at 3:21 pm
I?ve got some waiting time right now, so I figure why not go through most of Ben?s ?points??

?I?m glad you found this site, because I want to share with you my thoughts from time to time here about a subject that is very near and dear to me: freedom.?

Yes, freedom, the right to do meaningful science, and to be tried according to the evidence, not according to religious notions which fail empirical tests.

?EXPELLED: No Intelligence Allowed is a controversial, soon-to-be-released documentary that chronicles my confrontation with the widespread suppression and entrenched discrimination that is spreading in our institutions, laboratories and most importantly, in our classrooms, and that is doing irreparable harm to some of the world?s top scientists, educators, and thinkers.?

I fail to recognize, say, Behe and Dembski as top scientists or thinkers. And indeed, science is open to all, religious and irreligious alike, unlike ID which cannot be done by people who rely only upon empirical evidence.

What is more, the idea that anything is changing is utterly unsupported by any evidence. As far as can be determined, we?re operating according to the same rules utilized by Newton and by Einstein, such as Newton?s ?Rules for Reasoning in Philosophy? (which is what he called his science):

?RULE I.
We are to admit no more causes of natural things than such as are both true and sufficient to explain their appearances.

To this purpose the philosophers say that Nature does nothing in vain, and more is in vain when less will serve; for Nature is pleased with simplicity, and affects not the pomp of superfluous causes.

RULE II.
Therefore to the same natural effects we must, as far as possible, assign the same causes.

As to respiration in a man and in a beast; the descent of stones in Europe and in America; the light of our culinary fire and of the sun; the reflection of light in the earth, and in the planets.

RULE III.
The qualities of bodies, which admit neither intension nor remission of degrees, and which are found to belong to all bodies within the reach of our experiments, are to be esteemed the universal qualities of all bodies whatsoever.

For since the qualities of bodies are only known to us by experiments, we are to hold for universal all such as universally agree with experiments; and such as are not liable to diminution can never be quite taken away. We are certainly not to relinquish the evidence of experiments for the sake of dreams and vain fictions of our own devising; nor are we to recede from the analogy of Nature, which uses to be simple, and always consonant to itself. We no other way know the extension of bodies than by our senses, nor do these reach it in all bodies; but because we perceive extension in all that are sensible, therefore we ascribe it universally to all others also. That abundance of bodies are hard, we learn by experience; and because the hardness of the whole arises from the hardness of the parts, we therefore justly infer the hardness of the undivided particles not only of the bodies we feel but of all others. That all bodies are impenetrable, we gather not from reason, but from sensation. The bodies which we handle we find impenetrable, and thence conclude impenetrability to be an universal property of all bodies whatsoever. That all bodies are moveable, and endowed with certain powers (which we call the vires inerti?) of persevering in their motion, or in their rest we only infer from the like properties observed in the bodies which we have seen. The extension, hardness, impenetrability, mobility, and vis inerti? of the whole, result from the extension hardness, impenetrability, mobility, and vires inerti? of the parts; and thence we conclude the least particles of all bodies to be also all extended, and hard and impenetrable, and moveable, and endowed with their proper vires inerti?. And this is the foundation of all philosophy. Moreover, that the divided but contiguous particles of bodies may be separated from one another, is matter of observation; and, in the particles that remain undivided, our minds are able to distinguish yet lesser parts, as is mathematically demonstrated. But whether the parts so distinguished, and not yet divided, may, by the powers of Nature, be actually divided and separated from one another, we cannot certainly determine. Yet, had we the proof of but one experiment that any undivided particle, in breaking a hard and solid body, offered a division, we might by virtue of this rule conclude that the undivided as well as the divided particles may be divided and actually separated to infinity.

Lastly, if it universally appears, by experiments and astronomical observations, that all bodies about the earth gravitate towards the earth, and that in proportion to the quantity of matter which they severally contain, that the moon likewise, according to the quantity of its matter, gravitates towards the earth; that, on the other hand, our sea gravitates towards the moon; and all the planets mutually one towards another; and the comets in like manner towards the sun; we must, in consequence of this rule, universally allow that all bodies whatsoever are endowed with a principle of mutual gravitation. For the argument from the appearances concludes with more force for the universal gravitation of all bodies that for their impenetrability; of which, among those in the celestial regions, we have no experiments, nor any manner of observation. Not that I affirm gravity to be essential to bodies: by their vis insita I mean nothing but their vis inerti?. This is immutable. Their gravity is diminished as they recede from the earth.

RULE IV.
In experimental philosophy we are to look upon propositions collected by general induction from ph?nomena as accurately or very nearly true, notwithstanding any contrary hypotheses that may be imagined, till such time as other ph?nomena occur, by which they may either be made more accurate, or liable to exceptions.

This rule we must follow, that the argument of induction may not be evaded by hypotheses.

< http://members.tripod.com/~gravitee/rules.htm >

Tell me how we deviate from those rules, then I might start listening to your complaints.

?Freedom is not conferred by the state: as our founders said, and as Martin Luther King repeated, freedom is God-given.?

I?ll take that as metaphorically true. As such, why would anyone wish to take away our freedom by imposing ID into education and science, when it cannot withstand the scrutiny of science?

?A huge part of this freedom is freedom of inquiry.?

Absolutely, and Galileo was persecuted for inquiry. IDists wish also to impose a ?science? which cannot be engaged in by impassionate seekers of empirical knowledge.

?Freedom of inquiry is basic to human advancement. There would be no modern medicine?

Right, and modern medicine has been predicated in part in evolutionary theory, in order to interpret results from animal experiments, and to tweak medicines and trials for humans. IDists threaten modern medicine, particularly as it is increasingly reliant upon comparisons of our genome with the genomes of related organisms (and the only sensible interpretation is that undirected evolution is responsible for changes in genomes).

?no antibiotics?

Quite. Antibiotics work against bacteria and are relatively harmless to humans and related organisms. This fits in with the predictions of non-teleological evolution, while ID has no basis for any sort of predictions, not as formulated by present IDists (though they claim to predict function for junk DNA, while contradictorily claiming that vestigial organs fit in with ID?vestigial organs essentially are the result of a kind of junk DNA).

?no brain surgery, no Internet?

Right, brain surgery and the internet come from classical science which effectively adheres to causal mechanisms. Unlike ID.

?no air conditioning, no modern travel, no highways?

Oh, so science has been good to us. Then why bring unevidenced charges against it, as you do?

?no knowledge of the human body without freedom of inquiry.?

Absolutely. Science has had great success, while ID tells us that we ought to resort to pre-scientific assumptions which have never proved their worth.

?This includes the ability to inquire whether a higher power, a being greater than man, is involved with how the universe operates.?

Completely allowed. ?Naturalism? is only a convenience for theists, who wished to put their God beyond the realm of observation. Science itself cannot exclude God from possible inquiry, it?s just that nobody has ever found a way to observe God or God?s doings in the cosmos.

?This has always been basic to science. ALWAYS.?

OK, then what?s your complaint?

?Some of the greatest scientists of all time, including Galileo, Newton, Einstein, operated under the hypothesis that their work was to understand the principles and phenomena as designed by a creator.?

True for Galileo and Newton, not true of Einstein. Einstein?s ?God? was at most ?Deus sive Natura,? Spinoza?s conflation of nature and divinity which could never propose a ?designer God? or any such epistemological horror.

?Operating under that hypothesis, they discovered the most important laws of motion, gravity, thermodynamics, relativity, and even economics.?

Good grief, you really don?t know anything about them, do you? Thermodynamics was developed by other people, especially by Lord Kelvin (another theist, btw). And none of us fault Newton, Galileo, Einstein, Lord Kelvin (though Kelvin?s theology interfered with certain of his claims), for they did exactly the kind of science that modern scientists do today. Indeed, anyone who reads Darwin may recognize how he is trying to bring biology into the same sort of scientific regime in which Newton operated, the cause-and-effect analysis of the data.

?Now, I am sorry to say, freedom of inquiry in science is being suppressed.?

You should be sorry to say it, because it isn?t true. IDists mean to suppress inquiry, but so far have been thwarted in their attempts.

?Under a new anti-religious dogmatism, scientists and educators are not allowed to even think thoughts that involve an intelligent creator.?

No evidence or argumentation is brought forth to back up this banal claim. Indeed, Nature wrote an editorial praising Francis Collins? efforts to bridge the science/religion divide, which they suppose he is able to do precisely because he finds science to be compatible with God and Xianity (if hardly all forms of Xianity).

?Do you realize that some of the leading lights of ?anti-intelligent design? would not allow a scientist who merely believed in the possibility of an intelligent designer/creator to work for him? EVEN IF HE NEVER MENTIONED the possibility of intelligent design in the universe??

No, I didn?t know that, though it could be true. Even if it is true, it hardly backs up your charges against science as a whole.

?EVEN FOR HIS VERY THOUGHTS? HE WOULD BE BANNED.?

What do you mean ?banned?? I?m sure that all kinds of factors prevent scientists from working together, many much more trivial than religion. It hardly troubles me that some scientists would not like working with certain theists, nor that certain theists would not like working with certain atheists (PZ comes to mind as a possibility).

?In today?s world, at least in America, an Einstein or a Newton or a Galileo would probably not be allowed to receive grants to study or to publish his research.?

There is almost certainly no reason to think that today?s America differs substantially from the one that welcomed Einstein with open arms rather than sending him back to Nazi Germany. Einstein would be showered with grants and opportunities, were he alive today, and I?ll bet that even you know it.

Newton could run into trouble if he espoused alchemy, a pseudoscience like ID (though almost certainly more scientific than the latter, able to give rise to aspects of chemistry). That said, Newton could almost certainly be more open about his religious ideas than he was able to be in England in the 17th century.

And it?s laughable to see the religion-persecuted Galileo brought up by the pro-pseudoscience spokespeople as if he?d be troubled by the scientists of today. Galileo is substantially responsible for modern science, something that Heidegger points out with some disapproval (why don?t we try to force Heidegger?s perspective into the sciences along with ID? At least it?s not the result of religious dogma, no matter that it?s still tendentious nonsense).

?They cannot even mention the possibility that?as Newton or Galileo believed?these laws were created by God or a higher being.?

Of course they can, and some do. It behooves Stein to learn a little bit about science and how it is done.

?They could get fired, lose tenure, have their grants cut off.?

Unlikely, though I suppose it?s within the realm of possibilities (there are the prejudiced and the idiotic in science, just as anywhere).

?This can happen.?

Anything can happen. It remains for IDists to bring up evidence for any of their claims, for they haven?t produced sufficient evidence for their non-trivial charges and claims thus far.

?It has happened.?

I?d like to see the evidence. Not Sternberg, who appears to have shepherded junk science through the process meant to weed it out.

?EXPELLED: No Intelligence Allowed comes to theaters near you in February 2008. To learn more, check out my blog here often ? and explore the rest of our site for new developments, or to volunteer to help spread the word.?

You have not made a compelling case for anyone to ?learn? anything else from you. Just a bunch of claims made without evidence, claims that have been exhaustively answered on science blogs like Pharyngula and Panda?s Thumb, while the ID blogs remain mostly impervious to open discussion.

Glen D
[URL=http://tinyurl.com/2kxyc7
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



?

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Glen Davidson Says:

August 29th, 2007 at 3:27 pm
I?m still waiting for the ?censored evidence? that could answer the post I made a few days back. Here it again is for all of those who are just waiting to provide the evidence of ID:

?Glen Davidson Says:

August 24th, 2007 at 12:32 pm
Perhaps the most telling reason why ID is not only useless but wrong, is that the evolutionary patterns among the eukaryotes are substantially different from those in the prokaryotes. Notably, we see the appearance much horizontal transfer among the asexual (but conjugating) bacteria and archaea, and almost solely vertical transfer among the sexual (it appears that all asexual eukaryotes had sexual progenitors) eukaryotes, regardless of what level of evolution is considered.

If the Grand Designer were in fact designing through evolution, why does it choose to produce the patterns expected from the differing mechanisms among eukaryotes and prokaryotes? Why virtually no horizontal transfers in the vertebrate lineage, why a difficult-to-sort out pattern of evolution in prokaryotes, due to their rampant promiscuity?

It looks as though known mechanisms might be responsible for the evolution of eukaryotes and the evolution of prokaryotes. It takes quite a designer to so carefully design evolution just as if it were the known and established mechanisms were operating over the course of earth?s history.

That?s what we?re ?censoring,? of course, a ?theory? that has utterly failed to explain anything at all, only claiming that the predictions of modern evolutionary theory ?can fit? with the lack of predictions about their ?designer?. Of course it can, because the IDists haven?t said anything substantial at all.

Why not simply resort to Last Thursdayism or Omphalos creationism? It?s the same reasoning, that all of the predictions of science are meaningless because an undefined and unconstrained designer could make it all look like it?s old, and that Darwinian mechanisms have operated in organisms through all time.

Glen D
< http://tinyurl.com/2kxyc7? >

Now come on, on Panda?s Thumb I asked Paul Nelson to provide the answer, and he simply disappeared. I asked here, and all I got was someone who asked me what I actually know about evolution, when that post mentions several things that I know about evolution (I?ve never run into an IDist who could answer my questions forthrightly, which is surely evidence of something). Stein claims that ID is being stifled, when all I can see is a bunch of IDists who can?t answer reasonable questions.

Somehow I expect that nothing has changed in the past few days.

Glen D
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



And the one not yet posted as of this time:

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Glen Davidson Says: Your comment is awaiting moderation.

August 31st, 2007 at 12:51 pm
I?d guess the reason Ferris Bueller took the day off is that he?d already learned all that Ben Stein had to teach him: The answer to everything is, ?God did it?.

On the other hand, why wouldn?t Ben be expelled from a good school if the only answer he could give to every question (yes, I know, IDists implausibly accept science outside of biology, but they?re inconsistent when they demand that evidence actually be used to back up charges against them, rather than vague (and typically wrong) analogies) was ?God did it?? There?s actually more to investigation and learning than resorting to Behe?s puff of smoke every time the questions get hard.

Glen D
< http://tinyurl.com/2kxyc7 >


---------------------QUOTE-------------------



And one more added in edit, on 9-1-07



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Glen Davidson Says: Your comment is awaiting moderation.

September 1st, 2007 at 11:35 pm
By the way, I know that the pro-IDists, pro-creationists try to do what every conspiracy-theory monger does, which is to whine pitifully that we label nonsense as nonsense, and to shout ?conspiracy? instead of answering the questions.

It?s very thin gruel, and it won?t wash with anybody who understands what goes into making science. The very fact that such a sad little conspiracy theory is the best Stein and the producers is the best that they can do shows just how badly ID has failed in its stated goal of actually convincing scientists that magic (they didn?t call it magic, true, but they never demonstrated that it was anything else) is science.

Glen D
[URL=http://tinyurl.com/2kxyc7
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Added 9-5-07



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Let's set the scenario.  The times have changed, and it is the new improved future when the requirement of evidence for "doing science" and convicting criminals has at last been overturned.  ID thus reigns supreme, and the evidence of relatedness means nothing any more.

Now DNA means nothing in the courts.  Why should it?  God may very well have intervened to make a person's DNA fit with the DNA retrieved from the crime scene, or God may have changed the DNA from the crime scene to fit your DNA.  Are you trying to tell me that God couldn't do this?  That's exactly what IDists tell the "Darwinists" when the latter point to DNA evidence that agrees with non-teleological evolutionary predictions.

The Bulgarian medical personel are sent back to Lybia to be killed.  After all, it required phylogenetic evidence to show that they didn't infect the Lybian children with HIV.  And the IDists tell us that God intervenes in evolutionary processes, hence such evidence is worthless, now that ID is no longer "censored" by gov't and educational institutions.

Guys are happier now, because mere DNA evidence indicates nothing to the courts.  After all, if apparent DNA relatedness doesn't show that we're related to chimpanzees, why should DNA relatedness tell us anything about paternity?  God might have intervened in evolution, and who can tell God that he can't design in a way that makes it appear that the baby is related to one who is not the father?

And I am much happier, now that the computers which disappeared out of the warehouse and appeared in my basement cannot be traced either by serial number, nor to me.  Good grief, do you really think that God couldn't have changed the serial numbers, or even if God didn't do that, that God couldn't have rewarded me with the gift of all of those computers?  You don't know that they're either the same computers or that I actually took the computers, since God might have intervened (I never really had the computers, you know, it's an example).  After all, isn't this the sort of scientific explanation that is being "censored" by the evilutionists?

But I cheated a bit on that last one.  How?  Because a burglary has all of the marks of design.  That is to say, it is not irrational to say that God, the Designer, aliens, or leprachauns might have picked the locks, jammed the burglar alarms, and moved the computers from one place to another.  There is no good solid evidence for it, which means that in the ancient and dark past when evidence was required, nobody would believe me that God or space aliens put the computers in my basement.  But it isn't actually irrational to say that something that is designed, like a burglary, could have been done by a hypothetical rational agent like God or space aliens.  

Biology is different, and was recognized as different at least as far back as Aristotle.  Biology was physis to the ancient Greeks, while machines were made by techne.  This is why machines are made rationally, with straight lines, foresight, teleology, and according to the numbers, while plants and animals are quite something else, "physis" or nature.  Plants and animals do not have a purpose as such, nor are they at all designed as humans would design them, with "poor designs", and by adapting rather unlikely organs to serve new functions, such as taking legs and making wings out of them.

The descent of the testicles is hardly design, it is adaptation from what previously existed, abdominal testicles, and their descent leaves weak spots in the abdominal walls (the doctor says, "now cough").  The primate foveas and bird pectens partially get around the poor "design" of the eye which put blood vessels right in front of the light-sensing retinas, but these are only ways of dealing with inherited problems expected in evolution and easily avoided by intelligent designers.

Back to wings.  Think about it:  three different types of vertebrates evolved wings, and none of the earlier wings were used in order to make the later wings, nor were any designed from scratch.  Now the best designs would be from first principles, but humans might very well take wings from one example and adapt them to fit another purpose (as indeed the Wright brothers did).  What a sensible designer would never do would be to take legs and change them in order to make wings out of them.  It's just a ridiculous way of designing wings.

Pterosaurs had the first known vertebrate wings.  From what were they "designed"?  From thecodont legs.  What does evolutionary theory predict (in context) would give rise to pterosaur wings?  Thecodont legs.  By what sort of thinking would anyone expect a designer to make pterosaur wings out of thecodont legs?

The next wings were better, bird wings.  So were bird wings an improved version of pterosaur wings?  Why no, bird wings were made from dinosaur legs and dinosaur feathers.  What would evolutionary theory predict?  That bird wings would be made from dinosaur legs, and likely would utilize feathers, since they already existed and produce superb airfoils.  What would honest design principles predict?  Either wings from first principles, or at least from other wings.  Bird wings came from legs, hardly promising material, but the only organs available to evolve into wings.

At least bird wings were an improvement, however odd the route of "design" chosen by this exceeding odd "designer" that the IDists give to us.

Bat wings were a step back, however, because as evolution predicts, they were produced from an unlikely source, mammalian legs and no feathers.  The "designer" only copies legs to make vertebrate wings, not copying excellent vertebrate wings as one might expect of an actual thinking entity.  Indeed, bats sleep upside down in part because they are not as good fliers as birds are, and can gain airspeed by dropping down from their roosting positions to partly compensate for their poorer flying ability during takeoff.

Then there's the odd fact that design took four billion years or so, around the time expected for non-teleological evolution, rather than the at most a few years expected from known designers.  Funny that, everything comes out like non-teleological evolution predicts, and the scientists complain when Behe tells us that we should understand it all to have been designed.  The "designer" steps in to produce what non-teleological evolution would produce, but can't according to Behe's numbers?  Um, I'm sort of thinking, why?

However, this is Ben's dream world, in which evidence no longer counts for anything.  No more "censorship" by the evidence, every notion is the equal of another and should be taught as equals.  Don't teach the scientific method in biology, it's unfair to those who prefer theological claims to evidence-based claims.  This is the post-modern world of Michel Foucault, where the mere fact that Ben has to use a blog to say what he does, instead of having his theology taught in the schools, now counts as "censorship".  

And as so many bleat on this thread, surely the fact that we protest only demonstrates our censorious nature.  Yes, fighting to preserve the Enlightenment and the only bases we have for law, justice, science, and technological advancement, only indicates prejudice and bigotry.  Sure, but that's just us, we are not schooled in the ways of understanding preconceived theologies as superior to the ideas that gave us democracy and science.

Glen D
< http://tinyurl.com/2kxyc7
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



There, it's saved from the possibility of future religious suppression of my (and to a considerable degree, our) ideas.
Posted by: Bob O'H on Sep. 01 2007,02:16

Quote (Richardthughes @ Aug. 27 2007,14:47)
New advert in the Tardshoppe window:

< http://www.evolutionnews.org/ >
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Ha Ha Ha!

Look at the screen dumps of the questions.  In the first, it's cut off at the right.  The second is for question 77, and it's not cut off, so we can see most of one of the potential answers.  We can also therefore see the current score - 22%.

Bob
Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on Sep. 01 2007,12:47

Quote (Bob O'H @ Sep. 01 2007,02:16)
Quote (Richardthughes @ Aug. 27 2007,14:47)
New advert in the Tardshoppe window:

< http://www.evolutionnews.org/ >
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Ha Ha Ha!

Look at the screen dumps of the questions.  In the first, it's cut off at the right.  The second is for question 77, and it's not cut off, so we can see most of one of the potential answers.  We can also therefore see the current score - 22%.

Bob
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


That's just too good not to repost.And it might get "edited" :)< http://www.evolutionnews.org > gets 22%

Rehosted.
Posted by: Arden Chatfield on Sep. 01 2007,19:58

Meanwhile, Ben Stein is doing a < fine > job creating < buzz > for Expelled...
Posted by: Jim_Wynne on Sep. 02 2007,15:48

Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Sep. 01 2007,12:47)
Quote (Bob O'H @ Sep. 01 2007,02:16)
 
Quote (Richardthughes @ Aug. 27 2007,14:47)
New advert in the Tardshoppe window:

< http://www.evolutionnews.org/ >
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Ha Ha Ha!

Look at the screen dumps of the questions.  In the first, it's cut off at the right.  The second is for question 77, and it's not cut off, so we can see most of one of the potential answers.  We can also therefore see the current score - 22%.

Bob
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


That's just too good not to repost.And it might get "edited" :)< http://www.evolutionnews.org > gets 22%

Rehosted.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


From the "Physician, Heal Thyself" department:


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
In 1970 an estimated 65,000 black rhino could be found throughout sub-Saharan Africa, despite widespread poaching that targeted the animal for its ivory tusk...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Posted by: Richardthughes on Sep. 05 2007,16:00

Ben Stein manages what many have tried:

< http://expelledthemovie.com/blog/2007/08/21/bens-blog/#comment-1042 >



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
John A. Davison Says:

September 5th, 2007 at 6:41 am
I am obviously wasting my tme here. Adios.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Posted by: Rob on Sep. 05 2007,17:43

Quote (Richardthughes @ Sep. 05 2007,16:00)
Ben Stein manages what many have tried:

< http://expelledthemovie.com/blog/2007/08/21/bens-blog/#comment-1042 >

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
John A. Davison Says:

September 5th, 2007 at 6:41 am
I am obviously wasting my tme here. Adios.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Getting JAD to growl good-bye and head for the door in a huff is pretty easy.  Getting him to actually leave is another story.
Posted by: Lou FCD on Sep. 06 2007,02:50

Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Aug. 28 2007,21:40)
 
Quote (C.J.O'Brien @ Aug. 28 2007,19:15)
Kennedy was on Fresh Air - the radio interview show. I've never heard Terry Gross actually get rattled before (well, except for by Gene Simmons, but that was a little different).

He is frightening.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Once he has recovered, let's lock James D. Kennedy and Gene Simmons (in full KISS regalia) in a room for an hour and see what comes out.

(Both do some pretty strange things with their tongues, neither very appealing.)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


< Whoops.  Too late. >
Posted by: Glen Davidson on Sep. 06 2007,13:19

Just recording my (not posted at this time) response to Luskin on Stein's blog, in case they decide to censor them in the future:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
--Listing some pro-ID Rebuttal links?--

Yes, of course.  Why don't you answer the questions, particularly the ones asked of your DI propaganda?  You know very well that virtually everything the DI has put out has been answered, usually without the DI addressing the points made by those who responded.  Instead we get the same droning nonsense over and over again.

Why don't you answer the questions I raised in post #389 and in #1031?  I know why, it's because you have no good answers to them.

I'll link to a few of the responses made to the ID propaganda.

--This is a fascinating and incredibly long discussion, but I?m glad to see the interest that is being sparked by this movie. Some Darwinists try to pretend that ID proponents imagine the discrimination that in many cases has actively harmed their careers,--

Of course we don't deny that unevidenced religious bias presented as "science" isn't largely rejected by academia.  What we do deny is that it is anything that shouldn't be done, as astrologists, homeopathists, and alchemists are also rejected (well, usually).

--but I suspect it will be difficult to make such claims with a straight face after this movie comes out.--

Quit changing the subject.  The issue is the false claim that ID is being "censored", as Ben claims, which it is so very clearly not, as Casey's list of links shows.  That it isn't accepted by academia in lieu of its miserable showings on the evidentiary front, and its attempts to change science so that "it looks designed" counts as evidence, is only to the credit of academia (which is hardly perfect, certainly).

--Thanks to Ben Stein and others behind this movie for being willing to stand up for the persecuted minority:--

We're waiting for evidence of the "persecuted minority".  Not that the lack of evidence stops IDists from making outrageous claims.

--they will be viciously attacked for making this movie, as they already are being attacked.--

Yes, we are so mean for calling ID on all of its false claims, and Ben's unsupported charges.

--They should be commended for standing up for those whose voices are often silenced, even if that means they themselves become attacked for making the film.--

Why aren't you standing up for genuinely ignored science, instead of for long-falsified claims, and subsequent non-predictive claims which avoid falsification by denying the obvious predictions which an honest ID theory would make?

--Regarding this thread: internet Darwinists often think that by throwing up links to websites like TalkOrigins that they can win an argument. I?ve surveyed many of the links repeatedly posted on this list by such internet Darwinists and unfortunately there have been few posts to some of the many rebuttals to these arguments.--

They're rebuttals, not actual answers.

--I only have time for one post on this thread, but I?m going to post some pro-ID rebuttals to many of the links Darwinists have posted in this discussion:--

And why didn't you post the rebuttals to the DI's sorry nonsense?  You know very well that, quite unlike the charges of "censorship" suggest, that you have been amply answered.  And most importantly, your "rebuttals" are largely attacks on "Darwinism", not at all evidence for your theological intrusions into science.

1. A few Darwinists have posted a link to the TalkOrigins Common Descent FAQ at < http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/ > But there is a direct and comprehensive rebuttal to that FAQ at:

A Critique of Douglas Theobald?s ?29 Evidences for Macroevolution?
< http://www.trueorigin.org/theobald1a.asp >  --

It is not direct, nor comprehensive.  It's an attempt to nickel and dime the real predictions of evolution to death, without addressing the real predictions made by evolutionary theory.  Unfortunately, the "29 Evidences" could have been written more carefully (for there is no inherent prediction that all life should be related, and for other reasons), however it does get to the gist of evolutionary prediction, while the "response" merely cavils on minor aspects and mistakes by the "29 Evidences" authors.  I can hardly respond to the entire piece, but here's an example I picked up at the very beginning:

--Unless one inserts an additional premise imposing a limit on the degree to which descendants can vary (which would require specification of a mechanism of descent), the claim of common ancestry does not require that all of the descendants share one or more traits.  There is no logical reason why completely novel organisms could not arise in one or more lineages.--

Of course there is no logical reason why completely novel organisms could not arise in one or more lineages (which would be something like abiogenesis, only of too-complex organisms), it's because of what we've learned about evolutionary mechanisms that insists that this cannot happen.  The author is trying to make a point that is entirely specious in the overall theory of evolution, which is based upon many limiting factors.  Thus his argument here is entirely bogus, except as a cheap debating tactic.

Here's a really quite good response to some of the above link's many claims, one that I think is really a better source than "29 Evidences" ever was:

< http://www.botany.wisc.edu/courses....nes.ppt >

Note in particular how it mentions how desert grasses have the same photosynthetic machinery as do grasses in cool moist areas do, NOT the better photosynthetic mechanisms of cacti.  One would predict this from known evolutionary mechanisms (or at least, that whatever desert grasses have would not be the same as those of cacti, and that convergent evolution would be evident from any recent evolutionary convergences), and one would naturally predict a designer to design desert grasses for their environments, not to mimic grasses in cool wet regions (IDists don't predict this, solely because they'd be immediately falsified).

And here's another link that covers only one aspect of where Casey's linked site goes so very wrong:

< http://wiki.cotch.net/index.p....uscles_ >

--Many of the individuals arguments made in the TalkOrigins Common Descent FAQ are rebutted in other locations, such as these links:

Fossils:

Punctuated Equilibrium and Patterns from the Fossil Record
< http://www.ideacenter.org/contentmgr/showdetails.php/id/1232 >  --

As usual, Casey only attacks evolutionary theory, he doesn't support design or creation at all.  Furthermore, he's faulting evolution over punctuated equilibrium, when the real proponents of punctuated equilibrium recognize the familiar evidences of non-teleological evolution to be compelling.  Casey writes:

--Another study, "Evolutionary Explosions and the Phylogenetic Fuse," found a bird (as well as a mammal) "Early Tertiary 'explosion'" because many bird and mammal groups appear in a short time period lacking immediately recognizable ancestral forms.--

This appears to be a deliberate, or very ignorant, confusion of what is meant by "explosion" in those contexts.  Not even the "Cambrian Explosion" is as Casey characterizes it, but I'll concede that it's still an issue, no matter that evolution during the Cambrian is evident and chordates do not appear at the beginning.  Birds and mammals do radiate rapidly at times, particularly after the Cretaceous, but that's all we see, rapid evolution.  We do not see novelty appearing, as one might expect from ID.

--34 Finally, others have called the origin of our own genus Homo, "a genetic revolution"35 where "no australopithecine [ape] species is obviously transitional"35 leading one commentator to call it, like others called the Cambrian Explosion, a "big bang theory" of human evolution.--

Again the twisting of what is meant by "explosion" there.  Certainly the evolution of H. sapiens from H. erectus is well accepted by scientists, and australopithecines have no obvious reason to exist at all except as part of a hominin adaptive radiation, whether or not any are our direct ancestor.  Indeed, why do IDists suppose that australopithecines, were "designed", only to go extinct?  It's an answer that Casey, like the others, never gives to us.

--36 While these papers appeal to adapative radiation, niche-filling, and "genetic revolutions" as the mechanisms for these explosions, the pattern of rapid appearance of diverse morphologies without transitions remains an important pattern in the fossil record.

Conclusion:
Out of thousands of species in the fossil record, only a few are claimed to be transitional forms. This lack of transitional forms poses, as Darwin said, "the most obvious and gravest objection which can be urged against [evolutionary] theory."1 And, at least to this point, it appears to be an objection that is unsolved by evolutionists. --

Casey seems not even to know what punctuated equilibrium is meant to answer, which is the problem of speciation.  There are in fact very many transitionals identified in the fossil record (he's just wrong about that), and all vertebrate classes have at least one intermediate form extant in the fossil record.

As far as Casey's quote mining of Darwin goes, Darwin went on from the "gravest objection" to give a number of possible reasons why intermediates to the species were not found (as it was at that time, not at the present).  

More importantly, Casey has utterly failed to explain why transitional fossils like Archaeopteryx are in fact "poorly designed" compared to modern birds, just as non-teleological evolutionary theory predicts (that's the short version of how we even know that they are transitional), and ID would not.

--Human Origins and Intelligent Design
< http://www.ideacenter.org/contentmgr/showdetails.php/id/1146 >  --

Here's a link that partly addresses Casey's claims in the above link:

< http://www.pandasthumb.org/archives/2006/09/meet_selam.html >

--The Origin of Biological Information and the Higher Taxonomic Categories < http://www.discovery.org/scripts....Science >  --

Answered here:  
< http://www.pandasthumb.org/archives/2004/08/meyers_hopeless_1.html >


Junk-DNA:
--Intelligent Design and the Death of the ?Junk-DNA? Neo-Darwinian Paradigm
< http://www.ideacenter.org/contentmgr/showdetails.php/id/1437 >  --

Such "ignorant yammerings" (as Matzke calls them in the link) are routed here:

< http://www.pandasthumb.org/archives/2007/06/junk_dna_junk_s.html >

--Design vs. Descent: A Contest of Predictions
< http://www.ideacenter.org/contentmgr/showdetails.php/id/846 >  --

A short, pithy response to such meandering nonsense is found here:

< http://www.pandasthumb.org/archive....t-95724 >

And frankly, that's enough.  For anyone with an honest desire to learn, those alone answer so much of what IDists claim, and show up how pathetic their little apologetics pieces actually are.  More importantly, I've shown by finding responses to almost every one of Casey's links on the web that the responses are out there, so that anyone can find them.  Casey just doesn't acknowledged that, far from being censored, ID has been exposed for the sham that it is, and IDists simply link the same quote mining and worthless argumentation no matter how many times they have been answered.  

And I repeat that virtually everything written by the DI and Casey merely attacks current science, it rarely even purports to produce any evidence for ID, and never comes close to presenting any legitimate evidence that organisms have been designed.  Indeed, if they had that, they'd have answered the two posts that I pointed out have gone begging for answers from the IDists, post #389 and post #1031.  They have no answers, so that even if #1031 was posted after Casey had written the comment that I have responded to here, it's safe to say that it hasn't been answered properly and won't be merely because IDists have no answers, not because of any "censorship".

I'll only respond further to Casey's closing paragraph:

--I do not have time to make any further posts on this blog thread--


And still you've written dozens, if not more, posts on the internet which have failed to give any evidence for ID.  I'd think you could answer our questions, if you had any answers to our questions.

--but I hope that some of these links are helpful to you all in your discussions.--

They are not.  I posted several which are helpful, and which are generally written by actual scientists, not lawyers like Luskin (he does have degrees in earth science, reportedly, not, however, in biology).

--Thanks and I hope all will do their best to keep the discussion here friendly and civil!--

Yes, IDists always want us to "be civil" as they attack science with the most worthless bilge, quote mines, and frequent false claims.  We have answered them, they continue to avoid telling us how ID can account for different patterns of evolution in prokaryotes vs. those in eukaryotes, and why vertebrate wings are modifications of legs, not designs from first principles or even modifications of good wings (posts #389 & #1031 respectively).  Furthermore, they almost always do nothing but attack science, while refusing to make even the obvious design predictions expected (because they know that they'd fail), and never providing any evidence of rational thought behind the "designs" of organisms.  Rational thought is more than a little evident in nearly all of human creations, and would be expected from alien designs as well (if aliens do not produce rational signals and tools, we likely could never detect their designs).  It's God (or "the designer") alone which is supposed to design without anything actually appearing to be designed, or to be techne, as the Greeks called it.

Glen D
< http://tinyurl.com/2kxyc7
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Posted by: J-Dog on Sep. 06 2007,13:20

Good post Glen
Posted by: Glen Davidson on Sep. 07 2007,14:31

Thanks, J-Dog.

I don't know why posts aren't appearing in any timely fashion, but it makes me more certain that I ought to save my posts here.  I wrote another one today, which at least is supposed to be awaiting moderation.  It goes thusly:

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I'm going to try to post, though it doesn't seem that posts are going through now.

Here's Kevin Miller, one of the writers of "Expelled":

--When I say ID is friendly to belief in God in a way that classical Darwinism is not, what I mean is Darwinism literally has no need for the God hypothesis. According to Darwinists like Richard Dawkins, everything can be explained purely by natural forces--including the origin of information, consciousness, and life itself. If you want to bring God into the picture, that is a belief that you are adding to science. It is not required by the science itself, and many Neo-Darwinists believe it gets in the way of science. ID, on the other hand, suggests that rather than something tacked onto one's interpretation of science, God--or whoever you believe to be the Intelligent Designer--is literally at the heart of nature itself, as expressed through information like the genetic code. Therefore, the search for potential signs of intelligence in nature becomes a legitimate scientific enterprise rather than a pseudo-scientific one. IDers are essentially asking the same question as the Darwinists: How did the information get there? What separates them from the Darwinists is that they are willing to consider intelligence as one possible cause. This is not to deny the power of mechanisms like random mutation and natural selection. All the IDers are saying is that such forces are simply inadequate to explain the origin and development of life. Once again, it is not just the IDers who are questioning this. There is huge debate amongst the Darwinists themselves as to which mechanisms are most important and at what level (group, individual, molecular) they operate.--

< http://ArtsAndFaith.com/index.p....=156729 >

This tells us all that we need to know about both ID and about the movie.  What Miller doesn't know is that science doesn't presuppose entities like God or the wink-wink nudge-nudge "Designer", it looks for the best hypothesis.  He is trying to tell us that ID is science because it has decided already that God (or "the Designer") is at the heart of nature, so instead of simply searching for the best explanation, ID searches for "potential signs of intelligence in nature".  

That is not science, that's apologetics.  This is what Stein is accusing "Big Science" of suppressing, which of course it is suppressing in the realm of science, for the very good reason that insinuating religious presuppositions about God's role in nature into science is a perversion of the search for explanations in which science engages.  It is exactly the kind of perverse injection of religion into science that Galileo opposed, and for which he was persecuted.  I guess Stein and the rest just want to bring back the good old days of harming those who won't accept religion as the adjudicator of science.

Miller is admitting that his religious presuppositions are what drive ID and the whine in the movie, and, for anyone who believes in the integrity of science, he provides the clinching case against both ID and the movie's false charges of suppression (that is, I don't deny its suppression in science, I deny that there is anything illegitimate about keeping pseudoscience out of science).

It should (but doesn't) go without saying that scientists are not unwilling to consider that intelligence could play a role in the development of life.  The fact that there is no evidence for this intelligence in evolutionary processes is why the null hypothesis (that intelligence is not involved, save through modern human manipulations) is the working hypothesis in science, and will be up until the point where evidence of intelligence guiding evolution is produced by someone (it is unlikely that IDists could produce such evidence, even were it to exist, for they do almost no science--indicative of how little even they think of ID as actual science).  It is grossly unfair to claim that we won't consider intelligence, since we do in any number of cases, and our complaint against ID is that it merely assumes intelligence without any evidence, a fact that Miller tacitly concedes in the excerpt above.

ID is nothing but religious apologetics, a fact that many IDists deny, but one that Miller and Stein's movie only demonstrate is the case.  Science doesn't simply assume that God is directing hurricanes and earthquakes to cause death and destruction to humanity, nor does it simply assume that God designed malarial parasites to effectively sicken and kill humans like Behe suggests that he did.  

Science looks at the evidence, and sees that malaria organisms (Plasmodium falciparum) show evidence of having non-teleologically evolved, both in the manner of its uncaring attacks on humans and in its genomic information, and thus it accepts that it evolved non-teleologically under the present evidence.  Miller and the other IDists have to assume that malaria was designed, then they have to insist that undesign-like features, such as its genome evolved along the constraints predicted by evolutionary theory, are, contrary to all expectations, the result of design.  

This they do because from the start they assumed that God was central to the development of life, which they do not similarly assume for the development of hurricanes.  Why do they suppose that we ought to accept the one assumption without any evidence, while not accepting the other one, due to its lack of evidence?

Glen D
[URL=http://tinyurl.com/2kxyc7
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



This post added on 9-9-07

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
--Glenn Davidson:

I must respecfully challenge your contention that creation science and intelligent design are equivalent.--

Considering that I never made that contention here, I have no idea why you're trying to pin me with it.  The fact is that one may treat the various types of creationism differently, or one may treat them as the same, much as IDists do whenever it is convenient for them to do so.

As Deleuze notes, repetition involves difference.  That's why I usually speak of IDists and creationists if I'm discussing both, no matter how similar the two are.  That some will always include a "C" with ID is also understandable (that is, they write "IDC" rather than "ID"), as in "Intelligent Design Creationism".  It hardly matters, of course, whether one drags out creation over 4 billion years or so, the essence is still creation.  It's an absurd concept that "design" would require as long a time as non-teleological evolution is thought to do, but there's nothing new about religious apologists being absurd.

--To better appreciate the differences, I submit to you an interesting historical perspective of both movements.--

Actually, the history is that Paley was an inspiration both to IDists of various stripes since his time, including young earth creationists (YECs).  "Design" is an old YEC claim, and most of Behe's examples were used before Darwin's Black Box by creationists.  Look up "cdesign proponentsists" on the web for the cavalier manner in which one "textbook" was turned from a creationist one into a "design proponent" text.

--Mankind has always been interested in investigating the relationship between God and nature.--

Or the gods and nature, or in how the spirits of nature themselves operate (like the Greek river gods).  It's interesting how readily the "scientific" intelligent design "theorists" allow their theologies to creep into their language.

--At times, philosophy defined the debate; at other times, science seemed to have the upper hand.--

Get real.  Modern science began with, say, Galileo, or more certainly with Newton.  Science has mostly had the upper hand since then, although IDists are very unhappy about actually applying scientific standards to biology.  Hence they wish to change it to accept unevidenced flim-flam, the most beautiful example being when Behe noted on the stand at Dover that astrology would be science under his definition (he seems to have meant only until it was found not to produce results, but it hardly matters, since he there was equating anthropocentric "hypotheses" and actual science hypothesization).

--What has always mattered in this discussion is in which direction the investigation proceeds.--

What has always mattered is how the investigation begins, whether with evidence and minimal biases, or with theistic prejudices.  Kevin Miller wants us to believe that the latter is as legitimate a starting place as the former.  I bet he wouldn't want to be tried for a crime under similar prejudices.

--Does it move forward, that is, does it assume something about God and then interpret nature in that context;--

Assuming something about God is not moving forward.  It is moving backward to the time when science was checked by theology.

--or does it move backward, that is, does it observe something interesting in nature and then speculate about how that might have come to be?--

No, it hypothesizes about how something came to be, and it uses scientific knowledge to do so.  That is, normal causal knowledge is used in any legitimate science.  What Stein, Kevin Miller, and apparently you, want to do is to believe in the kind of "Cause" that Aquinas believed in, something that is only speculation, not the result of continued investigation like causes in classical science happens to be.

--If the investigation moves forward, as does CD, it is faith based; if it moves backward, as does ID, it is empirically based.--

Here you show how very little you know about the practice of science.  Speculation is for metaphysics and theology.  Good solid evidence understood according to normal causality is how science proceeds.  ID only tries to force God into the picture because it is theistic metaphysics.  You can't honestly move from the evidence of continued inheritance with modification with no identifiable breaks into the theistic belief in "design".  If the IDists were honest they'd admit that there is nothing similar between known design practices and evolved characteristics, even if sometimes the results can have a functional equivalence and overall similarities (but the details are what always differentiate evolutionary products and design, hence Dembski's snort at our "pathetic level of detail" which he refuses to engage in, when all of science is about the "details").

But then you seem not to be discussing science, only claiming that religious ID operates differently from religious creationism.  I really don't care, of course, since neither one is doing honest science.

--Each approach has a pedigree that goes back over two thousand years.--

The fact is that the two are doing much the same thing, utilizing their prior beliefs to try to cram themselves into science.  Of course ID wants to claim that it's making valid inferences from the evidence, but it quite obviously is not.  Both intend to bring "science" into accordance with theology and the Bible, of course, the main difference being that creationism tends toward literalism, ID tends more toward medieval metaphysics.

--We notice the forward approach, in Tertullian, Augustine, Bonaventure, and Anselm.--

The whole point of Anselm's ontological proof is to show that God exists sans prior belief in revelation.  So you're hardly characterizing him properly there.  Augustine seems to go back and forth between your "forward approach" and the supposedly different "backward approach".  And he might as well, since modern philosophy and science understand both "directions" to be impossibly dependent upon beliefs which "deconstruct" upon questioning.

--Augustine described it best with the phrase, “faith seeking understanding.” In each case, the investigation is faith based.--

Augustine was not particularly a literalist, and often brought "faith" ideas into line with the evidence as he understood it.  Furthermore, he himself was something of a philosopher who used more than just faith to make his arguments.  Famously, Descartes' "cogito ergo sum" appears to be a reformulation of Augustine's anti-skepticism argument, and from they way that he uses it, one guesses that it was a familiar anti-skeptical argument of his day.

--By contrast, we discover the “backward” orientation in Aristotle,--

You have no business putting Aristotle in with Aquinas and Paley.  Aristotle was nothing like an IDist, or a faith-based thinker like Aquinas and Paley.  He was what philosophers often call "logocentric," if not as much as Plato was.  Nevertheless, he is sometimes called the "first scientist", for he did use empirical data for some of his conclusions, most notably biological conclusions.

--Aquinas, Paley, and others.--

These guys are apologists.  Nothing strikingly wrong with that, especially considering Aquinas's excellent thought.  Nevertheless, if Aristotle was at least somewhat like a modern scientist, Aquinas is solidly metaphysical and a non-scientist, while Paley is just a Reverend trying to come up with evidence that "proves" his faith.  There is nothing new about the fact that Paley's "argument" wasn't based on literalism, just as ID is not, but it relies wholly upon an unevidenced concept, God, to "explain" without the rigor of scientific causality.

--Aristotle’s argument, which begins with “motion in nature” and reasons BACK to a “prime mover,” is obviously empirically based.--

It obviously is not empirically based.  Rather than noting motions in the heavens (which seems to be where his "god" is most being used to "explain motion") and acknowledging that he did not have an explanation for them under his "physics," he just invented a God "thinking himself" which supposedly produced the motions.  It isn't for nothing that such a speculation came in the book now called "Metaphysics," for that work is largely involved in non-empirical speculations.  It is a thoughtful and intelligent work, nothing like ID's attempts to confuse the issues and to have God producing exactly the sorts of patterns of evolution among prokaryotes and among eukaryotes that would accrue through the mechanisms we see affecting each respectively, however it is not an empirical approach at all.

--Obviously, Barbara Forrest and Judge Jones III and others miss the point. CS and ID are simply the latest manifestations of each tradition.--

Obviously they do not miss the main point, which is that although ID is based more in medieval metaphysics and creationism is based more upon a kind of Biblical literalism, both are nothing other than apologetics.  If they had a bit more philosophical knowledge they might at least differentiate between ID and creationism somewhat better, for there are some actual differences (Catholics who reject science tend more toward medieval metaphysics and ID, Protestants who reject science tend more toward Bible literalism).

--I therefore ask you to reconsider your point that the the two are synomymous,--

I ask you to read what I write better than you have, for I did not claim that the two are synonymous.  They're equally non-scientific, though, which I no doubt did imply or state at some point.  Perhaps that is why you merely assumed that I made the two out to be synonymous.

--either theoretically or pragmatically.--

What matters in this debate is that neither one is science, and both are religious apologetics.  Science is what should be taught in science classes, not religion.

Glen D
[URL=http://tinyurl.com/2kxyc7
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



This, on 9-10-07



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
--Glen Davidson, rather than respond to all your points (many of which I would challenge),--

You don't challenge them.  More importantly, you haven't the knowledge to do so, but deny like IDists normally do.

--I will try to narrow the focus even more. You tend to impose religious concepts in places where they don’t belong.--

Sorry, I'm the one trying to keep religion out of where it doesn't belong.  Your confusions are inadequate to keep religious presuppositions in their place.  Or more to the point, in many hands they seem designed to deliberately confuse the issues.

--Aristotle did not mention a “prime mover” to inject God into the discussion.--

Here you go in your strawman attack mode again.  I wrote:

--Rather than noting motions in the heavens (which seems to be where his “god” is most being used to “explain motion”) and acknowledging that he did not have an explanation for them under his “physics,” he just invented a God “thinking himself” which supposedly produced the motions. It isn’t for nothing that such a speculation came in the book now called “Metaphysics,” for that work is largely involved in non-empirical speculations. --

I didn't begin to say that Aristotle did "mention a 'prime mover' to inject God into the discussion," which false charge is as incorrect as your many other errors.  I wrote, essentially, that he had no explanation, so he invented one.  That's what religions have often done.

--His point was similar to Aquinas’. Everything in nature that moves must be moved by something else.--

Well gee, I suppose it was similar to Aquinas' "proof of God," since Aquinas' "proof" almost certainly comes ultimately from Aristotle.  

Importantly, everything in nature that moves must not in fact be moved by something else.  This gets back the metaphysics of Aristotle, for indeed he speculated where he had no empirical evidence.  

--In his judgment, that process can not go on forever—it must stop at the point of a “prime mover.” Aquinas made the same point, popularizing the term “inifinite regress,” meaning that the number of prior causes must be finite and finally culminate in a causeless cause. In that context, they were not beginning with faith, they were beginning with observation.--

I wonder why those ignorant of philosophy think they have something to tell those of us who are adept in philosophy.  I know very well what Aristotle, and Aquinas following him, said.  My point was that there is nothing empirical in their "solutions," unlike Galileo's and Newton's physics, and you yammer on about the rationale of a non-empirical "physics" and metaphysics which existed prior to Galileo.

Can't you at least see why we oppose the insistence of the pseudoscientists that we adopt the Aristotelian nonsense that was used (in part) to persecute Galileo?  That's what ID is, where it isn't actually the same as creationism, an attempt to base their "science" on the mistaken presuppositions of Aristotle and medieval scholastics.  

Indeed, Dembski quite directly claims that we need to consider the other "causes" listed by Aristotle (material, formal, and final), along with his "efficient cause" (which really wasn't the same as causation today, though it at least is related to it).  Well we largely gave up the others because they don't work in science, and we're not impressed with the claims made by Aristotle which have been refuted by modern science.  And ID has little else, and nothing worthwhile.

--Obviously, that doesn’t mean that Aristotle and Aquinas never thought about God, it means that they were looking for a method that would dramatize the power of reason without presuming God’s existence.--

Except that they had indelibly in their minds the "fact" of God's existence, though certainly Aristotle was willing to play around with this "fact".  And they operated with metaphysics which assumed top-down imposition of form and motion, while modern science understands it, more or less, bottom up (I don't like speaking of modern science as "bottom up", but compared to the hierarchical IDist claims, and in its metaphysical language, that's the closest I can come to a comparison).  That's why the great majority of Aristotle's work is not science, no matter that he had some of the elements of science working even in his unworkable "physics" (and science almost certainly benefited by Aquinas' incorporation of Aristotelian ideas into Western thought, until Aristotle became a millstone around Galileo's neck).

--One may or may not have religious motives for undertaking such an investigation, but the motive does not define the process.--

Another strawman from Stephen.  I have repeatedly noted that religious motives needn't define the process, as in Galileo, Einstein, Newton, and Lord Kelvin (though both Newton and Kelvin left science in some of their claims).  It's the IDists, not religious people in general, who object to the science which developed to its full flowering within Christendom (with help from ancient pagans and contemporary Jews and Muslims, and almost certainly others as well) who have to force their unwarranted presuppositions into science because they are unwilling to accept the tests of their ideas that science provides.

--So why do I fuss about that?--

No doubt because you'd rather attack a strawman than what I actually wrote, and because you have nothing with which to legitimately argue for ID.

--Why do I narrow the topic to so sharp a point?--

I see nothing sharp or on-point in your treatment of the subject.  Learn some philosophy, at least, if you're unwilling to learn science.

--Because the major objection to intelligent design is the false assertion that THE PROCESS begins with presupposition (faith) and therefore cannot possibly be science.--

Good grief, the major objection to intelligent design is that it has absolutely no sound evidence in favor of it.  I know that you're just making up stuff as you go along, Stephen, but you'd look a whole lot more competent if you'd learn what's at stake.

And the fact that theistic assumptions are necessary in order to arrive at "God" or "the Designer" is another grave objection, one that you seem not even to understand how to potentially address.

--One either begins with presupposition or one begins with observation.--

No, one does not.  One begins with the way that one understands the world (Kant), and one begins with observation (which actually shape Kantian "categories" and the like).  Even presuppositions begin with observations, however they do often intrude into further observation, as is the case with ID.

--Intelligent design begins with observation.--

ID begins with a prejudice, the sort of animistic/typological sense that the world must operate like humans do (probably unavoidable in early humans, for what other processes could they know?).  There are observations involved (gee, it's pretty complicated, and other equally mindless ID tripe), but first and foremost ID begins with a metaphysics which is illegitimate in science and in modern philosophy (possibly not in some dungeons of analytic philosophy (think of Saul Kripke), but certainly in mainstream analytic and continental philosophy).

--If you will not concede anything else, surely you will concede that.--

Sure, I studied philosphy in order to concede that metaphysics is due to observation.  Ha.  

What I can say is that you're pretty far from a good understanding of metaphysics, philosophy, or science.  ID cannot reach the "conclusion" that there was a "designer" without first putting their God into their premises (or, one might say, only if they fail to disabuse themselves of their anthropocentric prejudices, since that's from where those premises come).  It's all top-down metaphysics, assertion that DNA information can only come from mind, and denial of the evidence of derivation of all life via the processes operating at present.  

If you knew anything about the philosophy you invoke, Stephen, you'd know that I'd never concede that ID begins with observation, for I have studied both the history of philosophy and those who have analyzed the presuppositions of the metaphysicians and logocentrists.  One does not concede a falsehood, above all.

Glen D
[URL=http://tinyurl.com/2kxyc7
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Another on 9-11-07



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Glen Davidson Says: Your comment is awaiting moderation.

September 11th, 2007 at 12:24 pm
–Glen Davidson, actually, I made a typo on post 1118. What I meant was that you missed my point, not that you didn’t read the post or respond in a timely manner. So, calm down.–

I hadn’t responded to you yet, so how could I have missed your point?

–You say that you haven’t conflated CS with ID, yet you continue to claim that ID, in effect, bootlegs religion into its methodology which is what CS does–

I don’t conflate CS with ID, but I also don’t accept your unevidenced assertion that the difference is that ID isn’t religious. In fact, all of the evidence is that ID is overwhelmingly religious, from it’s “big tent” strategy and its refusal to address the scientific question of the age of the earth (physicist Heddle had a falling out with IDists over that, because he knows that the age of the earth is extremely important in science, and for him, especially astronomy), to the religious statements known from most of its prominent proponents. Dembski famously stated that, “Dembski: “Intelligent design is just the Logos theology of John’s Gospel restated in the idiom of information theory,” Touchstone Magazine. Volume 12, Issue4: July/August, 1999? (my source for this was Wikipedia, article “Intelligent Design”).

I would not say that one absolutely has to be religious in order to take up the most minimal tenets of ID. They’d be wrong to do so, likely basing their acceptance of it on teleological biases and incredulity at self-organizing principles, but they wouldn’t have to be exactly religious (arguably, however, they’d be using a metaphysics which is in essence religious, without their recognizing this). What matters is that the movement, and particularly the attempts to force ID into schools and to censor science and its standards, is heavily based in religion and done for the sake of religion.

–So I don’t get why you think I am putting words in your mouth.–

That’s because there is so much that you don’t get. You have your unquestioned “reasons” why ID isn’t the same as creationism, and when someone disagrees with you and tells you how they really do differ, you simply don’t grasp the reasons I have. That is to say, like so many pro-IDists, you really don’t know what makes up philosophy and science, and the various ways that we have of addressing matters, and instead you rely on the narrow claims of IDists and other religionists to set the “standard”.

It’s precisely such narrowness that we are trying to prevent. And no, of course we’re not trying to force the teaching of evolution in the churches, for it is the open society that negates Ben Stein’s charges. The problem is that Ben and the rest wish to intrude their non-standards into another sector of society that allows the reality-based community scope for action, thereby compromising our freedoms to associate and to act as we wish.

Indeed, if that happens it will be the worst for the religious, for there will no longer be any reason why the churches shouldn’t be forced to teach evolution or anything else that society at large might wish everyone to learn.

–If one begins with presupposition (faith, bias, religion etc), one is doing creation science; if one begins with observation and draws inferences from data, one is doing ID.–

Again, Dembski said, “Intelligent design is just the Logos theology of John’s Gospel restated in the idiom of information theory.”

–I say ID begins with observation; you (seem) to say it begins with a religious presuppoition.–

How about this, why don’t you tell me what observation leads one to God, or to “the Designer”. I mentioned that the major problem we have with ID is not that it is religious, but that it has no sound evidence in favor of it. That it begins with religion is a problem, but if by strange chance ID (an earlier ID, one that wasn’t so intent on refusing to make inherent predictions) happened to make the right predictions predicated on what we know about design, it would likely be accepted as science (depends upon the circumstances).

That is to say, we keep asking for meaningful observations from IDists, and we never receive any (other than the equivalents of “it looks designed” or the false dichotomy of “evolution isn’t up to the task, hence design is true”—we want evidence for ID, for, even if modern evolutionary failed, there’s no apparent reason why ID would explain anything at all). So yes, of course I’m saying that ID doesn’t begin with observation, that’s essentially the whole case against ID as any kind of science, even as a failed science. We ask for observational data which would point to design (like rational layouts of organisms and systems, instead of the evolved systems and organisms that we see). We ask and ask and ask, and we never receive it. If ID began with observation (and we do mean using the standard observational practices of science and forensics), I’m sure that we’d either have some of the evidence for ID that we have requested, or an admission on the part of IDists that ID isn’t science.

–Am I misreading your position or connecting dots that aren’t there?–

There isn’t any question that I state and have alwasy stated that ID doesn’t begin with observation. IDists no doubt often think that they do, however their unquestioned assumptions and unquestioned human predilections for presupposing purpose and design that isn’t there, precede them.

Glen D
< http://tinyurl.com/2kxyc7
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Posted by: Glen Davidson on Sep. 11 2007,13:40

Still just archiving, as Wesley initially suggested.  Jbagail's post is a particularly nasty and dishonest attack, I would note:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
--Glen

“I’m the one trying to keep religion out of where it doesn’t belong”.

Is this like keeping Blacks out from where they do not belong?--

Since you guys can't make any sort of "argument" except by lame analogy, I'm not surprised that this absurd comment cropped up.

OK, Jbagail, we'll not tolerate being kept out of where we're told that we don't belong.  I demand to be made the pastor of D. James Kennedy's church.  I'm certainly more qualified to tell the truth, and why should I be kept out just because I don't agree with his church's teaching?

So is this an exact analogy?  No, of course it isn't.  One complication is that the gov't has to make decisions about what to teach and fund.  That, in fact, is exactly why religion is kept out of the funding, and the teaching, of science, because the real legal issue is freedom of religion, and not even the importance of teaching science.  You have no business having your religious ideas funded from the taxpayers' dollars.

Your mindless smear has nothing to do with it.  You aren't being kept ignorant by the gov't, you want the gov't to keep children ignorant and to teach them falsehoods.

--A black female relative of mine was murdered many years ago and the male killer got 6 months because she was where “she didn’t belong.”--

Ah yes, the dishonest comparison and the twisting of words by these "righteous" people who try to smear us.  I didn't even come close to saying that any human being of any race, religion, belief, ethnicity, or IQ level doesn't belong anywhere that anyone else does.  I said that I was trying to keep RELIGION out of where it doesn't belong, which is entangled in a government which is bound by the constitution not to establish any religion.

--I find this comment of yours very offensive.--

I find your unintelligent and faulty analogy to be offensive in the extreme, and your attempt to compare keeping a potentially controlling system of thought from controlling the schools and the government as being akin to keeping a person out of somewhere due to race to be highly tendentious and beneath contempt.

--Who are you to judge where religion does not belong?--

First off, I have no power to say where it belongs.  Secondly, I am a reasonable man who has argued these things out like an intellectual, not a blustering bully like your presentation makes you out to be.

--If a man is a Christian he should act like a Christian in everything he does. Many people feel a Sunday Christian is not a good thing.--

Sorry, we're not arguing about whether or not Xians have the rights that everyone else does to free speech, free expression in general, and free public assembly.  I am entirely in favor of the First Amendment, which you seem to oppose.

--Glen, do you want Christians to go into the closet?--

Do you want to attack strawmen all day?  I repeat, I want to keep religion out of where it doesn't belong, and it belongs in Xians, who are free in this society.

--Is this what you want? What about Jews? Shall they go into the closet? We have a Jew and also a Muslim at the University, and both talk about their faith almost every chance that they get (tactfully) and, frankly, I enjoy their company as does everyone else I am aware of.--

Since the idea that I oppose the freedom of Jews and Muslims is entirely of your own malicious and/or ignorant making, I point out again what a dishonest attack you make upon me.  It appears that the words of an honest non-theist such as myself in favor of the First Amendment is, in your mind, justification for a host of false charges.

--Where I work we stress tolerance for all religions. I have learned much from them. Ben you need to release your film ASAP.--

Apparently you haven't picked up any kind of tolerance, rather you promote hatred of those of us who favor the First Amendment.  Indeed, with people like you praising the film, it shouldn't be too hard to demonstrate exactly why we need to keep religion where it belongs, which is, not acting as an agent of the government to oppress those who disagree with would-be theocrats like Jbagail.

You are one frightening person, Jbagail.

Glen D
[URL=http://tinyurl.com/2kxyc7
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



9-13-07



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
--In message 1243 Glen D chose to only comment on my last statement about my anticipation of the movie that is receiving immense criticism even though it has not been seen yet.--

Since it is a strawman attack, while you avoid what we actually wrote, it seems unlikely that anything else you might write is worthy of comment.  

--I was disappointed that he did not offer any comment on the more substantive part of my message (1237) about entropy and the origin of life.--

What's substantive about it?  We've read Granville Sewell, who tries to conflate probabilities with entropy, when the two are not about the same things.

--I addressed this only because some of the earlier messages indeed brought up thermodynamics and the acorn analogy.--

Indeed.

--I simply offered what I thought was a reasoned response.--

Well it wasn't.  How about actually addressing some of the many responses that have been made to Sewell and to others who try to shoehorn SLOT into denying evolution?

--However I guess I was just guilty of more “strawman attacks, unsupported demonizations of their opponents, and the most useless “science” arguments that have ever been answered thousands of times without their getting a single clue.”--

Yes, I pointed out how inappropriate your remarks were.  Why do you suppose that anyone should care about what you write about entropy when nothing prevents you from unfair characterizations of your opponents?  Notably, rather than take back your unfair characterization, you simply move on to more attacks.

But okay, I'll answer again the most useless "science" arguments that have been answered thousands of times without their getting a clue:

--Just a few comments about the origin of life and thermodynamics. It is certainly the case that the 2nd law of thermodynaimcs applies in both open and closed systems. It is also true that in the early earth there was plenty of energy available from the sun. It is also true that an acorn only needs water, sun and soil to germinate and grow into a mighty oak tree. This can all seem to argue that life could have arisen on an early earth as a localized decrease in entropy as the rest of the universe necessarily increases in entropy.--

It doesn't speak to the issue of whether or not life could have arisen on an early earth.  Probability is not the same as entropy, even if someone like Sewell claims that it is.  The point about the sun's radiance is that SLOT doesn't rule out increases in order (not the precise language of entropy, but it should be all right for our discussion), and that it can pay for incremental changes during the course of evolution.

I don't even know why abiogenesis is being brought into this, but again entropic considerations don't rule it out.

--But that’s not the whole story. An acorn also needs a genetic blueprint and cellular machinery to take the raw ingrdients of sun, water and soil and grow into a tree.--

That's where evolution comes into the picture.

--And raw energy from the sun is rather impotent without some kind of energy conversion mechanism to harness that energy for useful cell building work.--

No, energy from the sun is quite potent, able to make radicals, superoxides, amino acids, and what-not.  Of course evolution is needed in addition to produce an oak tree and acorns, but that doesn't mean that the sun is impotent sans energy conversion mechanisms.

--Today that role is primarily filled by the process of photosynthesis.--

And on Mars high-energy molecules are made without photosynthesis.  Possibly providing energy to organisms which evolved there.

--In the early earth, if we are going to go from raw chemicals, water and solar energy to even a simplified first cell, there is a desperate need for some kind of energy conversion mechanism.--

Why?  Don't you know that the first organisms are considered likely to have been extreme heterotrophs?  Just as high-energy ozone is made in the upper atmosphere, high-energy organic molecules could be made by sunlight under the proper conditions.

--Applying raw undirected energy to a system of chemicals is almost always going to be destructive not constructive.--

No, chemicals are zapped by various forms of energy to make high-energy and complex molecules.  Buckeyballs and carbon nanotubes form when electrical discharges are run through various chemicals.  Lightning produces ozone and nitrogen oxides.  The Miller-Urey experiments produced amino acids via electrical discharges.  Carbonaceous chondrites have fairly complex organic molecules in them including amino acids, which is certainly a step up from the monotomic atoms coming out of supernovae explosions.

Self-organizing processes are very well known in chemistry and elsewhere.

--Requiring some kind of energy conversion mechanism apart from cellular machinery before there were cells seems to require some kind of intelligent input.--

This is why I didn't respond to this "substantive" stuff before.  It's all sheer creationism/ID, without any knowledge of what is proposed for abiogenesis, nor with any of the understanding of how early "life" might have incorporated and used compounds for reproduction.  Indeed, replication itself would be the only real "metabolic" function in most scenarios, and that could be provided by various environmental means, like pH changes.

--Something has to manipulate the molecules.--

Only in your assumptions.  Real science involves trying to learn how molecules might self-organize, which does happen in many situations.

--And what about the first cellular information blueprint? All of our experience tells us that useful, complex, specified information arises from intelligence.--

Our experience is that functional information in animals has evolved over the course of evolution.  We do not know how genetic material arose to the level of life in the first place, but if we're not willing to conclude that it was just magic, we work at the problem scientifically, not merely resorting to the unevidenced.

Most importantly, the sort of information found in DNA has never been observed to come from intelligence, ever.  Your claim that "All of our experience tells us that useful, complex, specified information arises from intelligence" is related to the idea that we have only seen wolves and lions coming from intelligence, when in fact we have only seen them coming from reproduction.  But even though we HAVE only seen them come from reproduction, and even though we have evidence that lions and wolves share ancestry, you would prefer to believe that an unknown agent was responsible for there being wolves and lions.

Should we believe the evidence of common ancestry among humans?  Among mammals?  Among vertebrates?  Among all of life?  What is most absurd about ID is that it believes that the "probabilities are too high for 'Darwinism' to account for evolution," when apparently the 95%+ relatedness of chimps and humans is either accidental or due to some unfathomable reasons of the creator.  We know that probabilities could never produce anything like the apparent relatedness and non-teleological evolution of all life, and of course claiming that design caused the expected patterns of "Darwinism" is the most ad hoc and lame claim that I can think of.

--Packaged energy for cellular processes and genetic information scream for an intelligent precursor.--

Non sequitur.  And you completely ignored what is actually proposed for abiogenesis, which are also understood only as a sets of hypotheses at this time (IOW, it is not evolutionary theory).

--Compounding the equation is the apparent necessity for this to be a rapid process since fossilized remnants of bacterial life have been dated at around 3.6 or 3.7 billion years old, only a 100 million years or so after the earth had cooled sufficiently to allow life to survive and the major meteoric bombardment had let up.--

Compounding the equation is the fact that you have put in a bunch of assumptions which are not obviously important to abiogenesis.

--You can find the full thermodynamic equations in Thaxton, Bradley and Olsen’s book, “The Mystery of Life’s Origin.” It’s critique of chemical evolution scenarios remains valid.--

And I'm supposed to believe that claim, when none of your assumptions are shared with those scientists who work on abiogenesis?

--If you’re going to rely purely on chemical and geological forces to account for the origin of life, you just can’t get there from here.--

First off, I can't see that anyone was arguing over abiogenesis.  Perhaps some were, but that's not what this blog is about.  Secondly, none of your points have anything to do with the real work being done to try to explain life's origins.

--I look forward to the movie and am disappointed but not terribly surprised at the ad hominem attacks and negative judgement displayed here about a film no one has even seen yet.--

Still a very unfair statement, considering that almost none of the remarks have disparaged the movie except insofar as it has been characterized by Stein and others involved in the movie.  You seem to fault us merely for answering Ben's claims, and without properly characterizing our answers.

Back to the last part of his more recent post:

--I have been making this observation for many years. Perhaps Glen D can enlighten me as to why he would characterize my comments this way. I welcome any response.--

I characterized it that way because you made an unfair attack on those of us who were not faulting the movie so much as the material that has been released about the movie, and because such untruthful attacks amount to ad hominem attacks.  Then I didn't want to get into abiogenesis, since that's largely beside the point that evolution is a solid established scientific theory the equal of other scientific theories.  

And also I had noted how many times pro-IDists' "science" claims have been answered because it is true, and because I dealt with Granville Sewell's attacks on evolution (invoking entropy) here:

< http://groups.google.com/group....e35a31a >

You have to click on "Read more" to get the full comments.

Glen D
< http://tinyurl.com/2kxyc7
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Posted by: Alan Fox on Sep. 12 2007,12:21

DaveScot pops in to offer Glen reinstatement at UD "if you can be civil". Then I thought maybe he means JAD, so I posted:

#  DAVESCOT Says:
September 11th, 2007 at 1:27 am

Davidson, I will lift your ban at Uncommon Descent if you can be civil.


Great to see you out and about again, Dave. I thought you had retreated to the UD laager permanently. Just to clarify, are you re-inviting Glen (who apart from the odd hissy fit, usually manages to remain civil if somewhat verbose) or was Davidson a typo and you meant to address John (who possibly has overstepped the bounds of propriety on occasion). I am sure UD can restore its rightful place in the blogosphere with some insightful input from JAD.

Shame about the informatics thingie. Bill could do with a  bit of good publicity to boost those book sales which must be flagging a bit since Dover.
Posted by: Glen Davidson on Sep. 12 2007,15:20

I was uncertain who was meant as well.  It didn't really matter, though, since I had no idea that I am banned, if I am (I don't know if that's really Springer posting either).  That's how eager I am to post alongside DaveScot.

Not that he isn't the epitome of class in inviting whomever back, if he "is civil".  To a bunch of ignoramuses and/or liars, I am not.

I loved ("I love it so") the response from JAD, though, who certainly thought it was the "Darwinian blow hard," and whined like a kicked dog that the dolts at UD won't take him back in.  Is there any set of people about whom he wouldn't complain if they don't accept him (and even more if they do)?  Someday he's going to be muttering out on the street that no bums will let their rags touch him, which will be believable.  Of course he seems to loathe anyone dumb enough to think he has anything to add (for good reason), so he'll always spit at anyone who gives him the time of day.

Poor old fool, there isn't a forum new enough that it doesn't have a good many on it who already know about how he operates.  He's as lonely on Stein's forum as he always was at his own.  What's sad is that someone so socially needy is almost totally without social skills, and devoid of anything of value to offer anyone.

Glen D

Back to the archiving, 9-12-07



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
--Glen Davidson,

Please knock off the insults and get back into the business of substantive discourse. --

I'm the only one of the two of us who has brought any substantive discourse into the discussion.  Your inability to address anything properly is what I have to address, since you ignore almost everything that I actually write, and turn to repeat some meaningless claim that you made previously and of which you didn't understand the reply which was made to it.  

It's interesting how quickly someone like you who came in with a completely false charge against me faults me for supposedly not engaging in substantive discourse.  Also, when you haven't begun to address anything substantive that I've written.

--Intelligent design is in no way dependent on religion, nor has Dembski ever defined it that way.--

I wish you could actually make a point that would have some intellectual meaning.  I know how dishonest Dembski is about ID, and I didn't suppose or claim that he ever defined it as dependent on religion (it would hurt the legal case if the truth were told).  That it is dependent upon religion is the substantive issue, the one that you haven't begun to address.

--Here is one of the many ways he has expressed it::--

Do you dream that we haven't heard the droning claptrap of the ignorant Dembski over and over again?  What's important is that we're independently capable of evaluating ID apart from the bogus claims of those who want to pretend that it is science, when that is the least plausible claim that it makes.

--“Intelligent design is the science that studies signs of intelligence.--

The trouble is, it doesn't.  What Dembski does is to claim that simple but "unlikely" design is complex, contrary to any meaning of that term.  Then he tries to claim that design is detected by his measure of "complexity," completely ignoring the fact that we rely most of all upon the marks of rational thought which are visible in designed objects, and also upon any evident purpose, novelty, and "borrowing" for an obvious or a non-obvious reason.  What Dembski states is hardly credible.

--"Note that a sign is not the thing signified. Intelligent design does not try to get into the mind of the designer and figure out what a designer is thinking.--

Of course it doesn't.  That's because their "designer" is inscrutable, just like Maimonides', or to a lesser extent, Aquinas's God.  The "Designer" also is apparently capable of fine-tuning the universe, which in ID circles means some nearly-omnipotent Being (that we might be in a simulation is speculated on by non-IDists, in which case it might be a guy sitting around, drinking beer and playing a video game.  Not the scenario proposed by IDists).

Actual science is concerned about anything that can be deduced from a putative cause, while the IDists are not concerned about investigable causes.  We'd be intensely interested in the mind and purposes of a real designer, if you people would actually come up with something for once.  

Thanks for pointing out how unlike science ID is.

--"Its focus is not a designers mind (the thing signified) but the artifact due to a designer’s mind (the sign).--

Dembski doesn't even know how to use the terms "sign" an "signified" properly.  The mind that creates is not what is signified by the object, except in unusual self-referential cases (I don't dispute that some aspect of mind is essentially signified in "signifying something else," but that's already understood by actual scientists).  The sign or object often does signify something, but something other than the mind that creates it.  Dembski either ignorantly or deceitfully switches the meaning of words to avoid the fact that a real designer would indeed be expected to put signification into said designer's object, and this might actually tell us something about that mind (as it does with humans).

But of course Dembski's "Designer" is like the philosopher's God, hence one isn't supposed to speculate about this God, uh, "Designer".  Once again, completely unlike how real science operates.

--"What a designer is thinking may be an interesting question, and one may be able to infer something about what a designer is thinking from the designed objects that a designer produces (provided the designer is being honest).--

Why yes, apparently the "Designer" thinks in genetic algorithms, because instead of ever producing anything that appears like designed objects do, this "designer" is making organisms appear as if they had evolved.

--"But the designer’s thought processes lie outside the scope of intelligent design.--

How convenient, and how unlike real science.  In real science, you have to know something about the cause in order to match it with its hypothesized effects (and ID cannot honestly predict complexity or simplicity, let alone pretend that complexity can only come about through the divine, er, the inscrutable designer).  So Dembski declaims any concern about the actual cause, yet insists that life is its effect.  That's bogus philosophy, let alone being pseudoscience.

--"As a scientific research program, intelligent design investigates the effects of intelligence and not intelligence as such.”--

Yes, we'll ignore the cause, and claim the effect.  That's certainly not science, rather it is what is often known from religion.

--As everyone knows (including you, I trust) Barbara Forrest pulled the quote about “logos theory” to make it appear that ID is religious based.--

Simpleton, of course it was pulled out in order to provide evidence (you know, what none of you people ever provide) for the obvious fact that ID is about religion.  Dembski said, it, quit pretending that there's anything wrong with using it.

--As it turns out, Dembski made that comment discussing intelligent design in the context of its relationship with theology and metaphysics for a Christian audience.--

Yes, we know that extremely well.  During the week, he's telling us that ID is science.  On Sunday, he's preaching ID as religion.  This has been discussed a good deal on forums like Panda's Thumb, and of course you merely make our point, that not only is ID religion, ID is very dishonest regarding its claims to the contrary.

--Unlike many scientists, Dembski is formally trained in philosophy and theology–not just science.--

Dembski is not formally trained in science (I suppose he's taken some classes in it, but I have yet to see any indication that he understands it and its methods).  Quit coming up with false claims.  And he's not adept in philosophy at large, but only in a kind of metaphysical-religious sort of philosophy.

--That means, of course, that he is qualified to discuss controversies that appear at the intersection of science and philosophy,--

Only if he actually understands philosophy beyond a certain metaphysical ghetto, plus had an understanding of science.  I have yet to see him understand any philosophical position that is critical of metaphysics, or science above grade-school level.

--an attribute that not everyone in this dialogue can lay claim to.--

Neither can he.  And you certainly evince no knowledge of science or philosophy that would pertain to this subject.

--From a Christian’s faith perspective, intelligent design does have religious implications, of course.--

Ya think?  I'd like to see what it has to do with anything other than religion.

--But the methodology itself is scientific,--

You know, it gets very tiresome to read you making the same monotonous claim each time you come in here to reveal still more of your ignorance.  I asked you for evidence, for observational data that would support ID.  As with all IDists, you utterly and completely fail to get up to the starting point of science, but merely complain whenever we point out how devoid of science content ID obviously is.

--as Dembski pointed out earlier in the same discussion.--

So, you're resorting to argumentum ad verecundiam.  That's the formal name for your fallacy.

--To ignore the distinction is to violate reasonable standards of fairness. --

And so you convict yourself.  

--If it is not asking too much, please limit your response to this one subject--

If it's not asking too much, please respond intelligently to even one thing that I've written.  And by the way, the fact that you can't discuss or understand the range of issues involved is your problem.  The repetition of untrue claims, fallacies, and your complete inability to broach the issues revolving aroud science and the pseudoscience of ID is unproductive and revelatory of your reliance on the bogus claims of the egregious IDists.

And I already posted this at post #1090, but here is an excerpt of something that one of the writers of this movie posted on a forum regarding ID:

--When I say ID is friendly to belief in God in a way that classical Darwinism is not, what I mean is Darwinism literally has no need for the God hypothesis. According to Darwinists like Richard Dawkins, everything can be explained purely by natural forces–including the origin of information, consciousness, and life itself. If you want to bring God into the picture, that is a belief that you are adding to science. It is not required by the science itself, and many Neo-Darwinists believe it gets in the way of science. ID, on the other hand, suggests that rather than something tacked onto one’s interpretation of science, God–or whoever you believe to be the Intelligent Designer–is literally at the heart of nature itself, as expressed through information like the genetic code.--

Try to understand for once, Kevin Miller is contrasting "Darwinism" with its lack of need for a God with ID's prior belief that God is at the heart of nature.  Of course one could try to bring up the charge of argumentum ad verecundiam, but it won't work because this is simply an example from a pro-IDist, while I've argued the actual case a great deal, here and elsewhere.  Not only does Dembski betray his "during the week" claims when he's selling his book to the rubes, this whole movie happens to be a complaint that we're supposedly suppressing ID because it is religious (and we are suppressing it along with other bogus "science" in certain venues, but only where religion isn't supposed to be supported by gov't, and where our own freedom of speech and association give us the right to do so--along with the other pseudosciences and conspiracy theories).  

Perhaps you should actually read Ben's blog.  He doesn't mention ID, unlike Miller does, but Miller confirms that the movie primarily concerns ID, and the whine is that we're "keeping God out".  Yes, that's what science does, unless you can actually come up with evidence that God is a proximal cause.  You'd be a whole lot more convincing that ID isn't about religion if you weren't commenting under a blog whose main complaint is that ID is being suppressed because, in fact, ID is religious.

Glen D
[URL=http://tinyurl.com/2kxyc7
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



9-13-07



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Glen Davidson Says: Your comment is awaiting moderation.

September 13th, 2007 at 12:00 pm
–Dear Ben,

I see by the comments that you’ve ticked off a bunch of Darwinists. It’s interesting that they can only resort to calling you names.–

Where are your answers to the questions and points that I raised in posts #389, #1031, #1065, and #1090, for starters? Oh, you didn’t answer them, did you? You prefer to write the blatantly false claim that we can only call names, when in fact I have not seen much other than name-calling from the creos and IDists, and the little else was recycled nonsense (and we have answered virtually all of it, no matter how tiresome it is to do so).

So your credibility level is—about where Dembski’s is, hovering around zero.

–I just wanted to let you know that I applaud your willingness to put out the truth about the suppression of dissension.–

And you provide as much evidence as Ben did for such flim-flam, none at all. But then the need for evidence famously doesn’t trouble IDists.

–My bachelor’s degree is in electrical engineering. It’s interesting that none of the courses (taught in a secular university) which I took had anything to do with evolution.–

Fascinating that a non-teleological biological process wouldn’t be taught to an engineer. Must mean something, huh? But sadly, Josh can’t quite relate what this meaning is (so he invents it).

–It was never even mentioned because engineering has to do with science,–

Actually, it does not. It has to do with applying the conclusions of science. You’re not the first ID engineer to make the colossal error of thinking that in bypassing science with your engineering degree you have nonetheless become an expert in science.

–not science fiction.–

Gee, imagine anyone resorting to name-calling. Well, it wasn’t me, Dimensio, Craig, or a host of other pro-science commenters who thought that name-calling and false accusations would stand in for discussing science (not that we don’t use the names that fit, certainly), it was the whiner who can’t back up a single claim that he makes.

–It saddens me that most of your critics have never stopped for a moment and questioned what they believe.–

Mere ad hominem, and something that Josh could hardly know. I suspect that many on the pro-science side have seriously studied ID and creationism, like I have by coming from a creationist background. But why should Josh bother telling the truth when Stein’s blog is a mash of untrue claims barely altered from official ID mendacity?

–I have studied both evolution and ID.–

I should think that if you knew anything about evolution you’d be capable of dealing with it in detail. And if you really were a scientist, you’d finally tell us what we’ve been asking for, what is the scientific evidence for ID?

–What are those people afraid of? GOD.–

Why yes, it’s what Pierre Teilhard de Chardin, Dobzhansky, Father Coyne, Ken Miller, and Francis Collins were all afraid of, God. Oops, no. You’re as wrong about that as you are that engineers study science (aside from a few core courses).

Wow, you got absolutely none of your non-trivial claims right. But that’s as good as most IDists, I’ll admit, so you’re in the right company.

Glen D
< http://tinyurl.com/2kxyc7 >

Glen Davidson Says: Your comment is awaiting moderation.

September 13th, 2007 at 12:20 pm
–I think the negative comments are proof enough of the need to clarify the THEORY of evolution vs. Intelligent Design.–

Yes, negative comments have proven that the city of Atlantis existed, that UFO abductions are a reality, that homeopathy works, that the CIA killed John Kennedy, that our government was responsible for the twin tower attacks, divination by birds, necromancy, Scientology, and Intelligent Design.

See, all you have to do is to make a statement, no matter how absurd, then when someone disagrees, that proves your statement. Anyway, that’s what all of the pseudoscientists tell us.

–One could just as easily ask an evolutionist to come up with real evidence that this THEORY is true as they push on the ID people.–

This tells us all too much about the mentality of most creos and IDists. Darwin published the evidence 150 years ago (accounting for non-teleological aspects (vestigials and some rather odd adaptations) which pointed away from purposeful design–in addition to providing the evidence of common descent itself), and we get the same demand for “evidence” and denial thereof from the sorts of people who never provide evidence for ID. I wonder why they’re so evidence-challenged?

Darwin only began the process of gathering and disseminating the evidence for evolution. Journals are rife with it, of course, though it rarely is called “evidence for evolution” any more than evidence for Newton’s laws of motion is called “evidence for Newtonian laws”–scientists have been satisfied with the evidence for over a century in the case of evolution. And beyond that, people have been repeatedly pointed toward evidence at Talkorigins and blogs which exist just for the purpose of putting out the evidence and discussing it, as well as presented in numerous comments.

It’s sort of what Plato noted in the parable of the cave, that nothing will actually affect people until they actually look. Because few IDists and creos will look at the evidence, or they fail to understand it, the mere fact that we have done what we can to make the evidence available doesn’t prevent the same kinds of demands and questions from being made. This is due to the fact that if they don’t see the evidence, it does the anti-scientists no good at all.

Glen D
< http://tinyurl.com/2kxyc7
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Posted by: snoeman on Sep. 13 2007,23:25

Glen,

Gotta compliment you on this series of posts.  Did you apply any anesthetic before dissecting? :)
Posted by: Richardthughes on Sep. 15 2007,11:11

Oh, Tardfight at "Expelled"!
Posted by: Glen Davidson on Sep. 15 2007,16:57

Quote (snoeman @ Sep. 13 2007,23:25)

Gotta compliment you on this series of posts.  Did you apply any anesthetic before dissecting? :)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



They seem to be already numb intellectually, so I didn't bother.

Archiving, 9-15-07



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
--Glen Davidson,

About me your wrote, …“that you can’t discuss or understand the range of issues involved is your problem.”

My purpose in zeroing in on a simple point was to provide a little focus for you because you don’t seem to be able to do it for yourself.--

What you don't know is that the interaction of science and philosophy is rather complex when it comes right down to it.  It isn't simplistic like you and Dembski suppose.

-- Apparently, you didn’t get the hint, so I will come out with it. Writing forty of fifty paragraphs when one will suffice does not prove intelligence or knowledge, it only proves verbosity.--

The trouble is that you have no clue about what's involved, so you think that an argument from authority, along with some misapprehensions of philosophy, are sufficient.  You can't discuss anything, so you want to make my learning into a problem.

--That your insufferably long posts do not even address the issue is even more annoying.--

You don't understand the issue, as has become painfully obvious.

--That is why I narrowed the issue to ONE ASPECT OF ONE TOPIC—hint-hint-hint—it’s your cue to make a point, shut up, and get out.--

This is how it always ends, we discuss the issues, you who don't know anything get angry that you have nothing to say, and get nasty.

--The idea is go straight to the issue—not to keep shooting arrows endlessly, hoping that one day you will hit a target,--

I'd like you to be able even to discern what the target is.

--Your latest offering shoots about thirty more arrows, none of which even make it to the outside ring. My original point was simple: YOUR EXAMPLE citing Dembski’s comment about the Logos theory of the Gospel as proof that ID is faith-based is illogical. Dembski’s statement was made in a theological/philosophical context, and therefore does not relate to the question about whether or not ID’s methodology is empirically based. I showed that your contention was wrong, and I made the point SUCCINCTLY.--

If stupid and succinct mean the same thing to you, go ahead and believe that.

--Incredibly, your interminable response ignores this one and only point. I am therefore left to wonder whether you just like to read your own prose or whether you have a problem with reading comprehension. --

Unfortunately, you are incapable of thinking from the evidence, and blither around the evidence that Dembski is theology-driven with a bunch of trivial side issues.

--Instead you weasel out by saying, “I didn’t suppose or claim that he ever defined (ID) it as dependant on religion.” Oh no? Well then, what was your point in raising the issue of logos theory in the first place? I didn’t bring it up, you did. Apparently, you will not allow Dembski to define his own theory. If he insists that ID is empirically based, you will simply say, “sorry, we don’t allow people to speak for themselves.--

He spoke for himself, and essentially said that ID is "Logos" of John 1.  You can't accept that Dembski speaks out of both sides of his mouth, so you deny the most obvious fact, that, for Dembski at least, ID is religiously motivated.

--We accuse them of being so enamored with their Christianity that they lost all sense of judgment and can’t possibly know where religious faith ends and empirical observation begins.” What bigotry.--

Yes, you're incredibly bigoted, close-minded, and unable to make reasonable inferences from the data.

--Your mission, then, should you choose to accept it, is to defend your ridiculous and bigoted assertion that Dembski’s Theological comment about Logos theory proves that his science is not empirically based. Also, try to make every word count. If you can’t do both, do neither.--

Well, I've spent too much time responding to someone who can't begin to make a reasonable argument.  Try a little bit of schooling, it might make you capable of at least reading what I write, if not of responding coherently.

The fact is that Dembski's "Logos statement" does not by itself show that ID isn't religiously based.  Yours and his utter inability to come up with any kind of evidence that would actually pass muster in forensics or in science to demonstrate empiricism is what show that it isn't science.  I made this point to you earlier, but you ignore whatever you don't understand, which is about everything.  Since it isn't evidence-based, it must have some other motivation, and that religious motivation is altogether obvious even without Dembski's Logos statement, and more so with it.

I will probably not respond further to you, since you never properly address the issues involved, any more than that fatuous JAD does (which is sort of a response to him, I know, but if it's more than he deserves, it's still very little).  

I suspect that I can at least have a decent discussion with Kevin Miller, unlike you who want authority to stand where you are incapable of any substance (haven't seen any yet from you).

Glen D
[URL=http://tinyurl.com/2kxyc7
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Posted by: Glen Davidson on Sep. 15 2007,18:39

Kevin Miller--one of the writers of "Expelled"--responded to me, and really most dishonestly.  I wrote a very long response, so I'm making another post in which to archive it.  Note, this is before editing and splitting up my comments, which I think I ought to do.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
--Glen Davidson,

Thanks for being such a lively participant on this blog. However, I’m afraid your enthusiasm may have gotten in the way of a few facts.--

I'm afraid that your claim that I have neglected any facts is itself markedly lacking in fact.  Of course I don't see the matter as you do, I see it as a philosopher does, and just because I disagree with your tendentious interpretation does not mean that I quoted anything out of context or related anything that wasn't the truth.

--Case in point: When you quoted me in comment 1090, you did so out of context.--

I included everything that was in that section.  The earlier section of your post didn't have a lot to do with the later section.  What is more, I linked to your post.  What am I supposed to do, include the entire thread before you'll allow that it wasn't out of context?  I followed standard procedures, I included a lot of context, and I linked to the rest.  

--What I wrote was not meant as an apology for ID but an explanation of why ID is friendlier to theism than classical Darwinism.--

I neither said that it was intended to be an apology for ID nor that it was.  I said that ID is apologetics.  Here it is:



Try to get your facts straight, Mr. Miller.  It's your "explanation" that indicates that ID is apologetics.

--What I said was, ID leaves room in its paradigm for an active designer,--

No, the relevant statement was not that ID leaves room in its paradigm for an active designer, the relevant statement (the one to which I referred in my comments) was, "ID, on the other hand, suggests that rather than something tacked onto one’s interpretation of science, God–or whoever you believe to be the Intelligent Designer–is literally at the heart of nature itself...".  That not just leaving it open, so you've subtly altered your point without any justification for it.

--whereas the best that Darwinism allows is some sort of non-involved deity or a deity that interacts with the world in a way we cannot measure.--

That's not the "best that Darwinism allows" (and why can't you people ever get it right?  In the US it isn't "Darwinism" as such), it is the best that the evidence allows.  You have no business suggesting that we leave out God at the start, we only leave out God for the same reason that meteorology leaves out God, the evidence just isn't there for biology.

--Hardly a satisfying situation for your average theist.--

Which is irrelevant to science and its practices.  Are you going to write a movie about how meteorology leaves God out of the picture?

--Even so, it is not so much a criticism of Darwinism as a mere a statement of fact, and I don’t see how it can be construed as an endorsement of ID.--

Did I call it an endorsement of ID?  No, I did not.  You're setting up strawment left and right.

--If you read my entire conversation with Peter Chattaway, you will see that it was merely meant as a point of clarification.--

Yes, I don't care what it was.  What you wrote is what I was interested in, how completely wrong you are that we aren't willing to consider intelligence acting in nature (we do all the time where the evidence exists), and how you admit that God is insinuated into ID from the beginning.

--I can accept the above mistake as a potential oversight on your part.--

Sorry, I didn't make any mistake, you just assumed that I wrote what I did not in fact write.  If you care to pursue this any further, please bring up any kind of justification you might have for your claims.

--However, my real bone of contention is when you say, “What Miller doesn’t know is that science doesn’t presuppose entities like God or the wink-wink nudge-nudge ‘Designer’, it looks for the best hypothesis. He is trying to tell us that ID is science because it has decided already that God (or “the Designer”) is at the heart of nature, so instead of simply searching for the best explanation, ID searches for ‘potential signs of intelligence in nature’.”

I meant nothing of the sort, Glen, and I suspect you know that to be true.--

I know very well what you wrote, and I properly interpreted it.  And yes of course it's an interpretation, but it isn't an unwarranted one.

--At best, your interpretation of my post is just plain wrong. At worst, it is a wilful distortion of the facts.--

It is neither, and again you fail to bring any sort of justifiable evidence against my reading of what you wrote.

--Perhaps it will help if I clarify things a little: To disqualify ID merely because it starts from a particular philosophical position is ridiculous.--

There are philosophical positions which have assumptions in them which cannot be justified, and there are philosophical positions which merely formalize the practices of working science and forensics.  Indeed, science essentially operated without a real philosophical basis up until the time of Hume and Kant, because the old metaphysical philosophy didn't work in science, and no satisfying new philosophy existed.

--Who doesn’t do science from a philosophical position?--

The most that Newton had were some rules of inference in science.  He was not working within the edifice of ancient or medieval philosophy as such, he merely borrowed the rules that philosophy had acknowledged regarding evidence.  He did not begin with the assumption that God was "working in the solar system," though it is true that he let God take care of the gaps left over.

Only if you insist that the rules of science "come from philosophy," when it is at least as arguable that they originally came from practical matters, can you even begin to claim that science necessarily operates from a philosophical position.  The fact that philosophy helps to deal with empiricism does not obviously mean that it is the basis from which empiricism is done.

What is perhaps more important is that I actually discussed a good deal that you ignore, like the consistency of sticking with the philosophy and/or scientific positions that work in meteorology when one is also doing biology.  Here you come up with a lot of strawmen to attack, while you ignore the importance of consistency in science.  Why am I not surprised at the lack of consistency between what you wrote previously and what you wrote more recently, and at the lack of consistency between what I really wrote and what you claim that I wrote?

The fact is that IDists generally accept the "philosophy" or science that we use everywhere in our science, but you refuse to follow the same position where it comes to biology.  Ignore that point as many times as you wish, Mr. Miller, but it remains a gaping hole in your treatment of the issue.  

But then I hardly allow that medieval philosophy has stood the test of time anyway, so that on philosophical grounds ID fails, even before it fails on empirical grounds.

--That’s all science is: conceptual model building upon a philosophical foundation—a constellation of unprovable assumptions.--

No, that isn't even close to what science is.  It is a way of dealing with the world in an "intersubjectively sound" (I hate use "subjective" at all, but it gets the point across) manner.  Kant detailed some of the "unproven assumptions" that necessarily go into science, and those have been honed and shaped over time into a more nuanced and sound manner (for instance, we know that at least some of Kant's "givens" are shaped by experience), but it is true that in the most foundational sense we cannot prove or empirically demonstrate that we know the world "as it really is," so to speak.

But as Kant (who was no atheist, by the way) noted, we can agree on how we do understand the world, and from there we can do satisfactory empirical science.  And modern science is "based" upon his philosophy, if any, not upon the unwarranted claims of medieval philosophy.  Metaphysics is just speculation, science operates according to working understandings and constructive capabilities of the mind to work through empirical data in a mutually ("intersubjectively") agreed-upon manner.  You want to claim that ID is equivalent to this, when it simply assumes that a sort of philosopher's God exists, when it cannot show that this God exist in either an empirical sense or in the "intersubjectively sound" sense that much of modern philosophy understands our "prior assumptions" to be.

--If you don’t believe me, just look at someone like Richard Dawkins.--

Dawkins is not my God, or any kind of authority to me.  

--While he claims his atheism is inferred from the evidence—which it may have been at one point—his scientific writings are clearly meant as an apologetic for his atheistic point of view.--

Do you have some kind of legitimate point?  Dawkins has his own problems with philosophy and theology, they aren't mine, or science's in general.

--His atheism doesn’t flow from his science; his science flows from his atheism.--

I see absolutely no justification for this claim.  More importantly, this has no bearing upon your claim that science is simply conceptual model building upon a philosophical foundation.  Anyone who leaves out the empirical matters, and the attempts to remain true to the evidence, is hardly an authority on either science or philosophy.

--So if you want to disqualify anyone for mixing their philosophical presuppositions with their science, Dawkins is your man.--

Nothing at all in your "argument" showed that Dawkins's science comes from his atheistic position.  I have faulted Dawkins at times when he got into philosophical matters (recently on Panda's Thumb), but on the whole he just isn't my concern.  The perversion of science is.

--You may not like ID’s philosophical starting point, just as many others may not like Richard Dawkins’s starting point.--

I do not like ID starting with a philosophical position which assumes that entities are acting without there being any kind of evidence for these undetected entities.  Not all philosophical positions are the same, and it's absurd that you treat them as equals.  That you write as if they are all equal indicates that, as a writer for a movie which delves into both philosophy and science, you cannot do justice to the issues involved.

--But if so, that is a philosophical issue, not a scientific one.--

Evidently you are without any adequate knowledge of science.  Science and modern philosophy are meshed together, with give and take in both disciplines.  Einstein was something of a philosopher, as were most of the early quantum theorists.  Most of us who know philosophy as well as science understand how illegitimate the metaphysics behind ID really is, how it completely fails to follow the methods of either science or of modern philosophy.

Why don't you make a movie about how we reject Hindu philosophy in science like we reject Aquinas's philosophy in science?  Of course we do, because Hindu philosophy, like medieval philosophy, merely assumes what it cannot show empirically or "intersubjectively," instead resting many of its claims upon prior religious assumptions.  So not only does your "argument" fall flat on philosophical and scientific grounds, evidently you're insisting upon that a philosophy coming out of Western religions is as legitimate as modern philosophies which make as few assumptions as possible (and ground them in "intersubjectivity" as well").

Why do you suppose that most of the world adopts the philosophical bases for science, while most reject the philosophies behind ID?  It's because the philosophical basis with which science is associated happens to yield practical and intellectual results, while the philosophies of the IDists belong to Western culture and are not universally applicable.

--If you’re going to reject ID—or Richard Dawkins—you need to do so on the basis of their science.--

We do.  The fact that you ignore all of the scientific arguments that I made against ID explains much of your unjustifiable attacks upon my justified argumentation.

--Which brings me back to my post: Contrary to your interpretation, I am not arguing that ID should be classified as science because it begins with the assumption that God is at the heart of nature. I’m merely arguing that ID should not be disqualified on this basis.--

Sorry, not only does your distinction not make much difference, it doesn't relate what you wrote in your post, which was:



You said that ID suggests that God or the "Designer" is at the heart of nature itself, then you claimed that "therefore the search for potential signs of intelligence in nature [which may be taken as a euphemism for ID] becomes a legitimate scientific enterprise."

It was precisely their "suggestion" that God or "Designer" is at the heart of nature that was your premise for why ID becomes a legitimate scientific enterprise.  I "interpreted" you justly, and you simply deny it without dealing with the evidence that I included.

--As I understand it, the core scientific program of ID seeks to explain how information moves in and out of biological systems. That’s it.--

What's scientific about it?  And how do they seek to find out how information moves in and out of biological systems?  More importantly, how would that relate to their core design claims?  You left those out, didn't you (though it's true that they fail to do science to find evidence for design in nature)?  

Look, we know very well what ID claims, and that it fails to provide any legitimate criteria for what would be "designed," claiming instead that a false dilemma would provide "evidence" for ID.  Indeed, if it is studying information in biological systems in a scientific manner at all, this has nothing to do with their core claims, which are that a designer is responsible.

If they were serious about design being in nature, they'd predict that rational "planning" of organisms would be in evidence, and that purpose, novelty, and "borrowing" might also be visible.  Because none of these are (as meant in science), they refuse to predict that the designer did what known designers do, instead pretending that faulting another theory is all they have to do in order to be scientific.

--All of the religious baggage that gets tagged onto the movement is essentially a red herring perpetuated by their opponents.--

Right, that's why they speak largely to religious audiences, refuse to discuss the age of the earth, and repeatedly claim that ID points toward the supernatural.  Remember, we listen to the IDists, and at a speech I attended, Behe claimed that the reason we reject ID is merely that it points beyond science.  Hardly, we reject it because nothing in biology points beyond the cause and effect standard practices of science.

--Darwinian evolutionists think they’ve already solved the information problem by proposing purely natural information-producing mechanisms, such as random mutations and natural selection.--

You really don't know the science, do you?  There are quite a large number of information problems in biology at present, notably because a whole lot of information has recently become available through DNA sequencing.

Yet virtually all of the data point to nothing but the familiar non-teleological mechanisms known from the laboratory and in the collected data.  Moreover, the predictions of non-teleoligcal evolution have been satisfied by the evidence, while teleology and the marks of rational thought are absent.  Thus we stick with the evidence, no matter how much theology attempts to intrude into science.

--But the ID proponents are skeptical that such mechanisms are sufficient to explain the origin and diversity of life.--

Huh, and very few of them are biologists.  We do have the Moonie Jonathan Wells, and biochemist Behe, but Dembski is a philosopher/mathematician, Phil Johnson is an attorney, Paul Nelson is a philosopher (who can't answer the questions we pose on PT), you have a host of engineers, physicians, and the like, while nearly all biologists are satisfied with the direction in which research is going.  Where is the justification for their "skepticism"?

--In their search for a more satisfying hypothesis, they are willing to consider all possible explanations—including some form of superior intelligence.--

Really.  Why don't they answer our questions?  You know, we discuss these issues on numerous forums, while ID forums are often closed to us.  Still, they could answer our questions--if they had answers.  I see that you don't supply any answers either, but merely try to claim that ID is scientific without your telling us any way in which they actually do science, or conform to science practices.

I have yet to see them consider anything but a "superior intelligence," and this all without any kind of cause and effect relationship being proposed.  I've brought this up in at least one post, and instead of you dealing with such a necessary condition to do science, you're claiming that I wrote what I didn't write, and claiming that you wrote something other than to what I actually responded.

--I fail to see how that makes them unscientific.--

Of course you do, because you don't understand to what we're objecting.  We're objecting to the claim that intelligence was involved without evidence either for an inscrutable designer (one not acting like us, but which can nonetheless be seen to act in ways that produce what we see), or evidence for the marks of design that we use to understand whether or not an object was designed by humans.

We'll consider any investigable cause that leads to observable effects.  We're not willing to "consider" a "cause" that cannot be shown to produce what we see, or which perhaps does design in an intelligible manner, yet doesn't produce the patterns seen in biological change.  It's the evidence that fails, and you completely fail to deal with our actual objections.

--In fact, I think it displays an open-mindedness that seems sorely lacking on the part of their purely Darwinian counterparts—including,--

If they and you were open-minded, you'd actually deal with scientific issues, not monotonously droning on about the "open-mindedness" of those who fail to utilize the methods of either modern science or modern philosophy.

--if I may say so, Mr. Glen A. Davidson.--

You cannot legitimately say so.  I've made the point that I am completely willing to consider anything that fits the accepted methods of forensics and of science (which cannot honestly exclude the "supernatural" except by defining the "supernatural" as something totally unreachable with legitimate epistemologies).  We're (at least not those of us steeped in philosophy) not denying that a superior intelligence could never operate in the biosphere, only that there have to be some observed match between the purported cause and the "effects" that we see in organisms.

Open-mindedness entails giving up meaningless claims when they have proven to be meaningless.  That is why I am open-minded, and your IDists are not---they cling to a "cause" for which they claim no causal markers, for effects which are predicted by non-teleological evolutionary theory.  Hanging onto a non-falsifiable "hypothesis" is not open-minded at all.

Glen D
< http://tinyurl.com2kxyc7 >
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Posted by: Bob O'H on Sep. 16 2007,06:46

In amongst Glen's short and pithy replies, we have this:
< http://expelledthemovie.com/blog/2007/08/21/bens-blog/#comment-1275 >


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Dear Ben,

I see by the comments that you’ve ticked off a bunch of Darwinists. It’s interesting that they can only resort to calling you names. I just wanted to let you know that I applaud your willingness to put out the truth about the suppression of dissension. My bachelor’s degree is in electrical engineering. It’s interesting that none of the courses (taught in a secular university) which I took had anything to do with evolution. It was never even mentioned because engineering has to do with science, not science fiction. It saddens me that most of your critics have never stopped for a moment and questioned what they believe. I have studied both evolution and ID. What are those people afraid of? GOD.

Keep up the good work.

Josh
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Savour, just savour.

Bob
Posted by: someotherguy on Sep. 16 2007,18:19

Quote (Bob O'H @ Sep. 16 2007,06:46)
In amongst Glen's short and pithy replies, we have this:
< http://expelledthemovie.com/blog/2007/08/21/bens-blog/#comment-1275 >


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Dear Ben,

I see by the comments that you’ve ticked off a bunch of Darwinists. It’s interesting that they can only resort to calling you names. I just wanted to let you know that I applaud your willingness to put out the truth about the suppression of dissension. My bachelor’s degree is in electrical engineering. It’s interesting that none of the courses (taught in a secular university) which I took had anything to do with evolution. It was never even mentioned because engineering has to do with science, not science fiction. It saddens me that most of your critics have never stopped for a moment and questioned what they believe. I have studied both evolution and ID. What are those people afraid of? GOD.

Keep up the good work.

Josh
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Savour, just savour.

Bob
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


If I had to guess, I'd say that's a not-so-deep cover troll.  There are just too many telling indicators--the mention of the engineering degree, the arrogance, the overt ID-is-about-God comment, the complete nonsensical reasoning. . .etc.  Yep, that's got to be a troll.  I hope.  ???
Posted by: slpage on Sep. 17 2007,11:17

Quote (someotherguy @ Sep. 16 2007,18:19)
Quote (Bob O'H @ Sep. 16 2007,06:46)
In amongst Glen's short and pithy replies, we have this:
< http://expelledthemovie.com/blog/2007/08/21/bens-blog/#comment-1275 >
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Dear Ben,

I see by the comments that you’ve ticked off a bunch of Darwinists. It’s interesting that they can only resort to calling you names. I just wanted to let you know that I applaud your willingness to put out the truth about the suppression of dissension. My bachelor’s degree is in electrical engineering. It’s interesting that none of the courses (taught in a secular university) which I took had anything to do with evolution. It was never even mentioned because engineering has to do with science, not science fiction. It saddens me that most of your critics have never stopped for a moment and questioned what they believe. I have studied both evolution and ID. What are those people afraid of? GOD.

Keep up the good work.

Josh
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Savour, just savour.

Bob
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


If I had to guess, I'd say that's a not-so-deep cover troll.  There are just too many telling indicators--the mention of the engineering degree, the arrogance, the overt ID-is-about-God comment, the complete nonsensical reasoning. . .etc.  Yep, that's got to be a troll.  I hope.  ???
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I wouldn't < be so sure.... >
Posted by: Glen Davidson on Sep. 20 2007,14:51

Ruloff, of "Expelled", came to Ben's blog with the same tired and slimy list of the "persecuted".  He can't come up with a single new thing to say, which I suppose is why he's dumb enough to make the movie.  Anyway, I made a response which is now pending:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
--Do you think this is some kind of fanciful conspiracy theory? Google the names of Richard Sternberg, Caroline Crocker, Guillermo Gonzalez, Dean Kenyon and Bill Dembski and see what you find. These distinguished scientists have suffered severe consequences for questioning Darwinian theory and there are hundreds, if not thousands, more. --

Naw, it isn't even a competent conspiracy theory.

I'm waiting for Ruloff and Stein to put out the film about how Holocaust deniers are suppressed and persecuted, along with JAD, homeopathy, geocentrists, and believers in UFO abductions.  Do you suppose that it is wrong for academia ever to prefer a well-substantiated position over one that is seriously lacking in substance, Ruloff?  How is keeping pseudoscientists from teaching religiously-based nonsense any worse than the fact that I don't get to be the preacher of a church?

Is MOND suppressed just because string theory has a much stronger position in academia?  Is Wicca persecuted by academia because the latter explains the motions of the heavens through physics instead of the wills of the gods?  Is religious persecution behind modern critiques of medieval metaphysics?  And is it even suppression at all in the general sense to tell a guy to quit pretending that Baylor has an "ID informatics lab" when it doesn't?

Of course the only real complaint these whiners have is that science and the rest of academia are doing what they're supposed to do, eliminating "hypotheses" that don't work, while teaching and using the ones that do work.  ID has been answered (despite its not having anything in its favor from the beginning), something that Ben Stein, Kevin Miller, and Ruloff don't discuss, and no reasonable responses have been forthcoming from these guys.  

ID has been considered by academics much better than many genuine scientific hypotheses have been, for the obvious reason, that ID has political clout.  Indeed, ID has to some extent distorted science already, by taking attention away from concepts that follow the scientific method, and diverting time and resources with cheesy arguments and attempts to change science into something that accommodates unevidenced magic.  Thus ID has managed to suppress science, while ID has open to it all of the venues that it belongs in, including the internet and the churches.

The complaint, in other words, is that science comes to the conclusions expected of it, eventually discarding whatever does not comport with scientific practices and evidence.  Their problem is that science works, and it passes judgment upon pseudosciences like ID.

Indeed, one should not forget that "the father of Intelligent Design" denied that HIV causes AIDS, no matter how abundantly the evidence indicates otherwise.  And of course HIV denial is frowned upon in the universities, even though HIV denial doesn't even exist as a Wedge for religion.  How much more ought we to oppose ID in the centers of learning than even HIV denial, considering that ID not only is completely fallacious as science, but exists expressly in order to oppose the highly successful methods of science?  

I do thank Ruloff for so completely exposing the religious nature of ID, however.  To be sure, it was evident to anyone who can think, but then Phillip Johnson explicitly stated it in the Wedge document.  Yet this whole complaint that we're "suppressing" a "science" because it is in fact religious, is helpful to those of us who wish to maintain the First Amendment and freedom--at least it is in the legal realm.

Believe me, a Holocaust denier would be much less welcome to Baylor than an IDist is.  And Ruloff doesn't raise a single objection to shunting out those egregious malingerers.  Why should he?  We have evidence that the Holocaust happened, and the deniers have no evidence that it did not.  Likewise, we have evidence that evolution happened according to mostly known non-teleological processes, and IDists have no evidence for the teleological processes that they claim were involved (which they claim even though they deny that we should look for evidence for teleology in organisms).  But supposedly we're suppressing the one, while Ruloff et al. don't care that we're "suppressing" the other one, and indeed, should complain if we didn't do so.

Glen D
[URL=http://tinyurl.com/2kxyc7
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Posted by: Henry J on Sep. 20 2007,23:06

In other words, they're being attacked by the educated segment of society!

Henry
Posted by: Richardthughes on Sep. 21 2007,08:39

DT, YEC:

< http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelli....-138087 >



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
55

DaveScot

09/21/2007

5:22 am
jerry

I certainly understand where you’re coming from. Recall I’m the one who wrote a post here nearly two years ago saying I was going to delete anything that attempted to dispute common ancestry and an old earth.

That said, I can’t say I’m convinced that the YEC contingent is wrong. We appear to live in a universe that is governed by immutable physical laws and everything is understandable by those laws. Certainly if we apply these laws backward in time we see an old universe and common descent. Appearances however can be deceptive. There’s nothing that proves the universe, the laws that govern it, and its apparent history weren’t created any time from a moment ago to billions of years ago. Consider that time and space now appear to be digital (pixelated). There is a Planck length and a Planck time. This is strikingly like how computer simulations (artificial realities) are constructed. A master clock ticks and at each clock tick a set of rules are applied and the model is updated from one state to the next. The programmer (or hardware designer) chooses the clock rate and rules that apply. He may change both the rules and the clock rate at his whim. He can also start the simulation running with any arbitrary set of initial conditions. He can also stop and start the model at any time. If we as conscious human beings are constructs inside such a model how would we be able to know if what we observe is real or the machinations of some entity outside the model? All we can do is look for inconsistencies (violations) of the rules that govern the model. So far I don’t think we’ve categorically observed any inconsistencies but since the apparent history of the model, viewed from inside the model, is manipulable by an outside agency we really have no way of knowing if the clock was stopped and the rules were changed and the state of the system changed to make the new rules appear to be the rules that were there all along.

ID is basically a tentative finding of an inconsistency. If RM+NS is the true source of organic evolution it is so statistically unlikely to have generated the patterns that we see that it warrants a conclusion that there’s an entity involved who either stacked the deck (set up the initial conditions and laws to produce a certain outcome), which is the deist position of esteemed minds like Einstein, or there’s an entity that intervened over the course of time to steer the course of events towards a desired outcome. I prefer the deist position - the deck was stacked one time and the immutable rules take over from there in a clockwork universe not because it must be that way but because it makes the universe rational and predictable.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Posted by: k.e on Sep. 21 2007,08:50



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
That said, I can’t say I’m convinced that the YEC contingent is wrong.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Oops the little yellow ID clown car with the red wheels just reversed into the Big Tent back door ....again. All the YEC clowns clap and jump in the air.HONK

The audience waits for the next act.
Posted by: Richardthughes on Sep. 21 2007,09:24

Shock, horror, Demski comes out against Common Descent. Davetard who previously wrote, the retracted:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I will remind everyone again - please frame your arguments around science. If the ID movement doesn't get the issue framed around science it's going down and I do not like losing. The plain conclusion of scientific evidence supports descent with modification from a common ancestor. You are certainly welcome to have other opinions based on faith in something other than science but I'd ask that you go to a religious website with them if you must talk about it.

You certainly don't have to agree here with descent with modification from a common ancestor but I'm going to start clamping down on anyone positively arguing against it. It's simply counter-productive to our goals and reinforces the idea that ID is religion because nothing but religion argues against descent with modification from a common ancestor. What we are fighting is the idea that the modification was unguided. ID can fight that without ever leaving the battleground of plain scientific conclusions. If we try to argue against anything else we're are (sic) going to lose. Plain and simple. No buts about it. There's only one gaping vulnerability in the commonly accepted evolutionary narrative we can exploit successfully and that's the bit about it being unplanned.


---------------------QUOTE-------------------



now agrees with him.

GOOD DOGGIE DAVE!
*scratches DT's ears*
DOES DAVEY WANT A CHEESY POOF? BEG...BEG... GOOD BOY!
Posted by: Richardthughes on Sep. 21 2007,09:32

Aw, worng thread.

Sternberger Story, Fix puh-lease?
Posted by: Glen Davidson on Sep. 21 2007,10:32

What a surprise, the stupid have to defame and lie where they can't hope to know anything (archiving again):



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
--In reply to Glen’s claim: “The “father of Intelligent Design” and HIV denier to whom I was referring is Phillip Johnson. Is it at all surprising that Johnson has advocated more than one pseudoscience, not just ID?”

It is hard for me to understand how educated persons could be so misinformed and resort to character assassination such as this. Se the above post.--

It's bizarre that people like Jbagail condemn themselves in just about every post, by dishonestly projecting their own faults onto others.  Johnson's past opposition is well-known by those informed enough to comment on these matters, which obviously Jbagail is not.  Here's one example, for the woefully ignorant defamatory pro-ID anti-thinkers:

--Given the 10 years of total lack of progress on AIDS, the billions of dollars that have been wasted, the human heart-ache that this issue has caused so many Americans, it seems only sensible that we should re-examine the question of what really causes AIDS. At issue here are not only the lives of those diagnosed with AIDS who are being treated improperly, but also of those who are tormented by the fear of AIDS-for themselves and their children. We can't allow the scientific bureaucrats at the CDC and NIH to prevent this reappraisal from happening. *--

This was written by:  "By Kary B. Mullis, Phillip E. Johnson & Charles A. Thomas Jr."  The whole piece may be found here:

< http://www.virusmyth.net/aids/data/kmsdtrib.htm >

I should mention that not only do IDists threaten lives by condemning the primary organizing principle in biology, evolution by investigable means, but the HIV denial in which Johnson engaged even more directly threatened the lives of people, especially in Africa.

Fortunately, science has "suppressed" such nonsense here thus far, or in other words, it has discharged its duty to abandon useless ideas whenever and wherever they have proven to be useless.  Jbagail chooses to be dishonest about this, as well as most other related matters.

Glen D
[URL=http://tinyurl.com/2kxyc7
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Posted by: Richardthughes on Sep. 23 2007,12:31

< http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/12965.html >
Posted by: Albatrossity2 on Sep. 27 2007,06:26

The < NY Times > has a run at the controversy (how dishonest were the makers of "Expelled" when they approached scientists about filming interviews?). PZ gets his name in the paper; Ben Stein gets more free publicity for his wacko beliefs.
Posted by: Richardthughes on Sep. 27 2007,09:03

< http://www.nytimes.com/2007....=slogin >


HT: Pharyngula.
Posted by: Richardthughes on Sep. 27 2007,09:06

From above..



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Mr. Stein, a prolific author who has acted in movies like “Ferris Bueller’s Day Off” and appeared on television programs including “Win Ben Stein’s Money” on Comedy Central, said in a telephone interview that he accepted the producers’ invitation to participate in the film not because he disavows the theory of evolution — he said there was a “very high likelihood” that Darwin was on to something — but because he does not accept that evolution alone can explain life on earth.

He said he also believed the theory of evolution leads to racism and ultimately genocide, an idea common among creationist thinkers. If it were up to him, he said, the film would be called “From Darwin to Hitler.”


---------------------QUOTE-------------------




HITLER! Woo Hoo!

(I was hoping for "why are their still monkeys")
Posted by: improvius on Sep. 27 2007,09:36

I added myself to the "Expelled" mailing list a while ago.  This hit my inbox last night (I'm too lazy to rebuild the links):



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Hey there,

Dairek here. I'm the director of Student Outreach for Motive Entertainment (the promotions company working with Expelled).

Wanted to let you know of a HUGE event coming up. It's called "The God Delusion" debate. Richard Dawkins will be debating John Lennox. It's probably the biggest debate on this subject in years. It's at the University of Alabama Birmingham NEXT WED, Oct 3. We're going to hold an Expelled rally before the event happens.

SO, if you happen to live around Birmingham, then please go be a part of the Expelled rally. If you're not in the Birmingham area, then perhaps you'd consider writing an op-ed in your local paper about the debate and/or issue. Dawkins is featured quite heavily in Expelled and has become one of the leading "faces" of Atheism.

Make sure you stay tuned in for the latest updates, and add this email address to your “safe” inbox so we don’t get tossed into the junk e-mail pile.

AND don't forget to help us spread the word . . . Here’s a couple different ways to tell your friends: CLICK HERE and enter your friends’ e-mail addresses. They will be sent an introductory email to the film. CLICK HERE to send your friends an e-card about the film
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Posted by: Henry J on Sep. 27 2007,12:04

Quote (Richardthughes @ Sep. 27 2007,09:06)
From above..



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
[...] — he said there was a “very high likelihood” that Darwin was on to something — but because he does not accept that evolution alone can explain life on earth.
[...]

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Well, a complete explanation of life of Earth would have to also include geology, astronomy physics, astrophysics, cosmology, climatology, etc., so in that sense evolution alone doesn't explain everything about life. Though that might not be what he meant?

Henry
Posted by: Glen Davidson on Sep. 29 2007,22:10

They finally have a new blog up at Ben's site, about as pathetic as the first one.  Well, I'm going to continue to archive, for I don't know what they're going to do with the blog in the end:

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
--Actually, the authentic victims in this story are those scientists who have been “expelled” for the offense of merely acknowledging that intelligent design exists within nature.--

Does it ever occur to you that you need to back up your claims?  Or are you just too IDist to care about truth, and evidence?  

Yes, we've heard that extremely tiresome and extremely well-answered claim extremely many times before now.  The mere fact that you've never come up with the slightest bit of solid evidence for it indicates that you're not only uninterested in science, but also that you're uninterested in telling the truth.

You want to know what I think about the complaints over the interviews?  I think they're legit, but not very important.  What?  Someone's making  a film about religion and science, and it ended up having a viewpoint, particularly one in favor of theocracy?  What a shock!  The name change is almost to be expected with films, and <i>Crossroads</i> should have been considered to be a working title by the participants.

Greater honesty from theists might be expected, if these weren't intellectually dishonest proponents of ID.  But the ellipses in their answers, in their "science," and in their dealings with others should be expected when they're opposed to the modern science that was worked out mainly within Christian societies (hardly only by Christians, or even theists, however).

Fine, I've taken care of that, from my perspective.

Now back to the gross dishonesty of the film's producers and writers.  Here's Ruloff's defamation of what is, as far as anybody knows, an honest man and scientist whose work Ruloff couldn't hope to understand, Francis Collins:

--Mr. Ruloff also cited Dr. Francis S. Collins, a geneticist who directs the National Human Genome Research Institute and whose book, “The Language of God: A Scientist Presents Evidence for Belief” (Simon & Schuster, 2006), explains how he came to embrace his Christian faith. Dr. Collins separates his religious beliefs from his scientific work only because “he is toeing the party line,” Mr. Ruloff said.

That’s “just ludicrous,” Dr. Collins said in a telephone interview.--

< http://www.nytimes.com/2007....=slogin >


And this is supposed to be an honest film?  Not a chance.  Francis Collins, who is attacked by the likes of PZ Myers and other "new atheists" who are intent on faulting religion and not just pseudoscience, does his work of gene sequencing well within the evolutionary paradigm (how could anybody do otherwise and be intellectually honest?), writes books on how he finds faith and science compatible, and sticks up solidly in favor of modern evolutionary theory, and all we get from Ruloff is this slander of the good man.  

By the way, Francis Collins does speak out in favor of cosmological ID and for a mind behind human morality, neither of which is exactly welcome in the scientific community--and for good reason, I might add.  He apparently is willing to buck the "Establishment" in some areas (areas where his competency does not lie, I might add), yet Ruloff acts as if his agreement with modern evolutionary theory is just some slimy suck-up to the powers that be.  These IDists have no shame, much like Joe McCarthy who knew the "communists" without taking the trouble to bring forward any evidence, or even intelligent argumentation.

Of course, Ruloff probably knows about as much about the history of the acceptance of science among religious folk in the Catholic and mainline Protestant traditions as he knows about science itself.  Tell me, Ruloff, why Father Coyne writes in favor of science and against pseudoscience?  Why do Catholic biology departments all across the country oppose "Intelligent Design," when clearly they rely on their Church to shield them from the faux persecution trumped up in this film?  

Indeed, why do many biologists in fundamentalist schools chafe under the restrictions of their religious leaders?  Wouldn't they simply accept ID without concern, if there was anything to it?  I know about at least one of these, because I went to a religious college (Walla Walla University, was Walla Walla College when I attended) for my undergraduate degree.  A number of your better scientists there were frankly evolutionist, from biologists to physicists, for all of the reasons that we've laid out at this blog and elsewhere.

Indeed, if Ruloff, Miller, and Ben Stein were able to show any kind of illegitimate suppression of their unevidenced pseudoscience, they'd be answering the questions I asked in the other thread, namely, why do the taxonomy and phylogeny of prokaryotes and of eukaryotes differ considerably and according to what would be expected from the known "naturalistic" evolutionary mechanisms, if indeed they were "designed"?  And why were pterosaur, bird, and bat wings were all derived from legs, and not from first principles or from extant (in the case of birds and bats) wings?  To say that it makes design sense to make wings out of legs is merely ridiculous.

None of you can answer those questions.  None of you has the slightest evidence FOR design at all.  Yet you demand that we treat ID as science, thus revealing your autocratic tendencies and desires to force unscientific beliefs into the science of Newton, Galileo, and Einstein.

Glen D
[URL=http://tinyurl.com/2kxyc7
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



One more:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
As it happens, Ben Stein doesn't seem particularly impressed by the ID nonsense either.  Not that it really should matter, given that he neither has expertise in science, nor has sense enough to recognize the importance of keeping pseudoscience from being forced into the university science departments.  Nevertheless, this is what NY Times reports of Stein's response:

--...said in a telephone interview that he [Ben] accepted the producers’ invitation to participate in the film not because he disavows the theory of evolution — he said there was a “very high likelihood” that Darwin was on to something — but because he does not accept that evolution alone can explain life on earth.

He said he also believed the theory of evolution leads to racism and ultimately genocide, an idea common among creationist thinkers. If it were up to him, he said, the film would be called “From Darwin to Hitler.--

< http://www.reason.com/blog/printer/122721.html >

Now this is a bizarre notion, though one pushed by IDists often enough.

Ben needs to study the history of Germany versus that of England and the United States.  Both of the latter have had and continue to have their faults, but they were the Enlightenment countries (the US in particular was founded on Enlightenment principles), and thus were not fertile ground for the nonsense of the Nazis (it is believed that occult beliefs played a large role in fostering Nazi anti-Semitism, for instance).  Germany was open to such ideas, for a number of reasons, naturally (WWI, depression, etc.), but especially because the Enlightenment hadn't really taken hold in Germany.

From Germany came Hegel, Marx, and Heidegger (actually, Kant, too, but Kant's pro-enlightenment notions had been quickly turned into Romantic thought by people like Hegel and Heidegger).  Of course great scientists came from Germany as well, but the overall attitude of Germany was Romantic, and favored "spirit" over theories about hard evidence.

Darwin, by contrast, was in the tradition of Hume, Newton, and a tradition that in both the judiciary and in science favored evidence over "feelings" and vague notions like ID or, indeed, the German Haeckel's magical notions.  Among the intellectuals of the Anglo world, Darwinism was taken up almost as a matter of course (most religious people in power did not oppose it), and despite a fair amount of Victorian notions in Darwin's writings, including racist ideas, evolutionary theory was part of far saner societies than what appeared in Germany and in Italy.

Evolutionary theory needed to move on from Darwin, in part because he included Victorian prejudices, and it most certainly did (one reason we don't like yahoos like Ruloff calling today's evolution "Darwinism"), for it was evidence-based science and thus became well-integrated with other science, like Mendelism.  Meanwhile, the non-Enlightenment societies of Germany and the USSR largely rejected the "materialistic" ideas of Mendel and of Darwin.  Did this itself make them the totalitarian nightmares that they were?  No, of course not, however, bad ideas in science frequently are associated with bad ideas in government, and Nazi Germany and Stalinist USSR were no exceptions.

In spite of all their faults, the UK and the US remained beacons of Englightenment, as the rejectors of the Enlightenment brought us war and genocides.  

Stein really ought to know about all of this much better than he does, for he ought to know a little about Jews and the improvement of their lot as the Enlightenment took hold.  Medieval theocracies were cruel to Jews, and actually, to many many Christians as well.  The Enlightenment brought relief to most everybody, other than that we had to fight and oppose the anti-Enlightenment societies of Germany and the USSR.

So now what does Ben do?  He attacks the Enlightenment itself through this movie, claiming that those who have no evidence and only desires to impose their will onto science, have been persecuted.  You want Hitler, or at least theocratic dominance over what should be free science?  Then keep this up, Ben.

The Enlightenment is what demanded evidence before one is determined to be guilty, and the Enlightenment is what demands that science remain based in evidence and not in the wishes of Romantics and of atavistic theocrats.  As ID's Wedge Document points out, ID is really only a way of getting rid of Enlightenment ideas (it doesn't call them that, but it is what they are), and hence the way to attack both our Constitution and the science that America needs to compete.

If you don't know science, Ben, at least try boning up some on history.  Attacking the Enlightenment is the way to Hitler, as well as to other less odious but still objectionable impositions upon humanity.  Force science to accept "standards" that reject the need for legitimate evidence, and not only have you destroyed the First Amendment, you have destroyed the Declaration of Indepence as well, and all that gave rise to freedom of thought and of science.

There you go.  You're free, of course, to oppose the Allies and their anti-fascist standards, but if you succeed in your gambit, you had better not count on having freedom for much longer.  

Glen D
< http://tinyurl.com/2kxyc7
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Posted by: Glen Davidson on Oct. 02 2007,00:06

Another half-wit with just enough learning to get everything wrong shows up at the "Expelled" blog:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
It's nice of the philosophically ignorant "Post-secular PhD" to tell us all about science and philosophy.  Of course it really has almost nothing to do with actual philosophy, science, or the bases for our judicial system.  Indeed, with his disregard for the "intersubjective" soundness of science, we could hardly do anything in science, and we may as well forget about "proving" anyone guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

Here's some of his "wisdom":

--[Science] almost always requires a deep commitment to a set of principles, laws, and practices in the absence of conclusive “proof” (i.e. faith);--

What a bizarre term for the well-honed understandings of mind worked out in philosophy and in science--faith.  Science, like the related forensics, exists in order to be able to decide matters on something other than faith, which was too much relied-upon in medieval times.

Anyone who's actually read what the more prolific pro-science posters have written, instead of just assuming something that isn't true based on his unwarranted faith like "PhD" did, would recognize that we do not claim that science is based upon "conclusive proof" (not completely true, since mathematical proofs are used, but these rely on "postulates" and "axioms" which cannot be proven).  We rely on the best evidence, and yes, we also rely on the best principles, laws, and practices which have been subjected to skepticism and scrutiny.  They are not "proved" as such, however they have been demonstrated, something that a scientist worth his salt would mention.

--and cannot operate without dogma.--

No, we cannot operate <b>with dogma.</b>  This is why I have no reason to believe the claims you make of being a scientist.  Everything is at least theoretically in doubt, although some principles and "laws" have been very well demonstrated in the areas where they can be tested.  If scientists often reveal their biases, it is completely wrong to say of science as a whole that it operates with dogma.  It uses whatever has proven to be sound after being subjected to tests and questioning, the only legitimate way in which to proceed.  Dogma would totally undermine science because it would destroy the necessary questions of our "intersubjective" agreements and evidentiary processes.

--Furthermore, how well a theory fits the data is often not the main reason for its acceptance or dismissal.--

How well the theory fits the data is indeed the main reason for its acceptance or dismissal, so long as "fit" is understood in scientific terms of causality (in classical science) and the principles that have been shown to work.

--Darwinian evolution took root despite a fundamental deficiency (the lack of any evidence for hereditary material).--

That wasn't a "fundamental deficiency," which you'd know if you were any kind of competent scientist.  First of all, there was indeed evidence for hereditary material, in that parents produced offspring much like themselves.  Darwin utilized the empirical processes of artificial selection as an analogy with natural selection.  The chemical, and what we now call the "genetic", bases for the known hereditary effects were not known, but that something was transmitted was indubitable.

--It took another century to discover the structure of DNA, but that didn’t stop scientists from holding to the theory.--

You totally shifted the issue at stake from what you first wrote to these non sequiturs.  You made the illegitimate claim that scientists accept theories not because of their fit with the data, but for other reasons.  Then you complain about the deficiencies of genetic knowledge (incompetently, I might add) in Darwin's day, as if that meant that "Darwinism" wasn't the best fit to the data.  That doesn't follow in the least.

The point of "Darwinism" (in that time the term was fairly appropriate, but I use scare quotes because we've moved so far beyond Darwin's original theory) was to fit the data as well as was possible at the time.  Which it did.  For your claim about "Darwinism" being accepted without it fitting the data best to have any kind of legitimacy, you'd have to show that there was another scientific theory which fit the data better.  And you seem even to be unaware of this necessity in science.

The fact is that "Darwinism" was a theory of change based upon obvious, yet poorly understood, processes of hereditary.  It fit the data because it explained life without resort to a teleology which cannot be shown in life the life we see, which has no apparent or demonstrable purpose.  "Darwinism" explains how organisms are adapted without any sort of rational planning in evidence (as we'd expect from "design"), and with "competing purposes" evident in organisms (hence no overall "purposes" beyond reproduction).  Evolutionary theory explains why Linnaeus and Aristotle felt compelled to treat organisms with homologies as if they were related--the reason being because they are!

In a way, "Darwinism" predicted that discrete hereditary information exists in organisms, for evolution by natural selection (plus other processes) couldn't occur (in life's context, that is) otherwise.  In that sense, and not in the sense of giving us any of the details, Mendel's findings were predicted by "Darwinism".  Instead of "PhD" being impressed that "Darwinism" would rely upon the kind of conservative yet "randomly" alterable molecule such as DNA turned out to be, he tries to claim that the theory's prescience was actually a liability.

Well, it wasn't, as anyone with a smattering of knowledge of the philosophy of science knows.  Many theories begin without having some of their core requirements fulfilled by observation, and later data fills these in.  Did Einstein's theory of relativity have the necessary evidence of light-bending by gravity when he proposed it?  Of course not, and the evidence that light is bent by gravity showed that his already explanatory theory was likely the proper one.  

Darwin actually did have a good deal more evidence in hand when he wrote <i>Origin of Species</i> than Einstein did.  Hence the acceptance of his theory did not need to wait on further observations (to tell the truth, Darwin's mechanism wasn't fully accepted until the 20th century, but it probably should have been, and was accepted in part by much of biology even earlier).  

DNA and its associated mechanisms (including repair) turned out to be exactly the kind of molecule needed for "Darwinian" evolution to work.  As such, it ought to be considered as vindication of the mechanisms of evolution elucidated by Darwin and others.  And thus, far from being a reason to fault those who were intelligent enough to recognize the importance of natural selection, it indicates that those who insisted on cause and effect processes in biology were correct, and that the people who relied on magic and "vitalism" were as wrong as all who prefer wish-fulfillment to the processes of science.  Or those who can't understand the proper relationship between evidence, science, and philosophy (philosophy must be based on evidence as well, ultimately, and not to dictate the equalities that some neo-scholastics assume).

Glen D
[URL=http://tinyurl.com/2kxyc7
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Posted by: Glen Davidson on Oct. 02 2007,21:40

Can this guy actually think that he's clever?  Anyway, it's quite likely the same halfwit I tackled last night, trying to be "clever" where he can't be competent.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
<blockquote>2nd. this is in response to Glen Davidson who will no doubt pounce on my primitive remarks. hey, call me reckless.</blockquote>

Nah, ignorant and incompetent will do.

--i do apologize to everyone else for this because it is way off topic but could prove to be entertaining to some so get your popcorn and that stale diet dr. pepper and read on.--

Yeah, that's right, it's way off topic, and you're too incapable of any insight to actually address anything I wrote.  Hence a long ad hominem attack, none of it honest or substantive.

--Seriously though, you are a fantastic spokesperson for Darwinian evolution…and unresolved rage my man,--

I deal with the emotionally committed who can't make an intellectual case on their own level, at the level of emotion.  Of course you wouldn't understand me, you know nothing about me and are intent only on trying to defame whatever you cannot comprehend.

--but what a wealth of knowledge! WOW!--

Yes, quite unlike yourself, I don't ramble on stupidly about what I don't know.

--I’d love to have an evolution party with you sometime. We could talk Darwin and you could unpack the mysteries of the universe to me and chop a few heads off in the process. woo hoo!--

Wow, clever.  Who'd think to imply that we who defend the Enlightenment are axe murderers.  Oh, except for the rest of the herd who has no capacity for making substantive comments.

--you seem to get around the blog sites too so i’m sure we could go over your “Davidson’s Top 5 Slams” and boast about all the idiots you exposed.--

You'd be on it.  No, not really, you're pretty weak as substanceless maligners go.  I'd put you in the top 50, though, if I cared to document biting gnats.

--do you have them taped on your wall or just saved on your hard drive?--

Actually, I rarely start any of these brawls.  You missed that, didn't you?  True, I hit the "Prof", because he's claiming expertise in an area where he is so clearly lacking.  But I don't do ad homs, I just have to respond often enough to people like you who hate not being able to provide the sorts of evidence that we do.

--i know you believe you’re fine and you’re only upset at the stupidity of that scientist who must be a liar and an idiot savant who happens to help cure lethal diseases but seriously, man. you act like he attacked your belief system or something…weird.--

Oh yes, we know the game.  The creo or IDist attacks scientists, implying that they are liars for maintaining actual standards.  Then when we realize that the snake oil is convincing enough people and we raise the alarm, you attack us for actually responding to a boatload of defamatory comments and attempts to impose theocracy upon the nation.  Tragically, such an obvious and dishonest ploy works on enough people.

--What do you do, cowboy? something noble i’m sure. something that helps and doesn’t hurt which is why you have to take all your aggression out on people you’ll never meet.--

Here's the dolt who can do nothing but attack me for responding to the anti-Enlightenment push, ascribing his own ill tendencies to me.  The fact is that I haven't used particularly strong language, rather less strong than many on both sides have used, you're merely trying to put down what you find impossible to answer.

--what are you so afraid of boss? why do you have to belittle?--

Because you harm people.  Can you get that?  I fear those who would use power to overcome free inquiry, freedom of religion, and the freedom of speech.  In fact just now you are effecting a de facto attempt to curtail my freedom of speech (legal, but immoral), by making a whole lot of dishonest claims in your ad hominem attack.  If you were concerned about honest dialog, you'd engage me on the substance.

--that’s not exactly the best way to educate or inspire, but i’m sure you know that. you do want to educate and inspire right? that’s why you’re standing for something right? its not like you’re learning all this just to justify your rightness and be better than others or anything.--

What education do you bring to this thread?  I don't employ the slimy tactics that you do, I keep it honest.  And no, I do not try to educate people such as yourself, whose hatred of competence combines with your unwarranted egoism to try to put down whatever you can't counter with legitimate arguments.

I do educate.  But I also know how to fight those who will use whatever tactics they can to undermine the integrity of science.

--i mean that would be lame and you don’t have to time for that you have a difference to make. --

Apparently you're really addressing yourself, whatever the pronouns you misuse.

--after all, anyone arrogant enough to tell another scientist whom he doesn’t know from Adam (or grandaddy rock - presludge you know ;)), who obviously has well thought out arguments and ideas, that he isn’t “worth his salt” as a scientist and doesn’t have “a smattering of knowledge” about science or philosophy must be on the brink of an enormous breakthrough in science or medicine.--

Yeah, I knew it was "Prof" again, not willing to show himself, and completely unable to back up his erroneous claims. Sorry, I studied philosophy a great deal, and I have no business treating some ignorant claptrap as if they were "well-thought out" arguments.  They're not, they're pop philosophy, and the call of every honest scientist to actually look at the evidence remains the only proper response to such post-modernist nihilism.

--no? maybe just the head professor at a well respected college changing his community? oh, well i’m sure it’s something worth while.--

And it is a distraction from the issues you're trying to avoid.  You haven't even given your name.  Plus, the issues are laid bare on their own, and it is all too apparent that you wish to avoid the actual issues by bringing in irrelevancies--again because you lack the ability to deal with substance.

--by the way, thanks for proving that idiot “Phd”’s argument for him since he couldn’t do it on his own. you really hit those points home about science having to believe before it knows and all that.--

I guess when you run out of ad hominem attacks you resort to complete fictionalization of the exchange.  Well, you could hardly answer me, now could you?  After all, science is about questioning and skepticism, while your formulation is exactly the opposite, the falsehood that it is about dogma.

--don’t get me wrong. i had to work through all your hate toward your mom, society and that girl that dumped you in highschool that you never got over but seriously,--

Wow, that's really a new one.  Gee pop psychology when your pop philosophy fails you.  Make up a few lies, throw them out, hope that your flung feces work where your wits obviously do not.

--thanks. you really helped use that reverse psychology to drive the point home. did you do that on purpose?--

Even better, the old "reverse psychology" ploy.  Nice to have someone from the '70s visit me with his "profound insights".

--genius. congratulations again for defeating your own argument and actually supporting the other guys.--

Since you're apparently not too bright, I'll have to figure that you came up with that standard little feint by recognizing your own tactics here.  The whole mom and girlfriend thing, while standard empty rhetoric for witless drones, are more than likely to be your own story.

--nice work man.--

You'd mean that, if you were capable of understanding the issues.

--From Carnegie to Lincoln, its pretty common knowledge that the more you have to cut down someone else the less confident you are in yourself and your decisions.--

Gee, I bet you think that hate isn't the opposite of love, only apathy is, also.  Where'd you learn your "psychology", out of Playboys?  

Anyway, if your pop psychology is correct, it clearly cuts against you far more than myself, since I discussed issues and called the "Prof" as I saw him.  It really goes against the intelligence you claim when you suggest that somehow calling out an arrogant guy blabbing on about things he doesn't understand actually exhibits some kind of "need" to cut people down.  From Lincoln to Carnegie, competent people have used the proper words to describe the pompous and substanceless, people like yourself.

--You don’t have to be a scientist to know that. but you don’t care what other people think do you? least off all a lesser mortal like me. all i do is make people millionaires.--

The plaint of the truly pathetic.  'Why yes, I know how to make money, so my opinion about Darwin and DNA is worth something.'  Try that out on the truly stupid.  Come to think of it, I'd guess you do that a lot.  Well then, learn enough to differentiate between the stupid and those who see immediately through your ad hominem attacks.

--i don’t really know a lot about science. speaking of, got a client so have to go. u get clients Dr Glen?--

Gee, I wish I were a suckup to the bourgeoisie like you.  I thought you had no substance, but by God, you have clients (so you say).  That changes everything.

--oh, and before you call me out for belittling you and therefore defeating my whole “confidence” vamp. remember this. i did it with style.--

Thanks for telling me, since I thought that was a collection of inane pop psychology and lame repetitions by the truly uncreative.  Hm, so that's style.  How could I have been so wrong as to think that T.S. Eliot had style, when it is really the babblings of a dull troll are what really counts as style?

--that’s the difference. take notes, cowboy. ciao.--

Write that down.  

Gee, you're turning into JAD (John A. Davison, who attacks the person instead of the substance because he has none of the latter--like you "Galactic") right before our eyes, with the same clicheed patter, the desperate attempts to claim "style" or some such thing for crude and derivative attacks, and of course, a total lack of substance coupled with the projection of your own failings onto others.

I bet you're going to try to claim some triumph for this sad little attempt at a slam, since you reveal yourself in your tired little attacks.  I, naturally, don't do anything like that, since responding to someone like you is too easy.  The only things I remember are the opportunities I have for discussing science and the philosophy of science in depth, while these feces-flingers are answered and quickly forgotten (unless they haunt the forums with their raging impotence).

Glen D
< http://tinyurl.com/2kxyc7
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Posted by: Glen Davidson on Oct. 03 2007,13:44

This is actually some fairly interesting information, which someone named "Roger" found:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I ran across this information on the web (someone else did the work, I'm pointing out, but he only called himself "Roger"):

<blockquote>Domain Name: EXPELLEDTHEMOVIE.COM
  Registrar: TUCOWS INC.
  Whois Server: whois.tucows.com
  Referral URL: < http://domainhelp.opensrs.net >
  Name Server: NS1.FILMPR.COM
  Name Server: NS2.FILMPR.COM
  Status: ok
  Updated Date: 15-jun-2007
  Creation Date: 01-mar-2007
  Expiration Date: 01-mar-2008</blockquote>

< http://www.networksolutions.com/whois....vie.com >

So there you are, according to this apparently reliable site, "expelledthemovie.com" was registered in March, 2007.  PZ Myers was told that the movie would be <i>Crossroads</i> in April, 2007, as he wrote:

<blockquote>Last April, I received this nice letter from Mark Mathis.</blockquote>

< http://scienceblogs.com/pharyng....tar.php >

So how can the following be considered to be anything but misleading, on top of the misleading comments given to the interviewees?

<blockquote>The release references “Crossroads,” as a “tentative” title, if that’s OK? So just to set the record straight, the film was titled EXPELLED only after we began to see the disturbing pattern and shocking information that the footage reveals! So, thanks for the title guys, we couldn’t have done it without you! And we’re still considering using “Crossroads” for something else! Watch out.</blockquote>

Yes, it's true that they may have used <i>Crossroads</i> as a working or tentative title sometime prior to March 1, 2007, but clearly they knew by the time of PZ Myers' interview that they'd probably (or at the very least, very <i>possibly</i> would) go with "Expelled".  Otherwise, they wouldn't have registered the domain "expelledthemovie.com" then.

Now I'm not one who thinks the shenanigans of the producers of "Expelled" are anything to get too worked up about.  The pattern of dishonesty continued in this particular blog, however, hardly speaks well for them--although it's pretty much a constant factor in the promotion of ID, along with the steady whine about "persecution" coupled with dead silence whenever we request the evidence FOR "intelligent design" (as opposed to their attacks on MET).

Glen D
< http://tinyurl.com/2kxyc7
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Posted by: Glen Davidson on Oct. 04 2007,16:43

And another one, which will be broken up at "Expelled":  [oops, I meant to break it up, but didn't]



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
The rather odd and disjointed composition of this particular blog entry has been commented upon by many.

Being a screed, however, it's not unexpected.  You know, so many of the standard put-downs of the opposition have to get in, so much persecution has to be claimed, and any of the requirements that the claims made on the blog as well as the claims made by IDists must be properly evidenced and argued must be shunted aside with a sort of tabloid rhetoric.

OK, but that's said, and it will be ignored on the other side because they (or most on that side who comment on these forums do, anyway) already "know" that I have to be wrong simply because I am on the other side.  So I'll leave that bit as an introduction that will receive the predictable reactions from the various factions, and will move on to some specific problems with what was written, beyond what I've (or anyone, IIRC) discussed in the past.  To be sure, the problems "go without saying," that is, they go without saying for the people who have learned about science and philosophy.  However, these problems should be mentioned for the sake of those who have either missed out through no fault of their own (elitism is far too rampant in this society), and for those who have simply not cared to learn prior to pontificating on these matters (I particularly mean those responsible for this film).

<blockquote>Actually, the <i>authentic</i> victims in this story are those scientists who have been “expelled” for the offense of merely <i>acknowledging</i> that intelligent <i>design</i> exists within nature.</blockquote>

The way italics are used above is odd.  However, one is probably justified to surmise that "acknowledging" is written and emphasized both to rhetorically (and without evidence) suggest that it is only sensible to claim that life is designed (despite the fact that this claim has never been established in a judicially or scientifically sound manner), and to try to void the normal scientific requirement that such claims need to be <b>evidenced</b>, not merely assumed and (supposedly) <i>acknowledged</i>.

In other words, rhetoric is used to bluster through the fact that ID has no evidence in its favor.  Call the IDists "victims" who are supposedly suppressed for "acknowledging" assumptions for which they are required in scientific practice to actually make an evidence-based case, and thereby you have successfully ignored the fact that ID doesn't meet the requirements for science--and for that reason alone do have their apologetics rejected, or, where that's not possible, ridiculed as being pseudoscience.

<blockquote>Our worldwide investigation over the last eighteen months revealed the <i>real</i> “miscasting.” </blockquote>

Your "investigation" consists in those committed to an <i>a priori</i> belief in a designer-God looking for reasons to attack those who maintain the proper and expected standards of science.  It is not an investigation so much as it is the use of your own confirmation bias as a way to fault those who disagree with you, and to affirm what you prejudicially assumed from the beginning.  A proper investigation would be made up of people who know the rules of evidence, not a right-wing actor/writer like Stein, a right-wing radio host like Miller, and a businessman such as Ruloff.  These people lack the perspective of judges, scientists, and others steeped in the processes of sorting out good ideas from bad ideas, rather they simplistically believe that just because science rules against ID that such judgments are tantamount to "suppression".

<blockquote>Namely, to the role of <i>“the unemployed,” or “discredited,”</i> that the cadre of elite antitheists assigns any scientist or educator dissenting from the party line.</blockquote>

Oh yes, the tired old refrain of the believers in discredited beliefs.  You get that from every purveyor of crackpot "science", from faulty physics "theorists", to UFO believers, to the few geocentrists still kicking around, to Rousseau with his herbal cures which are supposedly being kept quiet by the conspiracy of the medical establishment (Weil is also in this category), and on to the people who just know that the CIA, KGB, President Johnson, or some other favorite enemy "really" killed Kennedy.

In fact it is true that there are many beliefs that are properly discredited.  Does Ruloff want "phlogiston theory" being taught to his children?  Should the claim that Prometheus made man out of earth and water be taught to Miller's kids?  We have the First Amendment to keep blatantly religious beliefs from being promoted by the government, which is why we don't teach Greek myths, nor the Judeo-Christian philosopher's God as being the "intelligent designer" of life, in science classes.

The only legitimate tactic to use when we call ID a discredited pseudoscience is for you to actually produce evidence in favor of your "hypothesis" (no, the "Explanatory Filter" does not provide evidence, it only attempts to impose a false dilemma into science standards).  The people behind the movie and this blog cannot or will not explain why the "designer" supposedly designed prokaryotes differently than eukaryotes (in prokaryotes, different genes in the same organism "speciate" at different times, is one example of what I'm talking about) and in line with known prokaryotic evolutionary mechanisms, nor do they tell me why vertebrate wings were "designed" from leg structures instead of from first principles, or from previously existing wings.  Therefore, the only legitimate conclusion to which I can come is that the <i>Expelled</i> folk cannot produce the evidence required for us to consider their "hypothesis" scientifically.  On the other side, we do have explanations for these phenomena, yet ID wants equal billing in academia when it has no explanation for these or other biological phenomena.

<blockquote>The party line being the “explanation” that random mutation is responsible for the extrusion of <i>every living thing on earth,</i> and in <i>record</i> time.</blockquote>

See now, I'd like to know who wrote "the extrusion of every living thing on earth."  It isn't even proper use of the word "extrusion".  Plastic objects, spaghetti, and Play-Do are what can be extruded.  Extrude a monkey, and you have nothing but a rather disgusting paste with bits of bone in it.

But that's just a complaint that the writing here is bad.  It's the science mistakes that really matter.

Anybody who knows enough to properly be commenting on evolutionary theory either way should recognize at once what a collosal mistake it is to say that the accepted explanation for life's diversity is "random mutation", as suggested by the above quote.  Random mutation doesn't even come up in Darwin's writings, though he did dealt with the variations that do arise without assuming a telos (goal or purpose) which is not in evidence.  Evolutionary theory is based on the obvious fact that "unselected" variations could never produce what we see in life, but rather, some sort of "selection" is absolutely crucial.

It is much easier for the author of this blog piece to attack the strawman that ID sets up (from Dembski's to the Discovery Institute's blog, this strawman is a commonplace of ID misrepresentation of biology) than it would be to discuss the evidence regarding evolutionary mechanisms.

Not content in making one rather egregious language mistake, and perhaps the greatest scientific error one could make about evolutionary theory, the author has to claim that living things were "extruded" in "record time."

I wonder how in the world 3-4 billion years of evolution could be mistaken to be "record time"?  The fact is that life took an amazingly long time even to get beyond single cells and (relatively) simple colonies of these cells.  The Cambrian "explosion" was fast by evolutionary standards, probably for reasons of genetic plasticity along with a dramatic rise in oxygen, but of course its results were fully in-line with what we'd expect from evolutionary mechanisms--evolutionary changes within the expected range of evolutionary constraints, and a whole lot of "primitive" (certainly primitive by comparison with many crown species) ancestors (or close relatives of the actual ancestors) of later organisms.

What is stunning is that IDists suppose that their designer took 3-4 billion years to come up with what we have today.  This is completely out of the range of anything we have ever seen a designer actually do.  Of course we have also never seen designers constrained by the evolutionary limitations that we see in life, nor any designers whose rationality couldn't be elucidated from their work.  IDists cannot point to any rational design or planning of organisms, which is why they try to change the subject.

Lord Kelvin tried to claim that evolution was impossible within the 20 million years or so that he allowed for the existence of the earth, when most biologists were nearly certain that it would take several hundred million years.  So there is nothing odd in the fact that life took so long to evolve.

It is this film that is trying to claim that their "designer" made life in a "record" amount of "time," indeed, in a time so much longer than the scale of all known design processes that it is impossible to conceive of the mechanisms involved in any such "design" (classical science requires so-called "mechanisms", another reason ID isn't science).  That no doubt is why this blog isn't even upholding the ID fiction that ID is not religious, because clearly their designer is God-like in both being inscrutable and in being omnipotent (I know of no IDist who doesn't claim that the "designer" also made the universe).  Isn't it a trifle odd that ID's "design" phase just happens to be within the range required for non-teleological evolution, and also that what we see in organisms is what would be expected of non-teleological evolution?

The following quote is from a different context than the foregoiong (if you want to see the context, just scroll to the beginning blog piece), and is aimed specifically at issues that I will not discuss.  There seems to be little doubt that it is also meant to be a comment about evolutionary ideas in general, which I will address:

<blockquote>Random mutation never ceases to <i>amaze</i>, though. One just can’t <i>predict</i> what will happen!</blockquote>

Again we have the improper claim that evolutionary theory is about nothing other than "random mutation".  What I want to discuss now, however, is the equally false claim that evolution can't "predict" what will happen.

That would be true if evolution were only about random mutation, of course (actually, physics would still yield some predictions, but they'd be biologically uninteresting, for there'd be no biology), or if it were caused by some design process and design goals unknown to us.  However, evolutionary theory is founded upon predictions which have been borne out by the evidence, as any theory must be.

Within known evolutionary constraints, the "nested hierarchy" found in taxonomy is indeed one of the founding predictions of evolutionary theory.  Aristotle and Linnaeus came up with taxonomies (Linnaeus' was far more complete) which grouped organisms in ways that looked a lot like genealogies do, and no one (other than creos and IDists claiming exceptions where their theologies are threatened) claims that genealogical patterns exist by "design".  Darwin (and earlier thinkers like Maupertuis who had similar ideas, but not the needed mass of evidence) made the rather obvious (by now) observation that the evidence that shows organisms to appear as if they were related should be understood as meaning that they are related.

That wasn't a "prediction" in the way that many outside of science consider the term to mean, however it counts as a prediction in science because such patterns are entailed by the theory and its context.

What amounts more to "prediction" in the vernacular sense is that evolutionary theory predicts the range of what transitional fossils must embody.  That's how we know that archaeopteryx is transitional (in point of fact, it is not the ancestor of today's birds, but it is thought most likely from morphological considerations to be about three cladistic branchings off from the actual ancestor).  ID cannot provide the criteria for deciding transitional fossils at all, for there are no known constraints on the supposed designer (unless we simply take MET's constraints as if they are the "designer's", clearly an ad hoc solution).  Hence there is something odd about an IDist like Behe accepting the fact that evolution occurred from the evidence, when the evidence for evolution can only be evidence for evolution if it is constrained by known evolutionary processes, and not when they are unconstrained by dint of some super-intelligent "designer" working for unknown purposes and via unknown capabilities.

The finding of Tiktaalik (a transitional between fish and amphibian) is one of the best examples of predicting both transitional form and timing, since the researchers who went to the expected "time strata" to find evidence about the evolutionary development of Tiktaalik's shoulder girdle and other tetrapod locomotive anatomy (a mere transitional was not what they were after, as some of these transitionals, such as Ichthyostega, were already known) found just the <i>type of</i> transitional for which they were looking--in the predicted range of strata.  I'd also point out that timing is only statistically predictable in evolution, for we do not know all of the contingencies involved.  However, the predicted ranges for transitional fossils is rather narrower than are the predicted times for most transitions (not that there aren't substantial constraints on most temporal <i>ranges</i>).

And of course, as I've mentioned a number of times, and already in this post, prokaryotes are predicted to evolve differently from how eukaryotes are predicted to evolve.  Prokaryote (I mention parenthetically that some object to the term "prokaryote", since it really only means "not-eukaryote" or "non-eukaryote".  However, it is often useful to be able to easily write "non-eukaryote" by writing "prokaryote") taxonomy is difficult, due to the great number of lateral transfers between closely related lines (and yes, like I mentioned, it's interesting that "genes speciate" separately in the same "species" of prokaryote) and lack of true sexual reproduction.  Vertebrates appear not to undergo much lateral gene transfer, so produce the wonderful phylogenetic trees so beloved of the teachers of evolution.

Indeed, the evolutionary patterns are significantly different between eukaryotes (actually, lateral gene transfers to insects from Wolbachia appear to be much more common than were expected in the past, yet sexual reproduction in insects seems to largely maintain the eukaryote patterns of evolution in these as well) and prokaryotes, agreeing with the predictions of MET (modern evolutionary theory).

Look, I could go on about evolutionary predictions, but I think that these are the very biggest predictions which have to work out predictively according to known mechanisms--and this is already a very long response to a few short and erroneous statements.  What I've mentioned already are crucial tests for whether or not MET works within our present ability to comprehend cause and effect, and the predictions are overwhelmingly borne out by the evidence (inevitably there are questions at the margins, as in any science, while the expected patterns are unquestionable).

ID, by contrast, tries to sneek into science by emphasizing the remaining questions, and not by coming up with any kind of prediction or evidence that design has happened over the course of evolution.  Design ought to be detectable, indeed, for we have tests for "engineered" organisms.  And actually, one important question for IDists is why it is that we can detect our own "designs" in organisms (sometimes this is done from specific knowledge about genetic engineering of organisms, but one could also detect substantial tampering with genomes of, say, anthrax by comparing what designers can do with what is possible without any engineering)from the background genomes, since according to IDists the background is also designed.  This may be very important in the future, if terrorist organizations make designer diseases.  It would be impossible for us to detect designer diseases if "wild-type" organisms had been designed, assuming that the word "design" has any actual meaning to it.

Well, it isn't surprising that IDists take pains to avoid making predictions (except to claim that ID predicts IC or some such thing, which it doesn't--clearly design can be either IC or not-IC, and without knowing the capabilities of the "designer" one could never know if it could make anything that is "IC"), since life is so unlike any designs that we have ever observed being produced.  

By contrast, one can predict what will happen in evolution, or more precisely, one can predict the range of possibilities within a given evolutionary scenario.  If what we find in biology did not fit within that range, I'm sure that the IDists would happily point this out to us.  Failing that, they try to make much of the fact that biology is an ongoing science which, unsurprisingly, does not have all of the answers, while they continue to predict nothing whatsoever that is actually entailed by general design principles as we know them, nor by appeal to a specific designer with known specific capabilities and purposes which may differ from presently known designers.  

What the gang at <i>Expelled</i> wants is for us to devalue the explanations and predictions which evolutionary theory makes possible, and for science to capitulate to an unscientific theological idea which refuses to make the kinds of entailed predictions that every legitimate scientific hypothesis must make.  They want us to state that ID is the every bit the equal of the predictive scientific theory that biology researchers use every day, when it is useless for research purposes.  Such heavy-handed tactics didn't ultimately work in Galileo's day, so why should anti-empirical dictates succeed now?

Glen D
[URL=http://tinyurl.com/2kxyc7
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Posted by: Glen Davidson on Oct. 06 2007,12:59

Another monotonous drone insists that we accept science's guilt prior to presentation of any evidence:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Glen Davidson Says: Your comment is awaiting moderation.

October 6th, 2007 at 12:44 pm
Glen Davidson, I wonder why you’re protesting so furiously, without firsthand knowledge of this movie’s content?

I wonder why you’re coming up with false claims about what I’m doing. I’m responding to a whole lot of unfounded attacks, essentially ad hominem fallacies, upon science and its practitioners, and have never pretended to be addressing the movie.

It seems odd to me that you’ve elected yourself the only “truly enlightened” intellectual here.

It seems to me that you have nothing worthwhile to bring against what I’ve written, hence you are out to malign someone who has done what you cannot, actually discuss the issues raised at this blog in an intellectual manner.

Do you realize that you’ve already posted 6 times in this thread alone — and the movie doesn’t come out for another 4 months?

Do you realize that you haven’t actually addressed any of the substance of what I’ve written? Not surprising, because pro-ID folk have a knack for ignoring the need for evidence, substantive reasoning, etc.

In case you haven’t figured it out yet, the promo material for this movie suggests that it’s about “closed minds”

In case you haven’t figured it out yet, its a rather simple fact that this particular blog entry is attacking and misrepresenting evolutionary ideas themselves, as well as bringing up a whole lot of canards about “persecution” without even a feint toward supplying any evidence that this is so.

— not so much a debate about the details of Creation — but a true disclosure of those too BIGOTED to consider any other possibilities, or deeper discussion.

Apparently your beef with me is that I don’t accept their completely unsupported assertions. You also seem to fail to recognize what I’ve in the main discussed, which was the lack of honesty in this blog, as well as how very wrong Ben Stein is to attack the Enlightenment. Especially since the Enlightenment-influenced societies were the ones who fought off Hitler and the rest of the largely anti-Enlightenment Nazis. I also bothered with the abysmal nonsense from “Prof” and the ad hominems of “Galactic” (supposing they are not the same person).

Is that the type of scientific discovery we should embrace?

Is your unquestioned belief in the veracity of these people anything I should embrace?

Should details that conflict with our belief system be hidden?

The details are hidden, should they in fact exist. I wouldn’t have thought that this vital fact would be missed by you, but apparently it was. Ruloff can present actual evidence for his claims, and I will be happy to consider it. These people haven’t done so, but apparently think we’re supposed to take it all on faith.

— even if empirical scientific data backs up someone’s claims?

Bring in the empirical data, why don’t you? That’s our complaint, that no one from your side ever does, least of all this blog.

Should those scientists be ridiculed or shunned for expanding our horizons to other possibilities?

They’ve been ridiculed for bypassing the processes that vet science and make it into a worthwhile endeavor. And we’re still waiting for any evidence in favor of ID, as I’ve mentioned.

Should the status quo be maintained — just to keep the money (grants,etc.) flowing into universities?

Should you drone on and on about a “conspiracy” for which you lack even a scintilla of evidence?

In case you haven’t come to grips with this reality, your knowledge of Darwinism is also a “belief system” — with preconceived biases,

Another mind-numbing repetitive talking point from someone who seems not even to recognize the need to back up his charges. The fact that IDists chant this illegitimate claim is no reason why we should adopt it.

that make the pieces fit (for you).

Gee, yes, that’s what theories are about, fitting the evidence together. I’d like to see ID do that, or for you whiners to come up with evidence for your conspiracy theory.

Your adamant opposition to Believers isn’t proving anything — in fact, you highlight quite well what this movie is about (e.g. you’re a bully).

The real bully just calls the guy who demans evidence a “bully”. Learn something about science, why don’t you, and quit insisting that you have the right to force your ideas into science without providing any kind of evidence in favor of it.

If someone knows deep in their heart that God exists, your pompous arguments are not going to make a difference.

Your bullying and name-calling isn’t going to do anything to persuade anyone with any intellectual honesty. Besides, if you were intellectually honest you wouldn’t imply that I’ve been arguing against God at all. It’s amazing just how lacking in honesty most (at least most who comment) on your side is.

Please wait for the movie.

Right, I’m supposed to wait for the movie, while Stein and the producers malign those on the science side without presenting any sort of evidence.

There’s plenty of time for mankind to solve this puzzle. For now, maybe we should just be talking about whether people are being open to honest, complete discussions?

Considering your lack of honesty, yes, I think that I’ve been aiming at the main issue, the lack of honesty on the part of ID and its proponents.

…or is “hatred” the new code word for “scientific knowledge”?

I guess that IDists like you think that hatred is a substitute for the scientific process and rational discussion.

Glen D
[URL=http://tinyurl.com/2kxyc7
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Another, to be split up:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
<blockquote>Mr. Davidson—I find your comments disappointing.</blockquote>

I found your comments to be shrill, accusatory, and without substance.

<blockquote>I was hoping to have someone engage ideas with me in a thoughtful manner. I was trying to look at the way scientific knowledge is gained, the process by which it happens, not at any specific issue—</blockquote>

Then I think that you should have written your post in a thoughtful manner, and not with a lot of unwarranted accusations.

<blockquote>I’m sorry you didn’t quite catch that point and instead primarily went on a rant against pro-ID people (the pagans storming the gates)</blockquote>

It's a shame that you don't deal honestly with what I wrote, but instead have to set up a strawman instead.  I barely wrote about ID people, I addressed your points at post #54.

<blockquote>and wrote a passionate defense of evolution (as if it needed another one).</blockquote>

I did not write a passionate defense of evolution, I wrote about science and how evolutionary theory fits in with the normal acceptance procedures in science.  Rather than engaging with such substantive considerations, you simply accuse.

<blockquote>ID is just the current hot example by which to reflect on science as a field and epistemology. I never said I was pro-ID,</blockquote>

And I never said that you were pro-ID, so quit implying that I did.  Only in your imagination did I "rant" against ID, and it appears that you either could not or would not read what I wrote competently.

<blockquote>and in fact, I am not in the ID camp at all.</blockquote>

Non sequitur.  

<blockquote>My intention was not to challenge evolution or ID but to pose a wider challenge of a general depiction of science as evidenced by the language of the anti-ID posters.</blockquote>

Yes, and that is what I addressed, the lack of any meaningful knowledge about science and of the philosophy of science in your first post.

<blockquote>As someone who has spent my adult life as a scientist, I can hardly be seen as someone out to destroy it</blockquote>

Why not?  Behe's out to destroy it, in essence if not in intention.

<blockquote>—I’m sorry you only have 2 categories in your world: enemy and proselyte.</blockquote>

I'm sorry that you have only two ways of dealing with someone who engaged your claims with knowledge and intelligence, with accusation and with wholly untrue claims.

<blockquote>I can think of another arena where anyone who questions is the enemy and only those who uncritically accept the view of the faithful are accepted.</blockquote>

Apparently you're speaking of your world.  You haven't clue about myself, any more than you know how to discuss basic issues of science.

<blockquote>My previous post contained several controversial claims about how science operates, but they are not mine – they’re Kuhn’s.</blockquote>

Oh, I see, I'm supposed to believe you because you have adopted dogma from an authority.  No way I'm playing that game.

<blockquote>You are obviously familiar with his work, and have found it unconvincing.</blockquote>

Of course I find it unconvincing.  He's in an analytical tradition that I have never thought much of, nor do I find Popper to be very impressive.

<blockquote>If you have compelling rebuttals of Kuhn’s claims, please present them and stipulate whether they are your ideas or someone else’s so that I may read the original criticism.</blockquote>

The fact of the matter is that Kuhn wants us to suppose that "paradigms" can be, and are, irreducibly different from each other.  He writes:

<blockquote>I do, in short, really believe some--though by no means all--of the nonsense attributed to me.  The heavens of the Greeks were irreducibly different from ours.  The nature of the idfference is the same as that Taylor so brilliantly describes between the social practices of different cultures...  ...In neither can it be bridged by description in abrute data, behavioral category.

Thomas Kuhn.  <b>The Road Since Structure</b>.  Eds. James Conant & John Haugeland.  Chicago and London:  The University of Chicago Press, 2000.  p. 220</blockquote>

If one considers Aristarchus's heliocentric model, the Pythagorean cosmic model, and the sense that some ancients had that the sun is a burning fire (not true, but probably the best guess at the time), I fail to see the irreducible differences.  Copernicus appealed to Aristarchus as a predecessor, which almost certainly carried part of the weight of his argument.

Kuhn overemphasizes the breaks in science, too much ignoring the large amount of continuity in it.  Evolution builds upon artificial selection, genealogical knowledge, and especially upon the taxonomy of Linnaeus and later taxonomists.  General relativity and quantum mechanics both build upon Newtonian physics, and end up subsuming its claims into their own.

These are mostly my own arguments, though I they echo, or are echoed by, a physics teacher that I had who taught Kuhn and other philosophers of science.  He asked if I agreed with Kuhn, I said "No," and gave my reasons (continuity of methods, especially), and he concurred.  Others in the class were surprised, as they considered Kuhn to be the unquestioned voice of science philosophy as you seem to do.

<blockquote>Your comments are disturbing because they imply that the Philosophy of Science (as a field) trashed Kuhn’s ideas long ago, ran back and picked up the torch of the Enlightenment, and then proceeded as if 200+ years of thought never occurred.</blockquote>

No, you misunderstand that as much as anything.  Kuhn was only partly accepted by scientists.  Many scientists and philosophers disagreed with Kuhn, as one may see in the Kuhn quote above (he's there responding to claims that his ideas are nonsense).  He seems to have declined in popularity recently as well, at least in science and in philosophy.

<blockquote>If you’ve studied philosophy a “great deal,” then you should be warier about claiming mass agreement on such issues as Kuhn’s idiocy.</blockquote>

If you claim to be able to read and write well enough to be a scientist, you should not ascribe to me such dishonesties as the statement above.  I didn't write anything like that, and I suspect that even you know it.

<blockquote>My good friend and philosophy professor assures me there is no such universal agreement on that question.</blockquote>

Since that wasn't the question, so what?  Try to stay on topic, and actually respond to what I write instead of what you dream that I wrote.

What is more, I was not aware that the "dogma" to which you referred was Kuhn's terminology.  "Dogma" has an entirely different connotation in Kuhn's writing than it does in these discussions, and you terribly confuse the issues when you pretend that "dogma" means the same in this context as in Kuhn's writings, regardless of how much I disagree with Kuhn (he'd never confuse the terminology here like you did).

<blockquote>And I don’t think she would invite me to talk to her philosophy class about Kuhn’s critique of science if this were the case.</blockquote>

And I think that is totally irrelevant to the issues, which you continue not to discuss.

<blockquote>For the sake of this discussion and its ramifications for society as a whole, take off your combat helmet and try communicating with me instead if you have significant and thoughtful (and original) criticisms to contribute to this important discussion.</blockquote>

Sorry, your projection is the one to whom you are addressing those remarks.  I did not come in accusing people of exhibiting "breathtaking ignorance" like you did.  What you wanted to do was to trash a whole lot of people whom you don't know without any evidence, while proclaiming your superiority.

<blockquote>You will get no ad hominem attacks from me.</blockquote>

You began with ad hominem attacks.

<blockquote>I’m offering the chance to have a REAL discussion on this topic with a scientist who knows a little philosophy and cares a great deal about these issues.</blockquote>

It's certainly not easy to believe you after you've implied that I suggested that you're an IDist, when I never did any such thing, and that I "ranted" against IDists, when I barely even discussed them in my post (#54).  Then the implication that I had said that the field of science philosophy at large had concluded that Kuhn awas an idiot is another unwarranted ad hominem attack by implication.  I require far more honest responses than the one you've made here before I begin to treat them as anything but hostile polemicists.

<blockquote>I’m not interested in “he’s an idiot and I’m right b/c…” posts that merely attack the opposing side w/o engaging questions.</blockquote>

You're the one who didn't engage my arguments.  I responded to your claims, so I don't appreciate the false implication that I did otherwise.  Can you ever leave off the unfair and untrue attacks?

<blockquote>I (following Kuhn) never claimed that science does not use scientific methods.</blockquote>

I never said that you claimed that.  I pointed to the proper methods used in the adoption of Darwin's ideas, which you had denied.  Rather than engaging what I've written, however, you have done virtually nothing but attack strawmen of your own.

<blockquote>Rather, I question, as Kuhn did, what the nature of scientific methods is because my experience practicing science bears little resemblance to the naïve comparison-with-nature description that is invariably presented to the general public.</blockquote>

It's not a bad description of science for the general public.

I do mention philosophical issues often enough, and too often am accused of "writing long" or some other supposed sin.

<blockquote>To take just one example, why do I keep hearing from public defenders of science that falsifiability is a definitive boundary between science and non-science when it was shown long ago that, as such a definitive boundary, falsifiability fails and when my own experience as a scientist confirms that failure? </blockquote>

I mention falsifiability occasionally, but primarily as shorthand for issues that are far more complicated than that.  Most of the time when a hypothesis lacks falsifiability, it turns out not to be science in any normal sense of the term.  However, I prefer to bring up the need for evidence as the issue.  By the way, you sorely lack evidence for almost all of your attacks against me, for they are generally untrue.

Popper is the reason that "falsifiability" is such an issue in science today.  Peirce mentioned nearly the same thing, but he used several other criteria as well.  

<blockquote>Here’s another straightforward challenge for you, offered with the utmost sincerity. Kuhn claims in “The Structure of Scientific Revolutions” that the fit of data to a theory (“its problem-solving ability”) is often not the main reason for its acceptance or dismissal and cites several examples, including the contest between the Brahe and Copernican astronomical systems,</blockquote>

I don't know all of the particulars, of course, but I can tackle at least this one to some degree.

First off, it wasn't really until later that the Keplerian model largely won out.  Brahe's model, since it did fit the data probably as well as the Copernican model did, was a contender until Kepler fit the data much better with his elliptical orbits.  No doubt the Copernican model had more followers up until then, but one could not really decide between Brahe and Kepler based upon the data alone.

Secondly, there was good reason to prefer the Copernican model, because it actually explained many of the most prominent "epicyclic" phenomena (while not doing away with them), while Brahe's model was descriptive, not explanatory.  Usually when we say that the data need to "fit the model", we really don't mean that merely mapping the data out is what matters, rather that it fits and explains the data.  Ptolemy and Brahe fit the data, but they didn't do much in the way of making explanatory models.  Science makes explanatory models, not just maps of the phenomena from our perspective, hence "fitting the data" is stated in the context of "explanation", not just "fit" as people like Kuhn and Feyerabend suggest.

<blockquote>the oxygen/phlogiston debate, the fact that Copernicus destroyed a time-honored explanation of terrestrial motion without replacing it, and the fact that Newton and Laviosier did the same for an older explanation of gravity and the common properties of metals, respectively. You claim to disagree with his argument and reject his examples. For our benefit, please show how all of Kuhn’s examples are mistaken. </blockquote>

No, I picked one, and the onus is on you to actually make your case, instead of changing the subject away from what I actually wrote (and dishonestly claiming that I didn't address your faulty claims).  I know the Gish Gallop when I see it, and an unfair demand that you haven't even come close to fulfilling yourself, and no, I don't fall for anything no matter how intellectually dishonest it is.

<blockquote>As for your supposition that my delay in responding was due to unwillingness to engage you rather than inability due to time constraints,</blockquote>

As for as your penchant to make up stuff and accuse me of saying it, it is getting very old.

I didn't in the least say that you were unwilling to respond.  Where do you come up with such unwarranted accusations?

What I wrote in response to "Galactic" might be what you're twisting into your little fantasy, but of course what I was saying there was that "Galactic" is you.  I wouldn't be surprised it was, either, though such identifications are almost always necessarily tentative.

<blockquote> you have committed a cardinal sin of the “religious” and, in the popular language of the day, have claimed to know something you don’t know.</blockquote>

Why can't you even keep your attacks straight?  I didn't write what you claimed, and it is not honest for you to say that I did, let alone to try to build conclusions on your false claim.

<blockquote>Hitchens and Harris would be very disappointed in you. </blockquote>

I have the feeling that Hitchens and Harris wouldn't come up with the sorts of untrue attacks that you have.  Not that I particularly care what they think, but I'm amazed at how readily you make false charges against me.

<blockquote>Are we going to try to understand how science really works or mulishly continue to insist that it operates like it does not.</blockquote>

It looks like you're so intent on insisting that science works as it does not that you'll write any manner of untrue things regarding my own contribution.

<blockquote>Unless someone can engage me at a more sophisticated level this is my last post on this site.</blockquote>

Apparently you can't engage me at all.  I went through a number of your claims, and all you did was to make untrue claims about what I had written.  

Why don't you try actually including what I've written in your responses, so that you don't make as many errors and false charges as you did in your recent post?  Frankly, I'm stunned at how many untrue things you could get into a relatively short post.  It must be very embarrassing for you not to be able even to competently restate <b>what I actually wrote</b>, let alone have any ability to address my scientific and philosophical points.

Glen D
< http://tinyurl.com/2kxyc7
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Posted by: Glen Davidson on Oct. 08 2007,20:07

Back to archiving:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
<blockquote>Prima Facia evidence for the plot, substance, and need for this movie is amply provided by Glen Davidson’s posts.

Indeed he is the poster boy for the hubris, egomania, and sophistry common to the evo community.</blockquote>

So, the puffed-up ignorant one can't make a coherent argument, and settles for dishonest ad hominems (formal fallacies) instead.  Why is this so much the usual for IDists?  Don't you have anything worthwhile to say at all?

<blockquote>Oh! And if Davidson or other evos chat back please refer to me as the other wireheads in the Fortune 500 who worked for me in my executive capacity did prior to my retirement… Mr. Eaton Sir is adequate.</blockquote>

I'm sure that Eaton-the-dullard will do well enough.  No doubt it's among the more charitable terms that someone so lacking in manners and intelligence has been called.  

As far as the rest of Eaton's pablum, it's splattered all over the web like anything else that requires a strong cleaning solution.  Now, if Eaton ever has anything intelligent to say, like actually answering the substantive posts that I made, rather than showing off his overweening ignorance, the change would do us all good.  Indeed, I'd like to receive one intelligent reply from an IDist, instead of loathsome and hateful fallacies which are the best that Eaton can manage.

I make intelligent comments, the IDists never once address what I write, instead only attacking me out of their envy of anyone they can't challenge.  And they pretend that it is we who are choking off debate, when we're the only ones actually engaging in debate.  It's a poor showing that pompous blowhards like Eaton make.

Glen D
[URL=http://tinyurl.com/2kxyc7
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Another one:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
<blockquote>I am flabbergasted by the stupidity of evolutionists.</blockquote>

I'm sort of amazed, but hardly surprised, that you don't answer a single substantive issue raised by myself or others, but write the usual unthinking diatribe that people who can't think for themselves constantly churn out.  

<blockquote>They deride ID with the most closed and simple minded arguments, I feel sorry for such brainwashed people.</blockquote>

Let's see, not a single thing that you wrote in your entire post said anything that isn't seen all across the web from IDists who can't deal with the issues.  You just try to shut out the issues by dull repetition of the chants you picked up from Dembski and others who avoid actual debate about the issues.

By the way, if you actually felt sorry for anybody, rather than trying to make a less-than-honest attack on them, you'd be trying to reach them instead of trying to smear them with your lack of anything substantive to say.

<blockquote>It’s sad that people who can put a cogent essay together are dumb enough to swallow the “just-so” explanations, the logical and conceptual gymnastics that pass for “proof” of evolution.</blockquote>

"It's sad" that someone can lob bombs at those he despises without in the least being able to back up his charges.

<blockquote>Then on top of that reject ID out of hand with zombie-like slogans; Here’s a hint: Saying “it’s not science” is not a trump card.</blockquote>

Then why don't you engage the actual arguments?  Oh, that's right, you're IDist, and we never get anything of substance out of IDists.  At least I've never seen it.

<blockquote>I doubt evolutionists all go into history class and shout down the professor all period about what they are teaching isn’t science and so it should not be taught in a science class. </blockquote>

I bet anyone with an honest interest in the issues doesn't ignore the massive number of high-level engagements of ID's "arguments" on the net, while making more empty attacks, as you happen to do.

<blockquote>In any case, ID is not a science the same way a doorstop is not a science, apples and oranges; it is an abstract idea, and whether or not it is scientific depends on how one approaches the idea.</blockquote>

Tell us how to do science with ID.  That's what counts.  We have a working theory, or more correctly, a working set of theories.  You want us to give equal billing to something that has never been shown to work, with a theory that happens to guide and integrate biology today.

<blockquote>“I’m not a monkey’s nephew” and “duh, it’s so complicated it must have been designed” are not the pinnacles of pro-ID argument. </blockquote>

I'm afraid that we haven't seen anything higher level than that.  Sure, there's higher-level obfuscations of the basic vacuity of ID, such as Dembski's and Behe's attempts to ram a false dilemma into science--the notion that if evolutionary theory fails to account for life, then ID prevails.  Sorry, that's never been true.  The height of ID never comes close to reaching the standards of science and forensics, which is the requirement for actual evidence of investigable causes producing investigable effects.

<blockquote>The fact of the matter is that evolution *is* just a theory (by that I mean the non-scientific def. of ‘theory’), one chock full of holes.</blockquote>

One chock full of successes, and with fewer fundamental issues in question than theories of gravity have.

<blockquote>Face it, there is no definitive evidence!</blockquote>

Is there definitive evidence for language evolution in non-literate languages?  If so, there is much more evidence for biological evolution, for we have morphological evidence, DNA, fossil evidence, and recognizably different evidence of evolution between eukaryotes and prokaryotes.

<blockquote>Whenever I look at an online debate about evolution, the evolutionist side just puts a link to talkorigins about macroevolution.</blockquote>

I don't think that I ever have, mainly because most of Talkorigins isn't written very accessibly.  But that's beside the point, for unless you can actually answer adequately the evidence presented at Talkorigins, your complaint fails.  What is more important, none of you have begun to do the one thing needed to make ID science, which is to come up with evidence in favor of ID.

<blockquote>“Missing-link” fossils does not disprove ID!</blockquote>

The transitionals have all of the historical baggage expected in non-teleological evolution--and at the evolutionarily-predicted times for such sorts of "poor design" to be found.  Archaeopteryx has teeth and a bony tail, neither of which is helpful for flight.  Those have been known for quite some time, as well as the less well-developed keel than those in modern birds.  What is more new is that a "critical ligamentous structure" making modern birds more efficient fliers has been found to be absent in archaeopteryx ("A critical ligamentous mechanism in the evolution of bird flight"  David B. Baier, Stephen M. Gatesy & Farish A Jenkins Jr.  <b>Nature</b> pp. 307-310 v.445 18 January 2007).

<blockquote>Fossils, whose significance is a matter of debate, which is not a settled matter, even if they did fit into the evolutionary timeline perfectly, STILL would not disprove ID. What if the supposed designer, just started small and then kept tweaking with its creation?</blockquote>

You mean, what if the designer made organisms with exactly the sort of fossil evidence and genetic evidence that is expected from non-teleological evolution?  Well, such a being would be undetectable, for its effects would be indistinguishable from those of MET.  That's why we're not really interested in how carefully you guys tweak your "designer" specifically so that it cannot be falsified by the evidence.  You make "design" a meaningless concept by doing so.

<blockquote>Fossils just show that organisms changed gradually over time, they do not show that they changed only because of natural selection, etc. </blockquote>

It shows that the same "short-sighted" and inheritance-constrained changes that have occurred in the crown groups also exist in the earlier organisms.  Also, nearly all species that have ever lived have gone extinct, as you would expect from unguided evolution.  Exactly why a "designer" would make australopithecines, H. habilis, H. erectus, H. neanderthalis, and H. floresiensis only for them to go extinct in roughly the same pattern as you'd get from non-teleological evolution remains just one of those many unfathomable ideas of ID.  In fact, because you guys are so intent on denying any sort of criteria that could actually point toward "design", everything in ID remains obscure and unreachable by science.

What I'd like to ask is, why do IDists think that design and non-teleological evolution produce indistinguishable results?  Do they really think that genetic algorithms are used simply to mimic rational design processes?  Do they not understand that the substantially different results found in evolution vs. those found in known design processes are being exploited via genetic algorithms?

It was life that showed us another route than "intelligent design" to discover successful strategies, evolutionary processes utilizing a sort of "natural selection."  Now we have that capability within our repertoire of instrumentalities, and it is utilized precisely where the complexities are too great for our rational abilities.  Which is interesting, because, of course, life also is beyond our rational abilities thus far (I don't think that if Venter is successful that I'll have to say anything different).  Indeed, it is evolution that can deal with complexities beyond those understood by the fairly simple rationalities of the human mind (not true of all aspects of complexity, but important in many thus far, despite our computational enhancement of our rational capabilities).

The huge difference between design and biological evolution is that the former readily yields evidence for rational thinking in its processes in by far the most cases, while biological evolution lacks any evidence for rational planning (that is, while sometimes evolution and intelligence can come to similar "ends", any observaable differentiation leaves life (life that hasn't been manipulated by us, that is) on the non-rational side of the "production process")

<blockquote>It seems like only way to really show evolution is to show with a mathematical model that statistically it is possible for natural selection, etc., to cause an organism to become increasingly complex in the alloted time.</blockquote>

Real science pays attention to the predictions made by a theory, and accepts the theory that agrees best with those explanatory predictions until something better comes along.  One of the problems of ID is that it wishes to change the rules of science (more coherently than traditional creationism does, for the latter's attacks on science are generally piecemeal), which is the truly grave threat to science and society hypothetically posed by ID.

<blockquote>This has NEVER been shown, Mathematical models show quite the opposite, that even if creatures could evolve “naturally” the way they have, it would take orders of magnitude longer for that to happen.</blockquote>

Has language evolution been shown to be possible by computer simulations?  Of course not, it is too complex to be properly modeled at this time, as is biological evolution.  ID models don't count, by the way, since they assume very narrow target areas, much narrower than can be shown from the evidence (the evidence at least hints that they're quite wrong in their assumptions).

<blockquote>Now given that there is no evidence of evolution,</blockquote>

It is not given that there is no evidence of evolution.  You haven't begun to answer the three major predictions I listed for evolution in post #99, by which I definitely meant (and noted) non-teleological evolution.

<blockquote>that does not prove ID, but assuming that physics and the laws of the physical universe, statistics, logic, etc., have not dramatically changed during the “life” of the known universe, this intuitively suggests that a designer is behind the variety and complexity of organisms on earth.</blockquote>

Since you have absolutely no evidence in favor of "design" of organisms, whatever "intuition" you might have about it is insufficient to make ID worthy of consideration.

<blockquote>That is what makes ID worthwhile.</blockquote>

An intuition sans evidence makes ID worthwhile?  That is what is scary about IDists, no evidence and an "intuition" is supposed to be the equal of an abundantly evidenced and useful theory.

<blockquote>For all the picking-on ID strawmen, some of you guys need to pick on evolution a bit.</blockquote>

For all of the claims that you make, it would be nice if you could back up just one of them.  You know, with evidence.

<blockquote>There is a universe of ideas out there between evolution-explains-everything and bible-thumping.</blockquote>

Evolution hardly explains everything (a strawman fallacy on your part).  However, it is the only scientific theory explaining the inherently genealogical-like taxonomies found even prior to acceptance of evolutionary theory, the different modes of evolution between eukaryotes and prokaryotes, and why pterosaur, bat, and bird wings are all adaptations of legs, and not design either from first principles or from previously existing wings.  

<blockquote>The way things are run, evolution is not a science, where is the falsifiability?</blockquote>

In the taxonomical structures, first of all.  And I've mentioned plenty more, though you ignore whatever doesn't comply with your a priori assumptions.

<blockquote>Any evidence that does not fit into evolutionary theory is ignored.</blockquote>

I'd like to see a single statement of yours that can be substantiated, including that one.

<blockquote>Where are the repeatable experiments?</blockquote>

In the journals.  Like most of science, experiments have to extrapolated to areas which are practically or theoretically beyond experimentation, but of course the experiments have been done.

<blockquote>No, showing bacteria becoming resistant to antibiotics or that they will evolve into a slightly different species does not prove that evolution is responsible for all of the variety and complexity of life.</blockquote>

I actually made that point at Pharyngula recently.  However, few of us suppose that antibiotic resistance is the whole of the evidence (rather, evolutionary theory ties humans and bacteria together ecologically, where ID would require malaria (<i>Plasmodium falciparum</i>) to have been designed, apparently with the purpose of infecting humans), rather we point to the predictions of evolution which have been tested but not falsified in the testing.  Indeed, I wrote a good deal on this very forum about a number of these issues, but have received nothing other than dull repetitions of ID talking points in reply, along with rather pointed hatred from several of these supposed "Christians".  Well, what's new?  

If you had science, you'd be telling us how ID provides cause and effect explanations of what we see, and how to do science with these required explanations.  Lacking any science, you have a lot of untrue statements about evolution and those of us who care about science.  You completely ignore the arguments and evidence brought forward in order to falsely claim that we have not done so.  And so ID goes, never providing the requisite evidence, always putting out vast array of unsubstantiated tripe.

Glen D
< http://tinyurl.com/2kxyc7
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Posted by: Mr_Christopher on Oct. 09 2007,09:42

Ben is not a dumb guy, I wonder if this is a pure play for cash. You guys don't think he's actually going to read any of the comments on his "blog" do you?  This is pure street theatre to generate buzz.  

His link for volunteers is pretty funny, funnier is that he's probably getting tons of creotards signing up for active duty.  

Onward Christian soldiers, and don't forget to leave your tithe in the War Chest on your way to the battlefield!

This sucks.  Now I can't stand Ben Stein and I'll never watch him again.

Chris
Posted by: snoeman on Oct. 09 2007,23:18

Glen wrote:


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Of course I find it unconvincing.  He's in an analytical tradition that I have never thought much of, nor do I find Popper to be very impressive.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Glen - If I may ask, what is it that you don't find impressive about Popper? (I'm asking out of curiosity, not because I think he's impressive.)
Posted by: Richardthughes on Oct. 09 2007,23:24

Also, he wore a couple of hats (the DaveScot of his day?). Not impressive in *any* discipline, or just in one regard?
Posted by: improvius on Oct. 22 2007,15:34

For anyone still interested, Stein will be on O'Reilly Factor tonight (10/22) plugging Expelled.
Posted by: Richardthughes on Oct. 22 2007,16:00

Quote (improvius @ Oct. 22 2007,15:34)
For anyone still interested, Stein will be on O'Reilly Factor tonight (10/22) plugging Expelled.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Comedy Central and Fox News.

All science so far! ID media machine.
Posted by: Mr_Christopher on Oct. 24 2007,10:10

< Bill O’Reilly joins the liberal Darwinist media >

I assume everyone has read this glorious tidbit at PT by now.

Yes both Bill and Ben portrayed ID as creationism and an attempt to fill the gaps with god.  The DI frowned on this ouf course and pointed out both of them are wrong.

I wonder how Ben will take to being corrected by a bunch of lying creationist zealots.  It's hard to imagine Ben agreeing to partake in the dishonest and sneaky tactices used by the DI.

I'm looking forward to seeing how this plays out.  Will Ben take orders from the DI or instead continue to call a spade a spade (creationism for the gaps)?
Posted by: Altabin on Oct. 26 2007,08:55

< Oh, oh, oh >:


---------------------QUOTE-------------------

MOVIE CONTEST
Ever sat in class and had your professor straight up challenge your intelligence for suggesting even the possibility of an intelligent design in the universe?
Tired of being labeled merely for questioning aspects of the Darwinian theory of evolution?? Ever been scoffed at or ridiculed in front of your peers?
Well, here’s your opportunity to tell your story on our Website AND possibly be in the movie, “Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed”! Tell the world some of the outrageous things your professors say about your questions.
You and your story just might be chosen by our producers to be in the film, “Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed”! Let your voice be heard!

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Sounds that they're a little desperate for content - four months away from the scheduled release date.
Posted by: Wesley R. Elsberry on Oct. 26 2007,15:12

It sounds like "Penthouse Letters" for the fundamentalist set, an opportunity to write a bunch of paranoia porn.

Since the whole thing is a work of fiction, I think that they have opened the doors for contributions. I'm sure some of you can come up with better complex persecution tales for those with a well-developed persecution complex.

Of course, you probably can't post the actual submissions here, but you might drop a note here to say if you have an offering in submission.
Posted by: J-Dog on Oct. 26 2007,15:28

Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Oct. 26 2007,15:12)
It sounds like "Penthouse Letters" for the fundamentalist set, an opportunity to write a bunch of paranoia porn.

Since the whole thing is a work of fiction, I think that they have opened the doors for contributions. I'm sure some of you can come up with better complex persecution tales for those with a well-developed persecution complex.

Of course, you probably can't post the actual submissions here, but you might drop a note here to say if you have an offering in submission.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I think I recall that there was a professor that actually has two doctorates, that was horribly abused by a graduate student recently for daring to speak about Intelligent Design.  And to make it worse, the abuser was a girl, even though the bible says women should stay at home and make babies.

Is this the kind of story that they want might want maybe?
Posted by: Altabin on Oct. 26 2007,15:45

Quote (J-Dog @ Oct. 26 2007,22:28)
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Oct. 26 2007,15:12)
It sounds like "Penthouse Letters" for the fundamentalist set, an opportunity to write a bunch of paranoia porn.

Since the whole thing is a work of fiction, I think that they have opened the doors for contributions. I'm sure some of you can come up with better complex persecution tales for those with a well-developed persecution complex.

Of course, you probably can't post the actual submissions here, but you might drop a note here to say if you have an offering in submission.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I think I recall that there was a professor that actually has two doctorates, that was horribly abused by a graduate student recently for daring to speak about Intelligent Design.  And to make it worse, the abuser was a girl, even though the bible says women should stay at home and make babies.

Is this the kind of story that they want might want maybe?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Throw in a hot-tub and some Reddy-Wip and that's a winner!

Even better if you could fit Kristine into it as well...
Posted by: VMartin on Nov. 01 2007,02:11

In his latest article "Darwinism: The Imperialism of Biology?" Ben Stein is criticised by Glen Davidson who wrote there seven successive long posts! I've put there
my answer listing antidarwian scientists.

I am not sure there is so strong relation between darwinism and capitalism as Ben Stein claim, but the idea of "natural selection" is something really extraordinary and new. Ancient people living in connection with nature never observed it. But it is strongly supported from armchair intellectulas sitting at Universities in industrialised countries, scientists who wouldn't survive a day in countryard.


< http://www.expelledthemovie.com/blog/ >


John Davison comments there sometimes and his posts are very briskly and good.
Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on Nov. 01 2007,03:54

Quote (VMartin @ Nov. 01 2007,02:11)
In his latest article "Darwinism: The Imperialism of Biology?" Ben Stein is criticised by Glen Davidson who wrote there seven successive long posts! I've put there
my answer listing antidarwian scientists.

I am not sure there is so strong relation between darwinism and capitalism as Ben Stein claim, but the idea of "natural selection" is something really extraordinary and new. Ancient people living in connection with nature never observed it. But it is strongly supported from armchair intellectulas sitting at Universities in industrialised countries, scientists who wouldn't survive a day in countryard.


< http://www.expelledthemovie.com/blog/ >


John Davison comments there sometimes and his posts are very briskly and good.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Amazing insight, as usual VMartin.

We hang upon your every word.

Even when you say things like "I am not so sure" I still believe you are 100% correct.

So, if ancient people living in nature never understood selection, how did the wolf get domesticated?
Posted by: Albatrossity2 on Nov. 01 2007,06:10

Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Nov. 01 2007,03:54)
So, if ancient people living in nature never understood selection, how did the wolf get domesticated?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Briskly, I imagine. :D
Posted by: blipey on Nov. 01 2007,10:08

Very briskly.  Does that mean that tea had some part in the domestication of the wolf?
Posted by: J-Dog on Nov. 01 2007,11:29

Quote (blipey @ Nov. 01 2007,10:08)
Very briskly.  Does that mean that tea had some part in the domestication of the wolf?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Yes.  And the "T" stands for Trouble!  It rhymes with D, and that stands for Dembski, so we got Trouble.

Ahhh.  Nothing like an opportunity to get a Broadway Show tune into a post.  And 2 Bonus Points for linking Dembksi and the con-man character in Music Man I think.
Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on Nov. 02 2007,10:14

Meet Bart Davis.  Wonder if it will get posted.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I have been a creationist for many years after realizing that the bible was true and that man-made science could not explain the bigger questions, like Why are We Here?  and What are We?  And I realized that the bible gave the best explanations for these questions.  That is all fine and good...

Until I entered a university and enrolled in a biology department.  I was told by professor and TA after professor and TA that my views were stupid and were not accepted by the scientific community.  Although I expect to be rejected by men and be unpopular for carrying the cause of Christ it still stung.  

When I offered to defend my views using the bible, I was told that it does not apply.  These darwinists want to stamp out all dissent and try to discredit the Word of God because they hate the idea that God created them.  The bible tells all about this.  When I told them that their 'evidence' was just rocks and ideas based on things that they could measure then they laughed at me and I lost my composure.

Now I am an engineer and doing very well for myself.  I try to stay out of the debate but in my Sunday School class I have free reign to teach children in the way that they should be brought up, so when they have to face the forces of the world they will be prepared to be ridiculed and hated for standing up for Jesus.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Posted by: Mr_Christopher on Nov. 02 2007,10:27

Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,Nov. 02 2007,10:14)
Meet Bart Davis.  Wonder if it will get posted.

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I have been a creationist for many years after realizing that the bible was true and that man-made science could not explain the bigger questions, like Why are We Here?  and What are We?  And I realized that the bible gave the best explanations for these questions.  That is all fine and good...

Until I entered a university and enrolled in a biology department.  I was told by professor and TA after professor and TA that my views were stupid and were not accepted by the scientific community.  Although I expect to be rejected by men and be unpopular for carrying the cause of Christ it still stung.  

When I offered to defend my views using the bible, I was told that it does not apply.  These darwinists want to stamp out all dissent and try to discredit the Word of God because they hate the idea that God created them.  The bible tells all about this.  When I told them that their 'evidence' was just rocks and ideas based on things that they could measure then they laughed at me and I lost my composure.

Now I am an engineer and doing very well for myself.  I try to stay out of the debate but in my Sunday School class I have free reign to teach children in the way that they should be brought up, so when they have to face the forces of the world they will be prepared to be ridiculed and hated for standing up for Jesus.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


---------------------QUOTE-------------------


This is quality tard, nice work.  One suggestion - throw in the term "intelligent design" at least once so the reader sees ID and creationism/bible/god/jeebus/etc are all from the same play book.

My entries are heavy on the bible, creationism and creation science with at least one mention of ID.
Posted by: Glen Davidson on Nov. 02 2007,16:48

I wonder if the post that I have attempted to re-post below is being either blocked or smothered (posting it late, when few would read it) by the people at Expelled because javascript is Ruloff, Miller, or Stein.  There's no saying for sure, of course, but javascript obviously hates me for getting in there quickly to fisk Stein's obnoxious nonsense, and since Kevin Miller did respond (rather disastrously, since I picked him apart) to me once, I wonder if they're protecting one of their stupid writers or characters from criticism.  Just saying.

Here's the re-post, since I fear that I might have to be archiving what I write there again:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Glen Davidson Says: Your comment is awaiting moderation.

November 2nd, 2007 at 4:25 pm
Not a new one, but I don’t know why the following comment hasn’t been posted. I don’t mean to continue to treat with people whose only motivation is to attack those they hate with religious bigotry, however I should be allowed to respond to the dishonest quotemines and vapid unsupported accusations of those without any conscience or competence to discuss science. So here’s the re-post:

Glen Davidson Says: Your comment is awaiting moderation.

November 2nd, 2007 at 10:27 am
Javascript quotemines, in the way that only pseudoscientists and rabid fools do:

Garrison Seeber Says:
November 1st, 2007 at 3:26 pm
“only further emphasizes the Neanderthal mentality of your suppressive beliefs”
Validate that claim…
………………
Well, let’s see… this might be difficult but I’ll give it a shot.

Unfortunately, you’re too dumb to know what validation means. It does not mean quotemining. I use harsh words, but I also back them up, while you only tell lies and attack.

Below are validating quotes from our buddy Glen, the self proclaiming intellectual, that clearly exhibit his use of Neanderthal tactics in his attempts to bully others on the blog seeking only to exercise their constitutional rights to freedom of speech.

Sorry, unintelligent one, I was not the one who came in here with nothing but hatred and lies. I made arguments, I backed up, or “validated” (too bad you don’t know what words mean, buffoon), what I wrote. Not so much to those who had nothing related to substance, liek the dishonest Javascript, but that’s because yours were free-form lies.

Follow with me if you will:
……………
GLEN QUOTES:
- As pathetic as your knowledge of science is…

As we’ve shown previously, and as I demonstrated there as well. Try to learn to read above third-grade level.

- you lack intellectual integrity…

Another quotemine. I’d shown where he had not dealt with matters in an intellectually honest fashion. Rather than arguing pointedly with what I’ve written, you just whine and lie, again.

- your knowledge of science is abysmal

As is obvious to anyone who knows science, and has been amply demonstrated in these comments. Just because you ignore every bit of substance that I’ve written to back up my claims does not alleviate you of your responsibility to deal with them with intellectual honesty. Neither does your lack of intellectual honesty alleviate your responsibilities.

- you simply act as if science is as mindless as your sponsors are

And I’m sure that if you had anything intelligent to say, you’d be arguing against what I wrote, instead of quote-mining my supporting evidence out of it, with your typical dishonest tactics.

- this is part of your sleazy tactics.

Another sleazy quotemine from one who doesn’t even know what intellectual integrity means. Indeed, it was a part of his sleazy tactics, as I demonstrated, and which argumentation you ignore as you have from the beginning.

- A rather simplistic analysis…

OK, it was an extremely simplistic analysis. Sorry that I gave him the benefit of the doubt.

- Ben’s pathetic fallacy of argumentum ad hominem.

Which fallacy you compound, as you quotemine and attack without paying any attention to the facts and arguments.

- That’s the best you can do, Ben?

Still better than the dishonesty of your attacks, javascript.

- you’re digging your own grave there, Ben.

I know that it’s nothing new, but yes, another dishonest quotemine, as javascript pointedly ignores what I actually wrote, how this fit into my arguments and conclusions.

- So what’s your point?

Here’s how an honest person would have quoted:

So what’s your point? Are we supposed to throw out English science, since it was based in a non-politically correct economic system? Here’s Ben saying that Western culture must (selectively) go, due to its many sins. Ben the PC man. Very good, Ben, you’re now part of the ranks of the nihilists and bigots who fault civilization’s advances just because much of the past evil was retained for so long (and into the present, one might (or might not) argue).

Since my response was to his faulting of “Darwinism” based on the inadequate grounds that it comes from a time of imperialism, I dare say that the honest quote demonstrate my point. Which is why you dishonestly left that out.

- Ben, you’re now part of the ranks of the nihilists and bigots

See the foregoing quote for the context that javascript is not honest enough to include.

- Your understanding of evolution is as deficient as your understanding of history, Stein.

And apparently so is yours, javascript, or you’d deal with the facts and arguments I brought up instead of quote-mining.

- One does not write of “Darwinist means,” unless one is a science illiterate, as Ben is.

That’s right. He’s shown himself to be illiterate in science right there, and by continuing to write of “Darwinism” as if it depended upon the writings of one man.

- It isn’t a lacuna, ignorant one…

Were he not ignorant, the issue of abiogenesis would not have come up. And if you weren’t ignorant, you’d recognize that I made an important point. I am not as nice as I was previously, by the way, mostly because Ben has ignored where he has been corrected in the past.

- someone so bereft of intellectual honesty as Ben is would even attempt to supply evidence for his scurrilous charges.

Yes, and why don’t you try to supply evidence for your scurrilous charges, intellectually dishonest javascript?

- IDists simply hate the Enlightenment…

Yes, they attack it at its very foundation, at its requirement for demonstrable evidence. Another issue you can’t deal with, though apparently there are none you can address, java.

- bigoted theists…

A particularly disgusting quotemine from java. I very carefully pointed out that many theists are nothing like the bigoted and dishonest IDists, but he quotemines it as he wishes to misrepresent it.

- More tendentious nonsense.

And of course I justified that remark. You’ve justified none of your attacks.

- Ben has no truthful criticisms to make…

Here’s the context that this extremely dishonest person wishes to be ignored:

More tendentious nonsense. Darwinism and its successors have never ever sought to explain everything. Darwin sought to integrate biology with Newtonian-type science, and largely succeeded. But I guess Ben has no truthful criticisms to make of MET, so he resorts to what IDists always end up using, untrue assertions.

Since I was addressing the fact that “Darwinism” has never once claimed to explain everything, yes, it was tendentious, and I have yet to see Ben provide a truthful criticism of MET. Note how dishonestly javascript edited out the qualifiers I included.

I have to wonder if you’re one of the writers of Expelled, javascript. You’re really so dishonest and bigoted that it’s hard not to believe you could be.

- I’d like to know where you got such a disingenuous idea as that

This is where that came from:

But it’s difficult to believe it will. Theories that presume to explain everything without much evidence rarely do.

I’d like to know where you got such a disingenuous idea as that “Darwinism” presumes to explain everything.

I’d still like to know where such a disingenuous idea came from. From you, javascript?

- evil liars, most likely the sorts of anti-science anti-intellectual persons

More quote-mining, of course, and yes, I demonstrate that you who lie constantly are of that kind.

- Not all of us are as pitiful as you anti-science ranters.

Ben was claiming that we’re “pitiful” and (in essence) that therefore we need to be open to unproven nonsense like ID. But indeed, we who know science know a good deal more about the issues than people like Stein and javascript.

- the usual arrogance of the ignorant

Indeed, it was the usual arrogance of the ignorant, which you continue.

- if you weren’t a slimy little worm, and actually knew something, I’m sure you could have written something intelligent.

And instead of making up for your dishonest attack, you pile on more quoteming dishonesty.

- your anti-intellectual rant ad nauseam

Since you have done nothing but stupidly rant, I rather suspect that this has been well-validated.

……………..

Now maybe it’s just me but that sounds more like a Neanderthal then it does a civilized Intellectual that I think Glen would have us believe that he is.

Why yes it does, and since it is your dishonest quotemining and vicious unsupported attack that compiled it in such a tendentious fashion, it looks like you have shown that you were just projecting.

Glen D
< http://tinyurl.com/2kxyc7 >

There is no reason to either block or smother the above post. Just because it may very well be one of the writers, producers, or main characters whose dishonest claims have been refuted is no excuse to either smother or expel this post.

Am I supposed to stand by while Ruloff, Miller, or Stein (I increasingly suspect one of them or others associated with the movie, since what seems to really bring out the hatred is that I refuted the blog at the top of the comment list) dishonestly quotemines and accuses without evidence or justification? Sure, I’m well past the point where I’m going to be nice when lies are constantly being told about us in a bid to enforce religion on our society, but unlike javascript, I actually make arguments, do not dishonestly quotemine, and I stay away from fallacious attacks on the person.

It will certainly be a sorry day if you protect “one of your own” from a response to his unwarranted and unsupported attack on the person, without the slightest hint of being capable of answering what I actually wrote (hence the quotemining).

Glen D
< http://tinyurl.com/2kxyc7 >

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Posted by: Glen Davidson on Nov. 03 2007,11:27

It appears that the fascists running the Expelled blog did expel the comments I wrote above.  What a shock, considering how tendentious and dishonest everything they've written has been.

I'm going to assume that javascript is one of the bully boys associated with that movie.  Nothing I wrote there hasn't been written about others at that blog, but apparently when I demonstrate the dishonesty of javascript, it's no longer permitted.

Glen D
Posted by: Glen Davidson on Nov. 03 2007,15:09

I'm starting to seriously doubt the Expelled bunch's commitment to allowing comments to run without censorship, though they did fairly well in the past.  Btw, as others have apparently found, Dawkins' forum sucks too.  Regardless, I'm now archiving the fisking I did of Ben's latest blog (there are a couple of repeats of posts):

(OK, I'll actually put the posts here when I can get through)

I'm finally getting around to putting in what I wanted to archive, though it looks like what they posted is going to stay there for some time.  As for the bit above about Dawkins' forum, I'm not sure that it doesn't suck, but at least they didn't totally wipe out the post that made me say they suck.  They moved it and took their time in telling me about it.  

Anyway, to save these from possible future censoring:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Glen Davidson Says:

October 31st, 2007 at 6:40 pm
Let’s make this short and sweet. It would be taken for granted by any serious historian that any ideology or worldview would partake of the culture in which it grew up and would also be largely influenced by the personality of the writer of the theory.

Actually, you could make it shorter and sweeter by actually, you know, bringing in evidence. As pathetic as your knowledge of science is, Ben, even you must have some notion that it isn’t “Darwinism” that is being taught today, it is a combination of ideas that have been, and continue to be, tested against the evidence.

I suppose that as long as you lack intellectual integrity, however, you will equate modern evolutionary theory with “Darwinism,” not despite the dishonesty of it, but because of the dishonesty of it. Again, I know that your knowledge of science is abysmal, but you could try to tell the truth, and you could try to deal with a theory that has had many contributions made to it through time and across cultures. However, you don’t, you simply act as if science is as mindless as your sponsors are, beholden to authority rather than to the evidence. It’s much easier, of course, for you to attack strawmen dishonestly set up, than it is to actually deal with biological science, so this is part of your sleazy tactics.

No less a genius than the evil Karl Marx noted that even after capitalism succumbed to Communism, society would still be imbued with the class artifacts and cultural values of the system that preceded it.

Oooh, great authority there. Likely it’s true, but then Marx predicted that religion would fade away as well. Has it?

Much smarter analysts than I have noted that the whole system of Marxism, especially its sharp attacks on capitalists as a class, was motivated by Karl Marx’s envy of the much wealthier industrialist/capitalist members of the Marx family.

A rather simplistic analysis, but it probably played a role in it. So what? Adam Smith wrote in support of his class, and Machiavelli was an apologist for rulers to whom he hoped to suck up. One judges ideas on their merits, not on personalities. Which makes this whole attack on “Darwinism” Ben’s pathetic fallacy of argumentum ad hominem. That’s the best you can do, Ben?

In other words, major theories do not arise out of thin air. They come from the era in which they arose and are influenced greatly by the personality and background of the writer.

Already you’re digging your own grave there, Ben. Evolutionary thought comes from across time and culture, and its origin (if we understand Darwin as the origin–there were others) happens to also be the country of Newton and the Enlightenment. Yes, it is understandable that Darwin would integrate biology into causal science in the country that largely gave rise to causal science. That’s highly preferable to the acausal non-science that you’re supporting now, Ben.

To be continued below:

Glen D
< http://tinyurl.com/2kxyc7 >

Glen Davidson Says:

October 31st, 2007 at 6:42 pm
continuing from my post above:

(In law, this theory is known as “legal realism”. Judges make up their minds on the basis of their prejudices and then rationalize their decisions by pretending to be bound by prior case law. One might call what happens with ideologies “political realism.” Persons make up their ideologies based on their times and their life situations.)

Yes, funny that, judges care about causation, and you do too in the area of history, Ben. Yet you’re pushing magic as an appropriate alternative to your causal methods in the biological realm, and you have absolutely no basis from which to do this.

Darwinism, the notion that the history of organisms was the story of the survival of the fittest and most hardy, and that organisms evolve because they are stronger and more dominant than others, is a perfect example of the age from which it came: the age of Imperialism.

Very selective there, Stein. You know very well that Newton’s was an age of slavery, plunder, colonialism, and religious bigotry. Yet you praise Newton and his science, while you rubbish Darwin’s science by association. That’s not intellectually honest in the least.

What is more, Darwinism as such fits your own political posture rather well, Ben, as you favor the haves over the have-nots.

When Darwin wrote, it was received wisdom that the white, northern European man was destined to rule the world. This could have been rationalized as greed–i.e., Europeans simply taking the resources of nations and tribes less well organized than they were.

Sure, and this differs from Newton’s time, how? IOW, do you have a point that doesn’t undercut what you’ve written heretofore?

Anyway, as it happens, the capitalism of Victorian Britain is somewhat analogous to Darwinism (and is not actually very akin to traditional society, as we evolved to be more cooperative than Ben’s politics prescribes), and it may indeed have helped to give the right idea to Darwin. What of that? One has to get ideas from somewhere, the only real issue being the one that Ben avoids, the issue of evidence that so strongly supports evolutionary theory, and does not support the creationistic views that Ben and Ruloff wish to impose on science.

It could have been worked out as a form of amusement of the upper classes and a place for them to realize their martial fantasies. (Was it Shaw who called Imperialism “…outdoor relief for the upper classes?”)

So what’s your point? Are we supposed to throw out English science, since it was based in a non-politically correct economic system? Here’s Ben saying that Western culture must (selectively) go, due to its many sins. Ben the PC man. Very good, Ben, you’re now part of the ranks of the nihilists and bigots who fault civilization’s advances just because much of the past evil was retained for so long (and into the present, one might (or might not) argue).

But it fell to a true Imperialist,

Arguably, Stein is rather more an imperialist than upper-class Darwin was. Darwin didn’t much trouble with politics, he was one of the privileged Brits who dabbled in the sciences because it was very interesting and socially rewarded, not because it yielded any great imperial or capitalist prizes. Indeed, a good deal of science was done that way, while Ben selectively condemns evolutionary science simply because he’s bigoted against it.

Glen D
< http://tinyurl.com/2kxyc7 >

Glen Davidson Says:

October 31st, 2007 at 6:46 pm
continuing from my post above:

[Darwin was] from a wealthy British family on both sides, married to a wealthy British woman, writing at the height of Imperialism in the UK, when a huge hunk of Africa and Asia was “owned” (literally, owned, by Great Britain) to create a scientific theory that rationalized Imperialism.

Colonialism was pursued in part (or at least excused by this concept) to stop the slave trade in Africa. You know, the slave trade, which America persisted in even as America came up with better ideas about government, and which Britain engaged in both at that time and during Newton’s time. Once again I note how tendentious Ben’s rendering of history is, and how really lacking in honesty it is.

More to the point, however, is that “Darwinism” didn’t cause Imperialism (which Ben tacitly allows), nor was most of the propaganda in favor of it after Darwin actually based on evolutionary ideas. God and country were the main pillars upon which imperialism was based, with God supposedly ordaining the white races to impose their rule and (again supposedly) better the world. Learn some history, Ben.

By explaining that Imperialism worked from the level of the most modest organic life up to man, and that in every organic situation, the strong dominated the weak and eventually wiped them out,

Your understanding of evolution is as deficient as your understanding of history, Stein. Modern evolutionary theory is definitely not about that, and even Darwin understood the intra-species and inter-species cooperation in an imperfect sense. After all, he had to deal with the objections involving altruism and mutualism, meaning that while his theory may have been analogous with British imperialism, it also took many exceptions to it. Try to explain that, Ben.

Darwin offered the most compelling argument yet for Imperialism. It was neither good nor bad, neither Liberal nor Conservative, but simply a fact of nature.

It’s rather funny how Ben the Social Darwinist keeps railing against Imperialism, when of course “Darwinism” tended to be used more as a prop for capitalism than for imperialism (mostly people in the UK weren’t focused on the latter, but were on the former). But in his tendentious rendering of history, the attack must be on imperialism, and not on his precious capitalism, though neither one came from “Darwinism” at all (it was used to justify both, but it’s far from what actually produced both of them).

In dominating Africa and Asia, Britain was simply acting in accordance with the dictates of life itself. He was the ultimate pitchman for Imperialism.

Really? You mean that Darwin was the main propagandist for the imperialism of religious Britain? Then why is your despicable film portraying evolutionists as being opposed to religion, when by your claims the religionists of Britain were happily using “Darwinism” to support imperialism? Of course they weren’t really, they were operating on religious fictions of the ordination of their Empire, and of the “white man’s burden.” If Darwinism was used as well it hardly matters, because few were really motivated by such an abstract biological concept, while many were motivated by racialism and nationalism.

Glen D
< http://tinyurl.com/2kxyc7 >

Glen Davidson Says:

October 31st, 2007 at 6:50 pm
continuing from my post above:

Now, we know that Imperialism had a short life span. Imperialism was a system that took no account of the realities of the human condition.

Much like Stein’s politics do not.

Human beings do not like to have their countries owned by people far away in ermine robes. They like to be in charge of themselves.

Do they now? Then why did intellectuals of the UK’s former colony, the US, take up Darwinism without much fuss? Didn’t they understand it as propaganda in favor of imperialism?

Of course they didn’t, and neither does God-soaked Mexico, which happens to maintain a historical animus against imperialism and colonialism. Why would that be, Ben? Do you think that it might just be that Newtonian physics and “Darwinian” biology just happen not to be imperialistic in and of themselves, nor atheistic in and of themselves?

Imperialism had a short but hideous history–of repression and murder.

And also of ridiculous people who equate science with imperialism, without any true justification for it. I think that we have little reason to expect anything honest in this film, given the appalling dishonesty of its main characters on this blog.

But its day is done.

Well, not according to those who try to impose their views onto science. You know, Islamic fundamentalists, and IDists, the sorts of people who won’t allow science to progress according to its own standards and mutual agreements.

Darwinism is still very much alive, utterly dominating biology.

Wow, I guess that’s true–if you totally ignore the substantial developments since then, as, of course, Ben does. So is much of Newtonian physics alive (like evolution, significantly added to and superseded in some areas), from an even darker and more brutal time.

And geology from that time and place also serves as the basis for geology today in many aspects.

Despite the fact that no one has ever been able to prove the creation of a single distinct species by Darwinist means, Darwinism dominates the academy and the media.

Species aren’t created, they evolve. And yes, we have huge amounts of evidence that species have evolved through Darwinian (and the other processes of evolution) means. One does not write of “Darwinist means,” unless one is a science illiterate, as Ben is.

Behe, btw, accepts evolution by natural selection, with an unevidenced role for the “designer” as one who supplies the right mutations. So Ben is using his ad hominem fallacy against “Darwinism”, while one of his precious IDists largely accepts Darwin’s contribution to evolution, disagreeing sans merit with MET vis-a-vis the source of variation and of new information.

And yes, Ben has failed to answer the three questions I have posed, which is how to explain the Linnaean taxonomic system with its apparent genealogical structure, why the mostly sexual eukaryotes evolve quite differently from asexual prokaryotes (and in the manner predicted by MET), and why it is that vertebrate wings are derived from legs, when no known designer would make wings out of legs. I think it’s safe to conclude that he has no answer, while all of these provide evidence for MET, or what Ben tendentiously labels “Darwinism”.

Glen D
< http://tinyurl.com/2kxyc7 >

Glen Davidson Says:

October 31st, 2007 at 6:55 pm
continuing from my post above:

Darwinism also has not one meaningful word to say on the origins of organic life, a striking lacuna in a theory supposedly explaining life.

It isn’t a lacuna, ignorant one, because other processes than evolutionary mechanisms come into play during the origins of life. Darwin even allowed at one time that the Creator may have made life, while Darwin himself was simply explaining the patterns that we see in life, including the speciation of finches on the Galapagos Islands.

Alas, Darwinism has had a far bloodier life span than Imperialism. Darwinism, perhaps mixed with Imperialism, gave us Social Darwinism,

No, those were your buddies, who distorted a scientific concept into excuses for ravaging and despoiling peoples, including their own countrymen.

a form of racism so vicious that it countenanced the Holocaust against the Jews and mass murder of many other groups in the name of speeding along the evolutionary process.

I wouldn’t suppose that someone so bereft of intellectual honesty as Ben is would even attempt to supply evidence for his scurrilous charges. He blames the science of evolution for the decidedly unscientific and unsupportable beliefs of Hitler. Well, why not violate Godwin’s law, when you yourself can’t support a single one of your statements, Ben?

The true fact of history is that the Enlightenment spawned Darwin’s thought in the birthplace of the Enlightenment, England (Newton, above all exemplifies such Enlightenment). The Enlightenment was anathema in much of Germany, and especially to the faction which took over Germany in the 1930s (the Nazis were also not in favor of Darwin, for the most part). The Enlightenment countries, which unquestionably had many faults, were the ones who had both the science and the decency to defeat the fascists. Ben disparages the Enlightenment types who promote science and decency, and who defeated the rank evil of Hitler.

Now, a few scientists are questioning Darwinism on many fronts.

Yes, and they always have. The IDists, of course, are not “questioning Darwinism”, they’re using labels, like Ben does, to suggest that evolutionary theory depends on a man and moment in history, when in fact MET is a cross-cultural, cross-religion phenomenon, accepted by religionists and atheists, and by East and West. IDists simply hate the Enlightenment, tell lies about science being “materialistic”, and try to impose their anti-Enlightenment beliefs upon free societies.

I wonder how long Darwinism’s life span will be.

Until bigoted theists (and, fortunately, many theists are totally unlike Ben and his cohorts) destroy it along with the rest of science. And it’s not “Darwinism” (not in the US–in the UK that term is conflated with MET much more than here), that’s just dishonest propaganda.

Marxism, another theory which, in true Victorian style, sought to explain everything,

More tendentious nonsense. Darwinism and its successors have never ever sought to explain everything. Darwin sought to integrate biology with Newtonian-type science, and largely succeeded. But I guess Ben has no truthful criticisms to make of MET, so he resorts to what IDists always end up using, untrue assertions.

[Marxism] is dead everywhere but on university campuses and in the minds of psychotic dictators.

Yes, see, if you really understood history, you’d know why non-Enlightenment, non-scientific Marxism had to perish of its own contradictions, while evolutionary theory remains indispensible for doing biology.

Glen D
< http://tinyurl.com/2kxyc7 >

Glen Davidson Says:

October 31st, 2007 at 7:05 pm
I’m trying to post this section of my reply again, since it doesn’t show up in the preview.

Continuing from my post above:

Darwinism also has not one meaningful word to say on the origins of organic life, a striking lacuna in a theory supposedly explaining life.

It isn’t a lacuna, ignorant one, because other processes than evolutionary mechanisms come into play during the origins of life. Darwin even allowed at one time that the Creator may have made life, while Darwin was simply explaining the patterns that we see in life, including the speciation of finches on the Galapagos Islands.

Alas, Darwinism has had a far bloodier life span than Imperialism. Darwinism, perhaps mixed with Imperialism, gave us Social Darwinism,

No, those were your buddies, who distorted a scientific concept into excuses for ravaging and despoiling peoples, including their own countrymen.

a form of racism so vicious that it countenanced the Holocaust against the Jews and mass murder of many other groups in the name of speeding along the evolutionary process.

I wouldn’t suppose that someone so bereft of intellectual honesty as Ben is would even attempt to supply evidence for his scurrilous charges. He blames the science of evolution for the decidedly unscientific and unsupportable beliefs of Hitler. Why not violate
Godwin’s law, when you yourself can’t support a single one of your statements, Ben?

The true fact of history is that the Enlightenment spawned Darwin’s thought in the birthplace of the Enlightenment, England (Newton, above all exemplifies this). The Enlightenment was anathema to much of Germany, and especially to the faction which took over Germany in the 1930s (the Nazis were also not in favor of Darwin, for the most part). The Enlightenment countries, which had many faults indeed, were the ones who had both the science and the decency to defeat the fascists, and Ben despises the Enlightenment types who
promote science and decency.

Now, a few scientists are questioning Darwinism on many fronts.

Yes, and they always have. The IDists, of course, are not “questioning Darwinism” (though they’re attacking it), they’re using labels like Ben does to suggest that evolutionary theory depends on a man and moment in history, when in fact MET is a cross-cultural, cross-religion phenomenon, accepted by religionists and atheists, and by East and West. IDists simply hate the Enlightenment, tell lies about science being “materialistic”, and try to impose their anti-Enlightenment beliefs upon free societies.

I wonder how long Darwinism’s life span will be.

Until bigoted theists (and many theists are totally unlike Ben and his cohorts) destroy it along with the rest of science. And it’s not “Darwinism” (not in the US–in the UK that term is conflated with MET much more than here). That’s just dishonest propaganda.

Marxism, another theory which, in true Victorian style, sought to explain everything,

More tendentious nonsense. Darwinism and its successors have never ever sought to explain everything (not even Marxism did, in fact, though it went well beyond reasonable grounds). Darwin sought to integrate biology with Newtonian-type science, and largely succeeded. But I guess Ben has no truthful criticisms to make of MET, so he resorts to what IDists always end up using, untrue assertions.

[Marxism] is dead everywhere but on university campuses and in the minds of psychotic dictators.

Yes, see, if you really understood history, you’d know why non-Enlightenment, non-scientific Marxism had to perish of its own contradictions, while evolutionary theory remains indispensible for doing biology.

Glen D
< http://tinyurl.com/2kxyc7 >

Glen Davidson Says:

October 31st, 2007 at 7:06 pm
continuing from my post above:

Maybe Darwinism will be different. Maybe it will last.

It survived the efforts of Marxists to stamp it out in the Soviet Union. You know why? Because it’s science. If you had the slightest notion of what science is, Stein, you’d cease trying to impose your version of Social Darwinism upon science.

But it’s difficult to believe it will. Theories that presume to explain everything without much evidence rarely do.

I’d like to know where you got such a disingenuous idea as that “Darwinism” presumes to explain everything. Or where you got the notion that MET is without much evidence. I’d guess from evil liars, most likely the sorts of anti-science anti-intellectual persons that you claim were “persecuted,” when in fact they’ve merely been held to account for their own tendentious nonsense.

Theories that outlive their era of conception and cannot be verified rarely last unless they are faith based.

That’s why Lysenkoism and ID have never been able to last in science, and why both have attempted (Lysenkoism succeeded) to use government to impose themselves into a science whose rules and methods end up excluding them based on their lack of evidence. Indeed, evolutionary thought has lasted where other ideas have fallen by the wayside, although many specific ideas about evolution have been brought up only to be ultimately rejected by the science (like Haeckel’s ideas were).

And Darwinism has been such a painful, bloody chapter in the history of ideologies, maybe we would be better off without it as a dominant force.

It isn’t a “dominant force”, it is just the primary theory in biology. What is more, it isn’t “Darwinism”, for Darwin’s writings did contain a fair amount of Victorian baggage which needed to be discarded (expelled, something science does to bad ideas), and did not know about many of the details of evolution (like neutral evolutionary concepts), and has been substantially modified in light of the evidence.

Maybe we would have a new theory:

Maybe you need to learn what the present theory is, and even to know what must be in scientific theories, like actual explanations of phenomena–which ID lacks.

We are just pitiful humans. Life is unimaginably complex.

Not all of us are as pitiful as you anti-science ranters.

And life is more like “imaginably complex,” for we use evolutionary algorithms precisely where our human design processes fail due to complexity, yet where evolutionary processes succeed. Evolution is something like a computational program, one that is massively parallel.

We are still trying to figure it out.

Yes, we are still trying to figure it out, which is why we’re unwilling to give up the only theory that reduces conceptual complexity, evolutionary theory. ID only wants us to abandon the predictive theory, in preference of dealing with everything as if it were only contingency (or where it understands data according to MET, yet denies MET’s causal mechanisms which predict those data).

We need every bit of input we can get.

Actually, we do not. We do not need the input of Ptolemy to understand the complexity of the heavens, we need people who understand science developments to input their knowledge and creativity. That’s why we have standards in science, among other reasons.

Let’s be humble about what we know and what we don’t know, and maybe in time, some answers will come.

I saw absolutely no humility in Stein’s propaganda against “Darwinism”. Only the usual arrogance of the ignorant, as they insist that bad ideas are as deserving of consideration as the ideas which have guided biological research for at least a hundred years.

Glen D
< http://tinyurl.com/2kxyc7 >

Glen Davidson Says:

October 31st, 2007 at 7:18 pm
This blog is good at allowing comments, but bad in making us wait to see if we got through. I’m going to try again to post one section (it should come after my first post), again because I don’t see it on the preview. If it is a repeat, it should be easy to ignore.

Continuing from my first post on this blog thread:

(In law, this theory is known as “legal realism”. Judges make up their minds on the basis of their prejudices and then rationalize their decisions by pretending to be bound by prior case law. One might call what happens with ideologies “political realism.” Persons make up their ideologies based on their times and their life situations.)

Yes, funny that, judges care about causation (well, that’s not actually Ben’s point, but what is his point? That the justice systems doesn’t work, or does it work dispense justice most of the time?), and you do too in the area of history, Ben.

Yet you’re pushing magic as an appropriate alternative to your causal methods in the biological realm, and you have absolutely no basis from which to do this.

Darwinism, the notion that the history of organisms was the story of the survival of the fittest and most hardy, and that organisms evolve because they are stronger and more dominant than others, is a perfect example of the age from which it came: the age of Imperialism.

Very selective there, Stein. You know very well that Newton’s was an age of slavery, plunder, colonialism, and religious bigotry. Yet you praise Newton and his science, while you rubbish Darwin’s science by association. That’s not honest in the least.

Anyway, at least capitalize properly. It’d be “Age of Imperialism” if you’re capitalizing “imperialism”, not “age of Imperialism.”

What is more, Darwinism as such fits your own political posture rather well, Ben, as you favor the haves over the have-nots.

When Darwin wrote, it was received wisdom that the white, northern European man was destined to rule the world. This could have been rationalized as greed–i.e., Europeans simply taking the resources of nations and tribes less well organized than they were.

Sure, and this differs from Newton’s time, how (I know it does differ, but how does it differ in a better manner?)? IOW, do you have a point that doesn’t undercut what you’ve written heretofore?

Anyway, as it happens, the capitalism of Victorian Britain is somewhat analogous to Darwinism (and is not actually very akin to traditional society, as we evolved to be more cooperative than Ben’s politics prescribes), and it may indeed have helped to give the right idea to Darwin. What of that? One has to get ideas from somewhere, the only real issue being the one that Ben avoids, the issue of evidence that so strongly supports evolutionary theory, and does not support the creationistic views that Ben and Ruloff wish to impose on science.

It could have been worked out as a form of amusement of the upper classes and a place for them to realize their martial fantasies. (Was it Shaw who called Imperialism “…outdoor relief for the upper classes?”)

So what’s your point? Are we supposed to throw out English science, since it was based in a non-politically correct economic system? Here’s Ben saying that Western culture must (selectively) go, due to its many sins. Very good, Ben, you’re now part of the ranks of the
nihilists and bigots who fault civilization’s advances just because much of the past evil was retained for so long (and into the present, one might (or might not) argue).

But it fell to a true Imperialist,

Arguably, Stein is rather more an imperialist than upper-class Darwin was. Darwin didn’t much trouble with politics, he was one of the privileged Brits who dabbled in the sciences because it was very interesting and socially rewarded, not because it yielded any great
imperial or capitalist prizes. Indeed, a good deal of science was done that way, while Ben selectively condemns evolutionary science simply because he’s bigoted against it.

Glen D
< http://tinyurl.com/2kxyc7
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Posted by: VMartin on Nov. 04 2007,12:23

Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Nov. 01 2007,03:54)
 
Quote (VMartin @ Nov. 01 2007,02:11)
In his latest article "Darwinism: The Imperialism of Biology?" Ben Stein is criticised by Glen Davidson who wrote there seven successive long posts! I've put there
my answer listing antidarwian scientists.

I am not sure there is so strong relation between darwinism and capitalism as Ben Stein claim, but the idea of "natural selection" is something really extraordinary and new. Ancient people living in connection with nature never observed it. But it is strongly supported from armchair intellectulas sitting at Universities in industrialised countries, scientists who wouldn't survive a day in countryard.


< http://www.expelledthemovie.com/blog/ >


John Davison comments there sometimes and his posts are very briskly and good.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Amazing insight, as usual VMartin.

We hang upon your every word.

Even when you say things like "I am not so sure" I still believe you are 100% correct.

So, if ancient people living in nature never understood selection, how did the wolf get domesticated?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


So you obviously do not see difference between artificial and natural selection and you suppose it was natural selection that is responsible for domesticating wolfs.
Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on Nov. 04 2007,13:22

and the difference is?  

are you still struggling to understand what heredity is?

tell us about the morphic fields marty.
Posted by: J-Dog on Nov. 05 2007,14:11

Quote (Glen Davidson @ Nov. 03 2007,15:09)
I'm starting to seriously doubt the Expelled bunch's commitment to allowing comments to run without censorship, though they did fairly well in the past.  Btw, as others have apparently found, Dawkins' forum sucks too.  Regardless, I'm now archiving the fisking I did of Ben's latest blog (there are a couple of repeats of posts):

(OK, I'll actually put the posts here when I can get through)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


They are totally censoring what is allowed.  I submitted my hear-rendering saga of the ID-Believing Double PhD publicly riduculed by a girl graduate student last week, and it is STILL not up, although they did send me an email that they received by story.

The email thanked Bill  for his story.
Posted by: Mr_Christopher on Nov. 05 2007,15:58

I think the last time they added any sob stories was the 30th.

I keep hoping someone will submit some short sob videos we can watch too.
Posted by: JohnW on Nov. 05 2007,16:14

Quote (Mr_Christopher @ Nov. 05 2007,13:58)
I think the last time they added any sob stories was the 30th.

I keep hoping someone will submit some short sob videos we can watch too.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


If word got out that someone was soliciting stories of "mistreatment" by the International Science Conspiracy, and offering to put said stories in a movie, every wack-job on the Web would have sent them something this weekend.  

Even among the 16 responses which got through before the Expelled inbox melted down, about a third are from the tinfoil-hat brigade.  The rest are variants of "Darwinists made me fale english" or "they were so mean to me when I tried to preach the word in biology class."

We're not seeing anything at all from advocates of Dembskian, dont-mention-god ID.

<edited - inadvertently submitted before finishing>
Posted by: Mr_Christopher on Nov. 05 2007,18:11

I pray to the intelligent designer that they start including the poor me victim stories again.  Several of them are howlers indeed.  Some of the ones I submitted will be very funny if they ever get published.
Posted by: JohnW on Nov. 08 2007,14:13

Quote (Mr_Christopher @ Nov. 05 2007,16:11)
I pray to the intelligent designer that they start including the poor me victim stories again.  Several of them are howlers indeed.  Some of the ones I submitted will be very funny if they ever get published.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


O frabjous day!  < More sob stories! >

And it looks like many of them aren't exactly what they had in mind:

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Like any Raelian I recognize that the human race is the product of the Intelligent Designers who igners who we have been in contact with for decades. Everytime I tried to get the intelligent design promoters (William Dembski) and others at www.uncommondescent.com to at least consider the Intelligent Designer hwas discovered years ago I was ridiculed. They never once asked me for evidence or even considered the evidence. They ended up banning me and ALL my comments from their blog. Science is about discovery and evidence, no just towing the intelligent design party line.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


< link >

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Today I was expelled from the Uncommon Descent blog. All I was trying to do was talk about intelligent design in an intelligent way. I'm a Christian and a religion professor. Can you believe the sort of censorship this site is engaging in?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


< link > - goodonyer, ReligionProf!

Plus a < visitor >  from an alternate reality, where wheels are square, trout are allowed to vote, and:
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I was allowed only 30 seconds to speak (I saved a written copy of my speech), but was able to point out that the top scientists in the world have all but thrown out the current theory of evolution. Only lower-level professors still teach it, and they ridicule those who think otherwise.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Posted by: Richardthughes on Nov. 08 2007,14:32

EF This:

< http://www.expelledthemovie.com/shoutout_text.php?story=73 >

Parody or slimey Sal?
Posted by: Tracy P. Hamilton on Nov. 08 2007,15:25

Quote (Richardthughes @ Nov. 08 2007,14:32)
EF This:

< http://www.expelledthemovie.com/shoutout_text.php?story=73 >

Parody or slimey Sal?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Slimey Sal.  The writing style, like Dense O'Leary's, is (and should be) inimitable.

Note the fluffing up of credentials -

The research at the lab would have overturned the false and misleading computer simulations used by Darwinists to win a major court case against ID proponents (Dover).
3 degrees in scientific disciplines
Present during an interview by prestigious journal
for a major story
Posted by: Tracy P. Hamilton on Nov. 08 2007,15:28

Ridiculed because of attacking Naturism

< http://www.expelledthemovie.com/shoutout_text.php?story=95 >
Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on Nov. 08 2007,15:30

Quote (Richardthughes @ Nov. 08 2007,14:32)
EF This:

< http://www.expelledthemovie.com/shoutout_text.php?story=73 >

Parody or slimey Sal?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------




---------------------QUOTE-------------------
The research at the lab would have overturned the false and misleading computer simulations used by Darwinists to win a major court case against ID proponents (Dover). I would have drawn a small salary and had my tuition paid to get a Master of Science Degree in Electrical Engineering. All told, the offer amounted to about $40,000.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Well, it's not so far off what he could have written. I bet he believes that's what happened. It's no wonder Sal and his Ilk don't do research - they know the answer before they even start. If he knew the simulations were "false" before any research at the "lab", presumably they are still false for the same reasons now and can be proven so easily by Sal by sharing how he knows. Presuming he indeed said those words.

And anyway, how could Sal resist the glare of the camera, it's in his blood. Shameless self publicist. A chance to be on the big screen? Sal would sell his soul. And the devil would come off the worst there.
Posted by: JohnW on Nov. 08 2007,15:43



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
The Informatics Lab was shut down in August by the Darwinists at Baylor when it was evident the scientific research would put certain Darwinist organizations around the country out of business and into disrepute.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Conspiracy and delusions of grandeur in a single sentence.  If this isn't Sal, it's a very gifted mimic.
Posted by: JohnW on Nov. 08 2007,15:49

Quote (Tracy P. Hamilton @ Nov. 08 2007,13:28)
Ridiculed because of attacking Naturism

< http://www.expelledthemovie.com/shoutout_text.php?story=95 >
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Quite apart from the vocabulary issues, this one is fall-off-your-chair funny.  Too ridiculous for the Bigfoot loonies...
Posted by: Mr_Christopher on Nov. 08 2007,22:00

Ahem,,,,Uh...



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Expelled For Promoting ID
Added by: Chris, on 2007-11-01 18:15:52
Like any Raelian I recognize that the human race is the product of the Intelligent Designers who igners who we have been in contact with for decades. Everytime I tried to get the intelligent design promoters (William Dembski) and others at www.uncommondescent.com to at least consider the Intelligent Designer hwas discovered years ago I was ridiculed. They never once asked me for evidence or even considered the evidence. They ended up banning me and ALL my comments from their blog. Science is about discovery and evidence, no just towing the intelligent design party line.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Who is this < Chris > guy?  And why is his typing so shitty?

Chris
Posted by: Mr_Christopher on Nov. 08 2007,22:02



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Expelled from Uncommon Descent
Added by: James, on 2007-11-01 20:02:19
Today I was expelled from the Uncommon Descent blog. All I was trying to do was talk about intelligent design in an intelligent way. I'm a Christian and a religion professor. Can you believe the sort of censorship this site is engaging in?

[URL=http://exploringourmatrix.blogspot.com/2007/11/banned-from-uncommon-descent.html [/url]
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Read it < here >
Posted by: Mr_Christopher on Nov. 08 2007,22:06

Guys like hereoisreal should tell their story of being banned by intelligent design blog UD because they were open about their belief in God and Christ.

Dave tard censors anything religious at UD.  Why does UD censor faithful, honest christians I ask you?
Posted by: J-Dog on Nov. 09 2007,07:56

Quote (Mr_Christopher @ Nov. 08 2007,22:00)
Ahem,,,,Uh...

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Expelled For Promoting ID
Added by: Chris, on 2007-11-01 18:15:52
Like any Raelian I recognize that the human race is the product of the Intelligent Designers who igners who we have been in contact with for decades. Everytime I tried to get the intelligent design promoters (William Dembski) and others at www.uncommondescent.com to at least consider the Intelligent Designer hwas discovered years ago I was ridiculed. They never once asked me for evidence or even considered the evidence. They ended up banning me and ALL my comments from their blog. Science is about discovery and evidence, no just towing the intelligent design party line.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Who is this < Chris > guy?  And why is his typing so shitty?

Chris
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Congratulations!  A real live Raelian - impressive!
I'd be more impressed if you wound up with Katie Holmes though.  And of course, posted pictures.

But seriously congrats - at least you made the cut.  The post from "Bill" being abused by a girl grad student didn't make it.
Posted by: Henry J on Nov. 09 2007,09:19

Quote (Mr_Christopher @ Nov. 08 2007,21:06)
Guys like hereoisreal should tell their story of being banned by intelligent design blog UD because they were open about their belief in God and Christ.

Dave tard censors anything religious at UD.  Why does UD censor faithful, honest christians I ask you?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


"It's not about right.

It's not about wrong.

It's about power."
Posted by: Mr_Christopher on Nov. 13 2007,12:29



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Dear Friend of EXPELLED,

More exciting news regarding Ben Stein and EXPELLED ~ No Intelligence Allowed.
He's on NATIONAL NEWS TODAY.
Please tune in to The Glen Beck Television Program TODAY, Tuesday, November 13th at 3:15pm (EST). Please see details below.

TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 13TH

3:15 – 3:30pm (EST)
Television interview
National
CNN Headline News
“The Glenn Beck TV Show”


Thanks!

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Posted by: Lou FCD on Nov. 13 2007,12:43

Y'know I've been thinking about how funny it would be if Stein milked all this press from UD, the DI, and all the other creationists, then pulled a fast one and put out a quality, accurate film.

If it got through to 1% of the people sent by the Tard pushers to view it...
Posted by: Mr_Christopher on Nov. 13 2007,13:36

I wonder if Ben plans to watch the Nova special tonight.  I'd love to be a fly on the wall at ben's house if he does.
Posted by: JohnW on Nov. 13 2007,16:49

< Three more sob stories >.  Including the notorious < Forrest Mims > - not hired to write a science column for, well, not accepting science.

The second tale of woe is more, um, < interesting >...


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
When I began fighting evolutionism as a public school teacher, a powerful former Board of Education member tried to stir up the community against me. She made false claims to a Jewish Professor whose daughter was in my class. She secretly went to my principal in an attempt to get me fired.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Darwinists=Jewish Conspiracy?  But weren't they Nazis last week?

Sob story #3: < Darwinists made me fale skool >:


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I remember during my high school biology class, being made to answer questions that had no correct answer. Here's how the question would go: What is the age of the earth? A) 110 million years B) 21 million years C) 2.4 billion years D) 65 billion years

So what would I put for my answer? I would circle the answer they wanted and then write in the margin something like: You think it is this answer, but I do not agree with that. The correct answer is not displayed here.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


She's right though - the correct answer is not displayed here.
Posted by: ck1 on Nov. 13 2007,18:21

Speaking of martyrs to the cause, what ever happened to Bryan Leonard, the high school science teacher who testified at the Kansas Kangaroo Kourt while in a Ph.D. program at, I think, Ohio State.  His dissertation defense was held up because his defense committee was improperly constructed (plus they were all creationist sympathizers) and because he failed to get proper approval for using human subjects.

Sounds like a perfect candidate for this movie.  Is he in it?
Posted by: Glen Davidson on Nov. 15 2007,15:05

It's not terribly interesting, but I thought Stein's prattle on Glenn Beck's program is worth a few quotes and a link:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
STEIN: Well this was for a documentary which as you say is called "Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed." We were studying what our kids were taught about evolution, what they were taught about how life originated.

What we found is that if you question evolution, you have a good chance of losing tenure. You have a good chance of getting fired, losing a grant, you`re out of there.

And yet evolution and Darwinism do not explain an awful lot about life. Darwin said nothing about how life originated and Darwin had no idea how complicated the cell was. Darwin was never able to point to any clear evidence of any species that originated by evolution and there hasn`t been much progress in Darwinism since then. But we found that if you even question the established church of Darwinism, bang, you`re gone.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Uh, yeah Ben, who the hell lost tenure?

Damn, Darwin didn't explain the origin of life?  What did he think he was doing, explaining evolution, or something?

Darwin didn't point to any clear evidence of species appearing by evolution, of course, since the finches look like they were designed by engineers.  Not much progress in "Darwinism," either, or at least no progress in teaching Stein anything.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
BECK: What about first cause or intelligent?

STEIN: Well, first cause is not -- it`s lightning striking a mud puddle. See, this is what the evolutionists say and by the way, they may be right. I`m not a scientist, they could be right. Evolutionists struck a mud puddle and out of that mud puddle came a fully-equipped Boeing 747.

Because a human cell, or plant cell or frog cell has hundreds of thousands of very complicated, moving parts all of which have to work together in exact synchronization with each other to build the cell, repair the cell and reproduce the cell.

Darwin thought it was just Jello inside the cell. No, very complicated. How that happened by lightning striking a mud puddle is a very good question. And if you ask that question, you better start looking for another job or have rich parents or something.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



I think Stein's running off of old Frankenstein movies there.  At least the mud puddle differs somewhat, but the lightning bolt is still there.

Bizarre, though, that Darwin thought lightning in a mud puddle made a jello-filled cell.  Is this a new design process for making gelatinous desserts?

Anyway, that's most of what Stein said that he no doubt considers to be substantive about evolution on the Beck show.  But here's the link for anyone wanting context (it's maybe around 2/3 of the way down):

< http://edition.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0711/13/gb.01.html >

Glen D
Posted by: Mr_Christopher on Nov. 15 2007,17:32

Thanks Glen, I wondered if anyone watched this.  

Someone should send Ben a copy of the Nova program.  Maybe I will.
Posted by: JohnW on Nov. 29 2007,16:00

< Another handful > of courageous ID researchers silenced by the establishment creationists asked to stop preaching in high school biology classes.

Perhaps we should contact Chris Comer.
Posted by: Doc Bill on Nov. 30 2007,22:05

Luskin writes:




---------------------QUOTE-------------------
“This is a clear First Amendment case,” said Discovery attorney for public policy and legal affairs Casey Luskin
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



How is Gonzalez a first amendment case?  That's freedom of political speech if I recall correctly.  

Isn't Luskin a Lawyer?  Did he go to Law School?  Did he pass the Bar?

Is Luskin a Total Idiot?

So, the DI is going to have a press conference where they say that Gonzalez's right to free speech (political) was...what.  What was done?

ISU bounced GG because he is a horse's ass.  Check chapter 5 of the ISU Tenure Handbook: Horse's asses may be bounced for cause.

Next.
Posted by: dhogaza on Dec. 01 2007,00:12



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
sn't Luskin a Lawyer?  Did he go to Law School?  Did he pass the Bar?

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Apparently, yes.


---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Is Luskin a Total Idiot?

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


No, of course not, when you understand he's not interested in truth, but rather fighting the "culture war" in K-12 schools, hoping to blunt or even stop the teaching of science to kids in public schools.
Posted by: Wesley R. Elsberry on Dec. 06 2007,13:30

Do we see a trend toward productivity, or away from it?

Ethan Rop put together this < nice graphic of Guillermo Gonzalez's productivity >:


Posted by: J-Dog on Dec. 07 2007,07:50

John Lynch's Chart is prettier - and more visually compelling.  I say we should take full advantage of the vision that we have evolved.

< http://scienceblogs.com/strange....tio.php >

< >
Posted by: Wesley R. Elsberry on Dec. 07 2007,07:54

Maybe that dry spell should be called the "Privileged Planet Minimum".
Posted by: J-Dog on Dec. 07 2007,08:05

Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Dec. 07 2007,07:54)
Maybe that dry spell should be called the "Privileged Planet Minimum".
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


HA!  Excellent - Touche!
Posted by: Wesley R. Elsberry on Dec. 08 2007,07:15

< Iowa State Daily article on emails in Gonzalez case >



---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Gonzalez said he feels "not everything is on the up and up; not everything is kosher," and he felt pressure from inside the department "even before the petition was circulated in 2005, and all the more so after the petition." Concerning the e-mails, he said he was "surprised about what people were saying behind my back."

"Absolutely, I can say in unequivocal terms, that ID was a factor [for denying tenure]," Gonzalez said. "I guess I was being naive. I thought I was being judged on my full record."

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Uh, dude, you put "Privileged Planet" in your tenure dossier. IDC was part of your "full record".

Translation: 'Hey, I've shot myself in the foot! It's all your fault!'



---------------------QUOTE-------------------

John R. Clem, senior physicist at Ames Laboratory, wrote in 2005 that he was concerned about the possible creation of a "hostile work environment" by circulating an official statement and wanted also to "withdraw [his] name from any public statement."

Clem wrote that Gonzalez's statements were an "embarrassment" to the department and wished to instill in other members that Gonzalez's statements were just the "highly publicized views of one untenured member" of the faculty.

"I feel that publication of such a statement might become the most important piece of evidence in a successful court case to guarantee tenure to the person whose scientific credibility we should attempt to discredit," Clem wrote. "I think the best policy is just grin and bear it for the next couple of years."

Clem said he feels the e-mails being brought to light by the Discovery Institute are misrepresentations of the full story, as they are "on a fishing expedition to raise publicity for their cause" by "extracting the most negative comments" made by faculty to the press, thus facilitating their case against Iowa State.

"We had a very delicate situation [at the time], and we tried to handle it as delicately as possible," Clem said. "[The Discovery Institute] still came at us with guns blazing. It didn't do any good."

Clem said the decision to deny tenure to Gonzalez was "absolutely not" based on ID.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Prof. Clem, one can't be too surprised that the Discovery Institute went with their primary competency.
Posted by: Reciprocating Bill on Dec. 08 2007,10:40

Upon actually reviewing the < emails > in question, I don't think they represent a threat to ISU's decision on Gonzalez. Indeed, there are passages that work powerfully against the DI's position.

Examples include Steve Kawaler's prescient remarks:
                         

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
11/21/05:

Simply put, next year's tenure review will be very closely scrutinized by the public and the press - and we must do whatever we can to make it a fair process. An unprecedented step such as a statement, signed by members of the department doing the tenure review that the science being done by the candidate is no good, works directly against our need to ensure, and display, a fair tenure review.

11/22/05:

Believe me I understand the frustration batted about here. But we should expect that the DI (or whoever comes to Guillermo's aid) will be subpoenaing our records and anything else they can get (including copies of the e-mails that are being exchanged between all of us.). So, with that in mind, keeping the process as fair as possible should be utmost.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


This earlier sympathetic remark is also interesting. From Anne Willson on 2/17/04:
                       

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Yes, I am aware of this [Gonzalez' intention to publish P.P.] and not exactly thrilled. I talked with him last year about perhaps waiting with the public bit until he gets past the tenure review, but I gather he feels strongly enough to be willing to take the risk.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


All of the exchange concerns the dilemma that Gonzalez created for himself, and for his faculty, by being so public with his advocacy of ID at the moment that his tenure review was approaching. Prominent is concern over damage to faculty recruitment that his actions had created, and how to limit that damage (including consideration of a public statement). Gonzalez himself rendered his ID advocacy impossible to ignore; as Wes notes above he referenced P.P. in his tenure dossier, and department faculty also grappled in this exchange with the fact that he made taped public presentations in which he argued that ID should be regarded as sound science, placing his ID advocacy squarely in the domain of their assessment of his quality as a scientist. As indicated above, also prominent among the concerns discussed was the need to preserve a tenure review that was fair to Gonzalez, as well as the desire to avoid creating a work environment that was hostile to him. As above, he was cautioned that it was unwise of him to create those problems at that time, but he went forward anyway.

I'm working on a catchy aphorism that concerns planting stuff that one later harvests, but can't quite get it right.
Posted by: someotherguy on Dec. 08 2007,11:20

Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Dec. 08 2007,10:40)
Upon actually reviewing the < emails > in question, I don't think they represent a threat to ISU's decision on Gonzalez. Indeed, there are passages that work powerfully against the DI's position:

Examples include Steve Kawaler's prescient remarks:
                       

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
11/21/05:

Simply put, next year's tenure review will be very closely scrutinized by the public and the press - and we must do whatever we can to make it a fair process. An unprecedented step such as a statement, signed by memores of the department doing the tenure review that the science being done by the candidate is no good, wors directly against our need to ensure, and display, a fair tenure review.

11/22/05:

Believe me I understand the frustration batted about here. But we should expect that the DI (or whoever comes to Guillermo's aid) will be subpoenaing our records and anything else they can get (including copies of the e-mails that are being exchanged between all of us.). So, with that in mind, keeping the process as fair as possible should be utmost.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


This earlier sympathetic remark is also interesting. From Anne Willson on 2/17/04:
                     

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Yes, I am aware of this [Gonzalez' intention to publish P.P.] and not exactly thrilled. I talked with him last year about perhaps waiting with the public bit until he gets past the tenure review, but I gather he feels strongly enough to be willing to take the risk.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


All of the exchange concerns the dilemma that Gonzalez created for himself, and for his faculty, by being so public with his advocacy of ID at the moment that his tenure review was approaching. Prominent is concern over damage to faculty recruitment that his actions had created, and how to limit that damage (including consideration of a public statement). Gonzalez himself rendered his ID advocacy impossible to ignore; as Wes notes above he referenced P.P. in his tenure dossier, and department faculty also grappled in this exchange with the fact that he made taped public presentations in which he argued that ID should be regarded as sound science, placing his ID advocacy squarely in the domain of their assessment of his quality as a scientist. As indicated above, also prominent among the concerns discussed was the need to preserve a tenure review that was fair to Gonzalez, as well as the desire to avoid creating a work environment that was hostile to him. As above, he was cautioned that it was unwise of him to create those problems at that time, but he went forward anyway.

I'm working on a catchy aphorism that concerns planting stuff that one later harvests, but can't quite get it right.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Could somebody do a post on this at Panda's Thumb?
Posted by: Wesley R. Elsberry on Dec. 08 2007,11:37

Mike Dunford is working up something. Expect it on Monday.
Posted by: Annyday on Dec. 08 2007,15:51

Very interesting. I can't help but wish the pdf was more complete, but the interdepartmental politics make a lot more sense now.

It's also kind of funny how a number of evidently sympathetic faculty, seeing the oncoming train that was the inevitable Gonzalez lawsuit, voiced worries about lawsuits that are being taken as justification for those lawsuits.
Posted by: olegt on Dec. 08 2007,18:15

Quote (Richardthughes @ Nov. 08 2007,14:32)
EF This:

< http://www.expelledthemovie.com/shoutout_text.php?story=73 >

Parody or slimey Sal?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


The story is consistent with what Sal wrote in September at UD:
< My retreat from the public view…. >
< Of Groups and Labs at Baylor >
Posted by: Annyday on Dec. 08 2007,20:01

"The research at the lab would have overturned the false and misleading computer simulations used by Darwinists to win a major court case against ID proponents (Dover)."

????

Excuse my ignorance, but what computer simulations is he speaking of and how would he propose to overturn them? Also, what research was he doing that's so special he can't do it on DI money, if it was going to change the world? I'd expect the DI to cough up a cool million at least if a few years on MATLAB were enough to assure their victory.

Further: Why am I so stupid that I continually think it's worth subjecting this crap to logical scrutiny?
Posted by: Wesley R. Elsberry on Dec. 09 2007,12:12

Rob Pennock's testimony in KvD included discussion of Avida [The court reporter doesn't know how to spell "Avida"].

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------

[86]Q. Have you done any scientific research on the subject of evolution?

[87]A. Yes. Some of my current research is on testing evolutionary hypotheses making use of evolving computer organisms.

[88]Q. Can you describe in general terms what that research is?

[89]A. Sure. The idea is to make use of a system that essentially is an evolutionary system whereby the Darwinian mechanism is implemented in the computer and using that to form experiments to test evolutionary hypotheses. Essentially one is able to watch evolution happen and in replicable controlled experiments test particular evolutionary hypotheses.

[90]Q. Has this research been published in a peer reviewed scientific journal?

[91]A. Yes, in Nature.

[92]Q. Matt, could you pull up Exhibit P-330? Is this the first page of that article in Nature?

[93]A. Yes, that's right.

[94]Q. And Ken Miller plugged Nature repeatedly in his testimony, but I'll give you the chance as well. Is Nature one of the more prestigious scientific journals?

[95]A. Nature, together with Science and PNAS, Proceedings of the National Academy of Science are really considered the top three journals within science.

[96]Q. And obviously peer reviewed?

[97]A. Peer reviewed journals, that's right.

[98]Q. You didn't write this article by yourself?

[99]A. This was a collaborative project. My collaborators in this case were two of my colleagues at Michigan State, Richard Lenski, who is an evolutionary biologist. He's most known for his work on experimental evolution using bacteria. He's had lines of bacteria evolving for the last fifteen years that allows one to do experiments to test evolutionary hypotheses in that kind of system.

He got very excited about this new system that allows one to test evolutionary hypotheses in a way where things are even faster. Charles Ofria is another colleague at Michigan State. He's in the department of computer science, and he together with Christoph Adami, the last name there, are the two originators of the platform known at Evita.  Adami is a theoretical physicist. He's most known currently for his work solving a problem that Steven Hawkings was trying to work on regarding black holes, but he works in this area as well. He at the time was at Tech.

[100]Q. At where?

[101]A. At Tech Research Institute out in California.

[102]Q. I'm going to ask you the same question here that I have asked you in our private meetings, which is these are computer organisms.  They're not biological organisms. What can they possibly show about biological evolution?

[103]A. They show us how the Darwinian mechanism works. The key thing about them is that it's a model where you have the laws that Darwin discovered, the mechanism of random variation that's heritable, that then can be naturally selected, can be seen, manipulated, experimented with in just the same way, it works in just the same way that it works in the biological case. These organisms, computer viruses if you will, evolve. And so one can set up experiments to watch them evolve and test hypotheses about how the Darwinian mechanism works.

[104]Q. Now, these organisms, computer organisms, they didn't arise by themselves, correct? There was a programmer involved?

[105]A. Yes. That would have been Charles Ofria particularly, writing we called the Ancestor Program. The Ancestor is simply a self-replicator, an organism that has instructions to allow it to replicate itself, but otherwise is just a series of blank instructions. That's the basic part that, was hand coded.

[106]Q. So with that, you know, fact of a human designer, a programmer, how can this teach us anything about evolution in the natural world?

[107]A. Our investigations are not about the origin of life. Like Darwin we're not really interested in that particular question. We're interested in as Darwin said the origin of species, the origin of complexity, the origin of adaptations, and what we're able to do in this system is examine essentially what Darwin examined. We're not investigating how life began itself. We're investigating how once that happens, things evolve, evolve complex traits.

[108]Q. So just to make sure I understand, this research wouldn't be valuable in any way to coming up with a natural explanation for how the first biological life arose?

[109]A. No. It's not at all aimed at that.

[110]Q. Does the designer, the programmer, play any role in the development of these computer organisms, like their evolution after that?

[111]A. The wonderful thing about this is that we can essentially sit back and watch evolution happen. We'll set up an environment, set up a system, put in place the Ancestor, put in place the original organism, and then within the experimental set-up, depending on what one wants to investigate you'll set it up differently, but essentially at that point we're not going to go in and hand code anything. We're not going to manipulate the code. What happens at the end, if they've evolve some new functional trait, that something that happens by virtue of the Darwinian mechanism. They randomly evolve, they randomly vary, that variation is inherited, and the natural selection then does its work.

[112]Q. What advantages does this computer model have over doing research on the subject of evolution with biological organisms?

[113]A. It has the advantage of speed primarily, and precision. It allows us to do what you really can do with natural organisms.  Lenski's work with E. coli lets one do experimental evolution so one can test hypotheses in that way. It's taken fifteen years, E. coli are pretty fast replicators, but even so, four generations or so a day still is a long time, and your graduate students would never get out and get jobs if you had to wait for that whole process to go through, and what this does is let one watch it happen much more quickly, and then set up very controlled circumstances so that you can really do replications. A controlled experiment is now possible in a way that allows very precise comparison of groups and then statistically significant results.

[114]MR. ROTHSCHILD: Your Honor, at this time I'd like to move qualify Dr. Pennock as an expert in the philosophy of science, in the history of science, in intelligent design, the subject of intelligent design, and in his research on the evolution of computer generated organisms.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------

[193]Q. Are irreducible complexity and specified complexity associated with particular individuals in the intelligent design movement?

[194]A. Irreducible complexity is most associated with Michael Behe.  Specified complexity is most associated with William Dembski. These are interrelated concepts though. Specified complexity is the more general form. Dembski directly though says that irreducible complexity is a type of, a case of specified complexity.

[195]Q. Does your work on computer organisms address these arguments of irreducible complexity and specified complexity?

[196]A. Yes, it does.

[197]Q. Can you just describe for us briefly how it does that?

[198]A. Sure. The claims that are made with regard to these two concepts are as follows. Systems that exhibit or that purportedly exhibit irreducible complexity or specified complexity, actually at this point let me just focus on irreducible complexity, because since it's an example of specified complexity, any conclusion that we can get with regard to irreducible complexity would also deal with specified complexity. So we can just focus on that.

So the claim is any system, Behe's example is a mouse trap, so it doesn't have to be a specifically biological system, just a very general argument, any system that is irreducibly complex, thus to say has interacting parts that are well matched to introduce a function, such that if you remove any of those parts, it breaks, stops functioning, doesn't produce that basic function, is an irreducibly complex system, and such systems the claim is couldn't have been evolved through a Darwinian mechanism.

What our system shows is that's just wrong. We can observe digital organisms evolving by the Darwinian mechanism, starting with an organism that cannot produce some effect, cannot fulfill a function, doesn't have this possibility, and later on evolve to the point where it can, some complex trait that we can then examine. The nice thing about this system is it lets one look at it very precisely, we can look inside and see does it fulfill the definition?

In fact, it does. We can test to see, remove the parts, does it break?  In fact, it does. And we can say here at the end we have an irreducibly complex system, a little organism this can produce this complex function. But the nice thing about the system is that we can look back and see in fact it did evolve. We can watch it happen. So it's a direct refutation of that challenge to evolution.

[199]Q. Is that point addressed, put forward in the Nature paper?

[200]A. It's not. The Nature paper itself is meant just to be a test of a general evolutionary hypothesis, examining how it is that complex features arise. Darwin had specific things to say about that. What we were doing was simply looking into that, testing it in a way. It just turns out that it also applies to this case.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Cross-examination:

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------

[205]Q. I want to ask you a few questions about your work in the computer science area and Evita. You testified that in your opinion that Evita is an artificial life system designed to test evolutionary hypotheses, correct?

[206]A. That's correct.

[207]Q. And that's the scope of your testimony here today. You said the same thing, correct?

[208]A. That's correct.

[209]Q. And you said today and I believe in your opinion that it's designed to instantiate Darwin's law, correct?

[210]A. That's correct. By instantiate, just so that I this kind of explain this sort of philosophical term, the difference here is between a simulation of something and an actual instance of it. That's to say a realization of it. In the Evita system we're not simulating evolution. Evolution is actually happening. It's the very mechanisms of evolution itself as Darwin discovered them. The organisms actually do self replicate. They do randomly vary the code changes. The mutations happen at random. There is competition and actual natural selection. So these are not being simulated. Those processes are actually happening. So that's the sense in which it's an instance of evolution, not just a simulation.

[211]Q. And to make sure I understand, it seems you're saying that the instantiation makes it a more perfect model of Darwinian law of natural selection, is that correct?

[212]A. What I'm saying is it's an actual example of it, that what we have in the system our organisms, Evitians, have the very properties that the Darwinian mechanism discusses. So it's not a simulation of replication. They are actually self replicating. It's not a simulation of a random mutation. That's what's going on with the code. It's not a simulation of natural selection. They do compete and are naturally selected, without intervention, without design.

[213]Q. And Mr. Rothschild asked you and I believe you testified that the program doesn't address the question of origins, but rather the process of Darwin's law, it's working out in the computer program organisms, correct?

[214]A. It doesn't deal with the origins of life. It deals with the evolution of complexity of adaptations. So origins can sometimes be used in both ways. So what's relevant here is it's not about the origin of life. It's about the origin of complex traits.

[215]Q. And I believe you said that the overall purpose of the project is to test how evolution actually works, is that correct?

[216]A. That's right. What we're able to do in the system is put forward an evolutionary hypothesis and then set up a controlled experiment and let the system evolve with replications, as many are as needed, and in some cases you might have fifty different populations replicating in a controlled situation, fifty in an experimental situation, so that you can then watch what happens in each case and observe evolution, the Darwinian process, do its stuff.

[217]Q. Now, if someone looked at a computer program, I think you have said that it was written by a particular individual called the, what did you call it, the genesis program or the --

[218]A. No, the Ancestor.

[219]Q. Ancestor program, forgive me. They would look at that and immediately know that was done by a computer programmer, correct?

[220]A. Not necessarily at all. In fact, one can look at these things and not know which things were coded by a programmer and which things were evolved. We know because we put them in there this was the one that we coded, but if one were to just look at them, you wouldn't necessarily be able to tell at all.

[221]Q. So is it your testimony that if someone happened to cross that computer program, they wouldn't know that someone had designed it?

[222]A. That's right. You would not be able to pick out the ones that were evolved from those that Charles Ofria hand coded as the Ancestor.  As I said, what the Ancestor does is simply replicate it. It's a very basic program. Most of it is just blank code, and as the organisms evolve it can actually turn out that they lose the ability to replicate. Some mutations are harmful.

Many are. Most are, or neutral. It might make no difference. Some mutations can actually make them better replicators, and if it turns out that random mutations replicates better than another organism, that means that in the competition, in the digital environment, those will be naturally selected. So what you'll have over time is the evolution of for example faster replicators. That is they figure out a way to replicate faster than the original programmer programmed in.

Or it could turn out that they'll be worse, and those will then lose out in the competition. So what you see is the evolutionary process, random mutations to the code, being naturally selected for and generation after generation organisms evolving, in this case better replication ability. Or, and this is the other thing that's characteristic about Evita, it can evolve the ability to perform complex logical operations, and in this case again it's not something that was programmed in at all.

The original Ancestor could do none of that, but what one sees at the end are organisms that have evolved these complex abilities. The code has changed. It's acquired an ability that it did not have before. And that's what we're able to see, something we know that was designed at the beginning but couldn't do any of this stuff to something at the end that has evolved so it's quite complex.

The set of instructions has to be executed in a specific order to produce a particular function. That's something we can look at and say how did it do it, and often they're very clever, they evolve things where the programmer would think why, I would never have thought even to do it that way. And that's what allows this to be a nice model for examining how evolution can produce complex functional adaptations.

[223]Q. Sure.

[224]A. If you have it, and the other thing about it is -- sorry, I get excited about this. We can trace, we can keep track of the full evolutionary history. So we have a complete fossil record if you will.  So after we've see that it's evolved something we can look back and look, it's a mutation by random mutation of how that evolved.

[225]Q. Sure, and forgive me if my question was imprecise. I didn't want to cut you off, but my question is a little different than one you've answered at least as I see it, not technical, which is this.  I'm not asking about the difference between the organisms you're looking at. I'm saying if someone came across that computer program, the Ancestor program, wouldn't they believe it was designed?

[226]A. And my answer is that you really can't say that. You might believe it and you'd be wrong. You can't tell the difference between the one that was encoded and one that was evolved later on.

[227]Q. So it's your testimony that someone could believe the computer program was not designed?

[228]A. You're asking a psychological question about what someone could believe, is that right? In that case they could believe all sorts of things, but the question has to do with can you look at them and tell this was one that was designed, and the answer there is no, not necessarily.

[229]Q. Let's use your definition and let's constrict causality to the natural world and I'll ask you the question again. If someone like myself wandered down to Michigan State University and came across your computer system generating this pattern that you have described in great detail which is designed to substantiate Darwinian mechanism, is it your testimony or do you have an opinion concerning whether someone like me would think that was designed or not?

[230]A. Someone might think it was. You might look at it and you might say wow, that looks pretty complicated, how could that have happened.  You might think this is so amazingly functional and interrelated, it's irreducibly complex, it had to have been designed by someone, and you'd be wrong.

[231]Q. So I would be wrong if I inferred that that computer program has been designed by a computer programmer?

[232]A. That's right. You'd be wrong about that. The ones that emerged at the end of the evolutionary process have specific code that lets them do specific adaptive functions, and that was not programmed in.

[233]Q. Would I be wrong if I inferred that the computer program had been created by a supernatural force?

[234]A. If you were to conclude this just as a theological position or as a scientific position?

[235]Q. If I were to conclude it in any way.

[236]A. So again, and this is a nice example to sort of show the difference between thinking about this as a scientist under methodological naturalism versus the intelligent design notion of opening our minds to the possibility, what I have said here is that the organisms at the end weren't designed. We didn't have a hand in doing that. They evolved. Someone who says well, we have to consider the possibility of supernatural interventions might say well, you know, God was in there or some supernatural designer was in there changing the bits inside the computer.

Well, you know, we don't know if that's true, and no scientist can ever know if that's true. That's not a testable proposition. So in that sense we can never rule that out. That's part of what it means to be a methodological naturalist. So we're neutral with regard to that.  Our conclusion that there was no design is one based upon methodological naturalism, namely we're assuming that this is working through ordinary laws, that there aren't any interventions that breaking laws. We know that we didn't do it, and that's what we can say as scientists. If God or some supernatural being is in there fiddling with the gates, the logic gates such that there really was design, we don't have any way of testing that.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



I have no idea how they would propose to "overturn" the demonstrable claims Pennock made in KvD with respect to Avida. I think they must be delusional on that point. I guess we'll see whether the EIL improves any on the already-poor track record that the virtual lab has established.


Posted by: Wesley R. Elsberry on Dec. 09 2007,12:40

Of course, the decision does not cite Avida (or "Evita"), nor does it use "digital", or "computer". Nor do I see a more indirect reference to Pennock's testimony concerning Avida in the decision.

Anybody from the EIL could easily prove me wrong if I am wrong: quote from the KvD decision to establish the point.
Posted by: Rob on Dec. 14 2007,10:07

Quote (Annyday @ Dec. 08 2007,20:01)
Excuse my ignorance, but what computer simulations is he speaking of and how would he propose to overturn them?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


They've mentioned Tom Schneider's ev and Devolab's Avida.  They overturn these programs by showing that they contain "active information", which, translated into non-obfuscatory language, means that the evolutionary algorithms involved are more effective than blind search.  Needless to say, scientists everywhere are shocked! shocked! by that revelation.

I've asked Sal twice what exactly the EIL is accomplishing with its framework, and he ignored the question both times.  Dembski claims that the EIL will put Devolab out of business, but I doubt we'll ever see him betting a bottle of Coke, much less single malt scotch, on that claim.

   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Also, what research was he doing that's so special he can't do it on DI money, if it was going to change the world?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



I know your question is rhetorical, but I'll spell out the obvious answer:  Baylor's kibosh on the EIL funding (a whopping $30k for two years) makes for a great persecution story and a handy excuse for the EIL producing nothing of value.
Posted by: Ben Franklin on Dec. 14 2007,13:31

I was posting on the expelled site, but my posts were considered "pathetic", so I figured that this was the place to come.

Let’s take a closer look at those who wrote in to the Shout Out section on the expelled website claiming to have been “expelled”.

Of the 43 postings (only 42 now, cos’s entry seems to have mysteriously vanished), there are 6 claiming to have been fired, or forced to resign. I think this is relevant, and will be discussed later.

Sixteen posts claim to have been denied something: Tenure (3), tuition/scholarship (2), membership at church (1), participating at a website (5) (note- 80% of those were banned from ID sites), a potential future as an academician (1), a potential future as a football player (1), publication (2) (note- both were later published), and that a library refused a subscription to an unnamed journal (1).

Eleven posts claim to have been not expelled, but mocked.  These are some of my favorites.  Sorry, but anyone who considers Kent Hovind a scientist deserves all the mocking one can muster.

Nine additional posts were from creationists who didn’t claim to have been fired, or denied something, but they just seem pi$$ed off that their creationist claims weren’t taken seriously enough for them, i.e. “my creation club challenged the high school science teachers to a debate and they refused.” And “everytime I talk about Creation Science my teacher makes me feel stupid”.  Is this mocking? OK, it probably is.

One post was just a letter cautioning ID proponents to remain anonymous.
.

Here are some of my thoughts, and I would certainly entertain civil arguments and debate regarding them-

A great part of the problem we face here is - why does “Expelled” and the ID movement in general, while trying to make the case that “’Big Science’ has expelled smart new ideas from the classroom”, not distanced itself from the dumb, old, completely disproved ideas of literal biblical creation and a 6,000 year old earth?   Does anyone think that Michael Behe will abandon all his research because Ken Ham says “You can’t prove anything, YOU WEREN’T THERE!”?

Simply put, that move would alienate way too much of the populist base the ID movement is trying to rouse into social and political action.  Take for example, Don McLeroy, new chairman of the Texas State Board of Education.  As is evidenced by this sermon that he delivered at his church about ID:

< http://www.grace-bible.org/downloa....mer.mp3 >

This man is clearly an inerrant bible literalist, who believes in a 6,000 year old earth, which was created in 6 - 24 hour days, and covered by a global flood, from which Noah, his kin and the animals on the ark were the only survivors, and from whom all animal life on this planet came to exist.  Now, under it’s “big tent” philosophy, the ID movement is OK with having young earth creationists as supporters, and young earth creationists, for some reason that I don’t quite understand, are OK with the ID movement as well.

But will Don McLeroy be satisfied with Texas schools teaching science classes containing information that Michael Behe has publicly stated he adheres to – namely common descent and a 4.5 billion year old earth?  I don’t think so.

I don’t think creationists like McLeroy will be happy until the book of Genesis is substituted for the textbooks currently in use in Texas science classrooms.

So, I don’t think that it’s possible for the ID movement to ever achieve the slightest legitimacy within the scientific or academic communities until it at least separates the science wheat from the creationist chaff, which, I am sure it is loathe to do because, as stated previously, it would alienate too many of its major financial contributors, and its most powerful and politically influential supporters.  

Now, let’s revisit the “expelled”.  The first thing that concerns me is that we are only hearing one side of the story, and in cases like these there are always at least two sides to be heard, although I feel confident in saying, based on pre-release info and interviews that when Expelled is released, the movie will also be decidedly one-sided.    

But, six individuals have posted that they either lost their jobs, or were forced to resign because of intolerance.  Of those, one was a musician for a church, who was asked to leave because he taught a song whose lyrics questioned some church doctrine.  If true, this is certainly intolerant of the church, but clearly, it has been upheld, that some organizations, even when using Federal funds, may discriminate in their hiring decisions.

Another was a Sunday school teacher who claims he was forced to resign because he didn’t want to keep to the church’s “vague” lesson plan on creation.  If true, then, again, intolerant of the church, but certainly within their purview to have taught what they desired to have taught.

The remaining four are Jerald, Ross, Jerry and Christopher.

Jerry claims he was fired because of his anti- Darwinist views at a Spring Arbor University, which is an evangelical Protestant school.  He indicates that he was fired due to his doubts about Darwinism even though the President and Vice President of the school were openly creationist, although he does state in his post that he also experienced antagonism from “dogmatic Darwinists” at the previous University he taught at, Bowing Green State University in Ohio.  Jerry taught psychology, not any field remotely related to evolution.  It seems to me that something is missing from this story.  How pi$$ed off could he have gotten the faculty of the biology department for them to have them call for his ouster?  How does it serve “big science” to have him expelled?

Christopher was a teaching assistant who claims he was “let go for what he held to be true”.  He also states “I also invited others (creationists) to come and speak with me about the issue during my Teaching Assistant time. … not a smart thing to do”.  What is the moral here?  Whatever you believe, when you are paid to do a job, if you don’t do the job, your employment is, as it should be, in jeopardy!

Jerald and Ross both claim to have been fired for their non-Darwinian views.  If their stories are true and complete, it would seem they were treated unfairly.

Where does this leave us?  Is there discrimination in our society?  Undoubtedly,yes.  Is there some discrimination amongst scientists and academicians? Again, yes.  Are some scientists (and bloggers) hard-headed and unwilling to accept new concepts and ideas?  Sure.  But is this the major conspiracy Expelled claims it to be?  Decidedly, NO.  Just as the Discovery Institute’s constant assertion that evolution is a theory in crisis, so too the claim that ID proponents are being silenced is vastly overblown.

What can the ID movement do to gain credibility?  First, state clearly what ID is, and what it is not.  If the scientific heavy hitters of ID (Behe, Dembski, Denton, etc) all feel comfortable with an old earth, (I’m not aware of any of them who don’t) and some of them endorse elements of common descent, and speciation, let that be brought forth.

Second, come up with some valid research that isn’t 20 years outdated (Denton), or completely invalidated (irreducible complexity), and submit it for unbiased peer review.

But, as I contend that the ID movement is first and foremost a political and Dominionist Christian protagonist, the real science will always take a distant back seat.
Posted by: Wesley R. Elsberry on Dec. 14 2007,14:47



---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Jerry claims he was fired because of his anti- Darwinist views at a Spring Arbor University, which is an evangelical Protestant school.  He indicates that he was fired due to his doubts about Darwinism even though the President and Vice President of the school were openly creationist, although he does state in his post that he also experienced antagonism from “dogmatic Darwinists” at the previous University he taught at, Bowing Green State University in Ohio.  Jerry taught psychology, not any field remotely related to evolution.  It seems to me that something is missing from this story.  How pi$$ed off could he have gotten the faculty of the biology department for them to have them call for his ouster?  How does it serve “big science” to have him expelled?

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



I think that is sufficiently specific to actually make an < identification >.
Posted by: Kristine on Dec. 14 2007,15:08

Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Aug. 22 2007,13:41)
< Ben Stein Calls for No Censorship; Volunteers; Has Open Comments >

How long will that last?

Remember to copy any pearls you write back here.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Aye aye, cap'in. ;)

First off, someone wrote this comment:  

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Why would a designer fuse two choromosomes that appear in a number of species into a single chromosome in another and forget to remove the end-markers, making it look like a fusion of chromosomes instead of a single long one?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Fisherwoman:  

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
God fuzed them that way because His ways are not our ways.

Open your heart and stop resisting the truth. There have been too many people hurt by Darwinising. It’s time that kids like me stopped being treated like we’re idiots for trying to minister in class. Have you read about the Cambrian Explosion? How did that create galaxies so quickly? Why was it perfectly smooth? How could that be by chance? In the beginning, nothing exploded! Give me a break, evolution gave us a hurricane (Katrina) shaped like an aborted fetus just by coincidence? We need the truth!

God bless Ben Stein. I pray that Jesus will sustain him through the ordeal he will go through after the movei is released.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Being "moderated" in three, two, one...
Posted by: Lou FCD on Dec. 14 2007,15:32

Oh Jesus H. Christ.

Javison is now < using Gilbert and Sullivan > to support his insanity.

Is that even legal?

ETA:  I started to let JanieBelle rile him up a little, but on second thought, he's so far gone it just wouldn't be right.


Posted by: stevestory on Dec. 14 2007,15:37

Quote (Kristine @ Dec. 14 2007,16:08)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
It’s time that kids like me stopped being treated like we’re idiots for trying to minister in class. Have you read about the Cambrian Explosion? How did that create galaxies so quickly?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


---------------------QUOTE-------------------


that's a troll, I hope?
Posted by: carlsonjok on Dec. 14 2007,15:41

Quote (Lou FCD @ Dec. 14 2007,15:32)
Oh Jesus H. Christ.

Javison is now < using Gilbert and Sullivan > to support his insanity.

Is that even legal?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Absolutely.  Music is the new front in the evolution wars.  But, don't blame poor old JAD. He didn't start it.  It started at the now defunct one-blog-a-day, in what is still one of my favorite moments of the culture war.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
wÒÓ† Says:

Holy cow, this thread’s not dead?

Mr. Davison, would you care to comment on the work of Hammer, M.C. et al?

Some scientists say it’s legit. Too legit to quit, in fact.

Frankly, I doubt you can touch this.


---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Posted by: Lou FCD on Dec. 14 2007,15:50

Quote (stevestory @ Dec. 14 2007,16:37)
Quote (Kristine @ Dec. 14 2007,16:08)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
It’s time that kids like me stopped being treated like we’re idiots for trying to minister in class. Have you read about the Cambrian Explosion? How did that create galaxies so quickly?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


---------------------QUOTE-------------------


that's a troll, I hope?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Unless I'm quite mistaken, that troll shimmies.
Posted by: Kristine on Dec. 14 2007,17:01

Quote (Lou FCD @ Dec. 14 2007,14:50)
 
Quote (stevestory @ Dec. 14 2007,16:37)
 
Quote (Kristine @ Dec. 14 2007,16:08)
   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
It’s time that kids like me stopped being treated like we’re idiots for trying to minister in class. Have you read about the Cambrian Explosion? How did that create galaxies so quickly?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


---------------------QUOTE-------------------


that's a troll, I hope?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Unless I'm quite mistaken, that troll shimmies.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Gaaa! They kept it! Oh, crap.

*Ducks*

Yes, a shimmying troll. That was my first and only (and last) attempt at sockpuppetry, folks. It doth maketh me to feel a teensy bit like I needeth a shower. Sorry, Wes. That's most likely not what you meant by "pearls." ;)
Posted by: Jasper on Dec. 14 2007,17:12

Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Dec. 14 2007,15:47)
       

---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Jerry claims he was fired because of his anti- Darwinist views at a Spring Arbor University, which is an evangelical Protestant school.  He indicates that he was fired due to his doubts about Darwinism even though the President and Vice President of the school were openly creationist, although he does state in his post that he also experienced antagonism from “dogmatic Darwinists” at the previous University he taught at, Bowing Green State University in Ohio.  Jerry taught psychology, not any field remotely related to evolution.  It seems to me that something is missing from this story.  How pi$$ed off could he have gotten the faculty of the biology department for them to have them call for his ouster?  How does it serve “big science” to have him expelled?

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I think that is sufficiently specific to actually make an < identification >.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Yeah, that guy has major persecution issues.  Check out this < account > of a presentation by Jerry Bergman at Wichita State University.

Here's a snip:
       

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
During the same conversation I mentioned to Bergman how absolutely insane his CV is (which I posted < here >, verbatim except for the contact information for Bergman), and I told him I made an Excel spreadsheet of time versus place that goes, at times, as many as 7 columns out (meaning he was working or attending school at 7 different places), and that’s with 3 pages of information that I couldn’t place because he provided no dates for them.

When I brought this up, Bergman again exploded in his persecution claims saying that websites publish things like that to discredit him and so I had to mention, after a bit of a pause, “Actually, I got it from Dave [Lehman].”

And so, I asked Lehman, “Dave, what are you doing to Bergman? Why are you persecuting Bergman?”
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Posted by: Annyday on Dec. 14 2007,19:28

I was wondering why his CV was so bloated. Personally, I think one or perhaps three advanced degrees is enough, but I'm happy for people who want to keep getting degrees forever and/or lying about some of them.
Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on Dec. 14 2007,19:37

are you fekking kidding me?  FIVE masters degrees and TWO PhD's?  That is the stupidest thing I have ever heard.  lately.  OK not really.  But Why?  Jesus.
Posted by: Henry J on Dec. 14 2007,21:22



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Unless I'm quite mistaken, that troll shimmies.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Just so long as that doesn't lead to dancing...

:p

Henry
Posted by: Glen Davidson on Jan. 15 2008,11:00

< Here's > how "Expelled" intends to pack theaters with kids who can't say "no" to the oppressive system controlling them.  Some excerpts:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Q: What’s the best way to get our school families to come out to the movies?

A: In speaking with Christian Schools, we’ve found that hosting a school-wide “mandatory” field trip is the best way to maximize your school’s earning potential. Send a field trip home with your middle school and high school students, have each child pay for their own ticket, then collect the stubs at the door once you get to the movie theater. With this model, you also will be able to benefit from the ticket stubs purchased by parents who choose to come as well.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Ah, yes, the freedom fighters want to force as many kids as they can to be a captive audience.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Q: Do we have to go to the movie on a particular day to be a part of the fundraising program?

A: Not at all. HOWEVER, it is important for a movie to have a stellar showing at the box office on opening weekend. Therefore, we will only be able to accept stubs submitted within two (2) weeks of the movie releasing in your area.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Oh yeah, it's all about the freedom.  It's a damn good thing they're not as manipulative as the materialistic-atheist-evolutionist conspiracy.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Q: Will someone from our administration be able to screen the entire movie prior to the movie’s release?

A: There will be opportunities for screenings in certain markets across the country, but not in every market. Please email us at expelledchallenge@groundforcenetwork.com if you’re interested in being a part of a pre-release screening, and we’ll let you know of the availabilities in your area.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Actually, some of us should see if we could get into some of these screenings, though somehow I doubt they're going to be nearly as open as those put out by the vast evolutionary conspiracy (well, we can be, since we control everything).

And, as you see below, it's really all about the freedom to do science:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Q: Who has endorsed the movie?

A:
Ken Smitherman, President, Association of Christian Schools International: Ben Stein has done an outstanding job of pulling together a cross section of interviews that point out the blatant discrimination against many in the scientific community who would embrace “intelligent design” or even more specific aspects of the reality of God… We highly recommend the movie to anybody. It is not only informative and challenging—it is fun to watch.

Michael Medved, nationally syndicated radio host: This is an enormously important project and I am so proud of the fact that Ben Stein, who is a national treasure, is part of it. People know that there is a dictatorial impulse at work in the land to shut down even the most elementary questioning of this unquestionable belief in random evolution and the American people don’t like being told by their ‘betters’ what they are supposed to believe.

Dr J.I. Packer, theologian: Propaganda molds minds in a very direct way and that is the logjam in this situation, which the Ben Stein movie, by being entertaining, seeks to break through. I wish it well – I hope under God it will have a great effect just at that point.

Peter Furler, lead singer, The Newsboys: Something we all need to ask ourselves in life is “What am I here for?” You know, if we are just “lucky mud” then these questions don’t mean much at all. But there is a God and he did create us. So if the Ben Stein movie is asking these questions, and if somebody is keeping us from finding out the great answers to the great questions - then maybe they are more than just questions. Maybe they are questions with eternal consequences.

Luis Palau, President, Luis Palau Association: It's no surprise to those of us trying to communicate the Good News that God is now excluded from most scientific discourse on campuses and in the media. We are seeing the consequences of locking matters of faith out of our classrooms. We applaud Ben Stein for casting light on today's challenges to academic freedom.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Glen D
Posted by: Glen Davidson on Jan. 15 2008,11:37

I guess I should link to the page with the "challenge" as well, though I assume one can get to it from the "FAQ":

< http://www.getexpelled.com/schools.php >

This is added in edit, because I'd like to point out that it's quite a lot of money that they are using to get Xian schools to force kids to fill the theater seats:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
0-99 ticket stubs submitted = $5 per ticket stub

100-299 ticket stubs submitted = $1,000 donated to your school

300-499 ticket stubs submitted = $2,500 donated to your school

500 ticket stubs submitted = $5,000 donated to your school
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



They're going to point to the numbers and claim the movie is popular, when they're paying as much as $10/ticket, and $5/ticket minimum, to have the schools force the kids to their dishonest "flick".

Glen D
Posted by: Kristine on Jan. 15 2008,14:34

Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,Dec. 14 2007,18:37)
are you fekking kidding me?  FIVE masters degrees and TWO PhD's?  That is the stupidest thing I have ever heard.  lately.  OK not really.  But Why?  Jesus.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Well, to be fair, there is a pro-evolutionary theory attorney with a science background commenting on blogs and claiming something similar (at least three Bachelors and a few Masters) for himself, too. (This is the one who started a blog about moi.) He's rather belligerent and usually that's his parting shot when someone has displeased him (like me). We're not completely without a**hole snobs on our side. ;)

But yes, my response was like yours - big whoopie, get a life. Okay, so I had my Bohemian existence then settled down for a Masters while he was earning three degrees in three years. Never try to impress a wolf with how many hoops a dog can jump through! :D

But I'm surprised no one has mentioned Ben Stein's knobby knees. Sheesh. Isn't it bad enough, Prince Charles running around in a kilt (although to be fair, his knees distract from the ears), without Stein infantilizing himself? I'd like to see him doing the pogo-dance in a megachurch.
Posted by: Mister DNA on Jan. 15 2008,14:50

Quote (Kristine @ Jan. 15 2008,14:34)
But I'm surprised no one has mentioned Ben Stein's knobby knees. Sheesh. Isn't it bad enough, Prince Charles running around in a kilt (although to be fair, his knees distract from the ears), without Stein infantilizing himself? I'd like to see him doing the pogo-dance in a megachurch.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


My oldest brother is conservative to the point that he writes letters to editor proclaiming Reagan's virtues as president, but he has enough sense to realize that the ID horse ain't never gonna run. "We shouldn't even be having this discussion" is his take on it.

I told him about the Expelled site and when he saw that picture of Ben Stein, he almost cried.
Posted by: Glen Davidson on Jan. 15 2008,15:17

I have not been able to get back to the sites that I linked at Expelled.  Since I fear that they may be reacting to exposure, I went to Google's Cache to copy what was at www.getexpelled.com/schools.php to here.  Here's the text of that whole page:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Welcome to the
Expelled Challenge web site

where we can help Christian schools raise up to $10,000 while educating their students, parents, and staff of the controversy that is surrounding the Intelligent Design and evolution debate. This is an extremely important project for those of us who believe our world was designed by a creator and not an act of random chance.

What is the Expelled Challenge?
To engage Christian schools to get as many students, parents, and faculty from your school out to see Ben Stein’s new movie Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed (opening in theaters April 2008).

Here are some suggestions as to how to do that:
Organize a school field trip and invite parents to attend as well.
Offer extra credit to your students to go on their own time.
What is the reward?
Generous donations can be awarded to schools according to the number of movie ticket stubs they turn in. By accepting this challenge, your school could be awarded a donation up to $10,000, just for bringing your kids to see this film!

Your school will be awarded a donation based upon the number of ticket stubs you turn in (see submission instructions in FAQ section). That structure is as follows:

0-99 ticket stubs submitted = $5 per ticket stub
100-299 ticket stubs submitted = $1,000 donated to your school

300-499 ticket stubs submitted = $2,500 donated to your school

500 ticket stubs submitted = $5,000 donated to your school

Each school across the nation will be competing for the top honor of submitting the most ticket stubs with that school having their $5,000 donation matched for a total donation of $10,000!

Please click on the link at the bottom of this page to register your school to take the Expelled Challenge and tell us how many ticket stubs you think your school will submit. Registering is very important as only schools who register will be eligible for donated funds. Also, funds are limited and will be given in the order in which the schools are registered. Deadline for registering is March 28, 2008.

Please review our Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs) for more information or send us an email at: [EMAIL=expelledchallege@groundforcenetwork.com.]expelledchallege@groundforcenetwork.com.[/EMAIL]

Click Here to REGISTER NOW!


Contact Us|Privacy Policy|Terms of Use
EXPELLED: No Intelligence Allowed and the EXPELLED titles, logos and images are trademarks of Premise Media Corporation and are used with permission. The views expressed herein do not represent those of the Premise Media Corportation or the filmmakers, but are rather the views of various organizations who have created these resources.  

© 2007 Motive Entertainment.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Glen D
Posted by: Glen Davidson on Jan. 15 2008,15:21

And here's the full text of the "FAQs" page:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Welcome to the Expelled Challenge FAQ page

FAQs
Q: When does the movie release?

A: April, 2008


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Q: What’s the best way to get our school families to come out to the movies?

A: In speaking with Christian Schools, we’ve found that hosting a school-wide “mandatory” field trip is the best way to maximize your school’s earning potential. Send a field trip home with your middle school and high school students, have each child pay for their own ticket, then collect the stubs at the door once you get to the movie theater. With this model, you also will be able to benefit from the ticket stubs purchased by parents who choose to come as well.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Q: What if we don’t want to coordinate an organized school field trip? Can we still participate in the fundraising aspects of the program?

A: Absolutely! You can simply ask your school families to bring back the ticket stubs (similar to the way the General Mills “Box Tops for Education” program works). You can then turn those ticket stubs into Ground Force Network, PO Box 1055, Rockwall, TX 75087 and your school will receive credit for the number of ticket stubs you turn in!


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Q: Do we have to go to the movie on a particular day to be a part of the fundraising program?

A: Not at all. HOWEVER, it is important for a movie to have a stellar showing at the box office on opening weekend. Therefore, we will only be able to accept stubs submitted within two (2) weeks of the movie releasing in your area.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Q: Should I book a theater for my school?

A: You can. But it’s not necessary. A simple phone call to your local theater will be all that you need to do. Tell them that you want to bring a group of students on a particular day and they will likely arrange a special showing of the movie just for your group.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Q: Is this movie appropriate for my elementary school students?

A: That is your call, but probably not. Due to the subject matter, it may be difficult to keep the attention of younger students.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Q: Will someone from our administration be able to screen the entire movie prior to the movie’s release?

A: There will be opportunities for screenings in certain markets across the country, but not in every market. Please email us at expelledchallenge@groundforcenetwork.com if you’re interested in being a part of a pre-release screening, and we’ll let you know of the availabilities in your area.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Q: Who has endorsed the movie?

A:
Ken Smitherman, President, Association of Christian Schools International: Ben Stein has done an outstanding job of pulling together a cross section of interviews that point out the blatant discrimination against many in the scientific community who would embrace “intelligent design” or even more specific aspects of the reality of God… We highly recommend the movie to anybody. It is not only informative and challenging—it is fun to watch.

Michael Medved, nationally syndicated radio host: This is an enormously important project and I am so proud of the fact that Ben Stein, who is a national treasure, is part of it. People know that there is a dictatorial impulse at work in the land to shut down even the most elementary questioning of this unquestionable belief in random evolution and the American people don’t like being told by their ‘betters’ what they are supposed to believe.

Dr J.I. Packer, theologian: Propaganda molds minds in a very direct way and that is the logjam in this situation, which the Ben Stein movie, by being entertaining, seeks to break through. I wish it well – I hope under God it will have a great effect just at that point.

Peter Furler, lead singer, The Newsboys: Something we all need to ask ourselves in life is “What am I here for?” You know, if we are just “lucky mud” then these questions don’t mean much at all. But there is a God and he did create us. So if the Ben Stein movie is asking these questions, and if somebody is keeping us from finding out the great answers to the great questions - then maybe they are more than just questions. Maybe they are questions with eternal consequences.

Luis Palau, President, Luis Palau Association: It's no surprise to those of us trying to communicate the Good News that God is now excluded from most scientific discourse on campuses and in the media. We are seeing the consequences of locking matters of faith out of our classrooms. We applaud Ben Stein for casting light on today's challenges to academic freedom.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Q: How do I turn in my ticket stubs and is there a deadline?

A: Send the ticket stubs you’ve collected, along with the name of your school, to the following address: Ground Force Network, PO Box 1055, Rockwall, TX 75087. Ticket stubs need to be submitted within 2 weeks of the movie release date in your area.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Q: How soon will my school receive a check from the Foundation?

A: Within 60 days of the movie’s release.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Q: How are the funds for the donations being provided?

A: Being that this film is viewed as history changing, funds have been provided by the Faith and Arts Community Endeavor project, specifically for Christian schools, organizations, and groups to encourage them to see the film and engage these Important issues.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Q: Will all schools who submit their ticket stubs be given a donation?

A: The goal of the project is to help Christian groups be able to see the film. Funds for the Expelled Challenge will only be distributed to those who register through the Expelled Challenge website you were just on and on a first come, first served basis in the order in which they were registered. Bottom line, funds are limited – register as soon as you can!


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Q: Is there a minimum number of ticket stubs required to be eligible for a donation?

A: Absolutely not! Obviously, the more stubs you submit, the more of a donation you can receive, but any number of stubs can be submitted and funds will be donated based upon the tiered structure provided on the Expelled Challenge website.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Q: What is the movie rated?

A: PG


Contact Us|Privacy Policy|Terms of Use
EXPELLED: No Intelligence Allowed and the EXPELLED titles, logos and images are trademarks of Premise Media Corporation and are used with permission. The views expressed herein do not represent those of the Premise Media Corportation or the filmmakers, but are rather the views of various organizations who have created these resources.  

© 2007 Motive Entertainment.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Edited to add that I have been able to get back to these two sites that I just archived.  Even so, I feel better having archived the pages, since I don't trust those people one little bit.

Glen D
Posted by: Richardthughes on Jan. 15 2008,23:58

WOW. Have you sent these to Pharyngula?
Posted by: dheddle on Jan. 16 2008,12:14



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Q: How are the funds for the donations being provided?

A: Being that this film is viewed as history changing,
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



That seems like an unexpected admission. It reminds me of something I saw on a bulletin board at my university: "Attention Students: Revised History Schedule." You have to admire the honesty.

(Sorry if someone else already pointed that out.)
Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on Jan. 16 2008,13:20



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Bottom line, funds are limited – register as soon as you can!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Or in other words, they've only got $5000 to start with and almost everybody is going to be disappointed.

Seems like alot of trouble to go to (organised school trips) and find out that there's no money left for you after sending in all those ticket stubs.

Why don't they just say how much cash there is to go round?

Has any other film tried to get people to go see it by paying them? Hardly says good things about the expected draw does it?
Posted by: Mister DNA on Jan. 16 2008,13:37

Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Jan. 16 2008,13:20)
Has any other film tried to get people to go see it by paying them? Hardly says good things about the expected draw does it?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


It looks like Expelled is going to wind up being Overwhelming Evidence: The Movie.
Posted by: Bob O'H on Jan. 16 2008,14:25

Except with more kids viewing it.

I mean greater than 3.

Bob
Posted by: Jim_Wynne on Jan. 16 2008,14:34

Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Jan. 16 2008,13:20)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Bottom line, funds are limited – register as soon as you can!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Or in other words, they've only got $5000 to start with and almost everybody is going to be disappointed.

Seems like alot of trouble to go to (organised school trips) and find out that there's no money left for you after sending in all those ticket stubs.

Why don't they just say how much cash there is to go round?

Has any other film tried to get people to go see it by paying them? Hardly says good things about the expected draw does it?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Reminds me of the old drama critic line--the best way to get people in the theater is to show the movie in the street.
Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on Jan. 16 2008,14:44

The drum beat is picking up in the fundagelical world.

Don tinfoil hat before clicking < here. >
Posted by: Mister DNA on Jan. 16 2008,14:51

Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,Jan. 16 2008,14:44)
The drum beat is picking up in the fundagelical world.

Don tinfoil hat before clicking < here. >
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I'm becoming a big fan of < Outkast >'s work:


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Do you understand the difference between “truth” and “The Truth”?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



priceless.
Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on Jan. 16 2008,15:08

Wow, MtDNA, have you been following him long, or is this your first meeting?

He is a piece of work.  There are some intelligent albeit, IMO misguided, folks on that fundie web page.

Some of my other favorites are Solon (he is now Peter Leavitt), Xion (a YECer that claims to be a scientist but once admitted he grinds eyeglasses), SavedByGrace (a pastor who is also a materials engineer, sometimes claims to be a scientist, is a YECer and presuppositionalist) and I probably forget some other good'uns.

Good place to tard mine.
Posted by: Mister DNA on Jan. 16 2008,15:19

Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,Jan. 16 2008,15:08)
Wow, MtDNA, have you been following him long, or is this your first meeting?

He is a piece of work.  There are some intelligent albeit, IMO misguided, folks on that fundie web page.

Some of my other favorites are Solon (he is now Peter Leavitt), Xion (a YECer that claims to be a scientist but once admitted he grinds eyeglasses), SavedByGrace (a pastor who is also a materials engineer, sometimes claims to be a scientist, is a YECer and presuppositionalist) and I probably forget some other good'uns.

Good place to tard mine.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


It's my second meeting - both thanks to you. I added the Outkast quote you posted in the "Top Tard Quotes" thread to the < RTQG >, and after seeing his work on the Expelled thread, I'm gonna have to bookmark that site for future Tard mining excursions.

btw, that site is operated by the Moonies, isn't it?
Posted by: Kristine on Jan. 16 2008,15:27

Quote (Glen Davidson @ Jan. 15 2008,14:17)
I have not been able to get back to the sites that I linked at Expelled.  Since I fear that they may be reacting to exposure, I went to Google's Cache to copy what was at www.getexpelled.com/schools.php to here.  Here's the text of that whole page:

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Welcome to the
Expelled Challenge web site

where we can help Christian schools raise up to $10,000 while educating their students, parents, and staff of the controversy that is surrounding the Intelligent Design and evolution debate. This is an extremely important project for those of us who believe our world was designed by a creator and not an act of random chance.

What is the Expelled Challenge?
To engage Christian schools to get as many students, parents, and faculty from your school out to see Ben Stein’s new movie Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed (opening in theaters April 2008).

Here are some suggestions as to how to do that:
Organize a school field trip and invite parents to attend as well.
Offer extra credit to your students to go on their own time.
What is the reward?
Generous donations can be awarded to schools according to the number of movie ticket stubs they turn in. By accepting this challenge, your school could be awarded a donation up to $10,000, just for bringing your kids to see this film!

Your school will be awarded a donation based upon the number of ticket stubs you turn in (see submission instructions in FAQ section). That structure is as follows:

0-99 ticket stubs submitted = $5 per ticket stub
100-299 ticket stubs submitted = $1,000 donated to your school

300-499 ticket stubs submitted = $2,500 donated to your school

500 ticket stubs submitted = $5,000 donated to your school

Each school across the nation will be competing for the top honor of submitting the most ticket stubs with that school having their $5,000 donation matched for a total donation of $10,000!

Please click on the link at the bottom of this page to register your school to take the Expelled Challenge and tell us how many ticket stubs you think your school will submit. Registering is very important as only schools who register will be eligible for donated funds. Also, funds are limited and will be given in the order in which the schools are registered. Deadline for registering is March 28, 2008.

Please review our Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs) for more information or send us an email at: [EMAIL=expelledchallege@groundforcenetwork.com.]expelledchallege@groundforcenetwork.com.[/EMAIL]

Click Here to REGISTER NOW!


Contact Us|Privacy Policy|Terms of Use
EXPELLED: No Intelligence Allowed and the EXPELLED titles, logos and images are trademarks of Premise Media Corporation and are used with permission. The views expressed herein do not represent those of the Premise Media Corportation or the filmmakers, but are rather the views of various organizations who have created these resources.  

© 2007 Motive Entertainment.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Glen D
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


< Nice job >, Glen! :)
Posted by: improvius on Jan. 16 2008,17:24

"Faith and Arts Community Endeavor project"?

WTF.

Googling this turns up exactly one hit - the Expelled page.
Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on Jan. 16 2008,20:48



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
btw, that site is operated by the Moonies, isn't it?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



I don't know.  Do tell?  Luuuuuuuuuuuuuv to hear that'un.
Posted by: Mister DNA on Jan. 16 2008,21:03

Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,Jan. 16 2008,20:48)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
btw, that site is operated by the Moonies, isn't it?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



I don't know.  Do tell?  Luuuuuuuuuuuuuv to hear that'un.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Never mind... I was confusing World Magazine with < World and I Journal >, which is published by Moon's Washington Times. Sorry about that.
Posted by: Mr_Christopher on Jan. 17 2008,00:37

Latest email propaganda from our boy Ben:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Dear Chris

Motive Entertainment launches EXPELLED resources website for leaders, prepares for second national outreach tour
HOLLYWOOD, Calif. (Jan. 16, 2007) - With momentum building toward the Spring 2008 release of EXPELLED: No Intelligence Allow ed, Motive Entertainment announces the launch of a dynamic website for students, teachers, pastors, youth leaders and organizations. The site - www.GetEXPELLED.com - is packed full of useful tools and resources to promote the ideas surrounding this history-changing film:
Learn about new scientific evidence that invalidates Darwin's claims.
Hear from scientists who are being SILENCED for those discoveries.
Learn how to DEFEND BELIEF in God based on SCIENTIFIC evidence.
Learn what can and cannot be taught in schools and how that is CHANGING nationwide.
See a SNEAK PEEK of exclusive video clips from the upcoming movie.
Learn how you can get FREE GROUP TICKETS to see EXPELLED: No Intelligence Allowed in theaters.
Learn how YOU can be in the movie.

ABOUT THE FILM:
In this film, author, former presidential speechwriter, economist, lawyer and actor Ben Stein exposes the frightening "atheist agenda." The film also reveals how teachers, students and scientists are being "expelled" and persecuted for questioning Darwinism despite the mounting evidence that debunks Darwinism and shows proof of a Designer ("God") in the universe!

This highly controversial documentary is receiving major media buzz (including the front page of the New York Times). In the movie, Stein travels the world, asking top scientific minds whether Darwinism is still a "theory" or if it's become a "law" which no one is allowed to question.

NATIONWIDE TOUR:
The second leg of the EXPELLED Nationwide Tour is underway. You can request that the EXPELLED team visit your city, university, college o r church. For details and to RSVP, visit < http://www.GetEXPELLED.com/events.php. >
In December, the EXPELLED team traveled the country, making 13 stops from Texas to Tennessee after kicking off the bus tour in Dayton, Tenn. More than 1,500 passionate EXPELLED fans attended events in seven states, proving that science and truth are still hot topics across the country. Click here to read more in the Tour Blog.

ENTER TO WIN:

Win FREE Movie Tickets
Register for updates and sign up for your chance to win FREE movie tickets to see EXPELLED: No Intelligence Allowed in theaters Spring 2008. Click here to enter.

Win $ 500 Cash
Getexpelled.com has officially launched Th e EXPELLED Games, an awesome opportunity for you to do what you love, vocalize your support for the movement, and maybe even earn $500! Sing your song, write your piece, speak your mind. LET YOUR VOICE BE HEARD! Click here for more info.

Win a Chance to Be in the Movie
SHOUT OUT and let your voice be heard! Tell us about your own Expelled experience and possibly win the chance to be in the movie! Click here for more info.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



I want to enter to WIN!!  I want free movie tickets, cash, what's behind door number 3 and the chick standing next to it.

I love how Ben isn't pussy footing around with any space alien crap, he's all about the Designer is God!
Posted by: Bob O'H on Jan. 17 2008,00:54

Errm, did anyone realise that they had a < nationwide tour > in Nov/Dec last year?

Anyone?
Posted by: Nomad on Jan. 17 2008,02:27

Okay guys, I'm looking for opinions on this.  Should I go see this if it ever makes it to a theater near me?

Yeah.. I know they'll happily take my money and claim that I'm evidence that the movie was received well.  But besides my morbid curiosity to see what's in this docufantasy, I want to check out the rest of the audience.  I want to try to figure out who's going to see it.  Might I find myself in a theater that's sparsely populated (I don't expect a packed house in any event) by other people who are there for a laugh?

I don't see myself doing this, I'm just not outgoing enough.. but I like the idea of making up a sort of post movie poll and asking people what they thought when they leave the theater.


On another note.. WOW, Stein really did not get the memo about zipping it with regards to religion.  I was checking out the expelled tour description.  It announces that, at the tour, you can:
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Learn how to DEFEND your BELIEF in God based on scientific evidence
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



I REALLY wish this travelling sideshow had ended up near me.  Granted it would most likely have gone to a church, and I avoid churches if at all possible.. they just make me feel uneasy, all that mindless devotion creeps me out.  But it would have been fun to be able to correct them if they were to.. accidentally.. state an untruth.
Posted by: Kristine on Jan. 17 2008,09:23

Quote (Nomad @ Jan. 17 2008,01:27)
Okay guys, I'm looking for opinions on this.  Should I go see this if it ever makes it to a theater near me?

Yeah.. I know they'll happily take my money and claim that I'm evidence that the movie was received well.  But besides my morbid curiosity to see what's in this docufantasy, I want to check out the rest of the audience.  I want to try to figure out who's going to see it.  Might I find myself in a theater that's sparsely populated (I don't expect a packed house in any event) by other people who are there for a laugh?

I don't see myself doing this, I'm just not outgoing enough.. but I like the idea of making up a sort of post movie poll and asking people what they thought when they leave the theater.


On another note.. WOW, Stein really did not get the memo about zipping it with regards to religion.  I was checking out the expelled tour description.  It announces that, at the tour, you can:
   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Learn how to DEFEND your BELIEF in God based on scientific evidence
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



I REALLY wish this travelling sideshow had ended up near me.  Granted it would most likely have gone to a church, and I avoid churches if at all possible.. they just make me feel uneasy, all that mindless devotion creeps me out.  But it would have been fun to be able to correct them if they were to.. accidentally.. state an untruth.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


This is the most bizarre thing I've seen yet.

It reminds me of something that Vine Deloria, Jr. said (yes, I know, but he was spot-on when he wrote about American culture), that American "Christianity" is largely Americans actually worshipping America - a kind of Americanity, as it were - and that in this worship, Americans jump on every new fad - hula hoops, judo, new therapies, social causes, etc. - to jolt some more novelty into this religion that they think is judeo-christian but is in reality football plus popular culture, tent revivalism, can-doism, with a little Jesus thrown in.
Posted by: improvius on Jan. 17 2008,09:25

I won't see it.  As far as I can tell, I'm already familiar with the main cases and arguments that it presents.  I don't want to add a penny to their box office.  And watching 90 minutes of lies would ultimately just leave me pissed off.

I cannot think of a sane reason to see this film.
Posted by: J-Dog on Jan. 17 2008,09:49

Quote (Nomad @ Jan. 17 2008,02:27)
Okay guys, I'm looking for opinions on this.  Should I go see this if it ever makes it to a theater near me?

Yeah.. I know they'll happily take my money and claim that I'm evidence that the movie was received well.  But besides my morbid curiosity to see what's in this docufantasy, I want to check out the rest of the audience.  I want to try to figure out who's going to see it.  Might I find myself in a theater that's sparsely populated (I don't expect a packed house in any event) by other people who are there for a laugh?

I don't see myself doing this, I'm just not outgoing enough.. but I like the idea of making up a sort of post movie poll and asking people what they thought when they leave the theater.


On another note.. WOW, Stein really did not get the memo about zipping it with regards to religion.  I was checking out the expelled tour description.  It announces that, at the tour, you can:
   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Learn how to DEFEND your BELIEF in God based on scientific evidence
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



I REALLY wish this travelling sideshow had ended up near me.  Granted it would most likely have gone to a church, and I avoid churches if at all possible.. they just make me feel uneasy, all that mindless devotion creeps me out.  But it would have been fun to be able to correct them if they were to.. accidentally.. state an untruth.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Praise Jesus Nomad!  Go to see the movie, laugh out loud when Behe and Dembski are on-screen, and yell out BS at the appropriate moments!  It could turn out to be like Rocky Horror Picture Show was for my generation - just watch out for where everybody throws up, as that could get a little messy.

Please remember to

1.) Take your camera - you took great shots at the Darwin Exhibit
2.)  Get the large popcorn, with extra butter
Posted by: Mr_Christopher on Jan. 17 2008,10:24

I can't wait to see it.  I don't mind Ben getting my $5.  That's not much when you think of the quality tard you'll get to witness on the big screen.

I predict the crowd seeing it will resemble a freak fest of tardery.  Yeah I'm a weirdo, I'll pay $5 to watch a freak fest live and in technicolor.
Posted by: Glen Davidson on Jan. 17 2008,11:25

Thanks Kristine.  And Richard, I didn't send anything to Pharyngula as such (stuck a bit in the comments is all), as it didn't occur to me.

I found Stein rambling on in typical incoherent bozo mode, < here >.

Mr. Christopher framed it well with his post.  The most striking bit from Stein was this one:

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I think we say it can respond to changes in the world around them and that neo-Darwinians say it can only do that by random chance - it only happens by random chance. We say the cell may have the possibility of doing itself in an intelligent way that there may be some intelligence in the cell itself so that's probably a big difference between the two of us. We, on this side, think at least there's a possibility. We believe there's some possibility the cell could have an intelligence of its own.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



[Emphases added]

Now compare this to his accusation against real scientists:

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
and the Darwinists have no theory whatsoever about the origin of life, none whatsoever, except the most hazy, the kind of preposterous, New Age hypothesis.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Yeah, sorry that we didn't think about pre-cells or chemicals having some kind of intelligence.  That would be real science.

Not to mention that he has no clue about the speculations and experiments of the abiogenesis researchers.

Then there's this doltish claim:

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Science should always be in the business of attempting to disprove itself.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



After that he projects that we're trying to rationalize, when he can't begin to support ID or to come up with any meaningful criticisms of "Darwinism".

A bit of irony:

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Well, I would say it's creationism by someone. For me, I've always believed that there was a God. I've always believed that God created the heavens and earth - so, for me it's not a huge leap from there to intelligent design
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Why no, it's just not that big a leap after all.  Sorry that I said it was (or did I?).

Here's the guy "questioning" Stein:

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
There is a segment in the film, where it's made clear that intelligent design can open up new areas of inquiry that could improve the human condition. One involves a neurosurgeon, Michael Egnor, and another scientist, Jon Wells, who indicate that given how the cells are put together, with eye toward intelligent design, and with the idea that animal cells have tiny turbines - or if viewed as tiny turbines - he was able to formulate a theory that said in the event these things malfunction and don't properly shut down and could break apart, this is the first step on the way to cancer.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



There you are Egnor, who's as clueless as a mole watching a shuttle launch (at least in this subject), and Jon Wells with his tired turbine BS, which was neither really predicated upon ID, nor did it turn out to be correct.  Apparently it's in the movie, though, at least so far.  Stein's actually more sensible about this bit than the interviewer is:

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
And I was just overwhelmed by the fact, at least as I am told, that Darwinists have never observed natural species being originated ... There's not even a clear definition of what a species is
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



You could probably overwhelm this ignoramus with the fact that a 10 km. asteroid has never been seen to hit earth and cause the devastation that "new age" scientists say would occur, and that stars have never been seen forming.

And of course the prediction of MET that species would not be a clear and simple category, due to evolution, becomes in this IDiot's mind an argument against scientists.

Seems, too, that we've progressed from being Nazis to being Marxists:

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I think there is this kind of Marxist establishment in this country that has been overthrown in other countries, but not overthrown here. There is a very powerful Marxist establishment within the intelligentsia that does not allow questioning of its premises.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Glen D
Posted by: Kristine on Jan. 17 2008,11:38

Oh, Marxists. That’s worse! :)

To expand this discussion into Ben Stein’s celestial spheres, I see that he is now advocating a bailout of Wall Street (because the economy sucks so bad) after calling for the Justice Department to investigate Wall Street (because the economy is hunky-dory).

You gotta admit, for someone who doesn’t think evolution happens this man sure knows how to adapt! :D

Nomad, Improvius, and Mr. Christopher – I recomment UTorrent. Then you don’t pay a thing and can take this stuff (like Jesus Camp) in little bites.
Posted by: JohnW on Jan. 17 2008,11:57

Quote (Glen Davidson @ Jan. 17 2008,09:25)
Seems, too, that we've progressed from being Nazis to being Marxists:

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I think there is this kind of Marxist establishment in this country that has been overthrown in other countries, but not overthrown here. There is a very powerful Marxist establishment within the intelligentsia that does not allow questioning of its premises.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


---------------------QUOTE-------------------


So, while biological research in the US remains chained to outmoded Darwinian orthodoxy by a sinister cabal of Nazis Marxists, other countries are forging ahead with spectacular findings based on the cutting-edge new paradigm of ID.

Does anyone know where I can read about this research?  Or do the Nazis Marxists control the publishing houses, libraries and Internet?
Posted by: Mister DNA on Jan. 17 2008,12:12

Quote (Kristine @ Jan. 17 2008,11:38)
Nomad, Improvius, and Mr. Christopher – I recomment UTorrent. Then you don’t pay a thing and can take this stuff (like Jesus Camp) in little bites.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


In addition... if you can spare a few bucks each month, a premium Usenet service is handy. I just checked, and the "Jesus Camp" DVD is available in alt.binaries.boneless - for review purposes only, of course.

Since it's in my Netflix queue I'm not going to bother, though.
Posted by: Mr_Christopher on Jan. 17 2008,12:50

Glen links to this article in his above post but it's too tardish to not post the whole turd here (my bolding):



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Interview: 'Big Science' in America is Killing 1st Amendment, Says Actor Ben Stein
By Kevin Mooney
CNSNews.com Staff Writer
January 17, 2008

(CNSNews.com) - Intelligent design theory, or ID, is opening new doors of scientific research, particularly in cancer and other disease research, according to its adherents, but a new movie, "Expelled" starring Ben Stein explores how an "elitist scientific establishment" is apparently muzzling and smearing scientists who publicly discuss ID.

The First Amendment is under brutal attack in the scientific community, Ben Stein, a former presidential speechwriter-turned-actor and commentator, says in the film, which opens in theaters on Feb. 12.

"I always assumed scientists were free to ask any question, pursue any line of inquiry without fear or reprisal," he says. "But recently, I've been alarmed to discover that this is not the case."

In an exclusive interview with Cybercast News Service - with audio clips below - Stein contends that rigid Darwinists are silencing their critics in academia, which the film explores, and discusses how ID ideas are helping in cancer research and similar work.

Yet the ID research that could potentially produce medical breakthroughs, says Stein, is also being undermined by Darwinian scientists who don't want ID research viewed as legitimate.

Cybercast News Service: Is this controversy about science versus religion, or is this more science versus science? Simply, is this about scientists with different worldviews -with one group more willing to open themselves up to alternative explanations than others - as the film suggests?

Ben Stein: Well, first of all, I question your premise. It's not just scientists versus scientists. It is a particular subset of science which does not admit any kind of questions - it is a kind of perversion of science, which doesn't allow for any kind of questioning of itself. Science should always be in the business of attempting to disprove itself. Neo-Darwinian science is exactly in the opposite business of endlessly trying to rationalize itself - and reprove itself, you might say - reprove that it's right without any kind of test. So it's not scientists - it's really, I would say, scientists are the ones willing to look into intelligent design. The people who are anti-science are the ones unwilling to look at anything new or different. So I'd say it's a perverted kind of science versus what I would call a more classical science. But it is also science versus at least the possibility of belief.

Cybercast News Service: There is a fair amount of discussion of creationism and how it might relate to intelligent design, and there are a lot of critics who say this is just folks with religious convictions trying to use intelligent design as a Trojan horse to advance a form of creationism. ... What sort of separation do you see or perhaps don't see between creationism, on the one hand, and intelligent design? Do you have your own definition of intelligent design, and is it distinct and different from creationism?

Ben Stein: Well, I would say it's creationism by someone. For me, I've always believed that there was a God. I've always believed that God created the heavens and earth - so, for me it's not a huge leap from there to intelligent design. I think for some of the people who work on intelligent design, they're not as long-time believers as I am. So, I would answer that question, in brief, by saying, I believe in God and God created the heavens and the earth and all the life on the earth. But what other people, who are intelligent design people, think, I could not characterize. (Listen to Audio)

Cybercast News Service: There is a segment in the film, where it's made clear that intelligent design can open up new areas of inquiry that could improve the human condition. One involves a neurosurgeon, Michael Egnor, and another scientist, Jon Wells, who indicate that given how the cells are put together, with eye toward intelligent design, and with the idea that animal cells have tiny turbines - or if viewed as tiny turbines - he was able to formulate a theory that said in the event these things malfunction and don't properly shut down and could break apart, this is the first step on the way to cancer. He seemed to be suggesting that intelligent design theory could open up a lot of possibilities into improving the human condition. He doesn't explicitly say 'a cure for cancer,' but at least providing additional insight into new areas of treatment or a better understanding of how cancer is formed. What is your reaction to that part of the film? What sort of potential is attached to research going forward?

Ben Stein: Well, I think, I wouldn't say, if you say intelligent design is the answer and we're all created by an intelligent designer - that does not by itself provide the cure to cancer or any other disease or does not provide any ideas about how to deal with a stroke or with the heart hammering blood into the brain. But I would say, if you accept a broader, an even broader premise than intelligent design, namely, don't foreclose anything in your study of the human body and of the cell, then you are a lot more likely to get somewhere. I'd put it like that. I don't think saying intelligent design just automatically gets you anywhere. (Listen to Audio)

Ben Stein: But I think if you say we are going to study everything, and we are not going to let anyone close down our rights of inquiry, then I think we are getting somewhere. But also, there is this big issue about RNA and DNA, and whether RNA and DNA can respond to changes in the world around them. I think we say it can respond to changes in the world around them and that neo-Darwinians say it can only do that by random chance - it only happens by random chance. We say the cell may have the possibility of doing itself in an intelligent way that there may be some intelligence in the cell itself so that's probably a big difference between the two of us. We, on this side, think at least there's a possibility. We believe there's some possibility the cell could have an intelligence of its own. (Listen to Audio)

Cybercast News Service: The film spends a fair amount of time on the complexity of the cell and makes the point that no one at the time, including Darwin himself - no one could have anticipated that level of complexity ...

Ben Stein: Not even close. (Listen to audio)

Cybercast News Service: In what way did the film have any influence or change in your thinking and how it relates to intelligent design or scientific inquiry?

Ben Stein: Oh, when I first started working on this, I had no remote clue of how complicated the cell was, and I was believer just because I'd always been a believer and the idea that an intelligent being created the universe. But after working with these scientists and interviewing them and learning about how complex the cell was and how unlikely the proposition was that it all happened by random chance, then I was just overwhelmed by this data. And I was just overwhelmed by the fact, at least as I am told, that Darwinists have never observed natural species being originated ... There's not even a clear definition of what a species is - and the Darwinists have no theory whatsoever about the origin of life, none whatsoever, except the most hazy, the kind of preposterous, New Age hypothesis. And I think our theory that there is a creator strikes even some people, even Dawkins very possibly, as more likely than it all happened by total chance.

Cybercast News Service: Mr. Dawkins describes the proponents of ID as being ignorant. They don't buy into the scientific consensus - a lot of arguments made that there is a rock solid consensus in favor of evolution to explain biology. What is your reaction to this notion of consensus, and how does this complicate the journey for scientist or academics open to the idea?

Ben Stein: It doesn't complicate it at all because Dawkins, at least in my opinion, is completely wrong, and we produced a number of people who are bona fide scientists who clearly believe there is a possibility of intelligent design. So, his idea that there is a complete rock solid consensus is completely wrong. I mean, God bless him, he's obviously an intelligent guy, but it's obviously wrong. The people we produced weren't actors pretending to be scientists - they were scientists. (Listen to Audio)

Cybercast News Service: Why do you think the very idea or suggestion of intelligent design is so antagonistic to scientists who claim they have evidence? Why not have the debate? If they are so confident, why not have debate?

Ben Stein: That's a deep question. That's a sociological, psychological and ethical question. One, if they are Darwinists and they owe their jobs to being Darwinists, they are not going to challenge the orthodoxy because that would challenge the whole basis of their jobs and their lives. So they are not going to challenge the ideology that has given them lush positions in real life. That's one thing. Second thing, once people are locked into a way of thinking, they are unlikely to change. Third is, if they acknowledge the possibility of intelligent design and that intelligent design is God, then they may think God has moral expectations of them and they may be falling short of those moral expectations, and they may be worried about some sort of judgment upon them. (Listen to Audio)

Cybercast News Service: The film starts with you giving a presentation about American freedom, and when you get near the end of the film there's a Polish official - I believe a member of the EU Parliament - who said there's actually more freedom and latitude in Poland than here in the United States to explore these questions, and he blames it on political correctness. Mr. Stein how did we get to this point? ... If there's more latitude for scientific inquiry overseas in a recently released communist country than there is in the United States of America?

Ben Stein: That is a very, very, very good question. How did we get here? I don't know. How did we get to this point in Hollywood? There's (sic) only certain attitudes allowed about military, religion, or small towns or about business? I don't know how we got to this, this kind of orthodoxy. I think there is this kind of Marxist establishment in this country that has been overthrown in other countries, but not overthrown here. There is a very powerful Marxist establishment within the intelligentsia that does not allow questioning of its premises. (Listen to Audio)

Cybercast News Service: What do you think needs to happen in academia? What suggestions or prescriptions do you think will come out of the film?

Ben Stein: We want more freedom. I just spoke to some young people in Orlando. And I said, this to us - at least to me, I don't know what it is to other people in the film - is a bit like the Civil Rights movement. You want to have freedom, where our goal is freedom. We want freedom. We want all our rights, not some of them, all our rights to free speech. We want them here in America, and we want them now. That's what we want; we're not going to get it. But we hope to open the door wider to some serious debate on these issues. (Listen to Audio)

Cybercast News Service: The point is made that journalists have a tendency to embrace the establishment position ...

Ben Stein: If the establishment position is the sort of left-wing establishment position. They are certainly not going to embrace the Republican establishment position. (Listen to Audio)

Cybercast News Service: This reminds me of the global warming debate. The Union of Concerned Scientists, exactly one year ago, put out a report on Exxon Mobil for their position on global warming, and in their report they say too often journalists' inclination to provide political balance leads to inaccurate reporting - and that members of the media should not quote ExxonMobil officials or anybody who questions the scientific consensus.

Ben Stein: Yes, that is precisely the analogy. Very well done. I totally agree. There are still plenty of scientists who question fossil fuels' role in global warming, but you're not allowed to question that anymore. (Listen to Audio)

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Posted by: Nomad on Jan. 18 2008,02:12



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I think there is this kind of Marxist establishment in this country that has been overthrown in other countries, but not overthrown here
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



What?  He's saying that only in the US are the darwinistas in power?  And in the rest of the world ID is being received with open arms?

It's an interesting inversion of the usual rah rah USA rhetoric.  Now instead of the US being the best, suddenly we're the worst.  It still appears to rely on the audience's total ignorance of what anything outside the country is like.


Believe me I'm familiar with other means of acquiring intellectual property.  The thing about Expelled is that I'm interested in seeing what the audience is like.  My hope, futile or not, is that there'll just be a few people there to witness the spectacle, and we can all end up rolling in the aisles laughing at it.  I imagine lots of booing, and throwing popcorn at the screen.

I'm kind of doubting whether this will actually ever be widely released.  If I worked at it maybe I could find it in some country town an hour away from me, but I just don't see a movie accusing the scientific and academic world of being marxists doing all that well in the land of Fermilab and Argonne National Laboratory.
Granted that'd be worse for the Einstein denialist movie.  But I don't think that's coming anywhere near here.  Although I'd like to see a rampaging mob of respectable physicists as a result of it.  What would they wield instead of torches and pitchforks?
Posted by: Henry J on Jan. 18 2008,21:53



---------------------QUOTE-------------------



---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Science should always be in the business of attempting to disprove itself.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Wonder if that guy's heard of the following hypotheses:

Phlogiston.

Lamarckism.

Steady State.

Newton's Laws (motion and gravity).

Bohr model of the atom.

Geocentrism.

Cold fusion.

Ether, and absolute motion relative to it.

Epicycles.

Blending inheritance.

Light regarded as strictly wave-like.

Light regarded as strictly particle-like.

(And those are just the ones that came to mind in a few minutes of thought.)



---------------------QUOTE-------------------



---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Ben Stein: But I think if you say we are going to study everything, and we are not going to let anyone close down our rights of inquiry, then I think we are getting somewhere.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Maybe if they'd take half the money they're pouring into P.R. and propaganda and put it into actually doing those inquiries they're talking about... Wait, what am I saying?

Henry

Edit: Add Aquatic Ape to the above list.
Posted by: IanBrown_101 on Jan. 18 2008,22:31

Quote (Glen Davidson @ Jan. 17 2008,17:25)
Seems, too, that we've progressed from being Nazis to being Marxists:

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I think there is this kind of Marxist establishment in this country that has been overthrown in other countries, but not overthrown here. There is a very powerful Marxist establishment within the intelligentsia that does not allow questioning of its premises.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Glen D
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


If it helps I'm almost a Marxist (I've been informed I'm a "Lenin lover"before, despite the fact I was, at the time, arguing AGAINST bolshevism, good ol' cognitive dissonance/ failure to understand what communism is despite knowing you hate it).

Unfortunately, I'm not in your country.

Ah well, at least Stein can burn effigies of Lenny.
Posted by: Bob O'H on Jan. 19 2008,08:41

There certainly has been a Marxist strand in evolutionary biologists.  Haldane and Maynard Smith in the UK come to mind.  And Lewontin and co. in the US.

For a really good read about how evolutionary biology and sociobiology developed, try Ullica Segerstråle's < Defenders of the Truth >, where the Marxist influence is one of the sub-plots.

Bob (not a Marxist.  At least not that Marx)
Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on Jan. 19 2008,15:32

Quote (Bob O'H @ Jan. 19 2008,08:41)
There certainly has been a Marxist strand in evolutionary biologists.  Haldane and Maynard Smith in the UK come to mind.  And Lewontin and co. in the US.

For a really good read about how evolutionary biology and sociobiology developed, try Ullica Segerstråle's < Defenders of the Truth >, where the Marxist influence is one of the sub-plots.

Bob (not a Marxist.  At least not that Marx)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Richard Marx?



Posted by: Kristine on Jan. 29 2008,15:01

Well I have to admit to being dead wrong about something:

I thought that the movie Network was a hilarious but empty satire of a set of circumstances that could never happen.

< And now we have Ben Stein with his Howard Beale moment. >

Good grief! Network has probably proved to be one of the most prescient visions of the future of all time, surpassing many classic sci fi films in predictive accuracy. And though I knew that future generations would laugh at Stein for having debauched himself before the entire world with Ken Ham-style creationists, the fact that he has made a major ass of himself regarding Wall Street while pushing back the release of this film-turd was not expected by me. I have never seen such bad judgement on the part of a prominent public figure outside of Michael Jackson.

Truly I am astonished. And when I wonder why this could happen, I am reminded of the line, “Because you’re on television, dummy!” Maybe being on television too much drives one insane?

If that’s the case then I give Wes, Lou, Steve Story, and even that warlock Rich Hughes the power of attorney to yank me from the radio show and send me camping if I happen to go nuts, so’s I can cut down some trees and suck at fishing and otherwise interact with reality. :)

Golly day, now I can’t flipping read the New York Times anymore. I don’t want to get addicted to SteinKrystolmeth or whatever it is. :p

"If this is the way he wants to go out, this is how he'll go out."
Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on Jan. 29 2008,15:22



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I have never seen such bad judgement on the part of a prominent public figure outside of Michael Jackson.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



clearly you have never looked .< here >
Posted by: Kristine on Jan. 29 2008,16:32

Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,Jan. 29 2008,14:22)
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I have never seen such bad judgement on the part of a prominent public figure outside of Michael Jackson.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



clearly you have never looked .< here >
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Yeah, clearly I have not, Erasmus. My idea of trash is watching “American Princess” and Cleopatra with Liz Taylor one more time. Thanks, dude, I don’t have the tough rind you obviously do, and for my delicate safety I’ve also avoided the whole Dr. Phil/Britney/Oprah radiation and whatever Bobby Brown is doing, and wherever TF Fabian Basabe is in his honeymoon away from the honeymoon, which is what the rich call “work.”

Now I’m gonna have to pick up my brains from the carpet all the rest of the afternoon. Thanks for that, pal. :p

I’ll just check myself into a nursing home now if anyone cares.  :D
Posted by: bystander on Jan. 29 2008,20:04

Never let the truth get in the way of a good story. No professional trader or group of traders can move the market for more than a few minutes at a time. The big meltdown last week was cause by SocGen closing out the truly enormous trades put on by their rogue trader and that only lasted a day.

The real crooks in the markets are and always have been the salesmen. They push the gullible into buying instruments which they do not understand. Books such as FIASCO and Liar's Poker are fascinating reads, shame Stein has never even read the popular books on market manipulation.

Short sellers have been the boogy men in the markets ever since the 1930s Wall street crash. It's like blaming the undertaker for somebody dieing.

edit to add: I don't know why everybody is surprised that the NYTimes keeps him on. They don't get rid of people because they are wrong, they get rid of them because they are boring.
Posted by: tsig on Jan. 30 2008,22:02

Quote (Glen Davidson @ Jan. 15 2008,11:37)
I guess I should link to the page with the "challenge" as well, though I assume one can get to it from the "FAQ":

< http://www.getexpelled.com/schools.php >

This is added in edit, because I'd like to point out that it's quite a lot of money that they are using to get Xian schools to force kids to fill the theater seats:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
0-99 ticket stubs submitted = $5 per ticket stub

100-299 ticket stubs submitted = $1,000 donated to your school

300-499 ticket stubs submitted = $2,500 donated to your school

500 ticket stubs submitted = $5,000 donated to your school
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



They're going to point to the numbers and claim the movie is popular, when they're paying as much as $10/ticket, and $5/ticket minimum, to have the schools force the kids to their dishonest "flick".

Glen D
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I predict that a lot of churches are going to be left holding a bag of ticket stubs.
Posted by: Advocatus Diaboli on Jan. 31 2008,07:17

Is this old news: < Darwin Film >

Creation Ministries International has already begun a major international documentary film project to help challenge evolution in 2009. The film will take a critical look at some of Darwin's key ideas and will interview historians and scientists from a variety of views, including evolutionists. Together with wildlife footage from South America and dramatic re-enactments, the program will illustrate how the evolutionary viewpoint is far from the tried and tested science many believe it to be. It will shed some clear truth on the man Darwin, and his legend that has grown beyond historical fact.

Expelled is heading against stiff competition next year. Which will be the Top Tard in content?
Posted by: Steverino on Jan. 31 2008,11:03

Both bits of schlock will go "straight to video" as they are nothing more than propaganda pieces created to sell to their own market.

Just more fleecing of the sheep.
Posted by: Glen Davidson on Jan. 31 2008,11:14

Quote (Advocatus Diaboli @ Jan. 31 2008,07:17)
Is this old news: < Darwin Film >

Creation Ministries International has already begun a major international documentary film project to help challenge evolution in 2009. The film will take a critical look at some of Darwin's key ideas and will interview historians and scientists from a variety of views, including evolutionists. Together with wildlife footage from South America and dramatic re-enactments, the program will illustrate how the evolutionary viewpoint is far from the tried and tested science many believe it to be. It will shed some clear truth on the man Darwin, and his legend that has grown beyond historical fact.

Expelled is heading against stiff competition next year. Which will be the Top Tard in content?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


That's certainly interesting.

However, I suspect that David Attenborough's series on evolution to commemorate the bicentennial of Darwin's birthday (2009) will likely more than counter that bit of rubbish.  This was mentioned in a recent Nature.

And it is about time that something like that is done.  As limited as the creationist junk is in persuasiveness and appeal, it has its impact, and will probably end up on the web for conspiracy-mongers to lap up.

It'll be amazing if Creation Ministries can make greater Tard than Expelled has, judging from what we've seen there.  Seriously, I bet even a number of the IDiots and other creationists will be embarrassed by such over-the-top ranting, even if they'll cling tightly to the illusion that anonymous cowards recounting their "persecution" are to be believed.

Glen D
Posted by: Wesley R. Elsberry on Jan. 31 2008,11:19

It looks to me like the minimum calculated payout on the kickback scheme is just over $3.33 per ticket, for a school turning in 299 tickets and hoping to get $1000 back for them.
Posted by: EoRaptor013 on Jan. 31 2008,12:15

As a counter-example to Expelled, there was an article in the NJ Star Ledger about < Dr. Gerta Keller >, a geologist and paleontologist at Princeton. According to the article, ..."for the last 20 years, this Princeton professor has been the leading critic of the established theory of dinosaur extinction."

I'm not qualified to judge her work, so I'm not going there. What's interesting, however, in the context of this thread, is that Dr. Keller is considered, umm... a heretic. Indeed, some academic geologists/paleontologists have been down-right rude in their opposition to her views. BUT, she is regularly published in peer-reviewed journals (see Google scholar), holds a position at a fairly prestigious university, applies for, and receives, funding for her work, and oversees a lot of Ph.D. candidates and post-docs.

Some of the attacks against Dr. Keller have been very personal and bitter. (Isn't there some adage about goring oxen that might be appropriate here?) Nevertheless, through hard work she has accumulated sufficient data to convert some skeptics, and made others not quite so adamant in their opposition. In other words, she produces the data and it gets published, despite opposition. The great Chinese wall erected by the Evil Darwinist Conspiracy seems to have some pretty big holes, don't you think?

I'm guessing you won't see Dr. Gerta, or anybody like her, in Expelled.
Posted by: EoRaptor013 on Jan. 31 2008,12:25

Oh, and here's a pretty cool picture from the article:


Posted by: Kristine on Jan. 31 2008,13:12

Quote (EoRaptor013 @ Jan. 31 2008,11:15)
As a counter-example to Expelled, there was an article in the NJ Star Ledger about < Dr. Gerta Keller >, a geologist and paleontologist at Princeton. According to the article, ..."for the last 20 years, this Princeton professor has been the leading critic of the established theory of dinosaur extinction."

I'm not qualified to judge her work, so I'm not going there. What's interesting, however, in the context of this thread, is that Dr. Keller is considered, umm... a heretic. Indeed, some academic geologists/paleontologists have been down-right rude in their opposition to her views. BUT, she is regularly published in peer-reviewed journals (see Google scholar), holds a position at a fairly prestigious university, applies for, and receives, funding for her work, and oversees a lot of Ph.D. candidates and post-docs.

Some of the attacks against Dr. Keller have been very personal and bitter. (Isn't there some adage about goring oxen that might be appropriate here?) Nevertheless, through hard work she has accumulated sufficient data to convert some skeptics, and made others not quite so adamant in their opposition. In other words, she produces the data and it gets published, despite opposition. The great Chinese wall erected by the Evil Darwinist Conspiracy seems to have some pretty big holes, don't you think?

I'm guessing you won't see Dr. Gerta, or anybody like her, in Expelled.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------




---------------------QUOTE-------------------
That's not to say Keller wholly rejects the idea that an impact contributed to the demise of the dinosaurs, but she disagrees that the meteor that created the Chixculub crater did the deed. Perhaps an as-yet-undiscovered meteor did contribute to the mass extinction, but she also thinks that fierce volcanism in India could have triggered disastrous global warming.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



< I just watched a show > on the History Channel that suggested this same hypothesis.

She doesn't sound like a crackpot - and she isn't weeping like Sternboohoo. In fact, she sounds like she relishes a good scrap.


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
"We were called bohemians," she says, "but really, we were the early hippies."
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

:)
Posted by: J-Dog on Jan. 31 2008,13:29

I'm guessing you won't see Dr. Gerta, or anybody like her, in Expelled.[/quote]
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
That's not to say Keller wholly rejects the idea that an impact contributed to the demise of the dinosaurs, but she disagrees that the meteor that created the
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
"We were called bohemians," she says, "but really, we were the early hippies."
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

:)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------




LIKE SHE IS SOOOO WRONG DUDES!

I think I need to contact her...

I think we Neandertals were the first real hippies.  We communed with nature, stared at our cave fires when our Lava Lamps weren't working, and drew colored paintings on the walls.

Plus we got cool chicks.

< >
Posted by: JohnW on Jan. 31 2008,15:43

Quote (EoRaptor013 @ Jan. 31 2008,10:15)
As a counter-example to Expelled, there was an article in the NJ Star Ledger about < Dr. Gerta Keller >, a geologist and paleontologist at Princeton. According to the article, ..."for the last 20 years, this Princeton professor has been the leading critic of the established theory of dinosaur extinction."
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I thought they ran out of coconuts.
Posted by: Henry J on Jan. 31 2008,22:38



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I thought they ran out of coconuts.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



What? No no - see, the moon is receding from the Earth. 70 Mya it was only a few feet off the ground. That's what killed off the dinosaurs. Well, the taller ones, anyway.

Henry
Posted by: Glen Davidson on Feb. 01 2008,12:08

< Orlando Sentinel's review of Expelled, "Is Ben Stein the new face of Creationism?" >

Since "Is Ben Stein the new face of Creationism" is locked, I want to archive the comment I made on their blog here.  I don't know why they wouldn't publish it, but I'd rather be safe...



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
There's a great irony in the attempts to link Stalinism and the modern evolutionary theory begun by Darwin.  Stalin was opposed to so-called "Darwinism," much like Stein and company are, and he used the heavy-handed tactics to keep scientific evolution suppressed.

Stalin replaced scientific evolutionary theory with Lysenkoism, which is nearly as magical as ID is, though without God.

There's a danger in over-hyping such analogies (especially when they're as untrue, like the ones in Expelled).  However, since they brought it up, and because the forces of anti-freedom have often targeted the science of evolution, the fact that IDists appear poised to adopt a milder Stalinist suppression of the most comprehensive biological theory seems worth mentioning.

Glen Davidson
[URL=http://tinyurl.com/2kxyc7
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Posted by: Kristine on Feb. 01 2008,12:32

Quote (Jason Spaceman @ Feb. 01 2008,09:53)
   
Making people sign NDA's at a film screening. . .



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
 How do you re-package that tried, untested and untestable faith-without-facts warhorse, "Creationism" after its nearly-annual beat-down by an increasingly exasperated scientific community?

After you've tried renaming it "Intelligent Design," I mean.

With comedy. Mock your "Darwinist" foes the way comics, thinkers, scientists and educated people everywhere have been mocking creationism since Scopes took that monkey off our back.

Tuck into the way Michael Moore would, with a documentary hosted by a funny Don Quixote willing to tilt at science the way MM has gone after the gun culture, corporate cold-heartedness, George W. Bush and Big Health Care.

Get funnyman and ex-Nixon speech writer Ben Stein to host it, to be the on-camera jester-interviewer.

And re-cast this argument about what people chose to believe vs. what others can prove as fact as a fight for "Freedom."

That's the mnemonic device Stein came back to, time and again, last night in an Orlando screening of his new documentary, Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed. It's a rabble-rouser of a doc that uses all manner of loaded images, loaded rhetoric, few if any facts and mockery of hand-picked "weirdo" scientists to attack those who, Stein claims, are stifling the Religious Right's efforts to inject intelligent design into science courses, science curricula and the national debate.

He was showing the movie to what he and the producers hoped would be a friendly, receptive audience of conservative Christian ministers at a conference at the Northland mega-church next to the dog track up in Longwood. They're marking this movie, which they had said, earlier, they'd open in Feb. (now April) the same way they pitched The Passion of the Christ and The Chronicles of Narnia, said Paul Lauer of Motive Entertainment, who introduced Stein.

In other words, a stealth campaign, out of the public eye, preaching to the choir as it were in an effort to get the word out about the movie.

They postered the Orlando Sentinel with email invitations, then tried to withdraw the one they sent to me. No dice. They also passed out non-disclosure "statement of confidentiality" agreements for people to sign. I didn't.

What are they hiding from you? Straight propaganda, to be sure. But again, if Michael Moore or Robert Greenwald can do it, why not Ben Stein?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Read it < here >.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


From the same article:


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I remember stumbling across, at a bookstore, one of the more shrill and lunatic Bill Clinton had people KILLED in Arkansas books that came out during the 90s. I open it at the B. Dalton, and lo and behold, there's Ben Stein writing the intro.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


What? Well, I did an OCLC search for that, as well as Library of Congress. Nothing yet, but I'll track it down. That's too good to pass up. I don't remember him being a big voice in that stuff.

Other interesting items:
< Ben Stein gives Bill Clinton advice on how to host a talk show >.

< Ben Stein says that Mark Felt ("Deep Throat") looks like a Nazi >. Then he accused Felt of essentially being a Nazi. Nazi fixation, anyone?

Whole truckloads of Steintard out there. ("You shovel 16 tons and waddaya get? Another tard boulder and < deeper in debt >." :p Love how his books are located in "2 libraries worldwide" and that this one is available for $0.01.)
Posted by: Annyday on Feb. 08 2008,13:15

I didn't want to bump this, but I want to know what the hell < this > is.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
When I took my graduate work at the state university, I took the opportunity to investigate the theory of evolution by taking some science classes. I was a member of the MENSA society (SUPER MENSA qualified) and eagerly anticipated the intellectual repartee I was to enjoy in these classes.

What a disappointment! After sitting and listening for the first week or so, I had to start challenging the many assumptions that were being presented as fact. In short order, the professors quit acknowledging my upraised hand. If I tried to interject a thought, I was asked not to interrupt until given permission to speak. I don't take that kind of attitude from anybody.

I confronted each of these three professors in turn in the classroom as to why they were denying me an opportunity to ask questions and receive clarification from them. Each of them told me the same thing, "You are confusing the class"!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Pretentious grad student screws up foundational undergrad classes, wonders why professors are annoyed!

This is apart from his degrees;



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I earned Master Degrees in American History and Political Science. I have Bachelor Degrees in Sociology, Psychology, Philosophy, and Religion. I also took Pre-Law and was offered a full-ride scholarship to Harvard Law School, on the basis of LSAT score.

I turned the scholarship down after the Dean of the school advised me that my personal moral beliefs would be a hindrance in a legal career and employment would be difficult, at best. I spent 13 years as a Special Agent in the Drug Enforcement Administration and I am now attempting to build a creation ministry.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



I'm half-convinced that this is a spoof. Four bachelor's degrees in overlapping fields. "Religion" isn't even a proper major. Prelaw, DEA agent, creationist, MENSA member. It's like someone sat down and asked, "if the most annoying person alive were posting on the Expelled web site, what would they write about themselves?"

I kid. It could be worse. He could have said "Deleuzian" somewhere in there. That might, possibly, be more annoying. But ... really, this is very close.
Posted by: JohnW on Feb. 08 2008,14:27

Quote (Annyday @ Feb. 08 2008,11:15)
"Religion" isn't even a proper major.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Oh, it is.  Just not at proper colleges.
Posted by: JohnW on Feb. 08 2008,14:32

Quote (Annyday @ Feb. 08 2008,11:15)
I didn't want to bump this, but I want to know what the hell < this > is.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


More from the same source:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Despite my academic abilities and awards, I received virtually no interest when I initially attempted to procure a teaching position. I thought little of it at the time, since I was still considering attending Law School or returning to the DEA, but when I later obtained my personal file from the University, I learned that they had responded to inquiries from interested schools, that I was deficient both academically and intellectually. You must be dumb if you don't worship Darwin!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


So, two options:
1.  The Great Intercontinental Darwinist Conspiracy runs whatever madrassa gave him his religion degree;
2.  Just possibly, he may actually be "deficient both academically and intellectually".

We report, you decide.



[edit: fixed run-on sentence of O'Learyan ugliness]
Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on Feb. 08 2008,15:05

There is some major league tard going on at that site.
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Carl Sagan
Added by: Mike, on 2008-01-26 10:24:43

It seems that when we handed the Nobel Laureate our paper on intelligent design of the multiverse, proving the existence of God, he summarily walked out -- on 350 of my classmates and dropped the paper in the trash. Later, his colleagues at Princeton and Cambridge told him that he'd committed a major faux pas, and should at least have read our work.
Such closed minds argue by authority, sad to say, and have scant little evidence to back them up. We whose insight has proved sound suffer no such drawbacks. Eventually it comes down to faith. Either you accept the evidence or you do not.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


< http://www.expelledthemovie.com/shoutout_text.php?story=222 >
As you can see, the number on the end of the URL references each item.
Some, oddly, seem to be missing.
< http://www.expelledthemovie.com/shoutout_text.php?story=220 >
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
The selected story does not exist.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Story ?  :p Least they are honest about that!

Obviously some of the "stories" have been deleted. Yet what's not been deleted has unbelievable levels of tard.
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Discrimination
Added by: Brittany, on 2008-01-25 11:17:50

In the late year of 2007, I wrote an essay about my feelings toward God and creation. The class was American Literature, and we were learning about Puritanism, so I took my beliefs and wrote them down onto paper. I expressed how I felt. God had helped me through my life, and I mentioned that it was because he loves us; we are God's "creation." I had been warned by many, saying that I shouldn't mention God in my paper, because it's a public school system, and it is not allowed. I thought long and hard before turning in my paper, and I thought about the first amendment. I, and everyone else in the United States of America, has the freedom of speech. Yes, there are limits to that freedom; I can speak my mind freely as long as I do not break a law, I do not harm anyone, and I do not infringe on anyone else's rights. Well, in this essay, I did not break any laws, harm anyone, or infringe on a person's rights. However, after I turned in my paper, my teacher returned it to me and I had 17% grade. I looked through the paper to see what my teacher marked incorrect, and all throughout the paper there were notes from my teacher, crossing out anything, and everything about God. She wrote to me that "mentioning God was unnecessary." What I didn't understand was that God was the entire point on the paper. People of the U.S.A. also have the freedom of religion, but if that is the case, then why do so many people get ridiculed for mentioning God is public places? Our country was built on the subject of God.. "... one nation, under GOD..." Why are people so discriminating? It simply does not make sense, and I don't know if it ever will. Thank you.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


< http://www.expelledthemovie.com/shoutout_text.php?story=221 >
Now, I realise Brittany got sectioned the other day but...
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Chased and Suppressed
Added by: Jack, on 2008-01-31 11:28:42
In 1979 I x-rayed and measured the Neanderthal child's skull, Pech de l'Azé, in Paris, France in the famous Museé de l'Homme. I first reported my results in an article in 1987:Cuozzo JW." Earlier orthodontic intervention: a view from prehistory." [Historical Article. Journal Article] Journal of the New Jersey Dental Association. 58(4):33-40, 1987 Autumn. Next, in 1998 New Leaf Press published my first book "Buried Alive" in which this little Neanderthal was prominently featured. In both the first article and the book I pointed out and illustrated how the French anthropologist E. Patte had misplaced the lower jaw too far forward to make it appear more ape-like, rather than a flatter face, which is more human-like. When I first turned in my duplicate x-rays to the museum, in August 1979, we were followed (my family of five children and I) for several days by shadowy men in two sports cars. This pursuit finally ended with a high-speed street chase through the streets of Paris, with us barricading ourselves in our borrowed apartment in a Parisian suburb. They sat on the hoods of their cars smoking cigarettes most of the night looking up at the high rise where we were hidden. We got away. The rest of the story is recalled in the book.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


WTF?
< http://www.expelledthemovie.com/shoutout_text.php?story=227 >
Posted by: J-Dog on Feb. 08 2008,15:20

Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Feb. 08 2008,15:05)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Chased and Suppressed
Added by: Jack, on 2008-01-31 11:28:42
In 1979 I x-rayed and measured the Neanderthal child's skull, Pech de l'Azé, in Paris, France in the famous Museé de l'Homme. I first reported my results in an article in 1987:Cuozzo JW." Earlier orthodontic intervention: a view from prehistory." [Historical Article. Journal Article] Journal of the New Jersey Dental Association. 58(4):33-40, 1987 Autumn. Next, in 1998 New Leaf Press published my first book "Buried Alive" in which this little Neanderthal was prominently featured. In both the first article and the book I pointed out and illustrated how the French anthropologist E. Patte had misplaced the lower jaw too far forward to make it appear more ape-like, rather than a flatter face, which is more human-like. When I first turned in my duplicate x-rays to the museum, in August 1979, we were followed (my family of five children and I) for several days by shadowy men in two sports cars. This pursuit finally ended with a high-speed street chase through the streets of Paris, with us barricading ourselves in our borrowed apartment in a Parisian suburb. They sat on the hoods of their cars smoking cigarettes most of the night looking up at the high rise where we were hidden. We got away. The rest of the story is recalled in the book.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


WTF?
< http://www.expelledthemovie.com/shoutout_text.php?story=227 >
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


This guy is like a UFOer or Big Foot Believer, and I heard about his story a long time ago - well, 3 years ago anyway...

I think he is like Larry and delusional, and recall vaguely, that what he has as "proof" has been totally discredited.

I would have to Google for more info.

added in edit:  Good Old Talk Origins:
< http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/cuozzo_cg.html >
Posted by: improvius on Feb. 08 2008,15:42

Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Feb. 08 2008,16:05)
Discrimination
Added by: Brittany, on 2008-01-25 11:17:50

In the late year of 2007, I wrote an essay about my feelings toward God and creation. The class was American Literature, and we were learning about Puritanism, so I took my beliefs and wrote them down onto paper. I expressed how I felt. God had helped me through my life, and I mentioned that it was because he loves us; we are God's "creation." I had been warned by many, saying that I shouldn't mention God in my paper, because it's a public school system, and it is not allowed. I thought long and hard before turning in my paper, and I thought about the first amendment. I, and everyone else in the United States of America, has the freedom of speech. Yes, there are limits to that freedom; I can speak my mind freely as long as I do not break a law, I do not harm anyone, and I do not infringe on anyone else's rights. Well, in this essay, I did not break any laws, harm anyone, or infringe on a person's rights. However, after I turned in my paper, my teacher returned it to me and I had 17% grade. I looked through the paper to see what my teacher marked incorrect, and all throughout the paper there were notes from my teacher, crossing out anything, and everything about God. She wrote to me that "mentioning God was unnecessary." What I didn't understand was that God was the entire point on the paper. People of the U.S.A. also have the freedom of religion, but if that is the case, then why do so many people get ridiculed for mentioning God is public places? Our country was built on the subject of God.. "... one nation, under GOD..." Why are people so discriminating? It simply does not make sense, and I don't know if it ever will. Thank you.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I don't believe this for a second.  It may as well start off "Dear Jack Chick, you won't believe this, but..."
Posted by: Nomad on Feb. 09 2008,04:18

Quote (improvius @ Feb. 08 2008,15:42)

I don't believe this for a second.  It may as well start off "Dear Jack Chick, you won't believe this, but..."
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I'm not so certain.  It's AWFULLY vague on what the actual subject for the paper was.  "we were learning about Puritanism" is not sufficient explanation.

If the class was about the history of American literature, then what place does "god helped me through my life" have on an assignment?  If anything in this story is at all factually based (and I think it is, just filtered through the brain of a creationist), I'm guessing that the assignment had something to do with the writings of the Puritans.  Instead Brittany wrote an essay about her personal relationship with the big invisible man in the sky.

I doubt "mentioning god was unnecessary" is what the teacher really wrote though, it'd be difficult to discuss the Puritans without mentioning the big guy at some point.  Perhaps "mentioning your relationship with god was unnecessary", that sounds more likely.

This is all guesswork of course, but... the story just isn't good enough to be a fabrication.  It feels more incomplete than fictional.
Posted by: Marion Delgado on Feb. 09 2008,19:29

Actually, this could be turned on Ben Stein and the whole right-wing anti-science movement.

Who says there's no possibility of intelligence in biogenesis or evolution? They're explicitly leaving out "intelligence" possessed by systems, and things like the Gaia Effect. They're leaving out coevolution. Indeed, all sorts of things.

It's like the saying that monotheists are atheists for all gods but one. They want to expel all intelligence that doesn't meet a theistic definition. The way they treat the panspermia and alien designers is a great example. They should not be allowed to get away with that.

Make them commit to a yes or no on could the whole thing be space aliens, with no need for a god or gods, could it be that there was panspermia so even if the Earth wasn't "old enough" for evolution to work, it could have come from outer space, could life systems as a whole have some kind of "intelligence" we can't comprehend, and so on. Maybe we should worship Nature, and theistic patriarchal deities violate The Intelligence. :)

Not to push any of these. More to point out that THEY are not allowing or admitting anything but their narrow Christianist wedge definitions, and call them on it publicly.
Posted by: Kristine on Feb. 09 2008,20:33

< It doesn't look like the creationists need Ben Stein >.


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Creationists Seek Foothold in Europe
By GREGORY KATZ,AP

LONDON (Feb. 9) - After the Sunday service in Westminster Chapel, where worshippers were exhorted to wage "the culture war" in the World War II spirit of Sir Winston Churchill, cabbie James McLean delivered his verdict on Charles Darwin's theory of evolution.

"Evolution is a lie, and it's being taught in schools as fact, and it's leading our kids in the wrong direction," said McLean, chatting outside the chapel. "But now people like Ken Ham are tearing evolution to pieces."

Ken Ham is the founder of Answers in Genesis, a Kentucky-based organization that is part of an ambitious effort to bring creationist theory to Britain and the rest of Europe. McLean is one of a growing number of evangelicals embracing that message - that the true history of the Earth is told in the Bible, not Darwin's "The Origin of Species."

Europeans have long viewed the conflict between evolutionists and creationists as primarily an American phenomenon, but it has recently jumped the Atlantic Ocean with skirmishes in Italy, Germany, Poland and, notably, Britain, where Darwin was born and where he published his 1859 classic.

Darwin's defenders are fighting back. In October, the 47-nation Council of Europe, a human rights watchdog, condemned all attempts to bring creationism into Europe's schools. Bible-based theories and "religious dogma" threaten to undercut sound educational practices, it charged.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


So much for my plans to emigrate to Europe.  :(
Posted by: Annyday on Feb. 09 2008,21:15

That's not Europe, that's Britain.
Posted by: Mister DNA on Feb. 09 2008,21:29

Quote (Kristine @ Feb. 09 2008,20:33)
< It doesn't look like the creationists need Ben Stein >.
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Creationists Seek Foothold in Europe
By GREGORY KATZ,AP

LONDON (Feb. 9) - After the Sunday service in Westminster Chapel, where worshippers were exhorted to wage "the culture war" in the World War II spirit of Sir Winston Churchill, cabbie James McLean delivered his verdict on Charles Darwin's theory of evolution.

"Evolution is a lie, and it's being taught in schools as fact, and it's leading our kids in the wrong direction," said McLean, chatting outside the chapel. "But now people like Ken Ham are tearing evolution to pieces."

Ken Ham is the founder of Answers in Genesis, a Kentucky-based organization that is part of an ambitious effort to bring creationist theory to Britain and the rest of Europe. McLean is one of a growing number of evangelicals embracing that message - that the true history of the Earth is told in the Bible, not Darwin's "The Origin of Species."

Europeans have long viewed the conflict between evolutionists and creationists as primarily an American phenomenon, but it has recently jumped the Atlantic Ocean with skirmishes in Italy, Germany, Poland and, notably, Britain, where Darwin was born and where he published his 1859 classic.

Darwin's defenders are fighting back. In October, the 47-nation Council of Europe, a human rights watchdog, condemned all attempts to bring creationism into Europe's schools. Bible-based theories and "religious dogma" threaten to undercut sound educational practices, it charged.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


So much for my plans to emigrate to Europe.  :(
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Does "cabbie" have a different meaning in the UK? Over here, a cabbie is a taxi driver. Is "cabbie" British slang for "Electrical Engineer" or "Refrigerator Repairman"?
Posted by: Bob O'H on Feb. 10 2008,01:51

Nope, cabbie is short for cabman.  There are a lot of them in Huntingdonshire*.  The caricature is that they are opinionated (well, what else is there to do in a taxi but talk and drive?), and not necessarily tolerant of others in society.

Bob
* thrown in because somebody here will understand it.
Posted by: improvius on Feb. 12 2008,08:04

Now the DI is officially in bed with Expelled.  Here's the latest email newsletter for the film:





---------------------QUOTE-------------------
EXPELLED teams up with the Discovery Institute to launch the Aca demic Freedom Petition, EXPELLED receives endorsements from James Dobson and more!
HOLLYWOOD, Calif. (Feb. 11, 2008) - With nothing less than truth and freedom at stake, the producers of EXPELLED: No Intelligence Allowed and Motive Entertainment have teamed up with the Discovery Institute to launch the Academic Freedom Petition. The petition urges America's academic institutions to adopt policies to ensure teachers and students have the freedom to discuss the scientific strengths and weaknesses of Darwinian evolution.

On another front, EXPELLED star Ben Stein and the producers have been traveling the nation to meet with key leaders and screen the movie. EXPELLED has received strong support already!

WHAT PEOPLE ARE SAYING:
"Ben Stein's film, EXPELLED, makes a powerful case for Intelligent Design in explaining the origins of life and the creation of the universe. It also exposes an entrenched and aggressive Darwinist establishment in academia that suffocates all competing points of view. Highly qualified professors and scientists who dare to question evolutionary orthodoxy are systematically excluded or summarily dismissed. It is political correctness run amuck on university campuses. Stein sets out on a mission to find out why I.D. is most often expelled from the public square, and what he discovers in this riveting documentary is incredibly enlightening. I recommend the film enthusiastically."
- James C. Dobson, Ph.D., Chairman of the Board, Focus on the Family

"This is an enormously important project and I am so proud of the fact that Ben Stein, who is a national treasure, is part of it. People know that there is a dictatorial impulse at work in the land to shut down ev en the most elementary questioning of this unquestionable belief in random evolution and the American people don't like being told by their 'betters' what they are supposed to believe."
- Michael Medved, nationally syndicated radio host

"EXPELLED: No Intelligence Allowed is earthshaking. I was absolutely blown away. Ben Stein boldly shines a light of honest inquiry revealing that evolution's emperor has no clothes. It will have Darwin's disciples scurrying for the shadows. Everyone in America, even skeptics of Intelligent Design, must see this film. They can't possibly walk away without at least admitting that the debate over who we are and how we got here is far from over. The controversy will be intense, so get ready for a rollercoaster ride."
- J. Matt Barber, Director for Cultural Issues, Concerned Women for America

"EXPELLED: No Intelligence Allowed offers a compelling examination of an important topic for everyone who values the freedom to explore ideas that challenge conventional wisdom. Ben Stein has given us a powerful documentary about the widespread repression of faith-friendly scientific scholarship. Along the way, he also makes a strong case for a return to civil discourse in a time when political correctness often overshadows the search for truth. EXPELLED is an engaging film that features a winning combination of humor and reason with just the right tone needed to bring its significant story to the worldwide audience."
- Ronald D. Ellis, Ph.D., President, California Baptist University

Read more at: www.GetExpelled.com/quotes.php

HOW YOU CAN HELP:
We need your support! Here's what you can do to help spread the word about the movie EXPELLED and stand up for academic freedom:

  1. Send an email to all of your contacts informing them to learn more a bout the film by visiting www.GetExpelled.com and encourage others to spread the word!

  2. Go to your local theater and speak with a manager to request that EXPELLED is shown in your city. The movie is coming out this April and you can print off a movie poster for the theater's reference by visiting www.GetExpelled.com.

  3. Buy advance tickets for your family and friends to see the movie. Invite everyone to see the film during opening weekend in April 2008.

  4. Add a banner or post a video clip to your website, MySpace page, Shoutlife page or blog. You can access our Tools for Webmasters by visiting www.GetExpelled.com. We have various free resources available for your use.

  5. Help spread the word in your local area churches, schools, clubs and community centers. For more info, please email: [EMAIL=paul.lauer@getexpelled.com.]paul.lauer@getexpelled.com.[/EMAIL]

  6. Stand up for academic freedom and freedom of scientific inquiry by signing the petition at: www.academicfreedompetition.com.

The EXPELLED resource website - www.GetEXPELLED.com - has added some exciting new features. The site is packed full of useful tools and resources to promote the ideas surrounding this history-changing film, which opens in theaters this April:

   * Learn about new scientific evidence that invalidates Darwin's claims.
   * Hear from scientists who are being SILENCED for those discoveries.
   * Learn how to DEFEND BELIEF in God based on SCIENTIFIC evidence.
   * Learn what can and cannot be taught in schools and how that is CHANGING nationwide.

See a SNEAK PEEK < /strong>of exclusive video clips from the upcoming movie.

ABOUT THE FILM:
In this film, author, former presidential speechwriter, economist, lawyer and actor Ben Stein exposes the frightening "atheist agenda." The film also reveals how teachers, students and scientists are being "expelled" and persecuted for questioning Darwinism despite the mounting evidence that debunks Darwinism and shows proof of a Designer ("God") in the universe! This highly controversial documentary is receiving major media buzz (including the front page of the New York Times). In the movie, Stein travels the world, asking top scientific minds whether Darwinism is still a "theory" or if it's become a "law" which no one is allowed to question.

NATIONWIDE TOUR:
The second leg of the EXPELLED Nationwide Tour wrapped up in late January. The EXPELLED team traveled from Texas to Miami before heading north to the nation's capitol. The guys in the big, red EXPELLED bus met some amazing people along the way, including EXPELLED star Ben Stein himself. Ben attended a screening in Orlando for about 3,000 Young Life leaders. He was incredibly gracious and stayed to sign autographs for everyone in line. Following a screening at the Heritage Foundation in Washington, the EXPELLED crew passed out information on the film at the March for Life, which drew over 30,000 people. The tour continues with stops in Georgia before heading back to Florida and Texas. Tour details at: www.GetEXPELLED.com/tourblog
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Posted by: guthrie on Feb. 12 2008,08:20

Quote (Kristine @ Feb. 09 2008,20:33)
So much for my plans to emigrate to Europe.  :(
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


It's alright, we're fighting them tooth and claw, and they are not really getting anywhere.  You'd be welcome here anytime.
Posted by: keiths on Feb. 13 2008,16:07

It will be interesting to see Caroline Crocker do the Martyrdom Mambo in Expelled.

I watched her lie her way through a Coral Ridge Ministries video called < The Intelligent Design Controversy in Higher Education > (the same one that Slimy Sal was so proud to have appeared in).

The highlight is this self-righteous quote from Crocker:


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I decided not to give the students only the standard story, which is what they have heard since they were very small, but I did one lecture where I gave them the evidence for and against evolution, just the scientific evidence.

I was so careful when I wrote that lecture not to be partial in any way.  I was very careful to make sure that I would talk about point by point the evidence that the book would put forward for evolution and then talk about point by point the experiments and say "Well, you know, there's a problem here."

And then I did at the end of the lecture talk about, "Well, this is evidence for a new theory that several, that some scientists are considering,  and it's called Intelligent Design..."

I think it was on the last slide where I left the students with a question.  I said "Is it evolution, intelligent design, or creation?  Think about it."  At the end of the lecture students would tell me that they didn't know what I believed and they would ask me, "What do you believe?", and I would say, "Well, that's for outside of class."
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



While she is declaring her innocence, images of her slides are being displayed on the screen.  Check out what Crocker means by "impartial scientific evidence":

< >


< >


< >


< >


< >


< >


If this is impartial scientific evidence, I'd love to see what biased creationist propaganda looks like.
Posted by: Richardthughes on Feb. 13 2008,16:15

It could be P-A-R-O-D-Y, it's that bad...
Posted by: khan on Feb. 13 2008,18:41

She lies like a fundie.
Posted by: Kristine on Feb. 13 2008,21:52

Hahahaha! :D



Via < Pharyngula >.

Thanks, Guthrie, I hope you don't mind if I bring all my friends! ;)
Posted by: Mister DNA on Feb. 13 2008,22:22

Kristine, that poster is awesome - I wouldn't mind hanging it on my wall, but it needs a "PYGMIES + DWARFS" reference to  make it complete...
Posted by: IanBrown_101 on Feb. 13 2008,23:13

Quote (Bob O'H @ Feb. 10 2008,07:51)
Nope, cabbie is short for cabman.  There are a lot of them in Huntingdonshire*.  The caricature is that they are opinionated (well, what else is there to do in a taxi but talk and drive?), and not necessarily tolerant of others in society.

Bob
* thrown in because somebody here will understand it.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


What you mean is they're all fascists who believe every word they read in The Sun, The Express or The Daily Mail, particularly if it's written by that bastard (sorry for the swearing) Richard Littlejohn.

There's one cabbie here in Aber who is quite a nice guy really, but a couple of my friends, one Jewish, got in a cab with him, ad had to listen to him banging on about how he hates jews because, apparently, they all pay with £50 notes. Cab drivers are only one step up from white van men, to be honest, which is really annoying, because ideally I'd like more power to the proletariat. Unfortunately, the proletariat are, to a fair extent, nazi sociopaths who hate everyone who isn't British, despite the fact we've been invaded and have invaded others so many times that's a totally meaningless concept.

Oh the joys of casual racism. Rant over.
Posted by: Glen Davidson on Feb. 15 2008,11:25

Britannica blog weighs in on Stein's blogging for expelled, calling him an ignoramus on science:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
How Low Can Ben Stein Go? (To the Maligning of Charles Darwin) Robert McHenry - February 15th, 2008
You laughed at his affectless droning high school economics teacher in Ferris Bueller's Day Off ; you may have enjoyed his repartee with Jimmy Kimmel or his command of trivial knowledge on "Win Ben Stein's Money"; you may even have run out and bought some eyedrops on his recommendation. But don't ask him about evolution, Charles Darwin, science, or any related topic, for on those Ben Stein is an ignoramus. Since he is demonstrably intelligent, it must be concluded that he is a willful ignoramus.

He evidently stars in a soon-to-be-released movie called "Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed," which makes some sort of case for "Intelligent [sic] Design" and decries the teaching of evolutionary science in public schools. The producers of the movie have built a website to help promote their work, and the compliant Mr. Stein has written a little essay to help us place "Darwinism" in historical context. Let's have a look.

He begins, as any high school essay must, with a broad theme:

It would be taken for granted by any serious historian that any ideology or worldview would partake of the culture in which it grew up and would also be largely influenced by the personality of the writer of the theory.

Seems harmless enough, though we're not sure what "partake" means, exactly, or how much is "largely."

By way of illustration he gives us - guess which theoretician plucked, just offhand, from the entire history of mankind? Sonofagun! Karl Marx. What were the odds?

"[M]ajor theories," the avuncular Ben tells us, "...come from the era in which they arose." Yes, yes, I see your hands; tautology. But give him a break. Here comes the minor premise.

Darwinism...is a perfect example of the age from which it came: the age of Imperialism.

And therefore.... Well, he doesn't say. This is called an enthymeme, or a rhetorical syllogism. The idea is that the conclusion gains force from seeming to occur spontaneously to the reader. This is the sort of thing that gives rhetoric a bad name.

But why isn't "Darwinism" offered as a perfect example of, say, the Victorian Age? Or of the Steam Age? Or the Age of the Clipper Ship? Is it possible that Stein is loading the argument just a tad?

A little bit later he tells us that "Imperialism had a short but hideous history - of repression and murder." He seems to think that the British, and specifically the Victorians, invented imperialism. This idea would surprise the Incas and the Arabs and the Spanish and the Portuguese, among others around the world. He seems also to believe that the results of European imperialism were uniformly terrible. Some were, some were not. There is surely something to be said for the spread of democracy and the rule of law and of technology such as the railroad and the telegraph. With difficulties but with clear lines of descent, such generally decent modern states as India, Indonesia, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and the United States all arose out of imperialist action.

Stein has pulled a second fast one on us here, though. He has equivocated. He has said, in effect, "Marx wrote a theory; things done in its name were very bad. Darwin wrote a theory; [fill in the blanks]." He conflates two distinct senses of the word "theory," one of them appropriate when a chap sits in the Reading Room of the British Museum, gazing up at the cobwebs, and concocts a story to explain all of human behavior and history, the other appropriate when another chap spends years in painstaking observation of specific phenomena and finds a way not only to explain by a single principle all that he has observed but to predict phenomena not yet seen. This latter method you may recognize as what we call "science."

But Stein has found his horse now, and off he rides. "Darwin offered the most compelling argument yet for Imperialism." No demonstration or even quotation is given in support of that astonishing charge, but suffice it to say that The Origin of Species contains no such argument. Much about birds and such, but not a word on who should rule Africa.

And now we are at full gallop:

Alas, Darwinism has had a far bloodier life span than Imperialism. Darwinism, perhaps mixed with Imperialism, gave us Social Darwinism, a form of racism so vicious that it countenanced the Holocaust against the Jews and mass murder of many other groups in the name of speeding along the evolutionary process.

By now the term "Darwinism" has lost all connection to the theory of biological speciation as propounded by the quiet man in his study in Kent, and Stein has simply lost his mind.

What does it mean, for example, to speak of "Darwinism...mixed with Imperialism"? Is this a chemical compound of some sort? Was "Darwinism" relatively innocent until some proportion of "Imperialism" got mixed in with it? Then what to make of "perhaps"? And who did the mixing? There is a clue to this last question in the mention of "Social Darwinism," an inapt phrase that is most often associated with the sociology of Herbert Spencer. Inconveniently, however, Spencer had first laid out his basic views in Social Statics, published eight years before Darwin's great work.

It sorts out this way: Charles Darwin, after long study and thought, proposed a mechanism by which biological species differentiate. The mechanism was "natural selection," which supposes that some of the observed variations among members of a species render the possessor more able to survive and propagate. By that means the variant becomes dominant. This is one side.

On the other hand is a wildly diverse assortment of economists, sociologists, political writers, and plain cranks who share in some degree the belief that certain physical characteristics, mental capacities, behavioral habits and so on render certain human individuals or certain groups more able to succeed in the search for survival and security. They have various and equally diverse notions of what inferences follow from this. But someone notices that there is at least a linguistic similarity between these thoughts and Charles Darwin's theory and thus invents the label "Social Darwinism" to pin on the lot.

On the third hand, yet other people, possibly or possibly not influenced by reading works by some of the second crowd but quite clearly capable of evil without any such assistance, perpetrate great horrors.

And for these horrors Ben Stein wishes to blame the theory of evolution by natural selection. He produces a shambles of an essay in the course of which he manages to malign the name of Darwin by association with both Communism and Naziism, a remarkable day's work after which any civilized man would knock off early and call for cocktails. But not Ben. No, Ben toils on. By the time he's through, every kook and monster who ever used the word "evolution" has become the satanic spawn of Charles Darwin. This sort of thing is doubtless effective in a sermonette at the Discovery Institute, but as a contribution to the public discourse it is simply shameful.

And what is all this perverseness in aid of? In support of a set of beliefs that parades as a scientific alternative to "Darwinism" even though it is supported by no evidence, while evolution by natural selection is controverted by none. More subversively, it is a set of beliefs held by people whose aim is to prevail not in the scientific journals or the universities but at the ballot box and in the public schools. Like Ben Stein's arguments, they are not to be trusted.

< http://blogs.britannica.com/blog....tein-go >

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Glen D
Posted by: Kristine on Feb. 15 2008,12:54

Robert McHenry, author of the Britannica blog piece, editor-in-chief of the Encyclopædia Britannica for five years, wrote the book < How to Know > and maintains a < website > of his articles, including an < open letter to Pat Robertson > regarding the Dover decision.

He's an excellent scholar and I'm glad he's decided to speak out about this phenomenon.
Posted by: Mr_Christopher on Feb. 18 2008,11:28

Here is what I plan to do and I'm going to propose it to others when I have more details.

Assuming this sack of shite plays in my city, I'm going to pick a really dumb movie that's showing at the same theater.  Something like Rambo or hopefully something even dumber that the fundies are complaining about.  I'll buy a ticket to see the dumb movie and then mosey over to the screen that's showing Expelled.  I'll watch Ben's movie, he won't get a dime of my money.  Instead the money I spend to see Ben's movie goes to someone else.

Picking which movie will get my donation should be fun.
Posted by: Kristine on Feb. 18 2008,12:29

Quote (Mr_Christopher @ Feb. 18 2008,10:28)
Here is what I plan to do and I'm going to propose it to others when I have more details.

Assuming this sack of shite plays in my city, I'm going to pick a really dumb movie that's showing at the same theater.  Something like Rambo or hopefully something even dumber that the fundies are complaining about.  I'll buy a ticket to see the dumb movie and then mosey over to the screen that's showing Expelled.  I'll watch Ben's movie, he won't get a dime of my money.  Instead the money I spend to see Ben's movie goes to someone else.

Picking which movie will get my donation should be fun.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Assuming it even plays at a multi-plex. It's beginning to look like this will only play in church basements.

That's the folly of simultaneously trying to be "revolutionary" while trying to control your film's critical reception.
Posted by: Mr_Christopher on Feb. 18 2008,14:39

Very true, Kristine.  I wish April would hurry and get here.  I can't wait to see this thing play out.
Posted by: Nomad on Feb. 18 2008,20:01

I like that idea Mr Christian - er, Mr Christopher.  Sorry, Mutiny on the Bounty moment.

The ethical implications of my money going to the makers of the movie had really been stressing me out.  Strangely enough, more than the prospect of sitting through over an hour of creationist propaganda presented by a dead pan Nixon scriptwriter.

While I wouldn't be surprised to see it get a VERY limited release, I'm expecting to be able to find it somewhere around here.  With the way things are going I'm almost expecting the producers to pay a handful of theaters to show it so that they can pay schools to make their students go see it.
Then in the alternate reality of creationist apologetics they can publish figures showing that while the movies had a limited release, the theaters that did show it had large attendance.  It'll play right in to the expelled them.  If only the darwinist conspiracy wasn't preventing them from getting the movie out into more theaters.
Posted by: Peter Henderson on Feb. 20 2008,12:32

Answers in Genesis are absolutely "over the moon" about this film:

< http://blogs.answersingenesis.org/aroundt....d-movie >

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
You will be shocked by what you see and hear because you will begin to experience the hypocrisy in the scientific world concerning so-called academic freedom. The interviews with God-hating atheist Richard Dawkins (from Oxford University) will stun you.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
This movie is a must! Christians, drag your non-Christian friends along—they will never be the same again. Challenge school board members in your local community to see this movie/documentary—pay for their tickets, but get them there!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I am sure the secular community, in accord with their bias against academic freedom, will do all they can to discredit this movie and try to stop people from seeing it. After all, many in the secular scientific community don’t want you to know the truth about what is really happening—they want this censored from the community.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Well, obviously there's some sort of conspiracy amoungst scientists to stop the evidence that the Earth/Universe really is 6,000-10,000 years old from getting to the ordinary citizen and the public at large is being prevented from knowing the truth ?????

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Congratulations to Ben Stein and the producers (including Mark Mathis, who came to our Creation Museum to show us his film on Tuesday—see him in the photo) for having the courage to produce such a needed perspective on the secular scientific community and the erosion of freedoms in America. What they portray in this movie/documentary is what we at AiG have experienced over the years. I believe they have correctly represented what is really going on in the academic community.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



I presume from the above, that Stein is a Young Earth Creationist ?



:O
Posted by: fusilier on Feb. 21 2008,09:31

Quote (Mr_Christopher @ Feb. 18 2008,12:28)
Here is what I plan to do and I'm going to propose it to others when I have more details.
{snip}

Picking which movie will get my donation should be fun.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


How about this?  Gather a small claque, and dress in business suits.  Go to the movie (paying to see "Grindhouse" or "Friday the 13th Part XXXII") and lead cheers.

Boo and hiss whenever Dawkins or PZ appear, and break out in hymns whenever Stein, Sternberg, or whoever show up.

"Ein feste Burg" - in German of course - would be the best intro for Stein.  IMHO, to be sure.
Posted by: Mr_Christopher on Feb. 21 2008,09:39

Quote (fusilier @ Feb. 21 2008,09:31)
Quote (Mr_Christopher @ Feb. 18 2008,12:28)
Here is what I plan to do and I'm going to propose it to others when I have more details.
{snip}

Picking which movie will get my donation should be fun.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


How about this?  Gather a small claque, and dress in business suits.  Go to the movie (paying to see "Grindhouse" or "Friday the 13th Part XXXII") and lead cheers.

Boo and hiss whenever Dawkins or PZ appear, and break out in hymns whenever Stein, Sternberg, or whoever show up.

"Ein feste Burg" - in German of course - would be the best intro for Stein.  IMHO, to be sure.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I want to party with YOU, cowboy!

Love the ideas,  I'm thinking I'll carry a copy of The Word too.  I'll taking my suit to the cleaners later today.

The wild card of course is whether Ben's Pig will be playing at a multi-theater cinema in my area.  Only the Great Mighty Space Alien knows for sure.
Posted by: Mr_Christopher on Feb. 21 2008,13:23

Hey I wonder why Ben did not include < this scientist > in "Expelled"?

Here we have a Christian physicist (associate professor) who was bannished and publicly ridiculed for simply asking questions and pointing out what is science and what is not and most of all, not adopting the "default view".  

Ben must have overlooked this case of a scientist being punished for his views.  It would have been perfect for his movie.
Posted by: Glen Davidson on Feb. 21 2008,15:55

You know they're really aiming for dumb people to see their "documentary," or they wouldn't let Stein out of his cage to write this:





---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Author Bio
Letter to the Editor
Print This Article
Email This Article
About RSS Feeds


Special Report
Florida's Darwinian Interlude
By Ben Stein
Published 2/20/2008 12:08:44 AM
Just a few tiny, insignificant little questions.

* How did the universe start?

* Where did matter come from?

* Where did energy come from?

* Where did the laws of motion, thermodynamics, physics, chemistry, come from?

* Where did gravity come from?

* How did inorganic matter, that is, lifeless matter such as dirt and rocks, become living beings?

* Has anyone ever observed beyond doubt the evolution of a new mammalian or aviary species, as opposed to changes within a species?

These teeny weeny little questions are just some of the issues as to which Darwin and Darwinism have absolutely no verifiable answers. Hypotheses.

Yes. Guesses. Yes. Proof? None.

To my little pea brain, these are some pretty big issues about evolution, the origins of life, and genetics that Darwinism cannot answer. Now, to be fair, does anyone else have verifiable answers either? Not as far as I know.

But if there are no answers that can be reproduced in the laboratory, isn't any theory about them a hypothesis or a guess? Isn't any hypothesis worth thinking about? And aren't these immense questions?

Yet the state of Florida, the glorious Sunshine State, was (I am told), until recently, considering legislation that would make it illegal to allow teachers or students in public schools to discuss any hypothesis about origins of life or the universe except that it all happened by accident without any prime mover or first cause or designer -- allowing only, again, the hypothesis, which is considered Darwinian, that it all started by, well, by, something that Darwin never even mentioned.

That is, the state of Florida was considering mandating that only Darwinian-type suppositions can be allowed about scientific subjects that Darwin never studied. (This is not to mention that we know now that Darwin was wildly wrong about some subjects such as genetics, and, again, although he wrote about the evolution of species, never observed an entirely new species evolve.)

This was beyond Stalinism. Stalinism decreed that only Marx-Engels-Lenin-Stalin knew all the answers, but it did not say that subjects they never mentioned could only be studied if the student guessed at what they might have said. The proposed law in the state of Florida was an anti-knowledge, anti-freedom of inquiry law on a scale such as has rarely been encountered. Maybe in Pol Pot's Kampuchea there were such laws, but they have been unknown in the USA until now.

By an incredible miracle of good sense, at the last minute, the state of Florida changed the proposed regulations. They backed off powerfully saying that only Darwinism could possibly make sense and said they would allow discussion of differing theories about the origins of life. That's the current proposal as I write this on the afternoon of the 19th of February.

I suspect the now omitted proposals would have been unconstitutional in any event (although this always depends on the court you ask). Freedom of inquiry is part of freedom of speech. That is basic. That is what America is all about. Whatever the proposed -- now discarded -- regulations were, they have nothing to do with freedom, very little to do with science, and not even much to do with Darwin, who had a lot more respect for freedom of thought than his henchmen in Florida apparently do.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------




< http://www.spectator.org/dsp_article.asp?art_id=12767 >
Posted by: Glen Davidson on Feb. 21 2008,16:34

deleted
Posted by: Glen Davidson on Feb. 21 2008,16:39

Now here's something worth considering, if anyone lives anywhere near to Corvallis, that is to say, near Portland Oregon:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Restore America event seeks to spread influence
By Carol Reeves
Gazette-Times reporter
The role of government, homosexuality, the culture wars and who’s controlling public education are just a few of the topics that will be addressed at the third annual Restore America conference Friday and Saturday, Feb. 23 at the Rolling Hills Community Church, 3550 S.W. Borland Road in Tualatin.

The theme of the event, “The Seven Spheres of Influence,” is expected to draw up to 2,000 participants anxious to answer such “politically incorrect” questions as: Should faith influence the workplace? Is homosexuality wrong? and Are we at war with Islam?

Conference organizers claim history has shown it only takes a small minority in leadership in the areas of government, family, religion, education, business, entertainment and the media to control the direction of a nation. Participants will be challenged to assume their responsibility as individual Christians to make a difference in each one.

David Crowe and Marshall Foster will speak during the 6:30 to 9 p.m. opening session on Friday. Crowe is the founder and executive director of Restore America, an advocacy organization intent on restoring the United States to a nation “under God.” Foster is the founder of the Mayflower Institute, an education foundation also dedicated to teaching the history of what it calls America’s godly heritage.

Friday night concludes with a premier screening and interview with the producers of Ben Stein’s movie “Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed” from 9 to 11 p.m. The film offers a look at the debate over intelligent design and campaign to keep the theory out of public schools.

Saturday morning will feature Terri Schiavo’s attorney David Gibbs III, filmwriters and producers Jonathan and Deborah Flora and David Kupelian, the managing editor of WorldNetDaily.com and author of “The Marketing of Evil.” In the afternoon, featured speakers include Charlene Cothran, a former lesbian activist and publisher of Venus magazine; Kamal Saleem, a former Muslim terrorist; and Star Parker, a social policy consultant and founder and president of the Coalition on Urban Renewal and Education.

General admission for both days of the conference costs $89. Discounted tickets of $69 are available to pastors, persons in the military and seniors age 60 or older. Teens and college students with ID can attend for $29.

Those interested in attending Friday night only will be charged $39; Saturday only costs $59. Registration and check-in will begin at 5 p.m. Friday.

Admission to the premier of “The Expelled” is free, but preregistration is required.

For more information, call 503-639-7298 or go online to www.restoreamerica.org.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



< http://www.gazettetimes.com/article....216.txt >

You don't even have to pay to hear and see Stein's lies, though I suspect you'd do best to have your sock puppet do your pre-registration for you.

Glen D
Posted by: Lou FCD on Feb. 21 2008,17:10

Quote (Glen Davidson @ Feb. 21 2008,17:39)
You don't even have to pay to hear and see Stein's lies, though I suspect you'd do best to have your sock puppet do your pre-registration for you.

Glen D
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Well, now that gives me an idea...
Posted by: Glen Davidson on Feb. 22 2008,12:02

Quote (Lou FCD @ Feb. 21 2008,17:10)
Quote (Glen Davidson @ Feb. 21 2008,17:39)
You don't even have to pay to hear and see Stein's lies, though I suspect you'd do best to have your sock puppet do your pre-registration for you.

Glen D
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Well, now that gives me an idea...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Ah, I like the sound of that.

Tell us about it as soon as the telling won't screw it all up.

Glen D
Posted by: Peter Henderson on Feb. 25 2008,11:51

Here's an interview with ken Ham on the movie:

< http://blogs.answersingenesis.org/aroundt....d-movie >
Posted by: Kristine on Feb. 25 2008,12:30

Quote (Peter Henderson @ Feb. 25 2008,10:51)
Here's an interview with ken Ham on the movie:

< http://blogs.answersingenesis.org/aroundt....d-movie >
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Why, oh why?

Why does the son of a prominent economist (himself claiming to be a prominent economist, actor, intellectual, etc.) want to be associated with anti-intellectual low-lives like Ken Ham? Isn’t Ben Stein embarrassed at all?

Why does the son of a professor in evolutionary biology (himself claiming to speak for evolutionary biologists) [Dembski] want to be associated with anti-intellectual low-lives like Michael Behe, Denyse O’Leary, et al? I would be humiliated!

These people grew up with everything I never had, and kicked that in the teeth for the sake of garnering applause from the same type of people I ran away from, and didn’t want to become.

What is it with this trend in our culture, simultaneously championing “plain folks” ignorance and conformity and conventionality, while pretending that same popular ignorance and conformity and anti-intellectual mediocrity is somehow avant-guarde, dangerous, radical, hip, and young?

What’s next, “cutting-edge” quilt blocks and knitted scarves in our nation’s galleries? Orchestras performing muzak and Christmas carols? Sheesh. It’s like our whole nation wants to be my hometown. Ben Stein can have it.
Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on Feb. 25 2008,12:38

Quote (Kristine @ Feb. 25 2008,12:30)
What is it with this trend in our culture, simultaneously championing “plain folks” ignorance and conformity and conventionality, while pretending that same popular ignorance and conformity and anti-intellectual mediocrity is somehow avant-guarde, dangerous, radical, hip, and young?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I say give them their own island and we can watch on TV as they return to the bronze age.

EDIT sometime later: No, it's not the UK :p isle of Wight perhaps....
Posted by: Mr_Christopher on Feb. 25 2008,21:42

Hey here is Kevin Miller's < blog >  I guess he is one of the writers for Expelled?  I invited him to drop by and chat with us

I told him most everyone here is an atheist, scientist or evil doer in general.  If he shows up please don't let me down.

Chris!
Posted by: kevinmillerxi on Feb. 25 2008,22:09

Yeah, I'm here. Thanks for the invite, Chris. Sorry if I don't turn out to be the fire-breathing fundamentalist you all expected. Unfortunately, I don't have a ton of time to hang out and debate ad nauseum about the film. But if any of you would like to come over to my place (www.kevinmillerxi.com), feel free to post whatever evil, ungodly thing you want and perhaps we can get a discussion started.
Posted by: Richardthughes on Feb. 25 2008,22:12

Welcome, Kevin.

Can you set up a thread for us? We'll cross post here too incase you have any server hiccups.
Posted by: Henry J on Feb. 25 2008,22:28



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I say give them their own island and we can watch on TV as they return to the bronze age.

EDIT sometime later: No, it's not the UK :p isle of Wight perhaps....  
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



For poetic justice, make it the Galapagos. ;)

Henry
Posted by: keiths on Feb. 25 2008,22:37

Quote (kevinmillerxi @ Feb. 25 2008,22:09)
Sorry if I don't turn out to be the fire-breathing fundamentalist you all expected.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Mouth-breathing will do.
Posted by: Mr_Christopher on Feb. 25 2008,22:56

You didn't seem like a fundy to me judging from your blog.  But yes I'm mystified by your cause.

Glad to have you here.

Chris
Posted by: kevinmillerxi on Feb. 25 2008,23:33

Mouth-breathing. Very funny. When Chris sent his invite my gut response was to say I wasn't interested, b/c after over two years on this project, frankly, I'm a little worn out with all the fire-breathing (and mouth breathing) fundies on all sides of this debate. But if we can keep things halfway civil and actually have a discussion rather than a flame war, I'm all for it.

As for being mystified by "my cause," my main interest in this project is the whole philosophy of science angle. How do we conceptualize science and its implications? How can we know that we know anything? The debate between rationalism and empiricism. Epistemology, that sort of thing. Personally, I see ID as a challenge not just to Darwinian evolution but to the very foundation of the scientific enterprise itself. Will we allow non-material causation into science or won't we? Most people think this question was settled decades or centuries ago. IDers say new evidence in biology and elsewhere compels us to reconsider our answer. I find this intriguing, especially when you bring in philosophers like Michael Polanyi, Alvin Plantinga, and new discoveries in quantum physics that are essentially saying the same thing. I'm not talking about supernatural causation--as in magic. Just non-material causation, such as human consciousness. Right now, I see many branches of science--particularly evolutionary biology--as highly rationalistic. Theory-driven rather than evidence driven. ID seems to be an attempt to call science back to a more empirical approach--at least according to the rhetoric I've heard from ID advocates. (I can't tell you how many times I've heard them say, "Follow the evidence wherever it leads.") So I'm prone to wonder if all the fireworks over ID are really just the most recent manifestation of an age-old scientific debate that's been cloaked in all sorts of modern religious and political agendas. It's just the latest swing of the rationalist/empiricist pendulum. At least that's one way of trying to conceptualize it. I could be way off. It's been a long day.
Posted by: Richardthughes on Feb. 25 2008,23:41

Could we start with Popper's demarcation criterion?

Also, Kevin, how famliar are you with the history of the ID movement?

Cheers!
Posted by: Doc Bill on Feb. 25 2008,23:50

Kevin, sorry to be the one to break the news to you, but consciousness is material.

Now, on to more interesting things!

I have seen the Expelled trailer, followed the blog, read Ben Stein's stuff on the film but I want to know one simple thing:

Sternberg.  From what was he expelled?

His editorship?  Nope, he resigned months before the fated issue of BSW was printed.

The Smithsonian?  Nope, he still has access to the collections, and he wasn't an employee of the Smithsonian.

The NIH?  Nope, he still has his same job;  no demotion, even.

Expelled?  From what?

Thanks in advance.  I'm sure you'll be able to answer this simple question.
Posted by: Wesley R. Elsberry on Feb. 26 2008,00:19

Hmmm. Interesting take, since every time an IDC advocate changes the definition of science (as has happened several times where states have considered changes in science standards), they have changed it to remove any dependence upon actually having to test ideas for them to be considered to be science.

I was there at the 1997 DI-sponsored conference where the nearly-complete IDC advocate lineup tried really hard to get the rest of the philosophy community to sign off on the assertion that ID was science. What they got instead were a pair of questions: "What would an ID hypothesis look like? How would we test it?" They didn't have answers to those questions then. They still don't have answers to those questions now.

So how does that work that IDC advocates become the new proponents of empiricism? What is the empirical evidence that would support that claim? How is the contradictory evidence (those inconvenient anti-empirical re-definitions of science that are on the record) set aside?

And, while we have an opportunity for questions, why is it that Rob Pennock's interview for the "Crossroads""Expelled" project ended up on the cutting room floor? Would it have something to do with the content of his answers to the questions, that indicate that IDC is commonly included into courses at the college level and is criticized there on both its empirical deficiencies and also its problematic claims at odds with aspects of Christian theology? Would that account for Pennock being "expelled" from the project? Or would one need the additional information that Pennock is both a Christian believer and a trenchant critic of IDC arguments?


Posted by: stevestory on Feb. 26 2008,01:04

At first glance Kevin doesn't seem to be a mouth-breathing kook, so it's just a matter of time before he realizes the Discovery Institute is full of liars, and that scientific revolutions are built on results, of which the IDers haven't any, and not by propaganda, of which they have plenty, a recent example being his movie.
Posted by: stevestory on Feb. 26 2008,01:08

Although his saying that the IDers are trying to pull science in a more evidentiary direction, and away from abstract theory, is pretty astonishingly ill-informed.

I urge him to learn a bit about how actual scientific revolutions took place, by looking at any of the major or minor ones in the 20th century. And I also encourage him to put down the Dancing Wu-Li Masters-type quantum nonsense.
Posted by: Annyday on Feb. 26 2008,01:41

A few things briefly, because I'm lazy.

   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Kevin, sorry to be the one to break the news to you, but consciousness is material.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



This is not technically true. We don't know what consciousness is, or if it exists, in any meaningful empirical way. People just have a "sense" that they're conscious, and the way people act is something we understand in terms of consciousness. Empirically, the best we can say is that human consciousness, if it can be said to exist, is ordinarily attached to a physical object (a brain) about which a moderate amount is known. Since brains follow physical rules and consciousness (if it can be said to exist) seems, to all evidence, to be attached to the brain's physical state, it follows that consciousness seems to be material. But we can't empirically say that consciousness is material because we don't know what or if it is!

Of course, the outside effects of consciousness are different. The things people say and do, in spite of the fact that we can't really quantify their people-ness (or "consciousness"), are really really extensively studied by almost every field we'd call the humanities or social sciences. So they're potentially inside the field of scientific investigation.

   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I'm not talking about supernatural causation--as in magic. Just non-material causation, such as human consciousness. Right now, I see many branches of science--particularly evolutionary biology--as highly rationalistic. Theory-driven rather than evidence driven. ID seems to be an attempt to call science back to a more empirical approach--at least according to the rhetoric I've heard from ID advocates.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



This is wrong because it relies upon tinkering with the definition of "material". "Material causes", in the sense of being the subject for science, means that it effects or originates in something we can observe. Any effect we can observe is "material", more or less, whether it's quantum, human, or magical. Non-material causation is by definition outside of scientific investigation, even more so than magic would be. If magic could be shown to do something, we'd call its effects "material" for purposes of measurement. The material effect could be quantity of lead turned to gold, estimated amount of psychokinetic force exerted, statistical accuracy of psychic predictions, or whatever else. So trying to introduce "non-material causes" is essentially meaningless, since if it's an observed cause at all, it's considered "material" enough to be a part of scientific investigation anyway. There's also plenty of heavy hints that "non-material causes" is a codeword for God, but you knew I was going to say that.

On a related note, evolutionary biology's not really that theoretical. It's anchored, heavily, in empirical findings from field studies and molecular biology. There are many theorists - Hamilton and Dawkins are my personal favorites - who largely work out abstract or mathematical theories, but their theories stand or fall based upon their ability to predict and account for empirical results.  If an empirical finding comes back that flatly contradicts a specific hypothesis in Dawkins' latest paper, Dawkins is screwed and his next paper will likely be about why and how he thinks his model's predictions diverged from reality. For this reason, even the most highly "theoretical" biologists are obsessively focused on empirical facts. There's also some molecular biologists or biochemists who aren't very interested in overarching theories, and they're even more outrageously hardcore empiricists.

Basically what I'm saying is that this isn't empiricism vs rationalism. Or, if it is, evolutionary biology appears to be on the empiricist side. "Follow the evidence wherever it leads" is a good catchphrase, because nobody disagrees with it. Since the evidence doesn't appear to actually lead to ID, though, it's nothing more than a catchphrase.
Posted by: kevinmillerxi on Feb. 26 2008,01:55

Steve: For the record, I said, "ID seems to be an attempt to call science back to a more empirical approach--at least according to the rhetoric I've heard from ID advocates." You seem to have missed that qualifier. For a good discussion on this, I'd highly recommend "Science's Blind Spot" by Cornelius Hunter.

Wayne: To the best of my knowledge we never interviewed Robert Pennock. If we had, the transcript and footage would have definitely crossed my desk.

Doc Bill: I think the jury is still out on exactly what consciousness is. As for Sternberg, you'll just have to watch the film.

Richard: The Demarcaction Problem is the heart of this controversy, isn't it? I'm no expert on Popper's demarcation criterion, but I am somewhat familiar with his assertion that a hypothesis, proposition or theory is scientific only if it is falsifiable--as well as subsequent criticisms of his position, namely, that virtually all scientific inquiry begins with a set of unfalsifiable assumptions.
Posted by: Wesley R. Elsberry on Feb. 26 2008,03:00



---------------------QUOTE-------------------

To the best of my knowledge we never interviewed Robert Pennock. If we had, the transcript and footage would have definitely crossed my desk.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



No film... that's right, the rejection came after the initial telephone interview. So I misspoke concerning a cutting room floor, but there was contact between the producers and Pennock. Pennock's response, though, wasn't considered a "side" of the discussion that the CrossroadsExpelled producers felt their audience needed to hear.
Posted by: Wesley R. Elsberry on Feb. 26 2008,03:01

I notice the main point I had went without response.
Posted by: Wesley R. Elsberry on Feb. 26 2008,03:04



---------------------QUOTE-------------------

As for Sternberg, you'll just have to watch the film.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



So, if it is in a film, it qualifies as true?

You were saying something about empiricism earlier...
Posted by: Mr_Christopher on Feb. 26 2008,07:19

What I want to know is do you plan to tech your three children that ID is science.  And are your kids home schooled?

Have you read the wedge strategy?

Chris
Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on Feb. 26 2008,07:27

Hi kevin

What is design?

How can we extrapolate from designers which we may observe, to designers we can not observe, or have not observed?

Does knowing that a piece of stick and leaves is made by a caddisfly, or that scratches on a tree were made by a giant felid, give you any additional leverage in attempting to peek up Dame Nature's skirt?  

How does one justify saying "Well, we know that foxes crap on top of logs, and there is crap on top of that log.  Let's use this method to determine whether or not we are living in the best of all possible worlds?"
Posted by: Richardthughes on Feb. 26 2008,08:54

Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Feb. 26 2008,03:04)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------

As for Sternberg, you'll just have to watch the film.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



So, if it is in a film, it qualifies as true?

You were saying something about empiricism earlier...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


It's "Buy my book" for the new generation. If merchandising and retailing were science and logic, ID would have taken us to the stars by now.
Posted by: Doc Bill on Feb. 26 2008,09:25

Kevin, the reason I asked the question is because I have followed the Sternberg saga for years.

I fully expected you to say "watch the film" because you can't answer the question.  Just like Behe and Dembski resort to "read my book" when asked a question not addressed in their books.

As you and I both know, Sternberg wasn't expelled or fired or demoted from anything.  He got caught with his ethical pants down. Sternberg's situation has nothing to do with his beliefs and everything to do with his ethics and honesty.

So, really, Expelled is like a "documentary" about crop circles.  Are they made by aliens?  Some people still think so!  You decide!

Hey, maybe Sternberg makes crop circles!  Could be a story for a new film.
Posted by: Mr_Christopher on Feb. 26 2008,09:36

You dopes don't think Ben Stein is going to get sidetracked by the fallacy of facts do you?  Ha ha ha!   He'll never fall for that!  

Big Science, you're going down!
Posted by: Kristine on Feb. 26 2008,09:43

Kevin, what does Ben Stein think of being associated with the likes of Ken Ham? Is he proud?
Posted by: Lou FCD on Feb. 26 2008,10:05

Never let the facts or silly things like integrity get in the way of making a buck off the ignorant and the superstitious.
Posted by: Glen Davidson on Feb. 26 2008,12:16

[quote=kevinmillerxi,Feb. 25 2008,23:33][/quote]
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
As for being mystified by "my cause," my main interest in this project is the whole philosophy of science angle. How do we conceptualize science and its implications? How can we know that we know anything? The debate between rationalism and empiricism.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Not in the slightest.  The two necessarily go together.

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Epistemology, that sort of thing. Personally, I see ID as a challenge not just to Darwinian evolution but to the very foundation of the scientific enterprise itself.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Of course it is, since ID insists that sticking to the evidence doesn't matter.

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Will we allow non-material causation into science or won't we?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



If you ever find evidence for "non-material causation," we will allow it into science.  What you're calling "material causation" is what we call "causation" in science.  Matter itself is at issue as to origin and meaning.

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Most people think this question was settled decades or centuries ago.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



In science, it was.

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
IDers say new evidence in biology and elsewhere compels us to reconsider our answer.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



And we've asked, futilely, for any legitimate evidence that this is so.

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I find this intriguing, especially when you bring in philosophers like Michael Polanyi, Alvin Plantinga, and new discoveries in quantum physics that are essentially saying the same thing. I'm not talking about supernatural causation--as in magic. Just non-material causation, such as human consciousness.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



That's just nonsense.  By all of the evidence we have, human consciousness does not violate any physics, including the laws of thermodynamics.  What is more, it appears evolved.  It's merely a presupposition of IDists that consciousness is "non-material," whatever that phrase is supposed to mean.

Besides which, human consciousness has never been excluded from science as a causal phenomenon.  So you're attacking a strawman.

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Right now, I see many branches of science--particularly evolutionary biology--as highly rationalistic.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Actually, it's ID that tries to use rational means such as mathematics to deny the typical inferences of descent by observed processes of all of life from a single source (if perhaps a population rather than an individual or pair of conjugators).  We rely on the evidence to come up with explanatory models.

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Theory-driven rather than evidence driven.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Perhaps such mistakes are why you call evolutionary theory "Darwinism," because you fail to understand that the theory has changed with the evidence.

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
ID seems to be an attempt to call science back to a more empirical approach--at least according to the rhetoric I've heard from ID advocates.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Perhaps you ought to listen to the other side for once.  

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
(I can't tell you how many times I've heard them say, "Follow the evidence wherever it leads.")
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Oh, so the fact that we've pointed out time and again that they fail to follow the evidence has been ignored by you.  I guess that explains why the movie is so full of errors and false accusation.

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
So I'm prone to wonder if all the fireworks over ID are really just the most recent manifestation of an age-old scientific debate that's been cloaked in all sorts of modern religious and political agendas.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Why didn't you bother to find out, before accusing scientists of numerous calumnies?

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
It's just the latest swing of the rationalist/empiricist pendulum. At least that's one way of trying to conceptualize it. I could be way off. It's been a long day.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



It's not like we haven't actually answered every one of your claims, with evidence, long ago.

Glen D
Posted by: Mr_Christopher on Feb. 26 2008,12:38



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
As for being mystified by "my cause," my main interest in this project is the whole philosophy of science angle. How do we conceptualize science and its implications? How can we know that we know anything? The debate between rationalism and empiricism.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



This is delusional.  I mean, might as well call a spade a spade.  Expelled is not about the debate between rationalism and empericism, it's the debate between creationism and science.  But it's not even that, judging it ONLY from its website, blog, and Ben Stein's interviews, Expelled is pure anti-science propaganda and the evil doers are "big science" and the good guys are the persecuted christians.  

From claiming "Darwinism" caused Hitler to claiming evolution cannot explain how the world began, while portraying ID as anything but pseudoscience it's NOTHING but propaganda for the extreemly ignorant and/or politically motivated.

Let's not kid ourselves, Kevin Miller.  You are a religious propagandist.

Oh, and I plan to watch the movie, no doubt.  I just won't pay any money to do so.


editsz:  any truth to the rumor that Ben Stein and Expelled won the Leni Riefenstahl Best Documentary Award?
Posted by: Kristine on Feb. 26 2008,12:40

Quote (Kristine @ Feb. 25 2008,11:30)
 
Quote (Peter Henderson @ Feb. 25 2008,10:51)
Here's an interview with ken Ham on the movie:

< http://blogs.answersingenesis.org/aroundt....d-movie >
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Why, oh why?

Why does the son of a prominent economist (himself claiming to be a prominent economist, actor, intellectual, etc.) want to be associated with anti-intellectual low-lives like Ken Ham? Isn’t Ben Stein embarrassed at all?

Why does the son of a professor in evolutionary biology (himself claiming to speak for evolutionary biologists) [Dembski] want to be associated with anti-intellectual low-lives like Michael Behe, Denyse O’Leary, et al? I would be humiliated!

These people grew up with everything I never had, and kicked that in the teeth for the sake of garnering applause from the same type of people I ran away from, and didn’t want to become.

What is it with this trend in our culture, simultaneously championing “plain folks” ignorance and conformity and conventionality, while pretending that same popular ignorance and conformity and anti-intellectual mediocrity is somehow avant-guarde, dangerous, radical, hip, and young?

What’s next, “cutting-edge” quilt blocks and knitted scarves in our nation’s galleries? Orchestras performing muzak and Christmas carols? Sheesh. It’s like our whole nation wants to be my hometown. Ben Stein can have it.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


“I’ll tell you why,” said Rev.Barky to me last night [I’m paraphrasing, of course]. “These people couldn’t measure up to the expectations that their parents had for them. So they found some people that they could ‘wow.’ Now they’re famous! That’s why they preach to children, because children are easy to manipulate. That’s why they hang out with uneducated adults for the same reason. They market their mediocrity, because they don’t have the talent or the imagination to do anything really important.”

Good luck with < the art world >. :)
Posted by: kevinmillerxi on Feb. 26 2008,13:18

You know guys, you are about as predictable as an animal driven soley by hunger and instinct. Sort of like a crocodile. What never ceases to amaze me is how completely binary your thinking is. This is supremely ironic in a field that introduced us to ideas like transitional forms, evolutionary trajectories and continuums of change. You just can't seem to shake free of the "either/or" "black/white" thinking that pretty much became untenable during the first decades of the 20th century. You bear all the marks of the religious fundamentalists you despise: A complete inability to countenance two seemingly contradictory ideas in your brain and a fervent need to squash and destroy anyone who diagrees with you. This is exactly why I was initially hesitant to accept Chris's invitation to come over here and chat. Not because I'm afraid of criticism (I could get involved with a project like "Expelled" if I were afraid of that) but because of your utter disinterest in true debate and discussion. It's more like a dogpile than a dialogue. And frankly, it's just supremely boring. So I'll let you guys get back to being oh so clever while I get back to doing something a little more productive.
Posted by: Glen Davidson on Feb. 26 2008,13:26

Quote (kevinmillerxi @ Feb. 26 2008,13:18)
You know guys, you are about as predictable as an animal driven soley by hunger and instinct. Sort of like a crocodile. What never ceases to amaze me is how completely binary your thinking is. This is supremely ironic in a field that introduced us to ideas like transitional forms, evolutionary trajectories and continuums of change. You just can't seem to shake free of the "either/or" "black/white" thinking that pretty much became untenable during the first decades of the 20th century. You bear all the marks of the religious fundamentalists you despise: A complete inability to countenance two seemingly contradictory ideas in your brain and a fervent need to squash and destroy anyone who diagrees with you. This is exactly why I was initially hesitant to accept Chris's invitation to come over here and chat. Not because I'm afraid of criticism (I could get involved with a project like "Expelled" if I were afraid of that) but because of your utter disinterest in true debate and discussion. It's more like a dogpile than a dialogue. And frankly, it's just supremely boring. So I'll let you guys get back to being oh so clever while I get back to doing something a little more productive.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Oh dear, the attack chihuahua can dish it out so long as he is insulated from, you know, actually answering questions, supplying evidence, and making sense.  

The moment he's called to account for his bigotry, dishonesty, and complete lack of any evidence or reasonable arguments, he's back to the chihuahua mode, now whining in the corner about how he's treated.

Gee, yes, Kevin, we are predictable, we react badly against unsupported and unsupportable accusations.  This is part of our virtue, our honesty, and it is apparently something that you dislike as such.

Glen D
Posted by: stevestory on Feb. 26 2008,13:29

Quote (kevinmillerxi @ Feb. 26 2008,02:55)
Steve: For the record, I said, "ID seems to be an attempt to call science back to a more empirical approach--at least according to the rhetoric I've heard from ID advocates." You seem to have missed that qualifier.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


No, the qualifier doesn't absolve you here. You're passing along obviously bogus claims and then when you're called on it, blaming others. Learn something about science and the philosophy of science and understand why your film is stupid propaganda.
Posted by: Mr_Christopher on Feb. 26 2008,13:40

Yet another whiny persecuted victim.  Grow up, Mr "Big Science".
Posted by: Tracy P. Hamilton on Feb. 26 2008,13:53

Quote (stevestory @ Feb. 26 2008,13:29)
 
Quote (kevinmillerxi @ Feb. 26 2008,02:55)
Steve: For the record, I said, "ID seems to be an attempt to call science back to a more empirical approach--at least according to the rhetoric I've heard from ID advocates." You seem to have missed that qualifier.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


No, the qualifier doesn't absolve you here. You're passing along obviously bogus claims and then when you're called on it, blaming others. Learn something about science and the philosophy of science and understand why your film is stupid propaganda.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Research the ID claims to see if what they claimed was actually true?  Heaven forfend! :O
Posted by: Annyday on Feb. 26 2008,14:08

How wonderfully smug.

I'm sorry that you're too good to actually address what anyone thinks, Kevin. Since you won't actually explain why, we'll just have to take your word that we're all wrong, dogmatic, and animally unreasoning. I can only imagine that knowing why this was true would enrich all of our lives, but I guess I'm wrong and you'd only be casting pearls before swine.

The other part that deserves a tap is the "dogpile" crack. Are only two or three people allowed to disagree with you at once? You can answer at your leisure, it's not like you're getting rushed.
Posted by: Richardthughes on Feb. 26 2008,14:24

Quote (kevinmillerxi @ Feb. 26 2008,13:18)
You know guys, you are about as predictable as an animal driven soley by hunger and instinct. Sort of like a crocodile. What never ceases to amaze me is how completely binary your thinking is. This is supremely ironic in a field that introduced us to ideas like transitional forms, evolutionary trajectories and continuums of change. You just can't seem to shake free of the "either/or" "black/white" thinking that pretty much became untenable during the first decades of the 20th century. You bear all the marks of the religious fundamentalists you despise: A complete inability to countenance two seemingly contradictory ideas in your brain and a fervent need to squash and destroy anyone who diagrees with you. This is exactly why I was initially hesitant to accept Chris's invitation to come over here and chat. Not because I'm afraid of criticism (I could get involved with a project like "Expelled" if I were afraid of that) but because of your utter disinterest in true debate and discussion. It's more like a dogpile than a dialogue. And frankly, it's just supremely boring. So I'll let you guys get back to being oh so clever while I get back to doing something a little more productive.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Ooooh! Two sides to every story! You are fundies too! "Utter disinterest in debate and discussion".

We brought up some legitimate questions - but you're just doing the "not fair" dance. You've provided nothing of substance. I was hoping from more from you. Disappointed - but given your tone, enjoy the failure that comes with your dishonest endeavour.
Posted by: kevinmillerxi on Feb. 26 2008,14:30

You guys are merely proving my point. The only thing you seem to be interested in is attacking me personally. Any attempt at discussion is immediately turned into an opportunity to tell me what a stupid, smug, ignorant propagandist I am. I'm not whining about that. It's just not my idea of a good time. If anyone wants to approach me with a formal interview request for an established publication or web site, I'm all for it. But I'm not going to be the bloody chicken in the henhouse just so you have a few hours of entertainment.
Posted by: Richardthughes on Feb. 26 2008,14:34

It's difficult, Kevin, because you seem to want to defend something without actually defending it. There are many, in my opinion, legitimate concerns with intelligent design, catalogued here and elsewhere. It would appear to offer nothing from a predictive / descriptive scientific standpoint - the big "who, how, where, when and possibly why" questions. But you don't want to field these questions. No IDers do. But they want to teach it in schools.
Posted by: J-Dog on Feb. 26 2008,14:38

Quote (kevinmillerxi @ Feb. 26 2008,01:55)
Steve: For the record, I said, "ID seems to be an attempt to call science back to a more empirical approach--at least according to the rhetoric I've heard from ID advocates." You seem to have missed that qualifier. For a good discussion on this, I'd highly recommend "Science's Blind Spot" by Cornelius Hunter.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Kevin - This is the same Cornelius Hunter than ran away crying from this blog last year!

He couldn't tell the difference between a wolf and a thalycine!

And his "science book source" was a Comic Book!

Cornelius Hunter??!!

added in edit:  Ha!  Found the link:

< http://www.antievolution.org/aebb-ar....ad.html >
Posted by: Mr_Christopher on Feb. 26 2008,14:41

Hey there will be no personal attacks in this post!

Here is my question - who was Ben's biology consultant for Expelled?  Who advised him on evolution, Darwin and biology?

Since everything that comes out of Ben's mouth regarding those three topics is demonstrably false you have to wonder what kind of "research" he indulged in.

Did you guys do ANY checking up on the Discovery Institute?  Their goals and objectives?  

And I note Kevin never answered my question - have you read the < Wedge Strategy/Document >?  You can read the original < here >

And do you teach your kids that ID is science, Kevin?  Do you teach them that Darwin caused the Holocaust?
Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on Feb. 26 2008,14:47

Hi Kevin

Please note that I did not attack you one tiny little bit whatsoever.  And I won't do such a thing unless provoked.

Now, I had some really nice friendly touchy feely questions about this project you are working on, and so does everyone else.  I can wait my turn.

But since you are running around pushing this idea of 'Intelligent Design', regardless of what we know about your fellow travelers, I am asking you 'What Is Design?'  How is beaver dam design equivalent to designing bacterial flagella?  How is SETI comparable to designing blood clots?  How is Colonel Custard, in the Drawing Room, with an icicle dagger IN ANY WAY comparable to The Privileged Planet?  

If irreducible complexity is a hallmark of design, does this mean that the designer is neither irreducible, nor complex?  Doesn't that mean that God is rather ordinary and by Dembski's criterion explainable by recourse to regularity, ie natural law?  

Do you really believe all this stuff, or is it just a handy hook for some publicity?
Posted by: Glen Davidson on Feb. 26 2008,14:50



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
You guys are merely proving my point. The only thing you seem to be interested in is attacking me personally.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



That's the whole theme of Expelled, you lie about us, we respond like anyone unfairly accused, and then you're whimpering about how you're abused.

Well guess what, we don't actually appreciate a bunch of dishonest attacks.  We didn't come out and attack you, you came out and lied about us.

Learn some decency.  We're not going to "meet you halfway" on your implications that we're Nazis or Stalinists, we're going to demand that you support such dishonest attacks.  

Furthermore, not only do you refuse to supply evidence that ID is anything but a whiny bunch of lies about science, you can't supply any evidence that it's been treated inappropriately by science, or that there is a lack of opennness to its claims (it's been discussed in excruciating detail on the web, and a good deal elsewhere).  The fact is that you're a bunch of incompetent losers who can't make a case for your claims, from persecution to your supposed science, and there's no reason for us not to tell that truth.

As I've asked previously on the web, just what evidence would IDists supply, if they weren't (supposedly) limited to supplying "naturalistic" or "materialistic" evidence (those modifiers merely stand in place of other considerations, in any event)?  

I've never gotten a reply to that question.

Or to put it another way, how would Kevin Miller like to be tried in court without using the standards of evidence used in both science and in courts?  I've never gotten a response to those questions I've asked of IDists either.

And no, we're not going to be "open" to the idea that evidence-free tripe is worth considering.  Come up with evidence that is repeatable and arguable, and then we'll talk.  The blather that Miller hopes will obfuscate the fact that he has no evidence and no arguments is not grounds for a discussion.

We wouldn't be attacking you personally if you actually could do anything but attack us first, Miller.  It's your lack of any sort of considerable evidence and arguments that leaves us no choice but to attack you for bringing in intellectually dishonest tripe.

Glen D
Posted by: improvius on Feb. 26 2008,14:52

Do you ever mention the phrase "cdesign proponentsists" in your film?
Posted by: kevinmillerxi on Feb. 26 2008,15:04

MrChristopher:

Here is my question - who was Ben's biology consultant for Expelled?  Who advised him on evolution, Darwin and biology?
Ben consulted with many individuals regarding biology and Darwinism, some of whom I know and some I don't. One individual who I know had a significant influence on him is mathematician and philosopher David Berlinski. He was also very impressed with Michael Shermer. But Ben Stein is no one's toady. He is a completely free agent who has developed his own unique perspective on this issue.


Did you guys do ANY checking up on the Discovery Institute?  Their goals and objectives?  Of course we did. We researched them extensively and conducted interviews with numerous Discovery fellows.

And I note Kevin never answered my question - have you read the Wedge Strategy/Document?  You can read the original here. Yes, I've read this document as well as Discovery's response. My response is that you can't disqualify a theory merely b/c it is religiously motivated. In that case, you'd have to disqualify anything coming out of Richard Dawkins or PZ Myers who aren't afraid to conflate their religious or areligious beliefs with their science. It all comes down to the arguments and the evidence. So the Wedge document is a moot point from my perspective. I'd rather disentagle the scientific questions from the religious questions so that the real question becomes, can ID produce compelling evidence and arguments to back up their theories? I think the jury is still out on that. But that doesn't mean they shouldn't get a chance to try. Virtually all of the IDers I met--and I met a lot--appeared to be sincere, hard-working scientists just like their peers. Religious agendas aside, I really do believe that people like Sternberg, Dembski, Marks, Berlinski, Gonzalez, Behe, etc are sincerely seeking the truth. That may be difficult for some of you to accept, but they weren't anywhere close to the fundamentalist bogeymen they're often made out to be.

And do you teach your kids that ID is science, Kevin?  Do you teach them that Darwin caused the Holocaust?

My kids are still pretty young, so at this point I'm merely trying to introduce them to the wonders of the natural world. How will that change when they get older? Rather than shove any particular theory down their throats, I hope to teach them how to think critically about the various options that are out there and then make up their own minds. But I also want to encourage them that life is about constant change and growth, so they should be wary of locking themselves down to one position for all of time.
Posted by: kevinmillerxi on Feb. 26 2008,15:08

I forgot to address the Holocaust. No, I won't teach my kids that Darwin initiated the Holocaust, because that is patently untrue. However, I won't shy away from explaining how social Darwinism and the science of eugenics--which was founded by Darwin's cousin Francis Galton as an attempt to apply Darwin's theory on a social level--were contributing factors to Hitler's views on race.
Posted by: Richardthughes on Feb. 26 2008,15:10



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Religious agendas aside, I really do believe that people like Sternberg, Dembski, Marks, Berlinski, Gonzalez, Behe, etc are sincerely seeking the truth. That may be difficult for some of you to accept, but they weren't anywhere close to the fundamentalist bogeymen they're often made out to be.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



No. They think they have the truth, his name is God and he should be in science class. They have the answer before you ask the question. Every "we don't know" gets filled by God the designer.

How many times has ID detected design?

Why does ID look *exactly* like "creation science" minus the illegal bits?

Edit - changed "-" to "minus"
Posted by: olegt on Feb. 26 2008,15:11

David Berlinski is an expert in biology?  That's rich.
Posted by: Richardthughes on Feb. 26 2008,15:13

Quote (kevinmillerxi @ Feb. 26 2008,15:08)
I won't shy away from explaining how social Darwinism and the science of eugenics--which was founded by Darwin's cousin Francis Galton as an attempt to apply Darwin's theory on a social level--were contributing factors to Hitler's views on race.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


My goodness.

(1) did he travel back in time to Sparta, as they culled the weak?
(2) Is it natural selection, *cough* "Darwinism" or artificial selection that mankind has known about through for example animal husbandry, for thousands of years?
(3) Is there any long debunked creationist canard you think we haven't heard?
Posted by: improvius on Feb. 26 2008,15:13

Quote (kevinmillerxi @ Feb. 26 2008,16:08)
I forgot to address the Holocaust. No, I won't teach my kids that Darwin initiated the Holocaust, because that is patently untrue. However, I won't shy away from explaining how social Darwinism and the science of eugenics--which was founded by Darwin's cousin Francis Galton as an attempt to apply Darwin's theory on a social level--were contributing factors to Hitler's views on race.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


And why do you think that the concept of eugenics was a greater contributing factor than centuries of Christian persecution of Jews?
Posted by: Annyday on Feb. 26 2008,15:14

Quote (kevinmillerxi @ Feb. 26 2008,14:30)
You guys are merely proving my point. The only thing you seem to be interested in is attacking me personally. Any attempt at discussion is immediately turned into an opportunity to tell me what a stupid, smug, ignorant propagandist I am. I'm not whining about that. It's just not my idea of a good time. If anyone wants to approach me with a formal interview request for an established publication or web site, I'm all for it. But I'm not going to be the bloody chicken in the henhouse just so you have a few hours of entertainment.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Look, I wrote a rather long post about why what you've written here (whoever's original words they were) is wrong, on two specific points. Wesley's made specific points curtly, too. Everyone else has been more blunt, but they raised plenty of points, too. Instead of answering peoples' arguments, you respond with this:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
You know guys, you are about as predictable as an animal driven soley by hunger and instinct. Sort of like a crocodile. What never ceases to amaze me is how completely binary your thinking is.

...


You bear all the marks of the religious fundamentalists you despise: A complete inability to countenance two seemingly contradictory ideas in your brain and a fervent need to squash and destroy anyone who diagrees with you.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



And then, when you're called a smug propagandist for it, you run away because we're "clearly" not interested in a real debate. If you'd actually defend your position, you'd have the high ground from which to tell people to stop being sarcastic bastards. Instead, you condescendingly insist that by disagreeing (sorry: disagreeing rudely) everyone's a complete fundamentalist out to squash and destroy you.

I'm not unhappy you're leaving, but the hypocritical indignity is obnoxious.
Posted by: Mr_Christopher on Feb. 26 2008,15:16



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Ben consulted with many individuals regarding biology and Darwinism, some of whom I know and some I don't. One individual who I know had a significant influence on him is mathematician and philosopher David Berlinski.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Ok, NOW Ben makes total sense to me.  I get it (and I get why Ben doesn't). Thanks for answering all my questions, I have no interest in debating any of this with you, only because there is no point.  So I will leave it with I appreciate you shedding some light on the subject(s).

The question about the wedge strategy was just trying to figure out how educated you are on the subject.  Your answer told me volumes.  Thanks!

Chris

edit - I gotta say one more thing.  Kevin, no one cares that Dembski, behe et al are searching for answers.  The issue is the dishonesty they ALL indulge in to advance IDC into our public science classes, pretending IDC is science. THAT is the issue

Ever  heard of the Templeton Foundation?  They are searching for the truth, yet no one bothers them because they, unlike the IDC crowd, are not trying to sneak religion into out public science classes.  This is a vital point that you and Ben seem to not get.  No one cares about scientists trying to find god, more power to them.  But all these fine fellows have publicly lied, quote mined, and micharacterized science in the name of advancing their creationist cause.

That is not science.  It's anti-science.  Yet you and Ben portray "big science" as the enemy.
Posted by: Richardthughes on Feb. 26 2008,15:22

Quote (Annyday @ Feb. 26 2008,15:14)
I'm not unhappy you're leaving, but the hypocritical indignity is obnoxious.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


He was EXPELLED!!! by the darwinist establisment!
Posted by: kevinmillerxi on Feb. 26 2008,15:25

Annyday: I'm sorry I neglected to respond to your points. If you want to make a list of questions you'd like me to answer, I'll do my best.
Posted by: improvius on Feb. 26 2008,15:28

Quote (Mr_Christopher @ Feb. 26 2008,16:16)
Ever  heard of the Templeton Foundation?  They are searching for the truth, yet no one bothers them because they, unlike the IDC crowd, are not trying to sneak religion into out public science classes.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


And it gets worse.  Guess who had < this > to say about the "ID" movement:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
"From the point of view of rigor and intellectual seriousness, the intelligent design people don't come out very well in our world of scientific review,"
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Posted by: Glen Davidson on Feb. 26 2008,15:29



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
can ID produce compelling evidence and arguments to back up their theories? I think the jury is still out on that. But that doesn't mean they shouldn't get a chance to try.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



And who is stopping them from trying?

Besides which, why haven't they found evidence in the roughly 200 years since Paley?

What you're doing, Kevin, besides accusing falsely, is judging solely by "sincerity" of the IDists (which can be disputed, and has been), and not by the fact that science is interested in claims that at least potentially can be backed up by evidence.

As it happens, ID tries as hard as it can to avoid making reasonable predictions based on known design practice.  It won't predict rational solutions to problems (like the mousetrap, vs. the highly modified organs and organisms that we actually see), it won't predict the novelty and/or extensive "borrowing" that real designers utilize, and it won't predict evident purpose.  The sole reason that we can recognize for the lack of those predictions is that your "sincere" IDists know very well that these do not exist, and so refuse to make the entailed predictions, knowing that they will immediately be falsified by the evidence.

Furthermore, the only "predictions" they attempt to fob off onto the public are that "life is too complex to have evolved," a false dilemma.  We detect design because we know what designers do (think and act rationally and purposefully), we do not default to design the moment that we can't explain something by known means.  How would we even be able to hypothesize that evolution occurred if we had merely assumed that "God did it" when we didn't have a good explanation for life's diversity?

Indeed, IDists can try to do their magic as much as they wish.  One problem is that they rarely do any science at all, and even when they do, they aren't really doing ID science because they have no testable hypotheses (since they refuse to produce hypotheses that can be tested, for those hypotheses failed long ago).  Why is PCID, which was expressly invented to publish "ID research," languishes without any papers having been published in years?  Obviously they can make or find outlets for any science or pseudoscience they choose, they just don't have any legitimate output.

The other problem is what we've already pointed out to you without you bothering to answer:  ID isn't science in any way whatsoever, since it wishes us to get rid of the requirement to provide evidence.  Need I remind you of what Dembski wrote long ago?

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
As for your example, I'm not going to take the bait. You're asking me to play a game: "Provide as much detail in terms of possible causal mechanisms for your ID position as I do for my Darwinian position." ID is not a mechanistic theory, and it's not ID's task to match your pathetic level of detail in telling mechanistic stories. If ID is correct and an intelligence is responsible and indispensable for certain structures, then it makes no sense to try to ape your method of connecting the dots. True, there may be dots to be connected. But there may also be fundamental discontinuities, and with IC systems that is what ID is discovering.

< http://www.iscid.org/ubbcgi....152;p=3 >
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Sure, Kevin, not connecting the dots makes ID into a real science (note the weaseling that allows some dots to be connected (selective treatment of evidence), while not treating cause and effect analysis as the only way to get to the facts, which is the case in classical science).  

The problem we have with you and your chihuahua attacks and chihuahua whimpers is that you don't simply let such pseudoscientific nonsense be held by religionists and whatever they are at the Biologic Institute, but you insist that we grant such pseudoscience exceptions that have never been granted to similar pseudosciences.  You wish to use gov't to force science to accept what is anathema to science--meaningless evidence-free religiously-inspired drivel.

But these things have been pointed out to people like you countless times, and you all manage to ignore everything of substance that you receive in response.

Glen D
Posted by: Kristine on Feb. 26 2008,15:30

Quote (kevinmillerxi @ Feb. 26 2008,12:18)
You know guys, you are about as predictable as an animal driven soley by hunger and instinct. Sort of like a crocodile. What never ceases to amaze me is how completely binary your thinking is. This is supremely ironic in a field that introduced us to ideas like transitional forms, evolutionary trajectories and continuums of change. You just can't seem to shake free of the "either/or" "black/white" thinking that pretty much became untenable during the first decades of the 20th century. You bear all the marks of the religious fundamentalists you despise: A complete inability to countenance two seemingly contradictory ideas in your brain and a fervent need to squash and destroy anyone who diagrees with you. This is exactly why I was initially hesitant to accept Chris's invitation to come over here and chat. Not because I'm afraid of criticism (I could get involved with a project like "Expelled" if I were afraid of that) but because of your utter disinterest in true debate and discussion. It's more like a dogpile than a dialogue. And frankly, it's just supremely boring. So I'll let you guys get back to being oh so clever while I get back to doing something a little more productive.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Productivity, in film or in science, is ultimately judged over the long term.

< It's a date >, Kevin.
Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on Feb. 26 2008,15:32

I'm sure that many of us would like to hear just how you can make ID a scientific enterprise, if you want to get around to that one (we already know how to make it a commercial enterprise.... wink wink nudge nudge saynomore saynomore).



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I'd rather disentagle <sic> the scientific questions from the religious questions so that the real question becomes, can ID produce compelling evidence and arguments to back up their theories? I think the jury is still out on that. But that doesn't mean they shouldn't get a chance to try
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Yeah, we'd love for you to do that also.  We'd also love to hear you explain why, in the absence of any compelling evidence that there might BE such evidence or arguments you think that ID'ers deserve this affirmative action?  What makes their religious beliefs privileged?

Why don't I deserve to have the NSF fund me completely for 12 years while I work out whether or not the fact that the sun appears yellow to our eyes is predicted by the first principle that god made everything?  Why don't we privilege everyone's arbitrary religious beliefs?  Let's just forget about science and evidence and reason:  you deserve a chance to make the absolutely stupidest argument you can muster, and at the expense of people who actually take this sort of thing seriously.

Your democratic fallacy is showing hon.  Might wanna cover it up, it's liable to get bruised 'round heah.
Posted by: Mr_Christopher on Feb. 26 2008,15:39

Hey Kevin, just as an FYI there are numerous actual biologists here.  Feel free to ask them science questions.  Well if you want.  Maybe you have some questions about evolution you'd like answered.

Anyhow, questions are a two way street.  You're being a sport answering some questions, feel free to ask too.

Chris
Posted by: kevinmillerxi on Feb. 26 2008,15:40

Thanks, Chris. I actually do have a number of questions. I'll come back later.
Posted by: Mr_Christopher on Feb. 26 2008,15:44

Quote (kevinmillerxi @ Feb. 26 2008,15:40)
Thanks, Chris. I actually do have a number of questions. I'll come back later.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Cool beans.  That could lead to some interesting conversations.
Posted by: Annyday on Feb. 26 2008,15:46



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Annyday: I'm sorry I neglected to respond to your points. If you want to make a list of questions you'd like me to answer, I'll do my best.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



"Non-material causes" is a meaningless buzzword. Anything we can observe- any "cause"- is considered "material" enough to be a part of science. Human agency, quantum mechanics, and the like are included in this definition. So what does ID actually want to change about the philosophy of science?

That's the only real question. The other thing is that biologists are slaves to empirical results. Even most theorists can still wax eloquent for ages on the minutia of their most-studied organism's traits and behaviors. It's actually kind of terrifying. So, it's really not empiricism vs rationalism.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I'd rather disentagle the scientific questions from the religious questions so that the real question becomes, can ID produce compelling evidence and arguments to back up their theories? I think the jury is still out on that.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



... and, when the jury's still out on whether a large group of people can produce any evidence for their case after twenty years and some millions of dollars, it bodes very poorly.
Posted by: bystander on Feb. 26 2008,15:55

Kevin,

When I was fourteen (32 years ago), I believed in all kinds of woo and firmly believed that science was blind. Unhappily (but fortunately) I found that each guru had feet of clay until I have become a confirmed sceptic. These guys have a good story and if you use them as your only source of information it is easy to be seduced.

A lot of the people you see around here have been fighting anti-science for over 20 years. Instead of ignoring ID science and simply attacking the people (which is what Berlinski, Behe etc would like you believe) these guys have done detailed critiques of their ideas. It's all easy to find on the internet if you research. The reason that a lot of people on this board and people like PZ seem angry is that the ID people never address the critiques.

I believe that this movie will be like the Dover trial. The more popular the movie, the more likely somebody will do another documentary where they do look under the rocks, where they do do the research (I have a great title "Duped").
Posted by: Mr_Christopher on Feb. 26 2008,15:59

Quote (improvius @ Feb. 26 2008,15:28)
Quote (Mr_Christopher @ Feb. 26 2008,16:16)
Ever  heard of the Templeton Foundation?  They are searching for the truth, yet no one bothers them because they, unlike the IDC crowd, are not trying to sneak religion into out public science classes.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


And it gets worse.  Guess who had < this > to say about the "ID" movement:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
"From the point of view of rigor and intellectual seriousness, the intelligent design people don't come out very well in our world of scientific review,"
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Yeah, they of all organizations should be ID friendly and they're not.  And my point was that science is not trying to silence people who are seeking god in a test tube.  Holy cow man if someone discovered god from a scientific standpoint they'd win ever freakin prize known to man.

I wonder if the Templeton Foundation is in Expelled.  They should have been included.  They're a perfect example of theists seeking an understanding through science.  The biggest difference is they do not have a hidden political agenda and they're not out to discredit science to bolster their argument.

In short, they're not creationists trying to slip religion back in the public science class.
Posted by: jeannot on Feb. 26 2008,16:03

Quote (Richardthughes @ Feb. 26 2008,15:13)
Quote (kevinmillerxi @ Feb. 26 2008,15:08)
I won't shy away from explaining how social Darwinism and the science of eugenics--which was founded by Darwin's cousin Francis Galton as an attempt to apply Darwin's theory on a social level--were contributing factors to Hitler's views on race.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


My goodness.

(1) did he travel back in time to Sparta, as they culled the weak?
(2) Is it natural selection, *cough* "Darwinism" or artificial selection that mankind has known about through for example animal husbandry, for thousands of years?
(3) Is there any long debunked creationist canard you think we haven't heard?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


And more to the point, Kevin: science tells us how the world works, not how it ought to work.
Had Hitler worshipped Darwin's name in his book, that wouldn't falsify the theory of natural selection.

Is it so hard to understand?
Posted by: ERV on Feb. 26 2008,16:10

hehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehe

Email me, Kevin.  We need to talk about Behe and Dembski.  If youre looking for a student who has been harassed, slandered, and threatened by professional scientists/philosophers just seeking the truth for EXPELLED, I would be happy to sign on.
Posted by: Mr_Christopher on Feb. 26 2008,16:11

Quote (jeannot @ Feb. 26 2008,16:03)
Quote (Richardthughes @ Feb. 26 2008,15:13)
Quote (kevinmillerxi @ Feb. 26 2008,15:08)
I won't shy away from explaining how social Darwinism and the science of eugenics--which was founded by Darwin's cousin Francis Galton as an attempt to apply Darwin's theory on a social level--were contributing factors to Hitler's views on race.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


My goodness.

(1) did he travel back in time to Sparta, as they culled the weak?
(2) Is it natural selection, *cough* "Darwinism" or artificial selection that mankind has known about through for example animal husbandry, for thousands of years?
(3) Is there any long debunked creationist canard you think we haven't heard?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


And more to the point, Kevin: science tells us how the world works, not how it ought to work.
Had Hitler worshipped Darwin's name in his book, that wouldn't falsify the theory of natural selection.

Is it so hard to understand?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


What's so laff riot ironic is the bible clearly condones slavery and was used to justify slavery in this country.  I mean Leviticus is a slave owners manual.  The bible to this day justifies slavery (and murdering innocent little boys, stoning women to death, etc) but Darwin is  bad because he formulated a theory about how species evolve...Never mind that his theory has stood every single test since his ideas were published.

Did anyone ever see the Flock of Dodos movie?  I did not.  Was it any good?
Posted by: Annyday on Feb. 26 2008,16:14

Quote (jeannot @ Feb. 26 2008,16:03)
Quote (Richardthughes @ Feb. 26 2008,15:13)
Quote (kevinmillerxi @ Feb. 26 2008,15:08)
I won't shy away from explaining how social Darwinism and the science of eugenics--which was founded by Darwin's cousin Francis Galton as an attempt to apply Darwin's theory on a social level--were contributing factors to Hitler's views on race.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


My goodness.

(1) did he travel back in time to Sparta, as they culled the weak?
(2) Is it natural selection, *cough* "Darwinism" or artificial selection that mankind has known about through for example animal husbandry, for thousands of years?
(3) Is there any long debunked creationist canard you think we haven't heard?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


And more to the point, Kevin: science tells us how the world works, not how it ought to work.
Had Hitler worshipped Darwin's name in his book, that wouldn't falsify the theory of natural selection.

Is it so hard to understand?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


He didn't say that, he was answering a question. Just because it's a classic ID/creationist line doesn't mean any specific person agrees with it, mkay?
Posted by: Mr_Christopher on Feb. 26 2008,16:16

Quote (ERV @ Feb. 26 2008,16:10)
hehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehe

Email me, Kevin.  We need to talk about Behe and Dembski.  If youre looking for a student who has been harassed, slandered, and threatened by professional scientists/philosophers just seeking the truth for EXPELLED, I would be happy to sign on.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Oh but you're just a girl...  

ERV, go to his blog and you'll find a link to his email address.

I wonder if Kevin is hip to Behe's HIV denial or the fact that so many of the DI fellows have signed on to HIV denialism.  I wonder if Kevin read Well's reasons for getting his PhD in biology?  

Note to Kevin, ERV is a hard core HIV researcher (who knows kung fu).  As in cutting edge HIV research (not just some crank who's read a pamphlet on it).  The question is can she behave? ;-)
Posted by: Richardthughes on Feb. 26 2008,16:23

Oh, Welcome Pharyngulans!

*waves*

PS KRISTINE HARTLEY IS TEH WITCH.  :angry:
Posted by: jeannot on Feb. 26 2008,16:24

Quote (Annyday @ Feb. 26 2008,16:14)
 
Quote (jeannot @ Feb. 26 2008,16:03)
 
Quote (Richardthughes @ Feb. 26 2008,15:13)
   
Quote (kevinmillerxi @ Feb. 26 2008,15:08)
I won't shy away from explaining how social Darwinism and the science of eugenics--which was founded by Darwin's cousin Francis Galton as an attempt to apply Darwin's theory on a social level--were contributing factors to Hitler's views on race.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


My goodness.

(1) did he travel back in time to Sparta, as they culled the weak?
(2) Is it natural selection, *cough* "Darwinism" or artificial selection that mankind has known about through for example animal husbandry, for thousands of years?
(3) Is there any long debunked creationist canard you think we haven't heard?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


And more to the point, Kevin: science tells us how the world works, not how it ought to work.
Had Hitler worshipped Darwin's name in his book, that wouldn't falsify the theory of natural selection.

Is it so hard to understand?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


He didn't say that [...]
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Say what, specifically? It seems clear to me that Kevin confuses the validity of a scientific theory with its social implications.

Perhaps I miswrote the phrase "Had Hitler worshipped Darwin's name...". I didn't imply that Kevin said such thing. Remember that English is not my native language.
Posted by: Doc Bill on Feb. 26 2008,16:25

Kevin,

I never got an answer to my question "from what was Sternberg expelled?"

"Watch the movie" is not an answer.  I love spoilers and I will see the movie, anyway.

Poor Sternberg.  One little slip and he's a piranha.  (inside joke)

Only it wasn't his first slip, now, was it?  Surly you did the research, Kevin, and you know that Sternberg had a history of shepherding dubious papers into publication.

Such as this one:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------

>>> Frank Ferrari 09/08/04 03:29PM >>>
Hi Hans,
Rafa gave me a heads up about the Nature - News. What is troubling is the implication in the article that
the manuscript was peer-reviewed. I doubt that it was, based on my experience with Sternberg and the
infamous Nizinski manuscript, which Sternberg also wanted to publish and also insisted had been
peer-reviewed. Prior to publication, I asked him who reviewed the Nizinski manuscript, but he would not
give me any names. When I insisted that the manuscript be reviewed internationally, the concensus of 4
international reviewers was rejection [sadly, Sternberg published it anyway].
Frank

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Sternberg knew the Meyer paper would be reviewed as rubbish because it is rubbish.  Sternberg covered his tracks and snuck it through into publication anyway.  Only Sternberg of all the other editors saw the manuscript, there was no Abstract and only Sternberg reviewed the galley proofs.  

Total inside job?  Unethical?  Dishonest?  Crop circles?  You decide.

So, tell me Kevin old bean, from what was Sternberg expelled?  Was he "expelled" for his beliefs which he held and expressed for years with no consequence, or was he castigated for his actions of malfeasance and abuse of his editorial privilege?

Let me guess.  See the movie because it covers all this in great deal, in color, and in stereo.  Can't wait.
Posted by: bystander on Feb. 26 2008,16:29



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
But Ben Stein is no one's toady. He is a completely free agent who has developed his own unique perspective on this issue.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Unfortunately con men tell us that these are the easiest people to con.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Did you guys do ANY checking up on the Discovery Institute?  Their goals and objectives?  Of course we did. We researched them extensively and conducted interviews with numerous Discovery fellows.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Did you interview their critics? Gave people they criticized (basically the science establishment) a chance to rebuff. Spend a weekend reading the archives of Panda's Thumb to see the other side of their various press releases. They also have some interesting critiques of Berlinski.

Please don't think we are being mean. BELIEVING that there may be more to existence than what science has shown is fine and dandy. BELIEVING that some scientist somewhere will find this is also fine. We are more curious as to why hitch your wagon to these particular characters?

It doesn't take much research to discover that these guys are wrong, dishonest or both.

Sternberg -- there was a senate investigation. read the appendix, this guy was pretty odious and would have been sacked from any private company.
Gonzales -- Wasn't expelled just not promoted. Didn't take any students to Doctorate. Brought in hardly any research money, Did hardly any research. He did write the book privileged planet but didn't develop this any further.
etc. etc.
Posted by: Richardthughes on Feb. 26 2008,16:46

Is this P-A-R-O-D-Y?

< http://www.benstein4president.com/ >

(from "expelled"). Is he connect with reality at *any* level?
Posted by: rpenner on Feb. 26 2008,16:50

Now, I'm not a professional biologist or expert in biological molecules (despite over 30 days of sinus discharge) but I would like to ask Kevin a question, since he would seem to prefer questions than pointed explanations and empirical details.

Why is this movie taking so long from the appearantly completed version being shown around the country to it's rumored April theatrical release? Are you waiting for original animation, additional on-site footage or clearance? Is "Bad to the Bone" going to be replaced with an AC/DC song to match Stein's costume?

Why are schools being (promised to be) paid to get children to see this film, that being the opposite of the usual Hollywood strategy and children being the opposite of the typical documentary audience?

Is Ben Stein still attached to this project? The movie website only has two posts from Stein on the purported blog. Generally spokespersons get paid to, um, speak. Did Stein write his own lines in the trailer? Reminding us of his association with Nixon, doesn't seem to put him in the modest, trustworthy, or likeable catagories. (Wasn't it Nixon who created the modern Federal Holiday which in many people's minds takes the place of the actual dates of Washington's and Lincoln's birthdays? I ask because one of the movie's producers seems to blame this on evolution, not Nixon.)

Good luck, I hope to see the movie someday.
Posted by: Mr_Christopher on Feb. 26 2008,16:50

When you read the history of Dembski and Baylor it becomes obvious he was not expelled, but rather does not play well with others.  

And Dembski takes joy in expelling < Christian scientist >from the ID movment

Yeah when you get to know him Dembski does not make a very good persecuted victim.

Speaking of being expelled...I wonder how long it would take to get banned from Dembski's blog if Kevin joined and did not tell them who he is, but instead asked logical and even scientific questions about ID.  

1) Show me the ID evidence
2) IC does not prove design, so show me more evidence
3) So is a snowflake designed?
4) Ha ha ha yes that's funny, a 747 could not just create itself.  Hmmm...Then who created the creato....<ban>
Posted by: Wesley R. Elsberry on Feb. 26 2008,17:01

Annyday:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Wesley's made specific points curtly, too.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Curt, but no "personal attacks". Everything I've said or asked Kevin M. was directed at his claims, not his person.
Posted by: Doc Bill on Feb. 26 2008,17:08

Dembski, apparently, isn't featured in Expelled.

Why is that?

After all, Dembski was removed from his position by that atheist, Darwinist mafia boss Robert Sloan, president of Baylor.

Removed with pay for 5 years, I might add.

Hey, Kevin, do you know where I can get "Expelled" for 5 years with pay?

Inquiring minds want to know.
Posted by: Kristine on Feb. 26 2008,17:09

Quote (kevinmillerxi @ Feb. 26 2008,14:08)
I forgot to address the Holocaust. No, I won't teach my kids that Darwin initiated the Holocaust, because that is patently untrue. However, I won't shy away from explaining how social Darwinism and the science of eugenics--which was founded by Darwin's cousin Francis Galton as an attempt to apply Darwin's theory on a social level--were contributing factors to Hitler's views on race.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You may be interested in Christopher Hitchens' essay about anti-Semitism (Hitchens is particularly enraged by it) in the < current Atlantic Monthly >. What is particularly revealing, in my opinion, are the parallels between it and the arguments made (including those by Ben Stein) against evolutionary theory:       

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Political anti-Semitism in its more modern form often de-emphasized the supposed murder of Christ in favor of polemics against monopolies and cartels, leading the great German Marxist August Bebel to describe its propaganda as “the socialism of fools.” Peter Pulzer’s essential history of anti-Semitism in pre-1914 Germany and Austria, which shows the element of populist opportunism in the deployment of the Jew-baiting repertoire, is, among other things, a great illustration of that ironic observation. And then there is the notion of the Jews’ lack of rooted allegiance: their indifference to the wholesome loyalties of the rural, the hierarchical, and the traditional, and their concomitant attraction to modernity. Writing from the prewar Balkans in her Black Lamb and Grey Falcon, Rebecca West noticed this suspicion at work in old Serbia and wrote:

'Now I understand another cause for anti-Semitism; many primitive peoples must receive their first intimation of the toxic quality of thought from Jews. They know only the fortifying idea of religion; they see in Jews the effect of the tormenting and disintegrating ideas of skepticism.'

The best recent illustration of that point that I know comes from Jacobo Timerman, the Argentine Jewish newspaper editor who was kidnapped and tortured by the death-squad regime in his country in the late 1970s. In his luminous memoir, Prisoner Without a Name, Cell Without a Number, he analyzes the work of the neo-Nazi element that formed such an important part of the military/clerical dictatorship, and quotes one of the “diagnoses” that animated their ferocity:

"Argentina has three main enemies: Karl Marx, because he tried to destroy the Christian concept of society; Sigmund Freud, because he tried to destroy the Christian concept of the family; and Albert Einstein, because he tried to destroy the Christian concept of time and space." [emphases mine]
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Note that Albert Einstein has now been replaced by Charles Darwin. Note also that "Darwinism" is, as was Jewry, portrayed simultaneously as a hideously strong force about to overwhelm the nations, and as on the brink of collapse.
       

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Anti-Semitism is an elusive and protean phenomenon, but it certainly involves the paradox whereby great power is attributed to the powerless. In the mind of the anti-Jewish paranoid, some shabby bearded figure in a distant shtetl is a putative member of a secret world government: hence the enduring fascination of The Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion. (Incidentally, it is entirely wrong to refer to this document of the Czarist secret police as “a forgery.” A forgery is a counterfeit of a true bill. The Protocols are a straightforward fabrication, based on medieval Christian fantasies about Judaism.)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


ID has its lengthy record of straightforward fabrication as well.
       

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
That is perhaps what distinguishes it from other forms of racism. Almost every tribe or ethnicity has a rival tribe or ethnicity that it views as inferior or dirtier or more primitive: the Hutu with the Tutsi, the Sinhalese with the Tamil, the Ulster Protestant with the Irish Catholic, and so forth. The “other” group will invariably be found to have a different smell, a higher birthrate, and a lazier temperament. These poor qualities are sometimes attributed even by Jews to Jews: elevated German and Austrian Jews once wrinkled their nostrils at the matted sidelocks and large families of the poor Ostjuden who had come from the backwoods of Galicia and Silesia; and Ashkenazi-Se­phardic rivalry in Israel sometimes recalls and resembles this hostility. But garden-variety racists do not usually suspect the objects of their dislike of secretly manipulating the banks and the stock markets and of harboring a demonic plan for world domination.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Note now this quote from Stein:
         

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Just as a tiny example, years ago a close friend, now deceased, was a trader in London for a big financial house. As he told it, one day I.B.M. came out with stellar numbers. The boss of the trading floor said, “O.K., the guy who’s getting the prize is the one who can make us money selling I.B.M. short.”

So the traders grabbed for their phones and started to put out any bad thoughts they could dream up about I.B.M. They called journalists, retailers, anyone. They sold huge amounts of I.B.M. short. Soon, they had I.B.M. on the run, made money on their shorts and went to Langan’s to drink champers.

As I see it, this is what traders do all day long — and especially what they’ve been doing since the subprime mess burst upon the scene. They have seized upon a fairly bad situation: a stunning number of defaults and foreclosures in the subprime arena, although just a small part of the total financial picture of the United States. They have then tried — with the collaboration of their advance guards in the press — to make it seem like a total catastrophe so they could make money on their short sales. They sense an opportunity to trick other traders and poor retail slobs like you and me, and they generate data and rumor to support their positions, and to make money.

MORE than that, they trade to support the way they want the market to go. If they are huge traders like some of the major hedge funds, they can sell massively and move the market downward, then suck in other traders who go short, and create a vacuum of fear that sucks down whatever they are selling.

Note what is happening here: They are not figuring out which way the market will go. They are making the market go the direction they want.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Weeks before this it was Goldman Sachs out to corner the market and dominate the world.

Stein's allegedly being no one's toady does not rule out his having a blind spot to his embracing of this absurd archetype of paranoiac revelation, in his own words, of cliches such as "the scales fell from my eyes." I am not a biologist, but a scholar of languages and literature. The use of rhetoric, special pleading, and emotional manipulation, as opposed to sound arguments, in both of these cases leaps out at one.
Posted by: Mr_Christopher on Feb. 26 2008,17:12

Our very own Richardhughes has documented the Darwing = Hitler link very well I might add.  Here is his research findings:



Keep in mind Richardhughes may be a tard, but he's our tard.
Posted by: Albatrossity2 on Feb. 26 2008,17:17

Quote (kevinmillerxi @ Feb. 26 2008,15:06)
Here is my question - who was Ben's biology consultant for Expelled?  Who advised him on evolution, Darwin and biology?
Ben consulted with many individuals regarding biology and Darwinism, some of whom I know and some I don't. One individual who I know had a significant influence on him is mathematician and philosopher David Berlinski. He was also very impressed with Michael Shermer. But Ben Stein is no one's toady. He is a completely free agent who has developed his own unique perspective on this issue.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Kevin

Welcome, and kudos for sticking your head into the lions den.

But here are a couple of clues.

Nobody is a "Darwinist" these days; that died out in the late 19th century. If you want to converse with scientists who will take you seriously, you won't use that word again. It's a dead giveaway that you haven't bothered to even cursorily examine the science of modern evolutionary biology.

David Berlinksi is not a biologist; he is nominally a philosopher who also writes detective novels. Michael Shermer is not a biologist; he is a historian of science. If these sources are where Stein gets information about biology, he is even more misinformed than I imagined. And my imagination is pretty active...

On this board, there are several card-carrying practicing biologists, including Wesley Elsberry, with whom you have already interacted. It won't hurt to listen to some of what they have to say, rather than claim persecution.
Posted by: Dr.GH on Feb. 26 2008,17:20

Quote (kevinmillerxi @ Feb. 26 2008,13:08)
I forgot to address the Holocaust. No, I won't teach my kids that Darwin initiated the Holocaust, because that is patently untrue. However, I won't shy away from explaining how social Darwinism and the science of eugenics--which was founded by Darwin's cousin Francis Galton as an attempt to apply Darwin's theory on a social level--were contributing factors to Hitler's views on race.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


In that case you will be a (personal expletive deleted) liar.  Racism and bigotry are far older than Darwin, and older than the sciences. They have been justified by every sort of argument, mostly religious and nationalistic. The genocides in the Bible were used as Nazi justifications more than any nonexistant mention of Darwin.  

Rev. Donal Kerr, Emeritus Professor of Ecclesiastical History,
St. Patrick's University, Maynooth, Ireland has written on the massive ideological support the "new science" of economics privided to justify the deaths of thousands during the Irish Potato Famine.  

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
"
Trevelyan, whose influence was paramount, summed up this attitude when he said that the Famine was "the judgment of God on an indolent and unself-reliant people." It was "the cure...applied by the direct stroke of an all wise Providence in a manner as unexpected...as it is likely to be effectual!" As God had "sent the calamity to teach the Irish a lesson, that calamity must not be too much mitigated." In other words, the Famine was God's will and we should not alleviate it too much."
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



However, following the publication of "Origin of Species" there was a great interest in the potential for human improvement by the application of biology. The most active centers for this thinking, called Social Darwinism, were in the United States, and secondly in Germany.  The origin of Social Darwinism was of course British; particularly from the writing of Francis Galton, and Herbert Spencer.  The notion of evolution was used in these nations primarily as justification of the political status quo- basically the poor underclass were inately "inferior" and there was no moral onus to care for them.

The political and economic situation in late 19th century Germany led to a huge polarization between Left and Right, and this is how the notions associated with Social Darwinism in England and the United States came to such different and disastrous results in Germany.

The man most responsible for Germany's "racial hygiene" Rassenhygiene and author of its founding articles and books was Alfred Ploetz.  His 1895 work particularly argued aginst medical care for the "weak" as this would alow them to reproduce more than the "fit."  His ideal of "fitness" was the wealthy.  Ploetz established the Society for Racial Hygiene, Gesellshaft für Rassenhygiene, in 1905 which grew to 1,300 members by 1930.  Curiously, the Racial Hygiene movement opposed birth control,  and in the words of Max von Gruber (1914) "the so-called women's liberation movement."  This latter point was echoed by American eugenicists who objected to birth control as part of an "antibaby strike" by emancipated women.  Today's US religious right-wing fits hand and glove.

The German racial hygienists prior to the 1920s were not particularly concerned with "race" in the sense we use it today, but were concerned with their notion of race=national identity, and race=the totality of humankind.  Ploetz (1895), for example, felt it necessary to explicitly state that his was not an anti-Semitic program, citing the achievements of Jesus, Spinoza and Marx in particular and rejected that there was any such thing as a "pure race" anywhere in the world.  Similarly, he denied that interracial breeding was at all harmful, and referred to the notion of hybrid vigor; interbreeding of races was "a means of increasing fitness and as a source of good variations."  Notably, Willhelm Schallmayer, winner of the 1900 Krupp Prize for his essay on evolution and political development of the state, urged that the singular Rassehygiene be used (rather then the plural Rassen-) to emphasize the focal unity of the human species.  

None-the-less, Ploetz did maintain in 1895 that there were intellectual differences between the Caucasians and Negroes citing 1890 American studies of literacy rates!  (The absurdity of this is patent, but even today there are similar arguments presented by radical conservatives).  More sinisterly, Ploetz together with F. Wollny and Fritz Lenz, organized a secret Nordic division (Ring der Norda) within the Society for Race Hygiene from the very beginning.  Fritz Lenz would become the leading Nazi racial theorist.  His 1917 article "The Rebirth of Ethics" directly brought the thinking of Arthur Comte de Gobineau into German racial theories.  Well before Darwin's Origin, Gobineau published his Essay on the Inequality of the Human Races in 1853-1855 which proposed that "racial vitality" was the driving force of history, and that the "white" races were superior to the "colored" races.  Initially this work was only popular in the American slave states, following the biblical arguments of the Negro's bearing the "curse of Ham."  American and European creationist theories of the "pre-Adamites" went so far as to claim that Negroes had been created on the Genesis fifth day with "other beasts of the field."  Gobineau's claim that the German Volk represented the last pure Nordic population attracted Lenz who reintroduced Gobineau into German racist theories.  

What was outstanding and uniquely German was the domination of the racist Nordic movement by medical doctors.  This had several important consequences, one being the prominance given to inherited disease and secondly the willingness to take direct "curative action" as a public health program.  

Leading figures of the Nordic movement wrote for the Politisch-anthropologish Revue edited by Ludwig Wolttmaann, M.D. ( e.g. Rüdin, Lentz, Fisher and Schallmayer).   The right wing of the racial hygiene movement, the Nordic supremacists, that ultimately became the Nazi medical establishment was virtually the creation of medical publisher Julius Friedrich Lehmann.  Lehmann joint the Nazi party in 1920, and was the first Nazi to recieve the party's "Golden Medal of Honor" in 1934.  Actually, by 1930 it was nearly impossible to distinguish between the Nordic/Nazi and the transformed Rassenhygiene movements.  At that time, some people still attempted to separate what they viewed as the medical and scientific study of human genetics from the Nazi dominated Rassenhygiene, but within Germany they were suppressed.  

There is a hightly significant passage in Evans pg. 92-93:


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
"The minutes [taken by Dr. Paul Otto Schmidt] for the second day's meeting, on 17 April 1943, recorded a statement by Reich Foreign Minister Ribbentrop, in Hitler's presence, to a point made by Hungarian Admiral Horthy: "On Horthy's retort, what should he do with the Jews then, after he had pretty well taken all means of living from them-- he surely couldn't beat them to death-- the Reich Foreign Minister [Ribbentrop] replied that the Jews must either be annihilated or taken to concentration camps. There is no other way."

Hitler almost immediately confirmed Ribbentrop's explicitly murderous statement at some length: Hitler: "Where the Jews were left to themselves, as for example in Poland, gruesome poverty and degeneracy had ruled. They were just pure parasites. One had fundamentally cleared up this state of affairs in Poland. If the Jews there didn't want to work [in Third Reich concentration camps], they were shot. If they couldn't work they had to perish. They had to be treated like tuberculosis bacilli, from which a healthy body could be infected. That was not cruel, if one remembered that even innocent natural creatures like hares and deer had to be killed so that no harm was caused. Why should one spare the beasts who wanted to bring us Bolshevism more? Nations who did not rid themselves of Jews perished." (references and footnotes are found in Evans, 2001:92-93)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Here we have Hitler, in his argument to Hungary's Admiral Horthy, invoking not an übermench racist position, but an anti-Bolshevik, and nationalist one.  His analogy is to disease and there is no argument based on the notion of evolution.  Hitler never tried to draw rhetorical support from Social Darwinism arguing in Mein Kampf, it is not present in the text.  Science in any event was at most merely a twig on the trunk of his anti-Semitism. His opposition is to what he considered a Marxist threat, not drawn from Darwin, which was more a rationalization of his hatred than its origin.  

The Nazi Office of Racial Policy held thousands of public meetings a month promoting anti-semitism and attacking “muddle-headed humanitarianism” (Humanitätsduselei)  or, what we call “liberalism” today.  The theoretical models and dominant metaphors Hitler drew from did not include evolution at any event, but the Germ Theory of Disease, and Christianity.  In 1938 the Nazi "Office of Racial Policy" publication Inromationsdienst Martin Luther’s advice on the “proper” treatment of Jews was given prominent display:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
... to put their synagogues and schools to fire, and what will not burn, to cover with earth and rubble so that no-one will ever again see anything there but cinders ... Second, one should tear down and destroy their houses, for they do also in there what they do in their schools and synagogues ... And third, one should confiscate their prayer books and Talmud, in which idolatry and lies, slander and blasphemy is taught” From Proctor 1988: 88.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



The founder of Protestant Christianity was a greater inspiration to the Nazis than any scientist.  Science, politicized by the same conditions that radicalized both Left, and Right in Germany, was used as justification for actions long advocated as “Christian.”  

In fact, the Nazis has the works of Darwin publically burned along with the books of Ernst Haeckel (Guidelines from Die Bücherei 2:6 (1935), p. 279). Die Bücherei, the official Nazi journal for lending libraries, published these collection evaluation "guidelines" during the second round of "purifications" (saüberung).

6. Schriften weltanschaulichen und lebenskundlichen Charakters, deren Inhalt die falsche naturwissenschaftliche Aufklärung eines primitiven Darwinismus und Monismus ist (Häckel).    

Guidelines from Die Bücherei 2:6 (1935), p. 279

6. Writings of a philosophical and social nature whose content deals with the false scientific enlightenment of primitive Darwinism and Monism (Häckel)

Readers interestd in an honest assesment of the history of the Nazis and their "science" of Racial Hygiene should read the following works;

Evans, Richard J.
2001 Lying about Hitler New York:Basic Books.

Hitler, Adolf
1999 (orig. 1925) Mien Kampf  Ralph Manheim, translator.  New York: Houghton Mifflin Co.

Proctor, Robert N.
1988 Racial Hygiene: Medicine Under the Nazis Boston:Harvard University Press.


Posted by: JAM on Feb. 26 2008,17:27

Quote (kevinmillerxi @ Feb. 26 2008,15:06)
My response is that you can't disqualify a theory merely b/c it is religiously motivated.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You can, however, completely disqualify it as a theory because it has absolutely zero track record of making correct predictions.

Hint: in science, predictions have nothing to do with how you think your "theory" will fare in the future, they are predictions about what you actually observe, in experiments or other observations (like locations and morphologies of fossils before they are found).

Here's an example: the prion hypothesis (prions are infectious proteins) predicts that treating a brain homogenate from a prion-infected animal with enzymes that degrade nucleic acids (DNA + RNA) will have no effect on infectivity when the treated brain homogenate is used to infect new animals.

This is the part to consider carefully, Kevin: when Stan Prusiner introduced this hypothesis (not a theory) in the early 80s, the majority of his fellow microbiologists thought he was not only wrong, but nuts.

Stan did not write any books.
Stan did not lie and call his hypothesis a theory.
Stan did not demand that the prion hypothesis be taught in the public schools.
Stan did not have a movie made about the derision he endured from his peers.

Instead, Stan did something that your ID proponents are too cowardly to do, because they know that they are lying.

Stan tested his hypothesis.
Stan did everything he could think of that had the potential to falsify his hypothesis.
Stan did experiments proposed by his critics.
Stan went far beyond the experiments proposed by his critics.
Stan published his data in what we call the primary literature (papers with new data).
Stan's critics examined the evidence (not Stan's arguments).
Stan's critics, nearly all of whom were fair-minded people, began to suspect that the prion hypothesis might be correct.
More people (including Stan's former critics) started to work on prions.
The prion hypothesis is now considered to be a theory.
Stan won the Nobel Prize in 1997.

Kevin, every time anyone calls ID a "theory," we scientists view it as a lie. Now, let's look at what your beloved ID pseudoscientists do:

ID pseudoscientists do not test their hypotheses; they are afraid to.
ID pseudoscientists do nothing that has the slightest potential to falsify their hypotheses.
ID pseudoscientists do no experiments proposed by their critics.
ID pseudoscientists have published not a single datum from testing their own hypotheses in what we call the primary literature (papers with new data).
ID critics (real scientists) look at the total absence of new evidence produced by the ID movement (not arguments).
Real scientists, nearly all of whom were fair-minded people, can see that ID has no scientific basis, and we see that ID proponents realize this.
No people are working on ID. I've done more to test the probabilistic assumptions (falsely presented as facts) underlying the idiotic claims that functional proteins are improbable than the entire ID movement combined. I did this in the course of doing something completely different (not evolutionary biology).
Nothing about ID is considered to be a theory by honest scientists who use the term correctly and consistently.

ID proponents have their very own journal that has not put out an issue in over two years. I'll bet that's not going to be mentioned in the movie, right?
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
In that case, you'd have to disqualify anything coming out of Richard Dawkins or PZ Myers who aren't afraid to conflate their religious or areligious beliefs with their science.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Kevin, you ignorant goof, we consider evidence. You don't produce any.
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
It all comes down to the arguments and the evidence.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


No. Arguments aren't science without any effort to produce new evidence. Spinning existing evidence only illustrates the impotence and dishonesty of the ID movement, as well as their fear of testing a single ID hypothesis.
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
...I'd rather disentagle the scientific questions from the religious questions so that the real question becomes, can ID produce compelling evidence and arguments to back up their theories?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


The dishonesty of your question is compound. The real question is, HAS the ID movement produced ANY evidence, much less compelling evidence, to back up their NOTION?

The answer is no. Arguments don't matter without evidence, and hypotheses aren't considered theories unless there is a large body of evidence that was correctly predicted.
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I think the jury is still out on that.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I think that you are laboring under the weight of the goalposts that you are frantically moving.
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
But that doesn't mean they shouldn't get a chance to try.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


They've had every chance to try, and they aren't trying. In fact, for every one of the handful of trained scientists with a track record of productivity, they QUIT TRYING.

Go back and look at the stark contrasts with Stan Prusiner. He was successful. Your guys are pathetic failures.

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Virtually all of the IDers I met--and I met a lot--appeared to be sincere, hard-working scientists just like their peers.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


How can they possibly appear to be hard-working when they don't produce any data, Kevin?
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Religious agendas aside, I really do believe that people like Sternberg, Dembski, Marks, Berlinski, Gonzalez, Behe, etc are sincerely seeking the truth.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


If they were seeking the truth, they would test their hypotheses. They don't, so they aren't.
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Rather than shove any particular theory down their throats, I hope to teach them how to think critically about the various options that are out there and then make up their own minds.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You mean misrepresenting hypotheses as theories and ignoring the most important evidence--that produced by testing predictions of a hypothesis? That seems dishonest to me.
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
But I also want to encourage them that life is about constant change and growth, so they should be wary of locking themselves down to one position for all of time.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


The essence of science is that all conclusions are provisional, and our duty is to attempt to falsify our conclusions. The ID movement rejects the very basis of science and is afraid to attempt to falsify even the least important ID hypothesis.
Posted by: Mr_Christopher on Feb. 26 2008,17:37

From a < positive > review of Expelled

       

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
In the movie there are somber moments, as when Stein visits World War II death camps and traces the Nazi philosophy back to the godless Darwinian world in which fitness must prevail and everything is permitted
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Documentary or propaganda?  YOU decide!

And when reading Darwin or modern evolution I seem to have overlooked the part about "fitness must prevail and everything is permitted"  Can someone point that page out to me?

This all reminds me of my favorite Philip E Johnson quote:

       

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
The objective [of the Wedge Strategy] is to convince people that Darwinism is inherently atheistic, thus shifting the debate from creationism vs. evolution to the existence of God vs. the non-existence of God. From there people are introduced to 'the truth' of the Bible and then 'the question of sin' and finally 'introduced to Jesus.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Yup, all science so far!

edit:

My new favorite Ben Stein quote:

     

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
"I'm hoping that (schools) will at least allow in science classes someone to say, 'What if it's not Darwinism, but what if there was some intelligent designer who created the universe?' "

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



So...Ben does want intelligent design creationism in the classroom after all.  What a total fruit cake.  When did ben Stein become an idiot?  I used to like him!

Note to Ben - Darwinism/ToE has NOTHING TO DO WITH THE CREATION OF THE UNIVERSE YOU DUMB ASS!  NOTHING!  BIOLOGY IS NOT THE STUDY OF THE UNIVERSE YOU UNEDUCATED CRACKPOT!

Kevin, you wonder why everyone is so hostile to Expelled.  Well that Ben Stein quote sums it up nicely.

Good god, Kevin, could you please explain to Ben that the creation of the universe is not related to the theory of evolution, natural selection, or Charles Darwin.  If nothing else man would you please explain this to Ben?  He'd look far less stupid when he quits confusing darwinism/ToE with the creation of the universe.

This is the kind of shit that pisses people off, Kevin. Ben is clearly ignorant about biology and is perpetuating that ignorance with this propaganda film that only Leni Riefenstahl could appreciate.

Ben looks totally retarded everytime he says stuff like this.  Did ben even graduate from college?  Did he take ANY biology classes?  I mean, biology is not cosmology.  Darwin never theorized on the creation of the universe, Kevin.  

You've got to get Ben a new biology tutor and the one he now has should be fired.

Unless of course....Ben knows better and it lying.  Does Ben not know better, Kevin, or is he lying?  You of all people know the answer.  Is Ben miselading people on purpose, or does he not know the difference between cosmology and biology?  Please shed some light on the subject.

So here we have Ben Stein who does not know the difference between biology and cosmology, mistakenly portraying Darwin as having theorized on the creation of the universe..And he's advocating we teach this crap in science class.  And when we say no way jose you whine about persecution and being silenced.  

How can you defend this rube, Kevin?

Oh and if I sound pissed off it's because I am pissed off.  The Texas school board rubes are using the same kind of nonsense arguments Ben is spouting to justify teaching this shit in public science class in Texas.  In fact the head of our state School board is on record telling his church they do not call it creationism, they call it "intelligent design" so it sounds more like science.  He's yet another liar for jesus from the intelligent design creationism camp with a dishonest agenda.  But you said not to judge a theory by the agenda.  I guess you missed the the note - THEY HAVE NO THEORY IT IS ALL AN AGENDA.  

I will have to put my kids in private school if they succeed, I am not going to give my kids a retarded education, the kind of education Ben Stein seems to be advocating.  

So yeah, as a father of two I am way pissed off.
Posted by: Richard Simons on Feb. 26 2008,18:01

Quote (kevinmillerxi @ Feb. 26 2008,15:06)
can ID produce compelling evidence and arguments to back up their theories?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Before they do that they need to come up with a theory. If they ever manage to do that, then there will be something to test and scientists will start to be interested.

While interviewing for the film, did you ever ask anyone what would constitute evidence that ID is not correct? That is an essential requirement for any notion to be considered a hypothesis.
Posted by: Tracy P. Hamilton on Feb. 26 2008,18:08

Quote (Richard Simons @ Feb. 26 2008,18:01)
Quote (kevinmillerxi @ Feb. 26 2008,15:06)
can ID produce compelling evidence and arguments to back up their theories?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Before they do that they need to come up with a theory. If they ever manage to do that, then there will be something to test and scientists will start to be interested.

While interviewing for the film, did you ever ask anyone what would constitute evidence that ID is not correct? That is an essential requirement for any notion to be considered a hypothesis.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


About half of scientists are religious.  They certainly wouldn't care if a scientific theory was religiously motivated.  Maybe the reason that those scientists won't accept ID is because it is not a theory, plain and simple.
Posted by: elucifuga on Feb. 26 2008,18:19

The problem with supposed 'exposures' such as 'Expelled' is that we do not have the other side of any of the examples.  We have only a one-sided view.  Sure, sometimes there are no extenuating circumstances that show actions against persons were warranted, but often there are real, justifiable reasons for personnel actions, etc.

For example, after about 45 years in higher education I have been involved in and know about quite a few cases where faculty members were denied  tenure.  In quite a few cases the person receiving the adverse action claimed discrimination (racial, sexual, political, etc.,) when there were absolutely no grounds for such claims.  In each of those cases the complaints were found to be not true upon appeal.

How many of the cases in 'Expelled' are like that?  We will not know, since the opposite side will likely not be revealed. The real truth is not what the producers of this film seek.
Posted by: ERV on Feb. 26 2008,18:22

Quote (rpenner @ Feb. 26 2008,16:50)
Why is this movie taking so long from the appearantly completed version being shown around the country to it's rumored April theatrical release? Are you waiting for original animation...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


LOL!

New guy wins.
Posted by: Doc Bill on Feb. 26 2008,18:38

The bottom line, Kevin, is that nobody has been expelled and your entire movie is a lie.

Oh, what a shock!  Creationists produce a lie.

Sternberg expelled?  No, he is a cheat.
Dembski expelled?  No, poor sport.
Wells expelled?  No, employed.
Behe expelled?  No, full professor with tenure.
Crocker expelled?  No, contract expired, currently employed.
Gonzalez expelled?  No, contract expired.  (in May, 2008)
Luskin expelled?  No, employed lawyer for the DI.
Robert Marks expelled?  No, tenured professor at Baylor.

Hundreds and hundreds of working scientists expelled?  Name one.

So, Kevin, please explain the premise of Expelled?  Based on the trailer, website, blog and your comments I just can't figure it out.
Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on Feb. 26 2008,18:46

C'mon Doc, you know what it is.

Darwinismus bad.  Materialismus culture of death.

and stuff like that.
Posted by: J-Dog on Feb. 26 2008,18:57

Quote (Doc Bill @ Feb. 26 2008,18:38)
The bottom line, Kevin, is that nobody has been expelled and your entire movie is a lie.

Oh, what a shock!  Creationists produce a lie.

Sternberg expelled?  No, he is a cheat.
Dembski expelled?  No, poor sport.
Wells expelled?  No, employed.
Behe expelled?  No, full professor with tenure.
Crocker expelled?  No, contract expired, currently employed.
Gonzalez expelled?  No, contract expired.  (in May, 2008)
Luskin expelled?  No, employed lawyer for the DI.
Robert Marks expelled?  No, tenured professor at Baylor.

Hundreds and hundreds of working scientists expelled?  Name one.

So, Kevin, please explain the premise of Expelled?  Based on the trailer, website, blog and your comments I just can't figure it out.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Doc Bill - Kevin just called me on the New Super Secret ID Phone and has an answer for you:

The premise of Expelled, is that the "stars" of the movie, like Sternberg, Gonzalez et al, have been "expelled" from the everyday world of happy, healthy, sane, normal people, and forced to associate themselves with a pig-ignorant and foolish premise that the "Designer" (Not the Christian God wink, wink) created us, and "Darwinism" is wrong.

As all normal healthy, happy sane people all know, this is total lunacy, and hence, the featured performers in Expelled The Movie all feel like martyers, and "expelled" from a normal human existence.

HTH :)
Posted by: elucifuga on Feb. 26 2008,19:03

Perhaps it is worth repeating just how Sternberg was 'expelled.'  He was NOT!  He was NOT an employee of the Natural History Museum, but was given space and access to the collections for his research.  HE STILL HAS THOSE..  His keys were NOT taken from him, only a master key that he (and some others) were not permitted to have; all those that were unauthorized had to give up the master keys.  

He complains that he was 'mistreated' by comments from colleagues at the Museum.  That may be true, but his unethical behavior as an Associate Editor of the Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington was the not unexpected cause of the criticisms from other scientists. He brought those upon himself by his attempts at the surreptitious approval of a paper that would not have been published, if the accepted editorial process of the journal had been followed. These facts are ignored in the 'defense' of Sternberg by the ID and other creationists. He is no hero.
Posted by: rpenner on Feb. 26 2008,19:08

Quote (ERV @ Feb. 26 2008,18:22)
New guy wins.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You are too kind.

I spend most of my time on the completely crank-polluted < http://forum.physorg.com/ > and trying to code up the interface to my personal anti-woo site, but you might have spotted me on < Science Blogs >.
Posted by: Ogee on Feb. 26 2008,19:14

Quote (kevinmillerxi @ Feb. 26 2008,15:04)
Religious agendas aside, I really do believe that people like Sternberg, Dembski, Marks, Berlinski, Gonzalez, Behe, etc are sincerely seeking the truth. That may be difficult for some of you to accept
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Hmmm, yeah.. that would be because it is demonstrably untrue.
Posted by: Kristine on Feb. 26 2008,20:01

Quote (Ogee @ Feb. 26 2008,18:14)
Quote (kevinmillerxi @ Feb. 26 2008,15:04)
Religious agendas aside, I really do believe that people like Sternberg, Dembski, Marks, Berlinski, Gonzalez, Behe, etc are sincerely seeking the truth. That may be difficult for some of you to accept
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Hmmm, yeah.. that would be because it is demonstrably untrue.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Well, I honestly don’t think Ben Stein is a liar. Not intentionally, anyway. I honestly think he has a blind spot, because something else is going on here.

In looking over what I wrote above I’ve come to realize that Americans are still haunted by Adolf Hitler in some profound way that I don’t understand. My parents were the generation that defeated Hitler, and yet, Godwin’s Law notwithstanding, the ID side in this debate more than 60 years after America’s triumph see Hitler’s fingerprint in what is happening today, see his long shadow darken our children’s future, and claim resistance to his tyranny for their own. Has Hitler really done such a number on us? Or rather, have Americans failed to confront some heretofore unacknowledged shadow, and instead (especially the anti-evolution rhetoricians) invoke him to scare schoolchildren about evolution? (Ironically they don’t seem to be too alarmed about neo-Nazis in America.)

Perhaps it really does have something to do with the inexplicable resurgence of anti-Semitism, which reappears like acne, loathsomely, irrationally, sparking Hitchens’ ire and mine, and certainly Stein’s, and being taken up as a moral cause by evangelicals as they have (but merely to fit with their own agenda) adopted Zionism. Or perhaps it is something else.

I think this fear on the part of the ID folks is sincere, despite the antics that we have seen from them. This fear is what motivates them, and they do intend good, and that is why they lie. They tell what they think is a small lie for a moral purpose. They fear societal collapse. That fascism is anathema to most Americas whether Democrat or Republican is a truth that they do not trust.

Why they cannot seem to trust Americans more is beyond me. Certainly I was as moved as Stein was by his visits to Nazi death camps by my visits to the Holocaust memorial behind Notre Dame in Paris and to the plaque, which I sought out, naming the French Resistance martyrs in the Church in the St. Germain des Pres (one of the war heroes was an atheist and a surrealist poet, Robert Desnos, who died in one of those Nazi death camps).

Atheists died fighting Hitler. Artists and “hedonists” were as brave as Christians and Jews in repelling the Third Reich. They fought shoulder-to-shoulder. This isn’t about atheism. This isn’t about Hitler.

This isn’t even about evolution, really. Something else is going on here, and we need to find out what it is – but unfortunately, Stein’s lack of insight into himself hardly gets at what the real fear is. It will be left to others to find out. It is left to you, Kevin, or to me, or to someone else, but someone will find out, but not by continuing Stein’s silly “is not” to science’s “is.” This is not about science.
Posted by: Paul Flocken on Feb. 26 2008,20:07

Quote (Mr_Christopher @ Feb. 26 2008,17:37)
From a < positive > review of Expelled

         

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
In the movie there are somber moments, as when Stein visits World War II death camps and traces the Nazi philosophy back to the godless Darwinian world in which fitness must prevail and everything is permitted
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Documentary or propaganda?  YOU decide!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


< Plagiarizing Bronowski > won't earn any points for his tripe from people who know better.  I didn't think I could have been anymore disgusted by stein than I already was from what little I knew about him.  I was wrong.
Posted by: Robert S. on Feb. 26 2008,20:07

"My response is that you can't disqualify a theory merely b/c it is religiously motivated."

But you do know that Intelligent Design is not a theory, right?
Because it is not testable, verifiable nor repeatable. Doesn't qualify.
Posted by: Mr_Christopher on Feb. 26 2008,21:00

Quote (Robert S. @ Feb. 26 2008,20:07)
"My response is that you can't disqualify a theory merely b/c it is religiously motivated."

But you do know that Intelligent Design is not a theory, right?
Because it is not testable, verifiable nor repeatable. Doesn't qualify.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I don't think they get that part.  I don't think they get any of the science part, otherwise they'd be harping on the pseudoscientists and not the imaginary "big science"

Kevin has a link on his website that says something like "this guy gets it" and it links to an article claiming ID is not creationism.

I don't think they get it and I don't think they care.  They're too busy playing david against an imaginary goliath.
Posted by: Annyday on Feb. 26 2008,21:09

Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Feb. 26 2008,17:01)
Annyday:

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Wesley's made specific points curtly, too.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Curt, but no "personal attacks". Everything I've said or asked Kevin M. was directed at his claims, not his person.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Yes. Being a fan of brevity, I forgot that "curt" has negative connotations.

Also: Hello, Pharyngulites.

Edited for ugly sentence structure.
Posted by: stevestory on Feb. 26 2008,23:00

Quote (Annyday @ Feb. 26 2008,16:14)
Quote (kevinmillerxi @ Feb. 26 2008,14:30)
If anyone wants to approach me with a formal interview request for an established publication or web site, I'm all for it.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


---------------------QUOTE-------------------


By the way, if you do approach Kevin for a formal interview, take a page from Expelled and call yourself a different name and tell Kev it's for a different project.
Posted by: Richardthughes on Feb. 26 2008,23:02

Quote (stevestory @ Feb. 26 2008,23:00)
Quote (Annyday @ Feb. 26 2008,16:14)
Quote (kevinmillerxi @ Feb. 26 2008,14:30)
If anyone wants to approach me with a formal interview request for an established publication or web site, I'm all for it.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


---------------------QUOTE-------------------


By the way, if you do approach Kevin for a formal interview, take a page from Expelled and call yourself a different name and tell Kev it's for a different project.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Zing!

Hi Kevin. I'm making a film called "crossroads"...
Posted by: stevestory on Feb. 27 2008,02:20

Kevin should get hot on the case of why the ID scientists were EXPELLED from < their own ID journal >. I mean, they must have been expelled, right, no doubt by some horrible Darwinist. Now that's a hell of a conspiracy we're running, infiltrating their own journal and rejecting all their revolutionary research.
Posted by: stevestory on Feb. 27 2008,02:46

Of course that wouldn't work. We can actually see, on ISCID, all the revolutionary ID papers that were submitted for publication in PCID. Let's look at all the ID research submitted in 2007 to the premier ID journal:

< http://www.iscid.org/boards/ubb-forum-f-10.html >



---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Icon 1 posted 01. February 2007 17:03      Profile for Moderator   Email Moderator   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post  The Big Bad Wolf, Theism and the Foundations of Intelligent Design:
A Review of Richard Dawkins’, The God Delusion, (Bantam, 2006)

by Peter S. Williams (MA, MPhil)

Summary - The man described as ‘Darwin’s Rotweiller’ (by supporter Charles Simonyi) has evolved to metaphorically resemble the big bad wolf of nursery rhyme fame, and he is on a mission to liberate the pigs (the analogy is mine, not his) from what he sees as their prisons of straw. Indeed, Zoologist Richard Dawkins is so intent on blowing down straw houses that he not only acknowledges the existence of firm foundations that might be used for permanent constructions, but he fails to notice that some of the pigs are building on just such a wolf-endorsed foundation with bricks and mortar more than adequate to the task of withstanding all his huffing and puffing. Dawkins, who is Oxford University’s Professor for the Public Understanding of Science, has been described as ‘materialistic, reductionist and overtly anti-religious.’ Nevertheless, The God Delusion – which is descended by design from Dawkins’ two-part television series The Root of all Evil? - is Dawkins’ first book to make a direct attack upon religion (especially theism, and most especially Christianity): ‘If this books works as I intend, religious readers who open it will be atheists when they put it down.’
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



A book review.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
posted 02. February 2007 13:57      Profile for Moderator   Email Moderator   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post  String Origins
by Richard Atkins

Abstract: It is shown that the string concept results naturally from considerations of gravitation. This paper describes a derivation of linearized general relativity based upon the hypotheses of special covariance and the existence of a gravitational potential. The gravitational field possesses gauge invariance given by a second-order covariant derivative defining an associated differential geometry. The concepts of parallelism and parallel transport lead to string-like constructions.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Some physics notions with no mention of ID.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
posted 07. March 2007 15:49      Profile for Moderator   Email Moderator   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post  The Evolutionary Gospel According to Sean B. Carroll
A Review of Sean B. Carroll’s The Making of the Fittest: DNA and the Ultimate Forensic Record of Evolution (W.W. Norton, 2006).

by Casey Luskin

Summary: Sean B. Carroll’s book The Making of the Fittest: DNA and the Ultimate Forensic Record of Evolution makes large promises but fails to delivers. He claims that science will remove “any doubt” about evolution, and he hopes his scare-tactics about a coming environmental apocalypse will convince people to just accept evolution and save the planet. As a conservationist myself, I don’t need, as Carroll taunts me, to “accept evolution or you won’t ‘think at all’” in order to understand the importance of conserving our natural resources.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Another book review, and probably an awful one, considering the author.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
posted 21. May 2007 11:08      Profile for Moderator   Email Moderator   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post  Objects of Thought, Thoughts of Objects?
From object-orientation to Process Physics

by Jeroen B.J. van Dijk

Abstract: To resolve the current impasse between realistic and anti-realistic thought, I‘d like to explore their latent neurocognitive origin. Since our brain’s self-referential neurocognitive mechanisms generate neural and mental patterns that ultimately pose as object-oriented units, they predetermine our mental modelling of reality, thus usually making us firmly believe that reality is ultimately object-based. This firm belief is the actual instigator of the strict, but imaginary boundary between physical and mental reality. By discussing self-organizing selectionist threshold models of complex systems, I will illustrate an alternative for the traditional object-oriented realistic and antirealistic schemes: process-oriented reflexive monism, which facilitates a framework for consciousness based on complexity science and is compatible with the recently developed pioneering paradigm of Process Physics. Moreover, an evolutionary account of an autopoietic (i.e., self-creating) natural universe is presented which is fully compatible with the pioneering paradigm of Process Physics.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



And some jargony bullshit.

That's it. That's all the revolutionary ID research submitted to the premiere ID journal in 2007, and not even published.

Kevin, I know this might be hard to understand, but do you realize that scientific revolutionaries are supposed to at least do some science? Do you understand that's kind of an important part of a scientific revolution? Possibly an even more important one than press releases and propaganda movies?
Posted by: stevestory on Feb. 27 2008,03:52



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
"I also don’t think that there is really a theory of intelligent design at the present time to propose as a comparable alternative to the Darwinian theory, which is, whatever errors it might contain, a fully worked out scheme. There is no intelligent design theory that’s comparable. Working out a positive theory is the job of the scientific people that we have affiliated with the movement. Some of them are quite convinced that it’s doable, but that’s for them to prove…No product is ready for competition in the educational world."

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


-"Father of Intelligent Design" Philip Johnson, Spring 2006

Number of ID 'papers' published in the ID journal since Spring 2006: 0

Number of ID 'textbooks' his fellow IDers have written for the educational world anyway since Spring 2006: 2

Number of ID 'documentaries' Kevin helped write for the educational world anyway since Spring 2006: 1


Posted by: CeilingCat on Feb. 27 2008,04:09

Quote (Richardthughes @ Feb. 26 2008,16:46)
Is this P-A-R-O-D-Y?

< http://www.benstein4president.com/ >

(from "expelled"). Is he connect with reality at *any* level?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Short answer: No.  Long answer: He might get his chance yet, what with McCain showing all the signs of going into a death spiral ... surely Ben would make a good vice presidential choice.  His battyness on evolution complements McCain's battyness on Iraq quite nicely.  Besides, America is obviously pining for a former Nixon speech writer in the White House or at least in the Naval Observatory grounds.
Posted by: Cubist on Feb. 27 2008,04:45

One question (well, maybe two questions, since it's a compound) for Kevin:
What is the scientific theory of Intelligent Design, and how can this theory be tested with the scientific method?
Now, I wouldn't really expect you to know the answer to that, Kevin. The trouble is, nobody else in the ID movement seems to know, either! "There's a Designer -- but we can't say anything about Him. Or Her, or It, or Them, as the case may be. And we can't say anything about what He did, or why He did it, or what tools He used to do whatever the heck He did, or when He did it. In fact, we can't really say much of anything about the Intelligent Designer, other than the fact that He is both 'Intelligent' and a 'Designer'. We do know that His Designs are wonderfully good -- except, of course, for those of His Designs which appear to be lousy, which only go to show that we can't actually tell whether or not His Designs are good."
Now, you may object that ID isn't as gee-I-dunno-vacuous as I've painted it up to be here; you may even want to argue that I've horribly misrepresented ID. Well, maybe I have -- but if I have, indeed, misrepresented ID... how have I misrepresented it?
For instance: Does ID say anything about how the Designer did His thing? If it doesn't, then "we can't say anything about how the Designer did it" is an accurate portrayal of ID. And the same goes for the rest of my portrayal of ID.
So, once again:
What is the scientific theory of Intelligent Design, and how can this theory be tested with the scientific method?
If ID ain't got that, it ain't got nothing whatsoever.
Posted by: Wesley R. Elsberry on Feb. 27 2008,06:57

That's got a < history >.
Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on Feb. 27 2008,08:46



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
The trouble is, nobody else in the ID movement seems to know, either!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Cubist, I'd say that they do know.  And I'd agree with them partway (separating for the moment the messengers).  If you take what some of these demonstrated liars say at face value, their claim is that sometimes we can analytically deduce some property of some features of some objects as being 'designed' by some agents.  That at least is an objective claim, and one that is testable.   And surely it is nothing new, as it's the same logic that bears use to find yaller jacket nests.  This is not controversial, and it never has been (except that even at this basal level, they have never never substantiated even the mildest form of this claim that design is detectable).

Even at this first approximation, however, it's troubling to recognize the fact that many of the definitions of these terms and concepts IDists use to communicate this notion are, at the very least, not used in any sort of vernacular sense and in some ways completely opposite to other working prior definitions.  They made up a tard-language to obfuscate some of the fuzzy logic and quivering mathematics.  

First sleight of hand:   least as far as I can peer through the murky pool of thick gloppy* tard that has obscured the mechanics of this logical system, some agents are defined as 'intelligent', which then surreptitiously imports secondary meaning from all sorts of feel-good affirmation self-esteem cultural and metaphysical legacies.  One of those in particular is the ontological argument from intelligence and the eternal regress of where did intelligence come from.  This, we know, is tard, and has been properly recognized as self delusional wish fulfillment at least since Kant and undoubtedly longer.  It is an intractable morass resulting from improperly defined concepts**.

Even if I might be more charitable and grant that ID can legitimately deduce whether or not an object is designed, and while I am being charitable I will grant their definitions of all those terms.  Ok, you proved*** something is designed.  Now what?

Watch closely.

This means that anything possessing those characters that keyed out to 'design' is also 'designed'.  This could be peanut butter sandwiches, or scratches on a rock, or the precise position of the earth in relation to the moon sun galaxy etc, the blagella on a fracterium, the way that blood clots to the way that blood splatters from chicken gut oracles.  

Who designed those things?  

Jeeeesus.  

It can be hard to see where the science stopped and the stupid began.  Thank Mithra for folks like Wes and Jeff Shalitt and PZ and Ken Miller and Barbara Forrest and Nick Matzke and ERV and Lenny Flank.  They have exposed the greased palm groping underneath the skirts of reason.

What is amazing is that even though it's plain that ID is a non-starter from science, Kevin, your objective is to push for it anyway.  Whether or not it is science, it validates your beliefs and by your manichean logic anything that does not affirm your beliefs is attacking your beliefs and as a free citizen with religious freedom you have the right to have your beliefs affirmed in the public square and not not-validated in the public square hence the big stink about academic freedom and religious freedom when really all that it has ever been is the freedom to be as stupid as you can possibly be.  That, and follow a prescribed agenda by political and religious figures and be good little brownshirts.  Which are you, Kevin?  Are you a leader or a follower in this religious Scientific Renewal Revolution?

*  Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm?  Kev did you interview Galapagos Finch for Crossroads Expelled?  Do tell.

**  Formal logic does not work with propositions forged from jello and peppered with leavings from the Sandman.

***  Proved.  That is another huge problem with all of the ID issue.  Since IC and the EF are an argument from gaps, and science always leaves the door open to disproof, you and your fellow travelers have managed to squeeze a child's foot into the door.  Shame on you.  

Bad Tard, Kevin.  Bad Bad Bad Bad Bad Bad Bad Tard.  You seem like a nice guy.  Why do this?
Posted by: Kristine on Feb. 27 2008,09:48

Kevin pulled an Ftk and blew long ago. He won't be back. *yawn*

They've had a < security breech [sic] >.
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
We already had our first security breech [sic] and are asking YOU now for your support to stand up for EXPELLED: No Intelligence Allowed. Hosted by Ben Stein, EXPELLED contains a critical message at a critical time. As an underdog in Hollywood right now, we need your support.

Recently Robert Moore, a film critic from The Orlando Sentinel pretending to be a minister, snuck into a private screening, did not sign a Non-Disclosure Agreement, and criticized the film the next day in his article.

Moore compared Stein, who is Jewish, to Holocaust Deniers [as I did on this thread] and charge[d] [Jesus, can these people spell?] that Stein's linking of Darwinism to the Holocaust was "despicable." Stein states, "The only thing I find despicable is when reporters sneak into screenings by pretending to be ministers. This is a new low even for liberal reporters."
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Yeah, how dare we film reviewers answer e-mail invitations. Teh idea. :p
Posted by: Paul Flocken on Feb. 27 2008,09:56

When marketers want to publicize movies they want the public to go see, don't they usually, well, invite critics?  When I hear that a movie was not screened it always means they have a dud on their hands and they dont want people to know it.  I wonder how many non-disclosure agreements Lucas forced people to sign before watching the original StarWars?
Posted by: Richardthughes on Feb. 27 2008,09:59

Quote (Kristine @ Feb. 27 2008,09:48)
Kevin pulled an Ftk and blew long ago. He won't be back. *yawn*

They've had a < security breech [sic] >.
   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
We already had our first security breech [sic] and are asking YOU now for your support to stand up for EXPELLED: No Intelligence Allowed. Hosted by Ben Stein, EXPELLED contains a critical message at a critical time. As an underdog in Hollywood right now, we need your support.

Recently Robert Moore, a film critic from The Orlando Sentinel pretending to be a minister, snuck into a private screening, did not sign a Non-Disclosure Agreement, and criticized the film the next day in his article.

Moore compared Stein, who is Jewish, to Holocaust Deniers [as I did on this thread] and charge[d] [Jesus, can these people spell?] that Stein's linking of Darwinism to the Holocaust was "despicable." Stein states, "The only thing I find despicable is when reporters sneak into screenings by pretending to be ministers. This is a new low even for liberal reporters."
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Yeah, how dare we film reviewers answer e-mail invitations. Teh idea. :p
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


They are targeting ministers and making them sign NDAs?

All science so far!!!

Odious tards.
Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on Feb. 27 2008,09:59

Paul, they know this P.O.S. is a dud.  They need to spin that the Darwinismus is why it is a dud, not that it is a piece of crap written by washed up doublethinkers like Kevin.

No-lose, really.  Somehow it is a hit (who knows, all kinds of dumb shit at the box office), yayyy ID.  Timely message, etc.  More likely it flunks, it is because it was expelled by the E.A.C.  Brilliant!

Kevin, have you read Teh Prince?
Posted by: factician on Feb. 27 2008,10:30

[quote=Albatrossity2,Feb. 26 2008,17:17]
Quote (kevinmillerxi @ Feb. 26 2008,15:06)

On this board, there are several card-carrying practicing biologists, including Wesley Elsberry, with whom you have already interacted. It won't hurt to listen to some of what they have to say, rather than claim persecution.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


*holds up card*

Feel free to contact me if you like.  I'm a card-carrying, publishing, experimenting scientist.

edited to add:  Kevin?  Kevin?  Bueller?
Posted by: kevinmillerxi on Feb. 27 2008,10:40

Okay, here’s a question with an unfortunately long lead-up: The way I see it, one reason ID is so controversial is that it argues mind precedes matter in the form of a creative intelligence; whereas classic evolutionary theory says that mind is a product of matter. Intelligence is one of the last things to appear on the scene.

But when confronted with the question of how life began, many evolutionary theorists allow that perhaps Panspermia had something to do with it. This theory is broadly accepted as a scientific possibility even though it also posits that mind came first and matter—at least the highly organized arrangements of matter we call living things—second.

So my question is, why is one theory so controversial and the other not? What if you stripped away all of the religious and political baggage from ID? Would the theory be more acceptible then? And wouldn’t ID and Panspermia become nearly indistinguishable? After all, both argue that perhaps the best possibility for explaining how life began is a higher intelligence that seeded it on earth. We can argue all day about what the nature of that intelligence really is. But that’s beside the main point: Do we need intelligence to explain things like the origin and diversity of life or not? Classical evolution says no, ID and Panspermia say yes. Two different answers to the same question. I fail to see how one answer is scientific and the other not. That being said, I’m sure someone is going to go off about the scientific method and how the IDers aren’t serious scientists, that they’re a bunch of liars, etc. But once again, that’s beside the point. Never mind their methods or their ethics. Is the question the ID community is asking scientific or not?
Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on Feb. 27 2008,10:44

What's evolution got to do with how life began, exactly?
Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on Feb. 27 2008,10:46

Quote (kevinmillerxi @ Feb. 27 2008,10:40)
So my question is, why is one theory so controversial and the other not?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


One "theory" is useful.

The other "theory" has not proved it's usefulness and as such cannot legitimately be called a theory. There are several steps below "theory".

If there is a "theory" of ID, just like there is a "theory" of gravity what URL does it live at please and what predictions does it make?
Posted by: kevinmillerxi on Feb. 27 2008,10:46

You're dodging the question, oldman. You know as well as I do that evolutionary theory is supposed to explain the origin AND diversity of life. How about attempting a serious answer?
Posted by: kevinmillerxi on Feb. 27 2008,10:48

How has the theory of Panspermia proved its usefulness?
Posted by: kevinmillerxi on Feb. 27 2008,10:49

BTW: You're also shifting your ground. First you said evolutionary theory has nothing to say about the origin of life and then you turn around and say the theory of Panspermia is useful. Which is it?
Posted by: Albatrossity2 on Feb. 27 2008,10:50

Quote (kevinmillerxi @ Feb. 27 2008,10:40)
So my question is, why is one theory so controversial and the other not?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Because one is consistent with current evidence and the other is evidence-free and seems to be untestable.

I'll note that you evaded the real question by asking another. That is a hallmark of the ID crowd, and will never lead to a genuinely useful discussion. So here's the question again.

What is the scientific theory of Intelligent Design, and how can this theory be tested with the scientific method?
Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on Feb. 27 2008,10:50

Quote (kevinmillerxi @ Feb. 27 2008,10:49)
BTW: You're also shifting your ground. First you said evolutionary theory has nothing to say about the origin of life and then you turn around and say the theory of Panspermia is useful. Which is it?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Apologies. My mistake. Thought we were talking about ID and evolution.
Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on Feb. 27 2008,10:53

Quote (kevinmillerxi @ Feb. 27 2008,10:46)
You're dodging the question, oldman. You know as well as I do that evolutionary theory is supposed to explain the origin AND diversity of life. How about attempting a serious answer?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Is it supposed to?
I always understood them to be 2 separate things.

Knowing the exact origin of life I don't believe is a prerequisite to evolution being able to explain diversity.

What difference do you think it would make to current evolutionary theory if we discovered that

a) Life arose via natural processes
b) Life was planted here by aliens that themselves arose via natural processes
c) Life was planted by a god.

What would change in the current understanding?
Posted by: kevinmillerxi on Feb. 27 2008,10:54

Albatrossity: How is Panspermia consistent with the evidence? And exactly what evidence are you talking about? As for what the real question is, I'm accepting Mr. Christopher's invitation to ask questions today rather than answering them. As for your question, if you were really serious about finding an answer, a five-minute web search would give you more than enough information.

Oldman: You're dodging the question again. Is the question the IDers are asking scientific or not?
Posted by: carlsonjok on Feb. 27 2008,10:56

Quote (kevinmillerxi @ Feb. 27 2008,10:48)
How has the theory of Panspermia proved its usefulness?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


They aren't saying that.

Oldman and Albie are assuming the comparison is between evolution and ID.

You are assuming the comparison is between panspermia and ID.

You are talking about different things.
Posted by: improvius on Feb. 27 2008,10:57

Panspermia does not exclude abiogenesis.
Posted by: Joy on Feb. 27 2008,11:03

This circus reminds me of what happened when Bobcat Goldthwait's "Shakes the Clown" was released. The COA, ISCA, SECA and all real or carpet clowns they could possibly enlist (yes, including the Shriners) set out to march in protest (in full dress dread complete with rubber noses and size 47 shoes). Seems they didn't much like the movie's sex, drugs, and rock 'n roll themes.

Which of course served to bring mass numbers of regular citizens and all their children right to the very door of the theater showing "Shakes," so they could watch the funny clown protest parade. Then most of 'em went on in to see the movie. Which, in case anyone missed it, is probably the funniest clown movie ever made. Just something about drunk, stoned, off-duty clowns stumbling out of the bar at 2 a.m. and piling into polka-dotted mini cars to drive home... or an impromptu mad rumble in the park, clowns vs. mimes ["Say uncle!"]...

Through it all (including Bad to the Bone clown make-over in a gas station bathroom on the way to the gig after a bizarre one night stand with Florence Henderson), Shakes proves again and again that he's the best clown ever. The movie did quite well at the box office thanks to all the free publicity the clown associations donated to the cause.

For "Expelled" I can't decide whether Stein's a Goldthwait-level marketing genius playing you all for free promo, or if you're on the kickback payroll. Either way it strikes me quite humorous. A whole heck of a lot more predictable (thus mostly ignore-able) than the "Shakes" spectacle, but semi-amusing in places just the same.
Posted by: kevinmillerxi on Feb. 27 2008,11:03

"Is it supposed to?
I always understood them to be 2 separate things." (Sorry, haven't figured out the quote function yet.)

From reading people like Dawkins, Dennett, Stenger, Darwin, and others, evolutionary theory most definitely includes the origin and diversity of life.

I think you ask a very telling question here: What difference does the origin of life make to current evolutionary theory about the diversity of life? (I'm summarizing.) There are two ways to answer that question. First, if it makes no difference (as you seem to be saying) then what's all the fuss about ID? Second, I think it would make a huge difference. If we look at a cancer cell as nothing but a highly successful Darwinian accident, that assumption will affect how we attempt to combat it. But if we can assume it was designed, we can reverse-engineer the cancer cell and potentially develop much more effective ways of defeating it's internal programming. Not the best example, perhaps, b/c I'm sure someone is going to turn around and say, "How could a good God design cancer?" But that's a philosophical question about the nature of God, not a scientific one.
Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on Feb. 27 2008,11:03

Quote (kevinmillerxi @ Feb. 27 2008,10:54)
Oldman: You're dodging the question again. Is the question the IDers are asking scientific or not?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


The question might be scientific.


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Do we need intelligence to explain things like the origin and diversity of life or not?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Their methodology is not.

I personally don't believe intelligence is required for self-replicators to arise. There are a number of reasons for this which I'll be happy to go into, from a non-expert perspective. However, you have experts here so ask away.

Could you tell me what scientific methodology IDers are using to determine if intelligence was required for origin of life? I did not realize there was any ID researching going on into the origin of life. Could you please supply details?
Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on Feb. 27 2008,11:04



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
You know as well as I do that evolutionary theory is supposed to explain the origin AND diversity of life. How about attempting a serious answer?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Yes, I know this as well as you do.  And I know that it is false.  And so do you.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
The way I see it, one reason ID is so controversial is that it argues mind precedes matter in the form of a creative intelligence; whereas classic evolutionary theory says that mind is a product of matter. Intelligence is one of the last things to appear on the scene.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



This is where the science stops.  Nowhere does ID argue this.  ID, as a legitimate scientific enterprise I have outlined above* does not mention this at all.  News Flash:  NEITHER DOES CLASSIC EVOLUTIONARY THEORY.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
classic evolutionary theory says that mind is a product of matter
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Putting 'classic' in front of it doesn't mean it is any less a steaming pile of bullshit.  That is a classic obfuscation technique from creationists and other rhetorical artistes.

You might argue that this is a consequence of the predictions of some people's metaphysical opinions (ie eliminative materialism, and many variants) but they would freely agree with you.  And box your ears for reifying definitions.  

After all, it's your own fault for erecting some mystical concept that cannot be investigated (like mind).  You're just upset because no one is seeing your invisible friend and they are asking where did the little bastard go.

It is typical for small minds to expect a simple answer for everything.  'Intelligently designed is one such answer.  So is 'it's all random meaningless chance'. Your homework:  find someone on the good guys team who actually says this**.

Panspermia to hitler to stalin to academic freedom.  But NEVER THE SCIENCE.

*  Note that this means I agree that a form of design detection could be in principle accomplished.  But has not.  Just hand waving from the agenda-tards.

**  good luck.
Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on Feb. 27 2008,11:05

Quote (kevinmillerxi @ Feb. 27 2008,11:03)
But if we can assume it was designed, we can reverse-engineer the cancer cell and potentially develop much more effective ways of defeating it's internal programming.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Very well. Then do you have any examples of how presuming design helps understand how do defeat such things?

Or are we still only at the talking about stage? No lab work as yet? If not, how long will it take?
Posted by: kevinmillerxi on Feb. 27 2008,11:05

I'm sorry these guys are confused, Carlsonjok, but if you go back to my original question, what I'm asking is, why is panspermia considered scientific and ID is not. I think I made it pretty clear there.
Posted by: ppb on Feb. 27 2008,11:06

Maybe I'm missing something, but panspermia does not say intelligence came before life.  It just posits that life may have started elsewhere first, like Mars, and come here via meteor, or comets, or some other means.  You can test these ideas by looking at meteorites or studying the chemistry on other bodies in the solar system.  

How do you test ID?  No one seems to be able to define it in a way that can be tested.
Posted by: kevinmillerxi on Feb. 27 2008,11:08

Erasmus: You can't be serious in saying evolutionary theory has nothing to say about the origin of life. Have you ever read "The Blind Watchmaker?" "Darwin's Dangerous Idea"?
Posted by: carlsonjok on Feb. 27 2008,11:10

Quote (kevinmillerxi @ Feb. 27 2008,11:05)
I'm sorry these guys are confused, Carlsonjok, but if you go back to my original question, what I'm asking is, why is panspermia considered scientific and ID is not. I think I made it pretty clear there.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Oh, it is a minor point with fault lying on both sides of the equation.  But never mind that.  To the extent that panspermia is a legitimate scientific question (and I am not necessarily convinced it is*), it would be so because it makes no untestable appeals to supernatural intervention.

* But what do I know? I am neither a professional scientist nor an atheist.  YMMV.
Posted by: kevinmillerxi on Feb. 27 2008,11:10

oldman said, "Very well. Then do you have any examples of how presuming design helps understand how do defeat such things? Or are we still only at the talking about stage? No lab work as yet? If not, how long will it take?"

I think this is a good question. Unfortunately, I'm not a scientist so I can't wheel out a stack of journal articles or anything like that. But I can say that several scientists we talked to in our film--especially cell biologists--are finding the assumption of design quite useful in their work. And I don't mean useful in terms of creating a grand explanation for life. Merely in their day to day lab work.
Posted by: kevinmillerxi on Feb. 27 2008,11:13

Carlsonjok said, "To the extent that panspermia is a legitimate scientific question (and I am not necessarily convinced it is*), it would be so because it makes no untestable appeals to supernatural intervention."

But neither does ID!

That's not to say people don't hijack the theory to extrapolate to some sort of supernatural intelligence. But as I said in the lead up to my question, the nature of the supposed intelligence is beside the point. The question is, do we need to posit some sort of intelligence for the origin of life or not? I've yet to hear anyone attempt a full frontal answer to that question.
Posted by: LawnBoy on Feb. 27 2008,11:18

Quote (kevinmillerxi @ Feb. 27 2008,11:05)
"why is panspermia considered scientific and ID is not"
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


There are a couple of things here.

1) Your premise is flawed.  You equate two ideas that you claim both rely on an external intelligence.  In fact, that reliance is only in ID.  Panspermia does not assume an outside intelligence at all.
2) Panspermia is just a hypothesis.  It hasn't been proved enough to be considered a theory.  Considering it a valid scientific hypothesis is acceptable.  Calling it a valid scientific theory wouldn't be acceptable.  Trying to use political means to force Panspermia to be taught in public schools as equivalent to real scientific theories would be even less acceptable.
Posted by: kevinmillerxi on Feb. 27 2008,11:20

Now we're getting somewhere. Thanks, Lawnboy. I'll concede your first point--sort of. Certain versions of Panspermia don't require an external intelligence, but others do. Apart from that though, I agree that the best Panspermia can ever be is a hypothesis, because it doesn't answer the ultimate question of how life originated in the universe, just how it originated on earth.

As to your second point, I'm trying to cut away the religious and political baggage attached to this issue and focus on the scientific questions.
Posted by: carlsonjok on Feb. 27 2008,11:21

Quote (kevinmillerxi @ Feb. 27 2008,11:13)
Carlsonjok said, "To the extent that panspermia is a legitimate scientific question (and I am not necessarily convinced it is*), it would be so because it makes no untestable appeals to supernatural intervention."

But neither does ID!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Certainly not in public, it doesn't.  What they say is that they can use tools to infer design in biological systems*.  But, when it comes to any type of questioning as to the identity, means, or motive of the designer, ID is mum.  So, basically, they infer design and call it a day.  Doesn't that strike you as rather....umm....incurious?

* That they say they can do so hasn't exactly incented them to actually do so in practice.  Here is < a link > to a discussion where Uncommon Descent contributor Salvador Cordova was asked to provide a working example of Dembski's Explanatory Filter as applied to a biological system.  Read it for yourself and see if he succeeded in doing so.
Posted by: Paul Flocken on Feb. 27 2008,11:23

Quote (kevinmillerxi @ Feb. 27 2008,11:08)
Erasmus: You can't be serious in saying evolutionary theory has nothing to say about the origin of life. Have you ever read "The Blind Watchmaker?" "Darwin's Dangerous Idea"?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Science has a great deal to say about the origin of life, and in particular that branch of Chemistry/Organic Chemistry known as < Abiogenesis > has a very great deal to say.  If chemists coopt the word evolution to refer to the chemical interactions that led to life ("chemical evolution"), that still does not mean that biological evolution has anything to say about abiogenesis.  It just means that the word evolution has an explanatory utility outside of biology.
Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on Feb. 27 2008,11:25

Hi kevin

Yes I have read blind watchmaker.  Richard Dawkin's personal metaphysical opinions should not be conflated with science.  I don't think he has this problem.  I do think that you guys have this problem.  You routinely misrepresent your religious presuppositions as empirical findings. Example:  'assuming' design helps scientists do X.  YOU HAVEN'T EVEN DESCRIBED WHAT DESIGN IS

This doesn't stop you guys from constructing a humongous marketing and political edifice upon this shifting sand where you refuse to go.
Posted by: sarion on Feb. 27 2008,11:25

Hi Kevin, I was following this thread and I noticed the nature of your posts. You seem to be a supporter of ID, however do not feel you can be expected to defend it, either saying you are not here to answer questions, or that you don`t know, but suggest that someone else does. However, you expect the others on the board to defend the theory of evolution by answering your questions on the subject.

Could you answer the, in my eyes, main question that has been posed of ID? It does not seem to me to be too much to ask.

What is the scientific theory of Intelligent Design, and how can this theory be tested with the scientific method?
Posted by: improvius on Feb. 27 2008,11:31

Kevin, is there any chance you're going to respond to the earlier comments on the Templeton Foundation?

Or the Holocaust?

Or "cdesign proponentsists"?

Or answer the question, "what is the scientific theory of Intelligent Design, and how can this theory be tested with the scientific method?"
Posted by: Richardthughes on Feb. 27 2008,11:32

Quote (kevinmillerxi @ Feb. 27 2008,11:05)
I'm sorry these guys are confused, Carlsonjok, but if you go back to my original question, what I'm asking is, why is panspermia considered scientific and ID is not. I think I made it pretty clear there.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


For panspermia, people may offer mechanisms. "Design" is not a mechanism. You cannot test for it.
Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on Feb. 27 2008,11:51

Quote (kevinmillerxi @ Feb. 27 2008,11:10)
oldman said, "Very well. Then do you have any examples of how presuming design helps understand how do defeat such things? Or are we still only at the talking about stage? No lab work as yet? If not, how long will it take?"

I think this is a good question. Unfortunately, I'm not a scientist so I can't wheel out a stack of journal articles or anything like that. But I can say that several scientists we talked to in our film--especially cell biologists--are finding the assumption of design quite useful in their work. And I don't mean useful in terms of creating a grand explanation for life. Merely in their day to day lab work.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Of course the "assumption of design" is useful, because cells were designed.

We just disagree on what process designed them.

RM+NS, which I'm aware is not the totality of evolutionary theory, can be said to have "designed" cells. Evolution "designed" life.

If you find an organ in the body it's a reasonable assumption that it's "designed" to do something. Perhaps it's vestigial, perhaps not. Most likely not.

However, if we take that tack then everything is designed then ID "theory" says nothing in specific about anything at all.

Is there any biological life that in your opinion is not designed?
Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on Feb. 27 2008,11:55

wait a minute, old man, ain't DNA designed?

Seems like we can just stop there.
Posted by: Albatrossity2 on Feb. 27 2008,12:14

Quote (kevinmillerxi @ Feb. 27 2008,11:05)
I'm sorry these guys are confused, Carlsonjok, but if you go back to my original question, what I'm asking is, why is panspermia considered scientific and ID is not. I think I made it pretty clear there.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I'm not confused. Panspermia is a red herring. ID has set itself up as an alternative to evolutionary theory as an explanation for the diversity of life on this planet. The "conflict" in your movie is between ID and evolutionary theory. If you made a movie about panspermia, I missed the memo.

But you are dodging a question that was put to you several times. Here it is again.

What is the scientific theory of Intelligent Design, and how can this theory be tested with the scientific method?

(chirp chirp)
Posted by: millipj on Feb. 27 2008,12:25

Quote (kevinmillerxi @ Feb. 27 2008,11:10)
But I can say that several scientists we talked to in our film--especially cell biologists--are finding the assumption of design quite useful in their work. And I don't mean useful in terms of creating a grand explanation for life. Merely in their day to day lab work.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Using an assumption of design is not the same as thinking that they (cells) were designed. To pretend that it does shows a misunderstanding of how most scientists work.

I work as a chemist. For much of my day-to-day job I can use a simple "ball and stick" model of how a molecule behaves. I can treat electrons as charges on the atoms.

When I need to consider how a molecule bonds to a surface I use a different model involving electrons filling bonding and anti-bonding molecular orbitals.

However, I know that these are both merely useful approximations but that neither of these models is a correct representation of the molecule as described by quantum mechanics.
Posted by: Kristine on Feb. 27 2008,12:34

Quote (Paul Flocken @ Feb. 27 2008,08:56)
When marketers want to publicize movies they want the public to go see, don't they usually, well, invite critics?  When I hear that a movie was not screened it always means they have a dud on their hands and they dont want people to know it.  I wonder how many non-disclosure agreements Lucas forced people to sign before watching the original StarWars?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


In my professional experience, they are so eager for reviewers that they
1) Will let in anyone who says they’re a reviewer from such-n-such rag/paper (although I have never actually tried this, of course - I have ethics)
2) Give out free tickets to the public
3) Throw t-shirts at the crowd
4) Distribute press packets

Actually, non-disclosure agreements do have precedent – such as the secret audience preview of Gone with the Wind. However, I think that was verbal, simply to not reveal the plot, etc.
Posted by: JAM on Feb. 27 2008,12:56

Quote (kevinmillerxi @ Feb. 27 2008,11:05)
I'm sorry these guys are confused, Carlsonjok, but if you go back to my original question, what I'm asking is, why is panspermia considered scientific and ID is not. I think I made it pretty clear there.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Kevin,

Go back to my post here:

< http://www.antievolution.org/cgi-bin....ry98561 >

It explains the vast differences between ID and real science.

Please stop fudging basic scientific concepts. Here are some examples:

Hypotheses:
abiogenesis (multiple, actively being tested)
prions in 1982
panspermia (multiple, not much activity)
ID (but only if they offer testable predictions; your comrades are afraid to test any of them)

Theories:
evolution (massive number of successful empirical predictions)
prion (since ~1995, as a result of hundreds of successful empirical predictions)

Do you get the basic picture, or are you being dishonest?
Posted by: Doc Bill on Feb. 27 2008,13:00

Kevin is not a scientist nor does he play one on TV.  However, he is a writer who contributed to the soon-to-be blockbuster, Expelled!

So, Kevin is in an excellent position to tell us specifically who was expelled from what.  Expelled! is about expelling, not panspermia.  Let's get back to the explanations of the expellations.

Start with Sternberg since we're all very familiar with that piece of history.

From what was Sternberg expelled and by whom?

After Sternberg, Kevin, please regale us with Behe's heart-rending story.

Thanks.
Posted by: tacitus on Feb. 27 2008,13:06

I have never heard any serious scientist associate the hypothesis of panspermia with that of an alien intelligence seeding life on Earth.  I am sure the possibility has been discussed, but there is no serious scientific effort to develop the idea of panspermia along those lines, and certainly nobody is arguing that it should be taught in science class in high school.  Even the fans of panspermia accept this as the correct approach to take.

But panspermia is certainly a legitimate scientific hypothesis when it comes to the idea that simple lifeforms (that evolved elsewhere) may be able to survive the hardship of space for some long period of time.  Discoveries of extremeophiles here on Earth and the possibility of bacteria and other single cell organisms surviving on space-born missions are just two areas of related research (that already bear fruit).

It may not be much more than an interesting hypothesis (and it may well be wrong), but panspermia has already contributed to the scientific debate on the origins of life (but not evolution).  That is in stark contrast to ID, which has had no bearing on the scientific debate (as opposed to the political debate) at all.

So, Kevin, while in theory panspermia may hold out the tiniest of chances that alien intelligence was the agency of life on Earth it is no more likely than, say, aliens were responsible for carving the Face on Mars.  You can't rule it out completely but there is no useful scientific value to researching into it.  In fact, unless an alien species turns up on Earth's doorstep and to claim us as their own, there is no avenue of scientific research available. (And if those aliens do show up, it might be a victory for IDists, but they would be royally pissed off with the identity of the designer :) )

In that way, panspermia it is precisely like ID.  As soon as you invoke an intelligent agency, you leave the realm of science and into the realm of religion or fantasy or science fiction.  Conflating those two realms over the idea of panspermia is no help in making the case for ID as science. In fact, it proves the opposite.
Posted by: Wesley R. Elsberry on Feb. 27 2008,13:35

Kevin M.:

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------

From reading people like Dawkins, Dennett, Stenger, Darwin, and others, evolutionary theory most definitely includes the origin and diversity of life.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Nobody's disputing "diversity". What's at issue is abiogenesis and its relation to evolutionary science.

My understanding is that the processes identified by evolutionary science aren't limited to acting upon life-originated-by-abiogenesis, and could be expected to produce the observed diversity of living organisms even if modifying life-originated-by-design. So far as understanding evolutionary science is concerned, abiogenesis is a big "don't-care" term. (Though I should note that if Kevin ever came within ten yards of Andrew Ellington, any argument Kevin would care to make on the topic of abiogenesis would be shredded in seconds.)

Now, if Kevin is claiming to be able to demonstrate an obligate dependence of evolutionary science upon abiogenesis and to base this upon consideration of the literature, it is his responsibility to share the supporting citations. Kevin seems to have overlooked doing that in his comment, but I'm sure he'll be by to rectify that shortly. Until then, though, I don't see a supported argument.

Still no response that I've seen on the main point as noted as pending at least since the 1997 DI conference: what would an ID hypothesis look like, and how would you test it?


Posted by: KimvdLinde on Feb. 27 2008,13:49

Quote (kevinmillerxi @ Feb. 27 2008,10:40)
<
So my question is, why is one theory so controversial and the other not? What if you stripped away all of the religious and political baggage from ID? Would the theory be more acceptible then? And wouldn’t ID and Panspermia become nearly indistinguishable? After all, both argue that perhaps the best possibility for explaining how life began is a higher intelligence that seeded it on earth. We can argue all day about what the nature of that intelligence really is. But that’s beside the main point: Do we need intelligence to explain things like the origin and diversity of life or not? Classical evolution says no, ID and Panspermia say yes. Two different answers to the same question. I fail to see how one answer is scientific and the other not. That being said, I’m sure someone is going to go off about the scientific method and how the IDers aren’t serious scientists, that they’re a bunch of liars, etc. But once again, that’s beside the point. Never mind their methods or their ethics. Is the question the ID community is asking scientific or not?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------




---------------------QUOTE-------------------
So my question is, why is one theory so controversial and the other not?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Because ID invokes a undefined non-materialistic source, while the other does not.


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
What if you stripped away all of the religious and political baggage from ID? Would the theory be more acceptible then?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


ID is not a theory, it is a hypothesis. If you would strip away the undefined intelligent source that explains everything, there is no hypothesis left.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
And wouldn’t ID and Panspermia become nearly indistinguishable?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


No, Panspermia is based on seeds of life being found in the universe, an it does not require an undefined non-materialistic intelligent designer. The causes for that can be very well purely materialistic, and as such, they differ in a key aspect, the need for a undefined NON-materialistic entity.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Do we need intelligence to explain things like the origin and diversity of life or not?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Origin of life: Out of the ream for evolution.
Diversity of life: No.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Classical evolution says no, ID and Panspermia say yes. Two different answers to the same question. I fail to see how one answer is scientific and the other not.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Origin of life hypothesis and Panspermia are scientific as they are limited to what we can test and measure. ID invokes a non-materialistic intelligent designer, and as such is outside the realm of science.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
That being said, I’m sure someone is going to go off about the scientific method and how the IDers aren’t serious scientists, that they’re a bunch of liars, etc. But once again, that’s beside the point. Never mind their methods or their ethics. Is the question the ID community is asking scientific or not?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


No, invoking a non-materialistic source is not science.
Posted by: Albatrossity2 on Feb. 27 2008,13:52

Quote (kevinmillerxi @ Feb. 27 2008,11:13)
Carlsonjok said, "To the extent that panspermia is a legitimate scientific question (and I am not necessarily convinced it is*), it would be so because it makes no untestable appeals to supernatural intervention."

But neither does ID!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Nonsense.

Google "cdesignproponentsists" if your education is really that incomplete. ID has no arguments beyond recycled creationist arguments; IDists merely sanitize them for constitutional purposes. If they had scientific arguments, surely you would be able to answer the outstanding question on this thread.

What is the theory of intelligent design and how can it be tested scientifically?

Oh, and if you need more proof that religion is the core of ID argumentation, see this recent < drivel from Casey Luskin (spokesgerbil for the Dishonesty Institute), > documenting his fantasy dialogues with folks who understand reality a bit better than he does. Note that it only takes 7 steps to get to the core of the ID argument - "you guys are wrong because you are atheists."

All science so far...

ETA - HT, FtK
Posted by: KimvdLinde on Feb. 27 2008,13:57

Quote (kevinmillerxi @ Feb. 27 2008,11:03)
"Is it supposed to?
I always understood them to be 2 separate things." (Sorry, haven't figured out the quote function yet.)

From reading people like Dawkins, Dennett, Stenger, Darwin, and others, evolutionary theory most definitely includes the origin and diversity of life.

I think you ask a very telling question here: What difference does the origin of life make to current evolutionary theory about the diversity of life? (I'm summarizing.) There are two ways to answer that question. First, if it makes no difference (as you seem to be saying) then what's all the fuss about ID? Second, I think it would make a huge difference. If we look at a cancer cell as nothing but a highly successful Darwinian accident, that assumption will affect how we attempt to combat it. But if we can assume it was designed, we can reverse-engineer the cancer cell and potentially develop much more effective ways of defeating it's internal programming. Not the best example, perhaps, b/c I'm sure someone is going to turn around and say, "How could a good God design cancer?" But that's a philosophical question about the nature of God, not a scientific one.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------




---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I think you ask a very telling question here: What difference does the origin of life make to current evolutionary theory about the diversity of life?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Nothing.


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
There are two ways to answer that question. First, if it makes no difference (as you seem to be saying) then ered directly in how evolution was occurring. ID does not what's all the fuss about ID?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Because ID claims that during the long long evolutionary history of life in earth, the intelligent designer interfust claim that the first cell was made by God after which he did not interfere anymore.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Second, I think it would make a huge difference. If we look at a cancer cell as nothing but a highly successful Darwinian accident, that assumption will affect how we attempt to combat it. But if we can assume it was designed, we can reverse-engineer the cancer cell and potentially develop much more effective ways of defeating it's internal programming.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Well, you can unravel how things work whether they are designed or not, and that is exactly what molecular biologist etc do. As such, this is not something ID has anything to offer.
Posted by: KimvdLinde on Feb. 27 2008,14:03

Quote (kevinmillerxi @ Feb. 27 2008,11:13)
Carlsonjok said, "To the extent that panspermia is a legitimate scientific question (and I am not necessarily convinced it is*), it would be so because it makes no untestable appeals to supernatural intervention."

But neither does ID!

That's not to say people don't hijack the theory to extrapolate to some sort of supernatural intelligence. But as I said in the lead up to my question, the nature of the supposed intelligence is beside the point. The question is, do we need to posit some sort of intelligence for the origin of life or not? I've yet to hear anyone attempt a full frontal answer to that question.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------




---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Carlsonjok said, "To the extent that panspermia is a legitimate scientific question (and I am not necessarily convinced it is*), it would be so because it makes no untestable appeals to supernatural intervention."

But neither does ID!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Ok, now I am curious, WHAT does ID then require?
Posted by: slpage on Feb. 27 2008,14:13

Quote (kevinmillerxi @ Feb. 27 2008,10:49)
BTW: You're also shifting your ground. First you said evolutionary theory has nothing to say about the origin of life and then you turn around and say the theory of Panspermia is useful. Which is it?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Actually, panspermia subsumes the existence of life.
Posted by: tsig on Feb. 27 2008,14:14

Quote (jeannot @ Feb. 26 2008,16:03)
Quote (Richardthughes @ Feb. 26 2008,15:13)
Quote (kevinmillerxi @ Feb. 26 2008,15:08)
I won't shy away from explaining how social Darwinism and the science of eugenics--which was founded by Darwin's cousin Francis Galton as an attempt to apply Darwin's theory on a social level--were contributing factors to Hitler's views on race.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


My goodness.

(1) did he travel back in time to Sparta, as they culled the weak?
(2) Is it natural selection, *cough* "Darwinism" or artificial selection that mankind has known about through for example animal husbandry, for thousands of years?
(3) Is there any long debunked creationist canard you think we haven't heard?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


And more to the point, Kevin: science tells us how the world works, not how it ought to work.
Had Hitler worshipped Darwin's name in his book, that wouldn't falsify the theory of natural selection.

Is it so hard to understand?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


He wouldn't have killed 6 million of his best workers.
Posted by: tsig on Feb. 27 2008,14:17

Quote (Richardthughes @ Feb. 26 2008,16:23)
Oh, Welcome Pharyngulans!

*waves*

PS KRISTINE HARTLEY IS TEH WITCH.  :angry:
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Have broom will travel
Posted by: rpenner on Feb. 27 2008,14:23

Quote (kevinmillerxi @ Feb. 27 2008,10:40)
The way I see it, one reason ID is so controversial is that it argues mind precedes matter in the form of a creative intelligence;
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Does ID propose that one or more creative minds existed before matter? (Christian, Islamic, Classical Greek, etc.) Creationism asserts that, but for a scientific theory to assert that as a postulate, at a minimum it has to be written down. No one, not even Philip E. Johnson has seen it written down.

How many minds are we talking about? (Malaria and ID, parasitic wasps and ID imply the hypothetical mind(s) is/are not at all concerned with human or other suffering.)

Define intelligence. Should we expect to be able to infer anything about the level of this intelligence and its goals from the human eye having a blind spot, and the octopus eye not having a blind spot? Or what about the proximity of esophagus and trachea causing us to be able to choke to death on small things?

Define creative? What is the manner and operation of this creative power of this matterless mind? What signature does it leave behind?

What is the motivation for ID? What empirical basis even suggests that this creative intelligence exists or existed? Gravity, human evolution, and electromagnetism had hundreds of years of empirical evidence whose generalization resulted in the first theories.
 
Quote (kevinmillerxi @ Feb. 27 2008,10:40)
whereas classic evolutionary theory says that mind is a product of matter.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

I dispute this. Observation shows that non-human intelligence is associated in certain patterned material systems (rats in mazes, problem-solving crows, signing apes, to a very limited extent computers). In all known cases, allowing what amounts to surgical insertion for the largest cases, 100 grams of Semtex is sufficient to disrupt these patterns in matter such that the intelligence is damaged or rendered unavailable. Therefore the generalization which all science subscribes to is that intelligence requires patterns in matter. Obviously, demonstrating that this generalization is wrong would be world-wide news, but it is a necessary prerequisite to the postulate that such a non-material agent is actually responsible for human evolution.    
Quote (kevinmillerxi @ Feb. 27 2008,10:40)
Intelligence is one of the last things to appear on the scene.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

According to the paleontological history of Earth, which is distinct from evolution, intelligence on Earth nearly certainly began in or before the Cambrian period. But if you mean ISO committees, KISS engineering rules, Baconian scientific methodology and it's successors, which is to say human-level intelligence, then you are probably correct. Can ID succeed if the hypothetical agent(s) cannot be demonstrated to have super-human intelligence? (For thousands of years, even without a comprehensive theory of heredity, humans have been evolving their livestock and food crops, but being a non-biologist, you probably think 250 gram potatoes and orange carrots are natural.) What are the attributes of the agent(s)?
 
Quote (kevinmillerxi @ Feb. 27 2008,10:40)
But when confronted with the question of how life began, many evolutionary theorists allow that perhaps Panspermia had something to do with it.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Correct. When there is no evidence, theoreticians invent more hypotheses and experimentalists look for more evidence. Panspermia (life on Earth started off world) can best be refuted by finding life off-planet and demonstrating it has low biochemical similarity to life on Earth.  
Quote (kevinmillerxi @ Feb. 27 2008,10:40)
This theory is broadly accepted as a scientific possibility
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Which is to say a hypothesis in an area where the experimentalists have very little hard data.  
Quote (kevinmillerxi @ Feb. 27 2008,10:40)
even though it also posits that mind came first and matter—at least the highly organized arrangements of matter we call living things—second.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

No it doesn't. It says life arose somewhere else in the first 10 billion years of the universe and spread to Earth. Matter came first.
 
Quote (kevinmillerxi @ Feb. 27 2008,10:40)
So my question is, why is one theory so controversial and the other not?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Neither is a theory. ID is controversial because it was intelligently designed by humans to replace the unconstitutional creation science which was intelligently designed to replace unconstitutional creationism. Panspermia is a hypothesis in an area where we are ignorant and may be strengthened or weakened if life is ever found on Mars or elsewhere in space.
 
Quote (kevinmillerxi @ Feb. 27 2008,10:40)
What if you stripped away all of the religious and political baggage from ID?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

It's a little unfair for you to propose this while showing your film around to groups of ministers and excluding the mainstream press. But what if DI would shut up and the makers of ID textbooks would at least wait until there was a testable theory of ID proposed instead of just recycling creationist textbooks?  
Quote (kevinmillerxi @ Feb. 27 2008,10:40)
Would the theory be more acceptible then?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Philip E. Johnson says there is no scientific theory.  
Quote (kevinmillerxi @ Feb. 27 2008,10:40)
And wouldn’t ID and Panspermia become nearly indistinguishable?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

I have already indicated tests which would, depending on outcome, strengthen or weaken the case for Panspermia. Please tell me if the same tests would strengthen or weaken ID? Would any tests weaken the case for ID? What is the theory of ID?  
Quote (kevinmillerxi @ Feb. 27 2008,10:40)
After all, both argue that perhaps the best possibility for explaining how life began is a higher intelligence that seeded it on earth.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Panspermia (generic) is not a "best argument" but one hypothesis of many. Panspermia (aliens did it) has far less support. Panspermia (aliens did it on purpose) has far less support. But if any of these were in fact true, they predict that there would be evidence to find to support the theory. If ID (a god did it) is true, would there be any evidence to find? Why did this agent wait 10 billion years? Does that imply the agent's creative powers have strict limits?  
Quote (kevinmillerxi @ Feb. 27 2008,10:40)
We can argue all day about what the nature of that intelligence really is.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

First you have to have a theory of ID. Then you can explore what the agent(s) can and cannot do. Then you can find evidence if the agent(s) actually exists/existed or if the biological evidence is consistent with the idea of even minimal intelligence. But such a theory of ID is not what is represented in the textbooks. The public face of ID is a story about human evolution, so talking about the origins of life and not the origins of species is a canard.  
Quote (kevinmillerxi @ Feb. 27 2008,10:40)
But that’s beside the main point: Do we need intelligence to explain things like the origin and diversity of life or not?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Yikes, you agreed with me.  
Quote (kevinmillerxi @ Feb. 27 2008,10:40)
Classical evolution says no, ID and Panspermia say yes.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Panspermia and empirical evidence, does say no about the diversity of life. The most discussed form of Panspermia says no about the origin of life.  
Quote (kevinmillerxi @ Feb. 27 2008,10:40)
Two different answers to the same question.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

As I noted above, you asked a complex question and failed to correctly describe Panspermia. Even in the case of Panspermia (aliens did it on purpose) or the very weak version of ID which you propose, human evolution is completely left up to naturalistic processes.  
Quote (kevinmillerxi @ Feb. 27 2008,10:40)
I fail to see how one answer is scientific and the other not.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Neither rises to the level of a scientific theory -- they are just proposed patches of guesses to cover a gap in human knowledge. They aren't comprehensive like a theory needs to be, and they make no claims which would potentially prove them wrong, which theories need to have.  
Quote (kevinmillerxi @ Feb. 27 2008,10:40)
That being said, I’m sure someone is going to go off about the scientific method and how the IDers aren’t serious scientists,
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Well they do seem to do everything ass-backwards.  
Quote (kevinmillerxi @ Feb. 27 2008,10:40)
that they’re a bunch of liars, etc.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

With respect to the DI, that is given.  
Quote (kevinmillerxi @ Feb. 27 2008,10:40)
But once again, that’s beside the point.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

For me, it is beside the point, since I don't appeal to their goodwill and authority. But you seem quite credulous of people who have said in court that if their ID is science then so is Astrology and Water Dousing.  
Quote (kevinmillerxi @ Feb. 27 2008,10:40)
Never mind their methods or their ethics.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Exclude the contents of the null set from consideration. Gotcha.  
Quote (kevinmillerxi @ Feb. 27 2008,10:40)
Is the question the ID community is asking scientific or not?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

What question are they asking? If you mean "Do we need intelligence to explain the origin of life on Earth?" then science is ignorant of that answer. Opinions vary, but in all cases the scientific opinion would shift on the basis of evidence. If you mean "Do we need intelligence to explain the pattern of diversity of life on Earth?" then the answer is strongly no. All ID completely fails to explain this pattern. If you mean "Do we need intelligence to explain human origins?" Then the answer is even more strongly no.

One of the tactics of the pseudoscientist, and we have a lot of them in this world, is that they thrive on ignorance while actual scientists pursue evidence. Pseudoscientists desire the respect of science and emulate its form, but tend to use garbled logic, obscure or made-up references and try to force their opponents to defend the cutting edge of knowledge. For ID we have seen them retreat from human origins to the Cambrian explosion to the origin of the Metazoans to the origin of life itself. Actual science drove them to the edges of human ignorance just like good money drives out bad currency in economic theory.
Posted by: Henry J on Feb. 27 2008,14:28

Quote (Paul Flocken @ Feb. 27 2008,08:56)
When marketers want to publicize movies they want the public to go see, don't they usually, well, invite critics?  When I hear that a movie was not screened it always means they have a dud on their hands and they dont want people to know it.  I wonder how many non-disclosure agreements Lucas forced people to sign before watching the original StarWars?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Use the farce, Ben!
Posted by: Kristine on Feb. 27 2008,14:38

Quote (tsig @ Feb. 27 2008,13:17)
Quote (Richardthughes @ Feb. 26 2008,16:23)
Oh, Welcome Pharyngulans!

*waves*

PS KRISTINE HARTLEY IS TEH WITCH.  :angry:
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Have broom will travel
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Jealous. Dawkins is a-comin’ to Our Town in March, so “Surrender ID,” it’s not in Kansas anymore.

RichHughes just loves a chick-a-broom, chick-a-broom. ;)
Posted by: tsig on Feb. 27 2008,15:00

Quote (stevestory @ Feb. 27 2008,02:20)
Kevin should get hot on the case of why the ID scientists were EXPELLED from < their own ID journal >. I mean, they must have been expelled, right, no doubt by some horrible Darwinist. Now that's a hell of a conspiracy we're running, infiltrating their own journal and rejecting all their revolutionary research.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


We just don't tell everyone about our plans. We are the NWO.

Now that you have went public watch out for cats.
Posted by: Ogee on Feb. 27 2008,15:04

Quote (kevinmillerxi @ Feb. 27 2008,11:20)
Apart from that though, I agree that the best Panspermia can ever be is a hypothesis, because it doesn't answer the ultimate question of how life originated in the universe, just how it originated on earth.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I guess we needn't ask whether you understand the distinction between hypothesis and theory.
Posted by: tsig on Feb. 27 2008,15:11

Quote (kevinmillerxi @ Feb. 27 2008,10:40)
Okay, here’s a question with an unfortunately long lead-up: The way I see it, one reason ID is so controversial is that it argues mind precedes matter in the form of a creative intelligence; whereas classic evolutionary theory says that mind is a product of matter. Intelligence is one of the last things to appear on the scene.

But when confronted with the question of how life began, many evolutionary theorists allow that perhaps Panspermia had something to do with it. This theory is broadly accepted as a scientific possibility even though it also posits that mind came first and matter—at least the highly organized arrangements of matter we call living things—second.

So my question is, why is one theory so controversial and the other not? What if you stripped away all of the religious and political baggage from ID? Would the theory be more acceptible then? And wouldn’t ID and Panspermia become nearly indistinguishable? After all, both argue that perhaps the best possibility for explaining how life began is a higher intelligence that seeded it on earth. We can argue all day about what the nature of that intelligence really is. But that’s beside the main point: Do we need intelligence to explain things like the origin and diversity of life or not? Classical evolution says no, ID and Panspermia say yes. Two different answers to the same question. I fail to see how one answer is scientific and the other not. That being said, I’m sure someone is going to go off about the scientific method and how the IDers aren’t serious scientists, that they’re a bunch of liars, etc. But once again, that’s beside the point. Never mind their methods or their ethics. Is the question the ID community is asking scientific or not?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


If you really want to know here's how it happened.

Two molecules were chemically attracted. They made a copy and here you are.

Replicators are a given in the right chemical environment.

Once there are replicators. Evolution.
Posted by: factician on Feb. 27 2008,15:18

Quote (kevinmillerxi @ Feb. 27 2008,12:08)
Erasmus: You can't be serious in saying evolutionary theory has nothing to say about the origin of life. Have you ever read "The Blind Watchmaker?" "Darwin's Dangerous Idea"?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I hope I can clarify for you.

The mistake you're making is that because scientists are interested in the origin of life, and because scientists generally think the theory of evolution is correct, that the theory of evolution speaks to the origin of life.  It does not, though these questions are related.

We're all interested in the origin of life (or many of us, anyway) but the theory of evolution doesn't even get started until the first replicating organism shows up on the scene.  How did this first replicating organism form?  That's an interesting question.

Panspermia doesn't even address the origin of life question (and please stop referring to it as the theory of panspermia - it hardly qualifies as a theory, more of a hypothesis with no data attached).  Panspermia addresses the origin of life on Earth.  It just moves the origin of life to another planet, and still leaves us the question of how life arose (on said other planet, galaxy, nebula, dark matter chunkoid, etc).  Intelligent design says that there's a Designer.  We don't know when, or where.  And please don't ask.  Oh, and He's pretty complicated.  And nothing came before Him.  But don't ask us how we know that.

But let's pretend for a moment that panspermia and intelligent design are equivalent.  I think they're both bs, but I can't prove that panspermia is bs.  It's just my personal prejudice.

Panspermia predicts several things that we can test experimentally.  1)  That life arose somewhere else, and we could find it somewhere else.  Okay, this one is difficult to detect, but NASA is ostensibly trying to ask this question by digging around on Mars with robots.  2)  That we might find life on asteroids.  3)  That the earliest life forms would be associated with periods of bombardment on Earth.  4) ???  These are what I can come up with off the top of my head.  I really don't spend a lot of time thinking about panspermia.

Intelligent design makes the prediction that:  1)  Things will be pretty complicated.  Except that evolution also makes the prediction that things will be complicated.  And how do you define complicated, anyway?  Cause it looks complicated?  So I guess that's not a really good predictor for intelligent design.  Well then, we have prediction number 1)  ???

Perhaps you can fill that in for me, Kevin?
Posted by: tsig on Feb. 27 2008,15:18

Quote (Kristine @ Feb. 27 2008,12:34)
Quote (Paul Flocken @ Feb. 27 2008,08:56)
When marketers want to publicize movies they want the public to go see, don't they usually, well, invite critics?  When I hear that a movie was not screened it always means they have a dud on their hands and they dont want people to know it.  I wonder how many non-disclosure agreements Lucas forced people to sign before watching the original StarWars?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


In my professional experience, they are so eager for reviewers that they
1) Will let in anyone who says they’re a reviewer from such-n-such rag/paper (although I have never actually tried this, of course - I have ethics)
2) Give out free tickets to the public
3) Throw t-shirts at the crowd
4) Distribute press packets

Actually, non-disclosure agreements do have precedent – such as the secret audience preview of Gone with the Wind. However, I think that was verbal, simply to not reveal the plot, etc.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


It was the ending.
Posted by: Stanton on Feb. 27 2008,15:40

Quote (carlsonjok @ Feb. 27 2008,11:10)

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Quote (kevinmillerxi @ Feb. 27 2008,11:05)
I'm sorry these guys are confused, Carlsonjok, but if you go back to my original question, what I'm asking is, why is panspermia considered scientific and ID is not. I think I made it pretty clear there.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Panspermia is regarded as a scientific hypothesis because it builds on the observed facts that a) water and organic molecules are found in outer space, b) spores of bacteria and fungi are capable of surviving intact in outer space-like conditions (whether or not they can remain viable has yet to be seen), and c) bacteria, fungi and other microorganisms are capable of living and thriving in Mars-like conditions, and then proposes that life, or certain lineages of organisms on Earth are descended from life and or organic molecules from outer space.

Panspermia can not progress beyond the hypothetical stage because no "alien" lifeform has been found and recognized with which to compare indigenous lifeforms with.

Intelligent Design proposes that, because biological systems are complicated, biological systems could not have appeared or evolved without the assistance of an "intelligent designer" that is beyond the scrutiny of mere mortal scientists.  Having said this, Intelligent Design proponents have been extremely hesitant to demonstrate how one can go about detecting "design."

Dembski alleges that his "Explanatory Filter" can detect design, but, he leaves very much to be desired, given as how he has never actually demonstrated how to detect design with his filter in a genuine organism.

Behe's idea of "irreducible complexity" has been repeatedly killed and butchered by the fact that all of the biological systems he labeled as being "irreducibly complex," including the vertebrate immune system, the blood-clotting cascade, and the eukaryote and bacterial flagella have all had their evolutionary histories discovered, as well as how the details of the mechanics of each system relate to related details in other biological systems, i.e., in that echinoderms have a similar immune system to chordates, or that the proteases used in blood clotting are the same proteases used in digestion, or even the documentation of the evolutionary history of the genes that produce the "antifreeze" glycoproteins in Antarctic icefish, or the appearance of the 2 versions of nylonase.

Then there is the fact that all Intelligent Design proponents have been extraordinarily hesitant in either explaining how Intelligent Design "theory" would help contribute to Science, or even how Intelligent Design "theory" is even science.
Posted by: Richardthughes on Feb. 27 2008,15:43

Quote (Stanton @ Feb. 27 2008,15:40)
[quote=carlsonjok,Feb. 27 2008,11:10][/quote]
Quote (kevinmillerxi @ Feb. 27 2008,11:05)
I'm sorry these guys are confused, Carlsonjok, but if you go back to my original question, what I'm asking is, why is panspermia considered scientific and ID is not. I think I made it pretty clear there.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Panspermia is regarded as a scientific hypothesis because it builds on the observed facts that a) water and organic molecules are found in outer space, b) spores of bacteria and fungi are capable of surviving intact in outer space-like conditions (whether or not they can remain viable has yet to be seen), and c) bacteria, fungi and other microorganisms are capable of living and thriving in Mars-like conditions, and then proposes that life, or certain lineages of organisms on Earth are descended from life and or organic molecules from outer space.

Panspermia can not progress beyond the hypothetical stage because no "alien" lifeform has been found and recognized with which to compare indigenous lifeforms with.

Intelligent Design proposes that, because biological systems are complicated, biological systems could not have appeared or evolved without the assistance of an "intelligent designer" that is beyond the scrutiny of mere mortal scientists.  Having said this, Intelligent Design proponents have been extremely hesitant to demonstrate how one can go about detecting "design."

Dembski alleges that his "Explanatory Filter" can detect design, but, he leaves very much to be desired, given as how he has never actually demonstrated how to detect design with his filter in a genuine organism.

Behe's idea of "irreducible complexity" has been repeatedly killed and butchered by the fact that all of the biological systems he labeled as being "irreducibly complex," including the vertebrate immune system, the blood-clotting cascade, and the eukaryote and bacterial flagella have all had their evolutionary histories discovered, as well as how the details of the mechanics of each system relate to related details in other biological systems, i.e., in that echinoderms have a similar immune system to chordates, or that the proteases used in blood clotting are the same proteases used in digestion, or even the documentation of the evolutionary history of the genes that produce the "antifreeze" glycoproteins in Antarctic icefish, or the appearance of the 2 versions of nylonase.

Then there is the fact that all Intelligent Design proponents have been extraordinarily hesitant in either explaining how Intelligent Design "theory" would help contribute to Science, or even how Intelligent Design "theory" is even science.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Welcome Stanton. Epic 1st post!
Posted by: Kristine on Feb. 27 2008,15:50

Quote (tsig @ Feb. 27 2008,14:18)
Quote (Kristine @ Feb. 27 2008,12:34)
 
Quote (Paul Flocken @ Feb. 27 2008,08:56)
When marketers want to publicize movies they want the public to go see, don't they usually, well, invite critics?  When I hear that a movie was not screened it always means they have a dud on their hands and they dont want people to know it.  I wonder how many non-disclosure agreements Lucas forced people to sign before watching the original StarWars?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


In my professional experience, they are so eager for reviewers that they
1) Will let in anyone who says they’re a reviewer from such-n-such rag/paper (although I have never actually tried this, of course - I have ethics)
2) Give out free tickets to the public
3) Throw t-shirts at the crowd
4) Distribute press packets

Actually, non-disclosure agreements do have precedent – such as the secret audience preview of Gone with the Wind. However, I think that was verbal, simply to not reveal the plot, etc.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


It was the ending.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


*Brightens* Okay, smarty-pants! It was not the ending – after all, everyone knew that (and really, the last line in the film is rather like an ID “prediction,” no?). It was the “will they-won’t they” say that other line.

Yes, that famous line, which could also express the audience’s attitude toward Expelled when it finally opens, the possibility of which hovers like a vulture over Stein’s anguish over losing his money, doesn’t it? :D
Posted by: Glen Davidson on Feb. 27 2008,16:19

I can't say that I have any desire to bother with Miller's droning cant (how many times have we heard the exact same mistakes?), but I thought there were a couple of somewhat interesting media remarks about Expelled.  And so, cross-posting plus modifying from Pharyngula, here:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
More Expelled news, and PZ ("Paul Zachary") mentioned again:

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Everybody's favorite dead-pan teacher and game show host, Ben Stein, is the face of a new documentary to be released this April called "Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed". It's ostensibly a movie about attacks on freedom of speech in today's hostile climate among scientists in academia, but on closer inspection it really seems to be a thinly veiled screed for Intelligent Design.

A quick search of the web provides the background: the production company for the film is the same that produced The Passion of the Christ; its CEO and one of the film's producers recently questioned the Godliness of the administration at Baylor University over an ID-related incident; and the producers used Stein as the narrator specifically because he wasn't "overtly religious."

What's perhaps most dangerous about the film is not that it works to present Intelligent Design as a legitimate scientific theory, but that it tries to tear down Darwinism by equating it with Social Darwinism and therefore eugenics and racism (and Nazis; see Godwin's law).

Professor Paul Zachary Myers at the University of Minnesota is one of the scientists interviewed for the film. He's recently been caught up in a blog exchange with the film's producers regarding this and other topics to do with the movie. Read the arguments and decide for yourself whether you'll see the film. You can find the producer's first post here followed by Myer's response, followed by the producer's response. So, what do you think? Will you watch "Expelled" when it hits theaters?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



< Popular Science's remarks about Expelled >

I couldn't have hoped for better comments from Popular Science than those.

Expelled is increasingly becoming known, but the stench from that shitpile is the introduction that most seem to get from the media.

Human Events tries to make the flexibility of scientists out to be a bad thing, due to the fact that they won't accept meaningless, evidence-free "hypotheses":

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
And, oh my God, scientists aren't opposed to "design," which supposedly is all that ID is about, they're simply opposed to "hypotheses" in science regarding magic beings who do something (we can't know what), at some time (we can't know when), for some purpose (which is undetectable), make life (we don't know why):

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
The responses are amazing, even if you think you know what to expect. It turns out some of the most hardened, doctrinaire anti-design zealots in the scientific establishment -- people such as Richard Dawkins, author of "The God Delusion" and consequently the de facto leader of the worldwide atheist movement -- aren't really opposed to the notion of design at all. They just can't accept God as the designer.

You will hear some of the world's most celebrated evolutionists admit design is possible -- just not by the hand of God.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



< The rest at Human Events >

And no, liar, we don't say that design by the hand of God is impossible, we say that it is impossible to come up with any evidence that this supposed God exists, or that any magical beings have interfered with the laws of physics.

IOW, your only complaint, Farah, is that scientists want to keep science operating by honest standards and methods.

Glen D

P.S. Bill Buckley has died. Whatever one thinks of him, it's sad that one of the last acts he'll be remembered as making is his laudatory praise for Berlinski's most recent dumb book.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Posted by: Reed on Feb. 27 2008,16:33

Quote (kevinmillerxi @ Feb. 27 2008,11:20)
Certain versions of Panspermia don't require an external intelligence, but others do. Apart from that though, I agree that the best Panspermia can ever be is a hypothesis, because it doesn't answer the ultimate question of how life originated in the universe, just how it originated on earth.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Aside from apparent confusion about what theory and hypothesis mean in science, you are making a couple of other fundamental errors.

1) Specific variants of the panspermia (or perhaps more properly exogenesis) hypothesis could be confirmed or disproven to a high degree of certainty. If we find life off Earth, there's a very good chance we could that figure out how it is related, if it all, to Earth life. Progress in understanding abiogenisis could also make the concept more or less attractive.

IOW, these hypotheses make testable predictions, and as such, are firmly in the realm of science. We don't have the data now, but as we explore the universe, we could find evidence. Until that time, panspermia/exogenesis will remain a speculative footnote. It's worth noting that no one is campaigning for the "panspermia controversy" to be taught in k-12 schools, and if there were, it the only proper reaction would be to reject it, since there is currently not enough data to warrant more than a passing mention if anything at all.

2) The panspermia hypothesis doesn't make any claim to explain < abiogenesis >,  the ultimate origin of life. To say that it can "never be more than a hypothesis" because of this is just nonsensical. Creationists like to make the same complaint against the "Theory of Evolution" but it similarly makes no such claim*. Neither explains gravity or star formation either, yet seems to care about how this might affect their credibility ;)

*One would expect chemical abiogenesis to have some very evolutionary qualities, but classical evolution doesn't depend on this about this.


/first post from a long time lurker
Posted by: Richardthughes on Feb. 27 2008,16:51

Welcome Reed. Looks like we've picked up a couple of stars today.



WHERE IS MY COMISSION?
Posted by: LawnBoy on Feb. 27 2008,17:19

Quote (kevinmillerxi @ Feb. 27 2008,11:20)
Apart from that though, I agree that the best Panspermia can ever be is a hypothesis, because it doesn't answer the ultimate question of how life originated in the universe, just how it originated on earth.

As to your second point, I'm trying to cut away the religious and political baggage attached to this issue and focus on the scientific questions.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------




---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I'll concede your first point--sort of. Certain versions of Panspermia don't require an external intelligence, but others do
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



That's true in a way, but it actually partially answers your questions.  There's an inverse correlation between how much a particular version of panspermia relies on external intelligence and how will respected that version is.  A version that says the precursors of life came and asteroid or a comet provide testability (we can look for forms of life in asteroids and comets), whereas a version that says that an intelligent alien colonized the earth gives us nothing testable.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Apart from that though, I agree that the best Panspermia can ever be is a hypothesis, because it doesn't answer the ultimate question of how life originated in the universe, just how it originated on earth.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



I can't quite agree.  It's possible that we will find evidence of life on asteroids or comets or Mars in a form very similar to what evidence says earliest life on Earth was like.  If that combined evidence were strong enough (and resolved correlation/causation issues), then panspermia could be considered a valid Scientific Theory of how life started on Earth.

However, it wouldn't answer the question of how life started in the universe - it just pushes the question of original creation of life back.  In that case, it would be a valid Theory for one problem and irrelevant to another problem.
Posted by: Copernic on Feb. 27 2008,17:33

Kevin, I'm glad you are choosing to stick around.  You no doubt can see a lot of folks are fairly irate about how they are being portrayed by the IDists.  I hope you take that to heart but still engage with us.

I'd like to point out that tacitus did a bang up job of putting the Panspermia issue to rest.  
Panspermia is not an alternative to biological evolution.  No working scientist, that I'm aware of, thinks it is.

In fact, if there was the slightest chance that microbes had seeded the earth from "out there" they still would succumb to biological evolution to create the forms we see today and throughout biological history.   Additionally, evolutionary forces would have played a part on their home world as well.  So, it is not an alternative to evolution but rather an idea as to how biological systems might migrate between ecosystems...nothing more.  There, that's done.

As for evolution saying something about the beginning of life, I understand your frustration.  You'll hear people saying it doesn't address it.  What they mean is that the "fact" of biological evolution doesn't address it....and what they mean by that is "genetic change over generations" or "change in allele frequency within populations over time" doesn't talk to the origin of life.

However, the Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection may say something about abiogenesis, in concept.

Within the  known operations of aquatic and organic chemistry, all you need is simple organic replicators, variations in stability, fecundity, concentration of and competition for available organics, etc.  Voila! simple life, and probably very different than what we'd recognize today.

Is abiogenic evolution a strong theory? No.  Is it tough to test?  Yes.  Is is logically consistant with science?  Yes.

Creation or ID is not a theory at all, is impossible to test, and is not logically consistant with science.

So, the concept of evolution does have something to say about abiogenesis and the scientists who are looking into it are using biological evolution (both fact and theory) as a tool kit to guide their own studies.

But, the "fact of biological evolution", by definition, says nothing about the beginning of life.    

J
Posted by: Lou FCD on Feb. 27 2008,17:37

Quote (Kristine @ Feb. 27 2008,16:50)
Yes, that famous line, which could also express the audience’s attitude toward Expelled when it finally opens, the possibility of which hovers like a vulture over Stein’s anguish over losing his money, doesn’t it? :D
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


"Frankly my dear, I won't give a dime"?
Posted by: Reed on Feb. 27 2008,17:57

A few questions I'd like to ask Kevin, related to the apparent belief there is a significant connection between Nazism/Stalinism and evolutionary theory:
1) Do you believe this perceived association affects the value or credibility of evolution as a scientific theory ?
2) Do you believe that other ideas used to justify these and similar atrocities should be rejected ?
2b) If yes to 2), should this rejection depend on the objective verifiability or usefulness of those ideas ?
3) Do you believe that if true, evolutionary theory provides an actual justification for the atrocities of the Nazis and Stalinists ?

I see a couple typos slipped into my earlier post, with no edit button in sight.
yet seems to should be yet no one seems to
and the final
about this is extraneous.
Posted by: abb3w on Feb. 27 2008,18:09

Quote (kevinmillerxi @ Feb. 25 2008,23:33)
As for being mystified by "my cause," my main interest in this project is the whole philosophy of science angle. How do we conceptualize science and its implications? How can we know that we know anything?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


1) The foundations of mathematics were established by the Principia Mathematica and Zermelo-Fraenkel set theory, even though rocked by Goedel. Mathematics is a branch of philosophy, however, which does not necessarily have any connection to reality; looking up the Banach-Tarski sphere dissection (a mathematical proof where people's initial response resembles exposure to the infamously NSFW "goatse" JPEG :O ) will convince most people of this.

2) Turing machines may be developed via ZF. They helped lead directly to Goedel's proof. Similarly, one may develop the basis for probability using ZF (although no-one in their right mind would work that way directly).

3) The Strong Church-Turing Universe Thesis says that the Universe has a formal level of < complexity > that is no greater than an ordinary Turing machine. While uncertain, no-one's figured out how to create a "hypercomputer" yet. If SCTUT holds,it provides an anchor between the  perfectable-as-possible ideal of mathematics and the solidity of the Real Universe.

4) The Wallace and Dowe paper "Minimum Message Length and Kolmogorov Complexity" and closely related Vitanyi and Li paper "Minimum description length induction, Bayesianism, and Kolmogorov complexity" (both findable in PS or PDF on-line) establish a mathematical basis for Occam's razor; informally, that the simplest explanation that encodes all the available data (to within the data's uncertainty) that is output by a Turing Machine, is the one most likely to correctly predict future results and "be correct," even if subject to later disproof.

Ergo, if the SCTUT holds, and ZF does not contradict itself, the WDVL theorems hold in the Real World, and the simplest encoding is most likely the "truth", and allows for as solid a foundation for "science" as can be obtained until someone falsifies ZF or SCTUT.

By representing the evidence from individual fossils and species, one may reduce the encoding size by describing the evolving transformations from one species to another, much as video codecs compress information from one frame to the next. Ergo, evolution is much more probable to be correct than creationism.

As for Intelligent Design, the existence of the additional element of the Designer adds to the length of the encoding, and is thus less probably correct. Additionally, I point those interested to George Basalla's "The Evolution of Technology," which persuasively argues that human Design is an evolutionary process (of variation, reproduction, and competitive selection.) Or, in other words, the reason biology looks like design, is because design is a special case of evolution.
Posted by: Doc Bill on Feb. 27 2008,18:18

If Kev won't answer a simple question like from what was Sternberg expelled and by whom, how can anyone expect him to engage in a discussion, even at a 6th grade level, on science?

Insane.

Further insanity is to turn Ben Stein loose to do interviews.  Stein said, and I quote, "Where did thermodynamics come from?"

What?  WTF what?

Yes, I understand the words but sense not do they make.

No wonder they're keeping this docu-travesty under wraps.  It's going to need a health warning:  exposure to this kind of nonsense may cause burns and severe nausea.
Posted by: Lou FCD on Feb. 27 2008,18:21

Quote (Reed @ Feb. 27 2008,18:57)
I see a couple typos slipped into my earlier post, with no edit button in sight.
yet seems to should be yet no one seems to
and the final
about this is extraneous.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


< Wesley has asked > that missing edit buttons be brought to his attention by PM, Reed.

Welcome to the board.
Posted by: Richard Simons on Feb. 27 2008,18:37

Quote (kevinmillerxi @ Feb. 27 2008,11:03)
I think you ask a very telling question here: What difference does the origin of life make to current evolutionary theory about the diversity of life? (I'm summarizing.) There are two ways to answer that question. First, if it makes no difference (as you seem to be saying) then what's all the fuss about ID?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


The fuss about ID is that it is an attempt to introduce religious, non-scientific notions into school science instruction. There is absolutely no scientific evidence to support it, there is no theory, no predictions and no possible way to refute the idea that a god or gods had a hand in developing the great variety of life on Earth. In short, it is a completely empty concept.

You imply that ID is only concerned with the origin of life on Earth. I suspect many supporters of the concept would strongly disagree with you although it is hard to sure because it is a subject on which they stifle discussion.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
If we look at a cancer cell as nothing but a highly successful Darwinian accident, that assumption will affect how we attempt to combat it. But if we can assume it was designed, we can reverse-engineer the cancer cell and potentially develop much more effective ways of defeating it's internal programming.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


This sounds like hand-waving to me. Can you give an example of the kind of 'reverse-engineering' you have in mind and explain why it would not be possible unless we accept that 'goddidit'?

Something that I've always wondered about in connection with 'Intelligent Design' is that designing a car, a building or a dress does not result in the car, building or dress just popping into existence. Someone has to actually make it. Can you tell me how IDers envision the implementation of any design process? Sprites pushing around bits of DNA, angels zapping nuclei or what?

But before you answer any of these questions, what is the Theory of Intelligent Design?
Posted by: qetzal on Feb. 27 2008,20:17

Let's remind ourselves and Kevin what the Discovery Institute says the "theory" of ID is < (link) >:

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection.

[T]he dominant theory of evolution today is neo-Darwinism, which contends that evolution is driven by natural selection acting on random mutations, an unpredictable and purposeless process that "has no discernable direction or goal, including survival of a species." (NABT Statement on Teaching Evolution). It is this specific claim made by neo-Darwinism that intelligent design theory directly challenges.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



In other words, Kevin, ID isn't just about where the universe came from, or even where the first life came from. ID claims that evolution cannot account for the current diversity of life, no matter where the first life form came from, and that an intelligence must have repeatedly intervened.

This claim is directly contrary to the actual evidence, which shows that evolution can account for existing diversity, existing biological complexity, etc.*

ID is like claiming that the first humans in North America must have been teleported here, because the existing explanations involving land bridges are impossible.

*Of course, the fact that evolution can account for biology is not proof that evolution does correctly account for biology, but that's beside the point here.
Posted by: Lou FCD on Feb. 27 2008,20:42

Quote (kevinmillerxi @ Feb. 27 2008,12:13)
Carlsonjok said, "To the extent that panspermia is a legitimate scientific question (and I am not necessarily convinced it is*), it would be so because it makes no untestable appeals to supernatural intervention."

But neither does ID!

That's not to say people don't hijack the theory to extrapolate to some sort of supernatural intelligence. But as I said in the lead up to my question, the nature of the supposed intelligence is beside the point. The question is, do we need to posit some sort of intelligence for the origin of life or not? I've yet to hear anyone attempt a full frontal answer to that question.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Oh come on.  Let's stop playing the disingenuous BS game of "We don't know anything about The Designer - it could be Space Aliens!!!11!!!"

The real scientists don't buy it, and even the sycophants can't repeat it for ten minutes without waxing poetic with “2,000 years ago someone died on a cross. Can’t someone take a stand for him?” and breaking into spontaneous choruses of Amazing Grace.

Where the hell is Lenny when you need him?

You want a "full frontal answer"?

No.

Happy?
Posted by: Paul Flocken on Feb. 27 2008,20:53

Where is Lenny?

Not that I am complaining.  I am one of those who thought there was just a little too much Lenny at times, but zero Lenny is not much better.
Posted by: Lou FCD on Feb. 27 2008,20:56

Quote (Paul Flocken @ Feb. 27 2008,21:53)
Where is Lenny?

Not that I am complaining.  I am one of those who thought there was just a little too much Lenny at times, but zero Lenny is not much better.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Last I heard, he's on hiatus until such time as he feels his services are once again necessary.

Who knows what evil lurks in the hearts of men?  Only the Lenny knows.
Posted by: Zarquon on Feb. 27 2008,21:07

Lenny's hanging out in news:talk.origins if you need a fix. He seems to have lost his pizza guy, though.
Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on Feb. 27 2008,21:10

Well Christ on a cracker if the stuff Septic has been spouting today is not an open invitation to the good reverend Flank nothing is.

I just want to say that I am excited about the new members on the board, and I'm glad to see you guys here, even if it took a smarmy intellectual whore selling out the fruits of enlightenment for thirty shekels of silver, to make it happen.

here's to less navel gazing solipcist all opinions are equal and to more sciencing!!*

*stick around fellers you'll see it all.
Posted by: Dr.GH on Feb. 27 2008,21:26

This Disko Whore seems to think that they know something about origin of life research.

In a very short form;

Short amino acid chains (10> X < 20) have been shown to easily form abiotically.

Even better, alternating D- and L- amino acids in short peptides forms a helical molecule.

Better yet, such molecules are easily found as membrane pores in archaea, and marine bacteria.

Membranes readily form from abiotic lipids.

Still more better, these pores can establish charge gradients. These are metabolisms.

Mapping these peptides into a PNA, or RNA establishes a genome.

Holding a genome within the membrane establishes a cell.

There is no particular problem with terrestrial abiogenesis, even with the far more demanding criteria used in the sciences as opposed to creationism.

However, there is nothing in evolutionary biology that depends on knowing the origin of life.

Here is all that Darwin had to say about the origin of life in his Origin of Species.  



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
“ I believe that animals are descended from at most only four or five progenitors, and plants from an equal or lessor number.

Analogy would lead me one step farther, namely, to the belief that all animals and plants are descended from some one prototype.  But analogy may be a deceitful guide.  Nevertheless all living things have much in common, in their chemical composition, their cellular structure, their laws of growth, and their liability to injurious influences.  ...  Therefore, on the principle of natural selection with the divergence of character, it does not seem incredible that, from some such low and intermediate form, both animals and plants may have been developed; and, if we admit this, we must likewise admit that all the organic beings which have ever lived on this earth may be descended from some one primordial form.  But this inference is chiefly grounded on analogy, and it is immaterial whether or not it be accepted.  No doubt it is possible, as Mr. G. H. Lewes has urged, that at the first commencement of life many different forms were evolved; but if so, we may conclude that only a very few have left modified descendants.”

And, from the book’s last sentence;

“There is grander in this point of view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one ; ....”
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



So I note that Darwin was consistent in his opinion that there were few first life forms, and merely a possibly that  there could have been only one.  Also note that Darwin is little interested in the issue using well under one page of text from a 450 page book.

From the 6th edition,
< http://www.literature.org/authors/darwin-charles/ >

“Thus, from the war of nature, from famine and death, the most exalted object which we are capable of conceiving, namely, the production of the higher animals, directly follows. There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone circling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being evolved. “

Charles R. Darwin, in a letter to the botanist Joseph Hooker (1871) wrote, "It is often said that all the conditions for the first production of a living organism are present, which could ever have been present. But if (and Oh! what a big if!) we could conceive in some warm little pond, with all sorts of ammonia and phosphoric salts, light, heat, electricity, etc., present, that a protein compound was chemically formed ready to undergo still more complex changes, at the present day such matter would be instantly devoured or absorbed, which would not have been the case before living creatures were formed. "

Later in the same letter, he observed,

"It is mere rubbish thinking at present of the origin of life; one might as well think of the origin of matter."


Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on Feb. 27 2008,21:38

but gary how does all these chemical reackshunz explain how come it feels so good to get drunk and eat puppies and be nazis and hump grandmaws and burn teh churches?

we gotta keep our story straight.  I know facts are irrelevant just wondering how I should hold my mouth.
Posted by: Doc Bill on Feb. 27 2008,22:23

Getting back to the theme of the movie, Expelled, for the life of me I just can't figure out who's been expelled for what by whom.

I've seen the trailers, I've read the blog, I've read the pre-reviews and I just can't figure it out.  I mean, all the people interviewed in the film have jobs and seem to be OK, so is Expelled some kind of big secret?

Too bad we don't have anyone who, like, was involved in writing the script or something to enlighten us.
Posted by: tsig on Feb. 27 2008,22:34

Quote (Kristine @ Feb. 27 2008,15:50)
Quote (tsig @ Feb. 27 2008,14:18)
 
Quote (Kristine @ Feb. 27 2008,12:34)
   
Quote (Paul Flocken @ Feb. 27 2008,08:56)
When marketers want to publicize movies they want the public to go see, don't they usually, well, invite critics?  When I hear that a movie was not screened it always means they have a dud on their hands and they dont want people to know it.  I wonder how many non-disclosure agreements Lucas forced people to sign before watching the original StarWars?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


In my professional experience, they are so eager for reviewers that they
1) Will let in anyone who says they’re a reviewer from such-n-such rag/paper (although I have never actually tried this, of course - I have ethics)
2) Give out free tickets to the public
3) Throw t-shirts at the crowd
4) Distribute press packets

Actually, non-disclosure agreements do have precedent – such as the secret audience preview of Gone with the Wind. However, I think that was verbal, simply to not reveal the plot, etc.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


It was the ending.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


*Brightens* Okay, smarty-pants! It was not the ending – after all, everyone knew that (and really, the last line in the film is rather like an ID “prediction,” no?). It was the “will they-won’t they” say that other line.

Yes, that famous line, which could also express the audience’s attitude toward Expelled when it finally opens, the possibility of which hovers like a vulture over Stein’s anguish over losing his money, doesn’t it? :D
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


edited for common sence
Posted by: snaxalotl on Feb. 28 2008,00:09



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Kevin, sorry to be the one to break the news to you, but consciousness is material.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



sorry to break the news to you, but consciousness is one of the most fuzzily defined concepts in all of philosophy. I would agree that all mental phenomena are constructed from material phenomena, but to me almost any statement of fact involving the word consciousness wouldn't look less silly if you replaced consciousness with sticktuitiveness
Posted by: Cubist on Feb. 28 2008,07:42

Quote (kevinmillerxi @ Feb. 27 2008,10:40)
Okay, here’s a question with an unfortunately long lead-up: The way I see it, one reason ID is so controversial is that it argues mind precedes matter in the form of a creative intelligence; whereas classic evolutionary theory says that mind is a product of matter. Intelligence is one of the last things to appear on the scene.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I kinda doubt that that has anything to do with why ID is so 'controversial'. Somehow, I rather suspect that ID's 'controversial' nature has just a teensy bit more to do with the facts that science is all about testable ideas, that ID simply doesn't have any testable ideas, and that IDists still insist that ID is just as good as real science.
But regardless of whether or not I am correct about why ID is 'controversial', I note that your remarks here don't come within a country megaparsec of answering one simple question:
What is the scientific theory of Intelligent Design, and how can this theory be tested by means of the scientific method?


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
But when confronted with the question of how life began, many evolutionary theorists allow that perhaps Panspermia had something to do with it. This theory is broadly accepted as a scientific possibility even though it also posits that mind came first and matter—at least the highly organized arrangements of matter we call living things—second.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Yes, panspermia is, indeed, accepted as a "scientific possibility". The main reason for this is, we have good ideas on how we could go about testing panspermia. Of course, the necessary tests (stuff like "go searching on other planets to see if there's life there") are just a tad impractical, which is why panspermia is generally accepted as a scientific possibility, and not as a scientific theory. ID differs from panspermia in that there really isn't any way to actually test the son of a bitch. Which reminds me that this paragraph of yours, like the one before, does not come anywhere near answering my simple question:
What is the scientific theory of Intelligent Design, and how can this theory be tested by means of the scientific method?


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
So my question is, why is one theory so controversial and the other not? What if you stripped away all of the religious and political baggage from ID?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I don't know, Kevin. What if you did "strip... away all of the religious and political baggage from ID]? And shouldn't you really be asking ID's supporters why the heck they haven't "stripped away all of the religious and political baggage from ID"? One way to go about stripping away said baggage would be if ID's supporters would quit whining about how Teh Evil Darwinianismists are so horribly unfair to ID, and instead answer, in plain language, one simple question:
What is the scientific theory of Intelligent Design, and how can this theory be tested by means of the scientific method?


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Would the theory be more acceptible then? And wouldn’t ID and Panspermia become nearly indistinguishable? After all, both argue that perhaps the best possibility for explaining how life began is a higher intelligence that seeded it on earth.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


as has already been pointed out, panspermia does not "argue that perhaps the best possibility for explaining how life began is a higher intelligence that seeded it on earth". All panspermia does argue is that however life in the universe began, it happened someplace other than Earth.
Be that as it may, I note that you still haven't yet come within a country gigaparsec of answering one simple question:
What is the scientific theory of intelligent Design, and how can this theory be tested by means of the scientific method?


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
We can argue all day about what the nature of that intelligence really is. But that’s beside the main point: Do we need intelligence to explain things like the origin and diversity of life or not? Classical evolution says no, ID and Panspermia say yes. Two different answers to the same question. I fail to see how one answer is scientific and the other not.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


If you don't see why ID is not scientific, you must surely have an answer to my simple question:
What is the scientific theory of intelligent Design, and how can this theory be tested by means of the scientific method?
So why haven't you, like, answered that simple question, Kevin? Why have you chosen to go off on a tangent about a speculative hypothesis like panspermia, rather than just answering this simple question:
What is the scientific theory of intelligent Design, and how can this theory be tested by means of the scientific method?


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
That being said, I’m sure someone is going to go off about the scientific method and how the IDers aren’t serious scientists, that they’re a bunch of liars, etc. But once again, that’s beside the point. Never mind their methods or their ethics. Is the question the ID community is asking scientific or not?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You're assuming that the "ID community" is asking a question, Kevin. As far as I can tell, those guys ain't asking jack shit; rather, they're asserting "Somehow, somewhere, somewhen, someway, evolution is wrong." don't know, Kevin. What if you did "strip... away all of the religious and political baggage from ID]? And shouldn't you really be asking ID's supporters why the heck they haven't "stripped away all of the religious and political baggage from ID"? One way to go about that would be to ask ID's supporters one simple question:
What is the scientific theory of intelligent Design, and how can this theory be tested by means of the scientific method?
Posted by: Cubist on Feb. 28 2008,08:04

Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,Feb. 27 2008,08:46)
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
The trouble is, nobody else in the ID movement seems to know, either!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Cubist, I'd say that they do know.  And I'd agree with them partway (separating for the moment the messengers).  If you take what some of these demonstrated liars say at face value, their claim is that sometimes we can analytically deduce some property of some features of some objects as being 'designed' by some agents.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


That's the ID claim, yes. But that claim is false. Consider that the class of "Designed entities" covers everything from a ham sandwich to a performance of Beethoven's Fifth Symphony to a F-18 fighter jet; exactly what 'signature of Design' do all Designed entities share in common? Hell, what 'signature of Design' can all Designed entities share in common? Thus, looking for Design is a fool's game. So what real scientists do is, they note that every Designed object known to Man must necessarily have been manufactured, and therefore, real scientists look for signs of Manufacture. And if they find signs of Manufacture, that how they know whatever-it-was is a Designed entity.
ID, of course, is absolutely silent on the question of how the Designer implemented His/Her/Its/Their Design(s)...
Posted by: Cubist on Feb. 28 2008,08:11

Quote (kevinmillerxi @ Feb. 27 2008,10:46)
You're dodging the question, oldman. You know as well as I do that evolutionary theory is supposed to explain the origin AND diversity of life. How about attempting a serious answer?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


By now, Kevin, you know that evolutionary theory doesn't care about the origin of life, because evolutionary theory would work just as well regardless of whether life originally arose via abiogenesis, or via some sort of intervention by an Intelligent Designer, or via a Divine 'poof', or what. So now that you're aware of your error, how about you take a shot at answering this one simple question:
What is the scientific theory of Intelligent Design, and how can this theory be tested by means of the scientific method?
Posted by: Cubist on Feb. 28 2008,08:14

Quote (kevinmillerxi @ Feb. 27 2008,10:48)
How has the theory of Panspermia proved its usefulness?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Beats the heck outta me, Kevin. How has the soi-disant 'theory' of ID proven its 'effectiveness'? I say ID has zero 'effectiveness', because it's not even a theory. But if you disagree, feel free to answer this one simple question:
What is the scientific theory of Intelligent Design, and how can this theory be tested by means of the scientific method?
Posted by: Cubist on Feb. 28 2008,08:23

Quote (kevinmillerxi @ Feb. 27 2008,10:54)
Albatrossity: How is Panspermia consistent with the evidence? And exactly what evidence are you talking about? As for what the real question is, I'm accepting Mr. Christopher's invitation to ask questions today rather than answering them. As for your question, if you were really serious about finding an answer, a five-minute web search would give you more than enough information.

Oldman: You're dodging the question again. Is the question the IDers are asking scientific or not?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You got me, Kevin. Is the question the IDers are asking scientific? I can't say, because as far as I can tell, the IDists are not, in fact, asking any question at all; rather, the IDists are making an assertion, said assertion being "somehow, somewhere, somewhen, someway, evolution is wrong." If you think the IDists are, in fact, asking any kind of question, I'm sure you'll have no trouble at all answering this one simple question:
What is the scientific theory of Intelligent Design, and how can this theory be tested by means of the scientific method?
Posted by: improvius on Feb. 28 2008,08:27

Quote (Cubist @ Feb. 28 2008,09:04)
Consider that the class of "Designed entities" covers everything from a ham sandwich to a performance of Beethoven's Fifth Symphony to a F-18 fighter jet; exactly what 'signature of Design' do all Designed entities share in common? Hell, what 'signature of Design' can all Designed entities share in common?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


They all have an external purpose.

But for some reason the IDists don't seem to like that answer.
Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on Feb. 28 2008,08:33

Cubist I agree that so far that claim is false.  I'll go further and say that even if it is true then there is still no merit for making the ontological leap that 'design = proof of designer' that is really the heart of their argument.

But that shouldn't matter.  This is really the only scientific claim that these magicians and charlatans are making, and it is worth keeping it at the forefront of criticism.  Everything is else is silly buggers piled on top of the whole book of logical fallacies, because at bottom it is a political-religious collusion for a power play.  Kevin, do you really believe this stuff you are spouting, or are you just along for the ride like Stein?
Posted by: olegt on Feb. 28 2008,08:56

From Ben Stein's op-ed < Darwinism: The Imperialism of Biology? >



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Maybe we would have a new theory: We are just pitiful humans. Life is unimaginably complex. We are still trying to figure it out. We need every bit of input we can get. Let's be humble about what we know and what we don't know, and maybe in time, some answers will come.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Shorter Ben Stein: I no nuttin' and iz proud of it.
Posted by: improvius on Feb. 28 2008,09:17

Quote (olegt @ Feb. 28 2008,09:56)
From Ben Stein's op-ed < Darwinism: The Imperialism of Biology? >

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Maybe we would have a new theory: We are just pitiful humans. Life is unimaginably complex. We are still trying to figure it out. We need every bit of input we can get. Let's be humble about what we know and what we don't know, and maybe in time, some answers will come.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Shorter Ben Stein: I no nuttin' and iz proud of it.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Too bad Ben has zero humility when it comes to his ignorance of evolution.
Posted by: Kristine on Feb. 28 2008,10:02



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Let's make this short and sweet. It would be taken for granted by any serious historian that any ideology or worldview would partake of the culture in which it grew up and would also be largely influenced by the personality of the writer of the theory.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Let me be short and sour because a dose of reality always is. Some professional historians actually hold nonacademic, for-profit jobs that require them to know history from their own ass and to apply it every day. I have worked for them. Ben Stein is no historian, academic or otherwise.
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
No less a genius than the evil Karl Marx noted
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


What an ignorant statement! "Evil," stuff and nonsense. Marx was no Marxist any more than Christ was a Christian. I observe that Marx is good enough for Stein to refer to, whereas he rarely if ever quotes Darwin and certainly never accurately represents him.
         

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
In other words, major theories do not arise out of thin air.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Duh, and children don't come from the stork. You don’t get away with this fluff in sophomore composition class, honey, so you shouldn’t get away with it now.
   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Darwinism, the notion that the history of organisms was the story of the survival of the fittest and most hardy, and that organisms evolve because they are stronger and more dominant than others, is a perfect example of the age from which it came: the age of Imperialism.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Oh, come on. This is Lamarckism! Individuals don't evolve, and evolution is not a ladder toward perfection or Aryan qualities or any of that rot. Those species that have an advantage from a mutation that happens to be beneficial in their particular environment and circumstance will produce more offspring than those that do not. Those that do not still produce offspring and still largely succeed. Even the strongest, best “fit” animal can die from a freak accident before reproducing. Everything dies – death is not the mechanism, differential reproduction is. Ben Stein, this is not rocket science.
     

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
When Darwin wrote, it was received wisdom that the white, northern European man was destined to rule the world. This could have been rationalized as greed - i.e., Europeans simply taking the resources of nations and tribes less well organized than they were. It could have been worked out as a form of amusement of the upper classes and a place for them to realize their martial fantasies. (Was it Shaw who called Imperialism "...outdoor relief for the upper classes?")
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Darwin loathed slavery and while on the HMS Beagle argued vehemently with Captain FitzRoy, a devout Christian, about it. FitzRoy was pro-slavery and racist.

It would be taken for granted by any serious historian that someone who purports to speak for the history of a theory should have at least a fucking clue about 1) that theory, and 2) its history. Stein does not.
     

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
But it fell to a true Imperialist, from a wealthy British family on both sides, married to a wealthy British woman, writing at the height of Imperialism in the UK, when a huge hunk of Africa and Asia was "owned" (literally, owned, by Great Britain) to create a scientific theory that rationalized Imperialism. By explaining that Imperialism worked from the level of the most modest organic life up to man, and that in every organic situation, the strong dominated the weak and eventually wiped them out.
Darwin offered the most compelling argument yet for Imperialism. It was neither good nor bad, neither Liberal nor Conservative, but simply a fact of nature. In dominating Africa and Asia, Britain was simply acting in accordance with the dictates of life itself. He was the ultimate pitchman for Imperialism.
Now, we know that Imperialism had a short life span. Imperialism was a system that took no account of the realities of the human condition. Human beings do not like to have their countries owned by people far away in ermine robes. They like to be in charge of themselves.
Imperialism had a short but hideous history - of repression and murder.
But its day is done.
Darwinism is still very much alive, utterly dominating biology. Despite the fact that no one has ever been able to prove the creation of a single distinct species by Darwinist means, Darwinism dominates the academy and the media. Darwinism also has not one meaningful word to say on the origins of organic life, a striking lacuna in a theory supposedly explaining life.
Alas, Darwinism has had a far bloodier life span than Imperialism. Darwinism, perhaps mixed with Imperialism, gave us Social Darwinism, a form of racism so vicious that it countenanced the Holocaust against the Jews and mass murder of many other groups in the name of speeding along the evolutionary process.
Now, a few scientists are questioning Darwinism on many fronts. I wonder how long Darwinism's life span will be. Marxism, another theory which, in true Victorian style, sought to explain everything, is dead everywhere but on university campuses and in the minds of psychotic dictators. Maybe Darwinism will be different. Maybe it will last. But it's difficult to believe it will. Theories that presume to explain everything without much evidence rarely do. Theories that outlive their era of conception and cannot be verified rarely last unless they are faith based. And Darwinism has been such a painful, bloody chapter in the history of ideologies, maybe we would be better off without it as a dominant force.
Maybe we would have a new theory: We are just pitiful humans. Life is unimaginably complex. We are still trying to figure it out. We need every bit of input we can get. Let's be humble about what we know and what we don't know, and maybe in time, some answers will come.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Such nonsense. Simple-minded, fallacious arguments following a weak premise. Evolution was around long before Darwin - he came up with natural selection. Why is Imperialism being laid at his door? Why not lay imperialism on FitzRoy, whose voyage was itself partly a racist mission? And was this not also the Victorian age, the steam age, etc.? My God, let's ban all mention of steam engines in front of the children, they might run out and become "imperialist," perhaps by invading Iraq. Twice. (You remember Iraq, right Ben?)

Ben Stein is a fine person to speak of “imperialism,” being that he only got to where he is on his own family’s money and privilege. If he had had to work his way up by walking in my shoes while writing garbage like this, he would have flunked high school.

Must be nice to be a preppy blowhard and get paid for churning out this low-brow e-mail hoax (containing all the elements - the hook, the threat, and the promise - of those silly mental viruses) that are forwarded by terrorized church ladies. "Let's be humble," indeed. But then, I figured out long ago that there will always be fools ready to argue with you – and they win at being fools because they have much more experience.

Oh, and what does this have to do with the [in]validity of intelligent design? Is ID the only "alternative" offered by this great intellect?

Ironically, Ben Stein has changed my mind about him. He cannot be this stupid. He is writing lies about Darwin and he knows it. But I do think there is something sincere lurking behind this and it is, as I said before, fear.

Stein invokes Hitler but it is not Hitler that he fears. Fascism is not, as I said earlier, America’s bugabear – apocalyptic thinking is, and that is what he engages in here. And the gullible will believe him – they’ll believe anyone who does not have the guts to tell them that the future is unknown, that life offers one mostly uncertainty, and that while science doesn’t have many answers yet there are some questions for which science may never have an answer, which means we can never know these answers, and you have to learn to live with that.
Posted by: Paul Flocken on Feb. 28 2008,10:16


Posted by: olegt on Feb. 28 2008,10:31

And if Darwin is behind both Marxism and imperialism, it follows that he also gave us Denyse O'Leary.
Posted by: Kristine on Feb. 28 2008,11:35

Quote (olegt @ Feb. 28 2008,09:31)
And if Darwin is behind both Marxism and imperialism, it follows that he also gave us Denyse O'Leary.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Well, wasn’t it the pro-intelligent design Kansas school board member Kathy Martin who asserted that “We need more imperialism in science”? :p

What do you make of that? Anyone? Anyone? Ben?
Posted by: RBH on Feb. 28 2008,11:52

Quote (Cubist @ Feb. 28 2008,08:04)
   
Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,Feb. 27 2008,08:46)
     

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
The trouble is, nobody else in the ID movement seems to know, either!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Cubist, I'd say that they do know.  And I'd agree with them partway (separating for the moment the messengers).  If you take what some of these demonstrated liars say at face value, their claim is that sometimes we can analytically deduce some property of some features of some objects as being 'designed' by some agents.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


That's the ID claim, yes. But that claim is false. Consider that the class of "Designed entities" covers everything from a ham sandwich to a performance of Beethoven's Fifth Symphony to a F-18 fighter jet; exactly what 'signature of Design' do all Designed entities share in common? Hell, what 'signature of Design' can all Designed entities share in common? Thus, looking for Design is a fool's game. So what real scientists do is, they note that every Designed object known to Man must necessarily have been manufactured, and therefore, real scientists look for signs of Manufacture. And if they find signs of Manufacture, that how they know whatever-it-was is a Designed entity.
ID, of course, is absolutely silent on the question of how the Designer implemented His/Her/Its/Their Design(s)...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I'll repeat what I've posted many times over the years.  The "theory" of ID is this:    

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Sometime or other, something(s) or other designed something or other, and then somehow or other manufactured that thing in matter and energy, all this occurring while leaving no independent evidence of the design process or the manufacturing process, and while providing no independent evidence for the presence, or even the existence, of the designing and manufacturing agent(s).
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Now a question for Kevin is whether he can fill in even one of the placeholders (some       ) in that statement.  My bet is no.


Posted by: Richardthughes on Feb. 28 2008,11:56

I think Kevin is gone.
Posted by: Wesley R. Elsberry on Feb. 28 2008,12:00

Quote (Richardthughes @ Feb. 28 2008,11:56)
I think Kevin is gone.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


That can be read in many ways.
Posted by: steve_h on Feb. 28 2008,13:25

Quote (Kristine @ Feb. 28 2008,16:02)
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
But it fell to a true Imperialist, from a wealthy British family on both sides, married to a wealthy British woman, writing at the height of Imperialism in the UK, when a huge hunk of Africa and Asia was "owned" (literally, owned, by Great Britain) to create a scientific theory that rationalized Imperialism. By explaining that Imperialism worked from the level of the most modest organic life up to man, and that in every organic situation, the strong dominated the weak and eventually wiped them out.
Darwin offered the most compelling argument yet for Imperialism. It was neither good nor bad, neither Liberal nor Conservative, but simply a fact of nature. In dominating Africa and Asia, Britain was simply acting in accordance with the dictates of life itself. He was the ultimate pitchman for Imperialism.
Now, we know that Imperialism had a short life span. Imperialism was a system that took no account of the realities of the human condition. Human beings do not like to have their countries owned by people far away in ermine robes. They like to be in charge of themselves.
Imperialism had a short but hideous history - of repression and murder.
But its day is done.
Darwinism is still very much alive, utterly dominating biology. Despite the fact that no one has ever been able to prove the creation of a single distinct species by Darwinist means, Darwinism dominates the academy and the media. Darwinism also has not one meaningful word to say on the origins of organic life, a striking lacuna in a theory supposedly explaining life.
Alas, Darwinism has had a far bloodier life span than Imperialism. Darwinism, perhaps mixed with Imperialism, gave us Social Darwinism, a form of racism so vicious that it countenanced the Holocaust against the Jews and mass murder of many other groups in the name of speeding along the evolutionary process.
Now, a few scientists are questioning Darwinism on many fronts. I wonder how long Darwinism's life span will be. Marxism, another theory which, in true Victorian style, sought to explain everything, is dead everywhere but on university campuses and in the minds of psychotic dictators. Maybe Darwinism will be different. Maybe it will last. But it's difficult to believe it will. Theories that presume to explain everything without much evidence rarely do. Theories that outlive their era of conception and cannot be verified rarely last unless they are faith based. And Darwinism has been such a painful, bloody chapter in the history of ideologies, maybe we would be better off without it as a dominant force.
Maybe we would have a new theory: We are just pitiful humans. Life is unimaginably complex. We are still trying to figure it out. We need every bit of input we can get. Let's be humble about what we know and what we don't know, and maybe in time, some answers will come.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Such nonsense. Simple-minded, fallacious arguments following a weak premise. Evolution was around long before Darwin - he came up with natural selection. Why is Imperialism being laid at his door?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Kevin Miller has a you tube video of Ben Stein in which he says    

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Darwinism is a brilliant, brilliant, brilliant theory, beyond words, brilliant but it only takes you part of the way
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Imperialism and genocide are, apparently, not quite enough. He also adds    

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Believe me, none of us have anything but respect for Darwin, we just think that there are lot of questions that should be asked that aren't being asked
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Admittedly I'm doing a bit of a "Slimey Sal" here, because Imperialism and Genocide didn't come up in that interview.  It just astounds me (it shouldn't, I know) that he can flip between "Darwin the brilliant" and "Darwin is teh evil" depending on who he is talking to.
Posted by: rhmc on Feb. 28 2008,16:34

sigh.

ya'll done run off another one.
Posted by: Richard Simons on Feb. 28 2008,16:52

Quote (rhmc @ Feb. 28 2008,16:34)
sigh.

ya'll done run off another one.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I wonder if it will count as another IDer being expelled?
Posted by: Cubist on Feb. 28 2008,16:57

Quote (RBH @ Feb. 28 2008,11:52)
Quote (Cubist @ Feb. 28 2008,08:04)
     
Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,Feb. 27 2008,08:46)
       

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
The trouble is, nobody else in the ID movement seems to know, either!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Cubist, I'd say that they do know.  And I'd agree with them partway (separating for the moment the messengers).  If you take what some of these demonstrated liars say at face value, their claim is that sometimes we can analytically deduce some property of some features of some objects as being 'designed' by some agents.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


That's the ID claim, yes. But that claim is false. Consider that the class of "Designed entities" covers everything from a ham sandwich to a performance of Beethoven's Fifth Symphony to a F-18 fighter jet; exactly what 'signature of Design' do all Designed entities share in common? Hell, what 'signature of Design' can all Designed entities share in common? Thus, looking for Design is a fool's game. So what real scientists do is, they note that every Designed object known to Man must necessarily have been manufactured, and therefore, real scientists look for signs of Manufacture. And if they find signs of Manufacture, that how they know whatever-it-was is a Designed entity.
ID, of course, is absolutely silent on the question of how the Designer implemented His/Her/Its/Their Design(s)...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I'll repeat what I've posted many times over the years.  The "theory" of ID is this:      

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Sometime or other, something(s) or other designed something or other, and then somehow or other manufactured that thing in matter and energy, all this occurring while leaving no independent evidence of the design process or the manufacturing process, and while providing no independent evidence for the presence, or even the existence, of the designing and manufacturing agent(s).
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Now a question for Kevin is whether he can fill in even one of the placeholders (some       ) in that statement.  My bet is no.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


[nods] I came up with my own formulation of ID: "Somehow, somewhere, somewhen, somebody intelligent did something." Says pretty much the same thing as yours, but it's hopefully got more rhetorical punch for being pithier...
Posted by: Glen Davidson on Feb. 28 2008,17:02

Quote (Richard Simons @ Feb. 28 2008,16:52)
Quote (rhmc @ Feb. 28 2008,16:34)
sigh.

ya'll done run off another one.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I wonder if it will count as another IDer being expelled?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Since ID persecution emcompasses hurt feelings (see the Sternberg case), I'm afraid that it has to count among the countless Expelled victims.

Glen D
Posted by: Kristine on Feb. 28 2008,17:30

You all want to know why this is so messed up?

In the town in which I grew up, among the kids with whom I attended class, which I think was pretty representative of "just folks" middle America, being expelled was an ambition.

They knew they could always talk their way back in so that they could play football.

I'm afraid that poor Ben, poor privileged, preppy Ben, doesn't understand his target audience at all. Sure, few people want to learn about science, evolution, and Darwin - he's got that right. But that doesn't mean they want to learn something else in its place. That means they want to be told that throwing a football does more for a kid than any book, that NASCAR teaches you everything you need to learn in life, that listening to Led Zeppelin in the warehouse for forty straight years after your wild youth makes you just as cultured as the snooty twits (like you and me, Ben Stein) who go to the symphony. ;)

Ben loves God, and that's nice, and these people do, too - but they don't like God very much! He's still your Old Man, right? :D

I think Ben's in for a big surprise. You have to use special effect to make things real for the ordinary viewer. Giving your audience Talking Head is just going to make them ask, "If this shit is true, how come Rush [the other Rush] didn't write a song about it?" :)
Posted by: Chayanov on Feb. 28 2008,17:32

It's really something, to watch the Religious Right transferring their fear of Communism over to "Darwinism." Didn't you know that both Hitler and Stalin were Darwinists? Did you know that it was a Darwinist who ran over your puppy when you were a child? That it's the Darwinists who are trying to take Christmas away from you? It's like the 1950s, but without the catchy slogans. "Do you now or have you ever accepted natural selection as a mechanism of evolutionary change?" Stein just can't resist bringing up Marx whenever he talks about Darwin, as if the two sat down together to figure out how to bring about the destruction of civilization. There weren't Communists hiding under our beds and there aren't Darwinists lurking in our closets.
Posted by: Chayanov on Feb. 28 2008,17:38



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Ben loves God, and that's nice, and these people do, too - but they don't like God very much! He's still your Old Man, right?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



That's probably why we're seeing the abandonment of Intelligent Design in favor of old-fashioned Creationism at the grassroots level. To the layperson, ID is still academic eggheads talking down to them, only now they're talking down about both religion and science. This public doesn't understand or care about the science, and they don't need or appreciate Dembski, Behe, or Wells telling them about religion.
Posted by: Lou FCD on Feb. 28 2008,18:05

Quote (Chayanov @ Feb. 28 2008,18:32)
There weren't Communists hiding under our beds and there aren't Darwinists lurking in our closets.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Are you sure?  Have you checked your closet?  You really should wear these argyle socks more often, but this shirt here really needs to go.  It's so not your color.
Posted by: Chayanov on Feb. 28 2008,18:19

You know, I was going to add a joke about who might be hiding in our closets, but left it up to someone else to make the comment. Thanks! :)
Posted by: Richardthughes on Feb. 28 2008,18:24

I see Kevin!



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
>Richardthughes >theloneliestmonk >rhmc >Paul Flocken >kevinmillerxi >Reed >ppb >Louis >creeky belly >Annyday >Lou FCD >Thought Provoker >angst >Venus Mousetrap >C.J.O'Brien >Dr.GH >dochocson
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



*waves*

Hi Kevin. Please don't be researching for your new film, "Meanies - nasty science types"
Posted by: Lou FCD on Feb. 28 2008,18:25

Quote (Chayanov @ Feb. 28 2008,19:19)
You know, I was going to add a joke about who might be hiding in our closets, but left it up to someone else to make the comment. Thanks! :)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


No, the real joke is these plaid bell-bottoms.  You really need to go shopping.

:p

HTH
Posted by: Chayanov on Feb. 28 2008,18:32

Considering what's in my closet that you could have commented on, I should consider myself lucky...
Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on Feb. 28 2008,18:37



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Please don't be researching for your new film, "Meanies - nasty science types"
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



I bet Kevin would tell you it was called something else, with a catchier name.  Like I dunno off the top of my head "Crossroads" or maybe something to catch the skeptic/FtK demographic "Opinions:  Are they all equal, or are some more or less equal".  I could also imagine "God:  Dinin't He or Unh UNh No He Dininin't"

What do you think Kevin?  I done copyrighted this shit you little bitch.  Don't be interviewin' my homeboys and be frontin' all up on my tip you lil' ho.
Posted by: Richardthughes on Feb. 28 2008,19:27

In the expelled trailer (15 seconds in) Ben walks to the podium, being vacated by TED HAGGARD. Why did god teh designer design TEH GAYNESS?
Posted by: khan on Feb. 28 2008,19:29

Quote (olegt @ Feb. 28 2008,09:56)
From Ben Stein's op-ed < Darwinism: The Imperialism of Biology? >

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Maybe we would have a new theory: We are just pitiful humans. Life is unimaginably complex. We are still trying to figure it out. We need every bit of input we can get. Let's be humble about what we know and what we don't know, and maybe in time, some answers will come.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Shorter Ben Stein: I no nuttin' and iz proud of it.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


"I know plenty o' nuthin
And nuthin's plenty for me"
Posted by: Kristine on Feb. 28 2008,21:16

You know, this is pretty sad, but if Ben Stein had gone all the way in selling his soul and blamed "Darwinism" on the Jews, all these goyum that he is bribing with discounted tickets to see his film would willingly flock (something that they know how to do) to it. Because despite all the late-hour embrace of Zionism by right-wing evangelicals they still believe that the Jews control the international banking system and that "the Lord God does not hear the prayers of a Jew." (Hell, they probably thought of Jews when Stein wrote that piece about the market being manipulated by traders.)

As I said - it's sad, and it's disgusting. But Stein should have known better. What does he think of the idiots who are praising his film for "leading people to Jesus"?
Posted by: Reed on Feb. 28 2008,22:18

Quote (Kristine @ Feb. 28 2008,21:16)
As I said - it's sad, and it's disgusting. But Stein should have known better. What does he think of the idiots who are praising his film for "leading people to Jesus"?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Especially since most of the backing for ID comes from evangelical protestants. Think for a moment about what the founder of that movement had to say about jews, and which group of genocidal nutjobs was so fond of quoting him. Yet somehow "Darwinism" is hopelessly tainted by Darwins imperialist upbringing, while a religious sect created by someone who outright advocated discrimination, abuse, and ethnic cleansing (if not outright genocide) is A-OK ?

If "Darwinism" is evil because it was used (however vaguely and illogically) by madmen to justify mass murder, wouldn't that also apply to someone who's writings, read literally by the same madmen, were explicitly used to justify the same acts ?

While we are on the subject of rejecting ideas which were used (or abused) rationalize atrocities, would Mr. Stein care to discuss the Inquisition, the Crusades, the Salem witch trials ? Once we're done with those, maybe we could have a look through the old testament and see if there's any ideas guilty by association there ?

Are you sure you want to throw that particular rock next to your lovely glass house there Mr. Stein ? Anyone ? Bueller ?

This, BTW, was the point of my < earlier questions > for Kevin, which he has so far, to my great surprise, declined to answer.
Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on Feb. 28 2008,23:44

Well, Reed, to be fair to the little showman, he has been piled upon.  And I'm sure he likes it.  Why else would skeptic FtK Daniel Smith VMartin Keith Robinson Kevin Miller come here, if not to renew teh scientz and cultyoor?
Posted by: bystander on Feb. 29 2008,04:36

Kevin was a bit of a disappointment. He was happy to discuss philosophy but nothing about the specifics of the movie. You would think a movie maker would be interested in the "other side" of the whole expelled thing. I know that I would be nervous that I may have been taken in by the DI crowd, and appear as a fool.

The only thing that I can derive from what Kevin has written is that he thinks that Science is not including the supernatural it doesn't matter that they are promoting liars (Well he didn't seem interested in defending any of the ID gang here) and slandering scientists.
Posted by: Richard Simons on Feb. 29 2008,07:56

I wonder if Kevin, who clearly knows very little about science, thought that the IDers had a case when he made the film but but now knows, or suspects, that they took him for a ride. I imagine it would be a very difficult situation as there is no way to back out gracefully and without being attacked.
Posted by: Richardthughes on Feb. 29 2008,09:24

Quote (Richard Simons @ Feb. 29 2008,07:56)
I wonder if Kevin, who clearly knows very little about science, thought that the IDers had a case when he made the film but but now knows, or suspects, that they took him for a ride. I imagine it would be a very difficult situation as there is no way to back out gracefully and without being attacked.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Plus the cash would be committed and work would be done.

Kevin's diary, day 134:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I can't believe it, they still haven't shown me their labs! That nimrod Dembski was busy talking up research at the start but all he does is write books. These fellas seem great at press releases, but I don't think they have any scientists on board. Plus it's 'Jesus this and Jesus that' when they think no-one is looking. We're going to give up the "ID isn't religious" angle - shit the fundies will love it more if there's a sprinkling of god in there..
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Posted by: Kristine on Feb. 29 2008,09:36

Quote (Richard Simons @ Feb. 29 2008,06:56)
I wonder if Kevin, who clearly knows very little about science, thought that the IDers had a case when he made the film but but now knows, or suspects, that they took him for a ride. I imagine it would be a very difficult situation as there is no way to back out gracefully and without being attacked.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


No, no, I think he knows better than that - I think he had what he thought was a finger to the wind.

It's pretty sad when someone brags about a good < review by Tom Bethell >. Miller also wrote the film After… about urban infiltration. I should like to see it, although from what I’ve read the story about urban explorers gets muddled with supernatural elements. (Groan.) The film industry has really run out of ideas.

However, in my opinion it is the ID crowd that is being taken for a ride here! I speculate that we have had a whole generation of people grow up on special effects, and who as a result are quite underwhelmed by reality – and they, not necessarily because they are of the same religious persuasion as the ID activitsts, but because of the mental habits they have formed, wish to jazz science up a little with some “supernaturalism,” i.e., special effects and these shallow “philosophical questions,” but not necessarily any religious agenda – and certainly not Dembski’s or Bethell’s or Coulter’s.

< From indb: >
     

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
In a controversial new satirical documentary, author, former presidential speechwriter, economist, lawyer and actor Ben Stein travels the world, looking to some of the best scientific minds of our generation for the answer to the biggest question facing all Americans today: Are we still free to disagree about the meaning of life? Or has the whole issue already been decided... while most of us weren't looking? The freedom to legitimately challenge "Big Science's" orthodoxywithout persecution.

The debate over evolution is confusing and to some, bewildering: "Wasn't this all settled years ago?" The answer to that question is equally troubling: "Yesand no."

The truth is that a staggering amount of new scientific evidence has emerged since Darwin's 150-year-old theory of life's origins. Darwin had no concept of DNA, microbiology, The Big Bang, Einstein's Theory of Relativity or of the human genome.

Each of these discoveries has, in one way or another, led a growing number of scientists to reconsider the simple view espoused by Darwin that life is a random, purposeless, chance occurrence. The universe, and life itself - is turning out to be far more complex and mysterious - than Darwin could possibly have imagined.

Darwin's theory isn't a single idea. Instead, it is made up of several related ideas, each supported by specific arguments. Of the three, only Evolution #1 can be said to be scientifically "settled."

- Evolution#1: First, evolution can mean minor changes in features of individual species - changes that take place gradually over a (relatively) modest period of time.

- Evolution # 2: The Theory of Universal Common Descent - the idea that all the organisms we see today are descended from a single common ancestor somewhere in the distant past. This theory paints a picture of the history of life on earth as a great branching tree, from a single cell that "somehow" materialized.

- Evolution#3: A cause or mechanism of change, the biological process Darwin thought was responsible for this branching pattern. Darwin argued that natural selection had the power to produce fundamentally new forms of life. Together, the ideas of Universal Common Descent and natural selection form the core of Darwinian evolutionary theory. "Neo - Darwinian" evolution combines our knowledge of DNA and genetics to claim that mutations in DNA provide the variation upon which natural selection acts.

When you see the word "evolution." You should ask yourself, "Which of the three definitions is being used?" Because arguments and evidence supporting #1 do not support #2 or #3!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


This is just manufactured "drama" - that's what Kevin's selling.
Posted by: carlsonjok on Feb. 29 2008,10:00

Quote (Kristine @ Feb. 29 2008,09:36)
The film industry has really run out of ideas.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Not true!  Coming soon is a < new Spiderman >, < new Terminator >, < new Batman >, and a < new X-Men >.

Added in Edit:  < Batman Begins >, the fifth movie in the series, was a radical departure from it's predecessors.  Enough to be considered a different franchise. IMO. YMMV.
Posted by: improvius on Feb. 29 2008,12:14

Ben is going to be on < Larry King Live > tonight.  There's a link on that page where you can submit questions for the guests.  I'm thinking that maybe if enough people ask one particular question, it will get used on the show.

Bonus: Penn Jillette will also be on the show.  Maybe he'll be able to hold Ben's feet to the fire.
Posted by: Glen Davidson on Feb. 29 2008,12:42

Quote (improvius @ Feb. 29 2008,12:14)
Ben is going to be on < Larry King Live > tonight.  There's a link on that page where you can submit questions for the guests.  I'm thinking that maybe if enough people ask one particular question, it will get used on the show.

Bonus: Penn Jillette will also be on the show.  Maybe he'll be able to hold Ben's feet to the fire.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Not that Stein will answer whatever question is asked.  He'll bring up his stale, "no one knows where gravity comes from," and "Darwinism doesn't tell us how life originated."  

Thank the Designer that Penn will be there.  Still, that's typical, no scientist or any other person who thoroughly knows the scientific method and exactly why ID fails, the best we have opposite ignorant Stein is a smart magician, whose intelligence won't make up for lack of considerable knowledge of the subject.  

But then that might be due in part to Stein et al., since all of the Expelled people play hooky the moment they're invited to give us some evidence that ID is science, or that it is treated at all badly.  Isn't that right, Kevin?

Glen D
Posted by: improvius on Feb. 29 2008,12:47

Quote (Glen Davidson @ Feb. 29 2008,13:42)
Thank the Designer that Penn will be there.  Still, that's typical, no scientist or any other person who thoroughly knows the scientific method and exactly why ID fails, the best we have opposite ignorant Stein is a smart magician, whose intelligence won't make up for lack of considerable knowledge of the subject.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


On the contrary, Penn is < quite knowledgeable > on this particular topic.  I think Ben is in for a rough ride.
Posted by: Richardthughes on Feb. 29 2008,13:03

Quote (carlsonjok @ Feb. 29 2008,10:00)
Edit:  < Batman Begins >, the fifth movie in the series, was a radical departure from it's predecessors.  Enough to be considered a different franchise. IMO. YMMV.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Filmed in my neighbourhood!
Posted by: J-Dog on Feb. 29 2008,13:46

Quote (Richardthughes @ Feb. 29 2008,13:03)
Quote (carlsonjok @ Feb. 29 2008,10:00)
Edit:  < Batman Begins >, the fifth movie in the series, was a radical departure from it's predecessors.  Enough to be considered a different franchise. IMO. YMMV.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Filmed in my neighbourhood!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I want to hear stories about you stealing Katie Holmes away from Scientolonut Tommy Boy Cruise.

I have a vision of you holding on to his head with one hand, as he is swinging wildly and ineffectually at you.
Posted by: Richardthughes on Feb. 29 2008,18:12

Quote (J-Dog @ Feb. 29 2008,13:46)
Quote (Richardthughes @ Feb. 29 2008,13:03)
Quote (carlsonjok @ Feb. 29 2008,10:00)
Edit:  < Batman Begins >, the fifth movie in the series, was a radical departure from it's predecessors.  Enough to be considered a different franchise. IMO. YMMV.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Filmed in my neighbourhood!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I want to hear stories about you stealing Katie Holmes away from Scientolonut Tommy Boy Cruise.

I have a vision of you holding on to his head with one hand, as he is swinging wildly and ineffectually at you.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


During the first film, they closed La Salle street leading up to the Chicago board of trade (Wayne towers) to film some helicopter footage that was later enhanced with CGI to become the monorail end chase. I stood on the side of the street screaming "Dana Nananana Dana Nananana BATMAN!!!11111oneone" as loud as my wickle lungs would let me. I got moved along. I did not make the final edit.  ???  :angry:
Posted by: Glen Davidson on Feb. 29 2008,18:30

What do you know, Kevin Miller finally responded to what I wrote, only I had to hit him elsewhere before he babbled incoherently:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I see Glen D. has been having a heyday with the following statement that I made on antievolution.org: "I see ID as a challenge not just to Darwinian evolution but to the very foundation of the scientific enterprise itself."
Somehow he takes that to mean I oppose the very foundation of science, which is patently untrue. What I meant to communicate is that one of the reasons I think ID is so controversial is that it doesn't just represent an evidential challenge to evolutionary biology, it also represents a philosophical challenge to our current definition of science. That's why I find this whole controversy so interesting, b/c it forces us to ask a number of fundamental questions about the nature of science that we wouldn't be asking if the IDers weren't around. I fail to see how this observation pits me against science in any way.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



This is what he wrote on Colorado Confidential, which is where I'd respond in turn, if their server would let me.

Kevin is such a jerk.  Ooh, ID is so lovely, because it lets uneducated dolts like him stick their noses into epistemological issues that they don't understand.

The news for you, Kevin, is that these issues are discussed all of the time, but never profitably by those who understand neither science nor philosophy.  You've never told me that you'd be willing to submit yourself to the "standards" of ID if you were accused of some crime, and I'm sure that's in part because you wouldn't be willing to be subjected to such dishonest "standards" (and in part because you refuse to engage in honest discussions).

Besides which, why aren't you bothering physics with your middle school relativism?  Why are you only troubling biology with your low-level prattle?  The fact of the matter is that it is in physics where epistemological issues truly do come up.  Biology sticks largely with classical science, and is as nearly unproblematic as Newton's laws in the questions of what constitutes evidence, and what does not (sure, biology is more complex, but what is evidence is not a problem).

Glen D
Posted by: Doc Bill on Feb. 29 2008,18:41

I think Ben Stein has a point.

Where DID thermodynamics come from?

I think it came from the fiery bowels of Hell and rose up and belching a sulfurous breath, threw down a slide rule, and demanded, "Solve me!!  To four decimal places."

I cursed, "Thermodamnics ye be!"

But, I was saved in the end by Saint Hewlett who sent down HP-45's from heaven.  I solved and was absolved.  To NINE decimal places!

I was an athermodynamithist from that day forward.
Posted by: Chayanov on Feb. 29 2008,19:12



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
What I meant to communicate is that one of the reasons I think ID is so controversial is that it doesn't just represent an evidential challenge to evolutionary biology, it also represents a philosophical challenge to our current definition of science.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Darn those scientists. If they'd just admit that God did it, astrology tells the future, and prayer trumps penicillin then we'd all get along.
Posted by: Dr.GH on Feb. 29 2008,19:13

Quote (Kristine @ Feb. 29 2008,07:36)
The film industry has really run out of ideas.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


My next door neighbor is a film editor.  They wrapped the next Indiana Jones movie today, and he starts working next week on a horror flick.  Maybe the idea is “Do What Works.”

Reading the Epic of Gilgamesh and Chaucer has convinced me that there really are no new plots.  (Well, the murder mystery was new when Edger Allen Poe wrote one).
Posted by: Wesley R. Elsberry on Feb. 29 2008,20:30

If I heard that right, Penn Gillette is off in the next half hour. The first half was all about the presidential campaign.
Posted by: improvius on Feb. 29 2008,21:12

Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Feb. 29 2008,21:30)
If I heard that right, Penn Gillette is off in the next half hour. The first half was all about the presidential campaign.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


As was the second half.  Bah.
Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on Feb. 29 2008,21:15

Fran Drescher belongs with Ben Stein.  I think.  Maybe she doesn't deserve that.  He probably doesn't deserve a live human.
Posted by: Wesley R. Elsberry on Mar. 01 2008,05:14

Interesting that Stein plugged his new book during the program, but AFAICT there was no mention of the movie.
Posted by: Kristine on Mar. 01 2008,14:18

Quote (Dr.GH @ Feb. 29 2008,18:13)
     
Quote (Kristine @ Feb. 29 2008,07:36)
The film industry has really run out of ideas.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


My next door neighbor is a film editor.  They wrapped the next Indiana Jones movie today, and he starts working next week on a horror flick.  Maybe the idea is “Do What Works.”

Reading the Epic of Gilgamesh and Chaucer has convinced me that there really are no new plots.  (Well, the murder mystery was new when Edger Allen Poe wrote one).
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Reading the same convinced me that there are few new plots...but also that there are such things as, you know, plot, when you have interesting characters.

 
Quote (Glen Davidson @ Feb. 29 2008,17:30)

What do you know, Kevin Miller finally responded to what I wrote, only I had to hit him elsewhere before he babbled incoherently:    

---------------------QUOTE-------------------

I see Glen D. has been having a heyday with the following statement that I made on antievolution.org: "I see ID as a challenge not just to Darwinian evolution but to the very foundation of the scientific enterprise itself."
Somehow he takes that to mean I oppose the very foundation of science, which is patently untrue. What I meant to communicate is that one of the reasons I think ID is so controversial is that it doesn't just represent an evidential challenge to evolutionary biology, it also represents a philosophical challenge to our current definition of science. That's why I find this whole controversy so interesting, b/c it forces us to ask a number of fundamental questions about the nature of science that we wouldn't be asking if the IDers weren't around. I fail to see how this observation pits me against science in any way.  
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


---------------------QUOTE-------------------


No argument about the incoherence, Glen. ("I'm not questioning the very foundations of science, I'm just questioning what science is founded on.") But, the thing is, to Kevin, this is all about Kevin. Kevin speaks like most of the thespians I've shared a stage with, or the "It was a dark and stormy relationship" novels I reviewed. He may be truly confused about the science, but he's mostly bullshitting anyway. This is sales. You have to sell yourself in the writing industry and in the film industry, and that's what he's doing. This is the generation that gets its philosophical "questions" from films like The Matrix. Oooh, everything we think we know may be WRONG! :)
Posted by: Freelurker on Mar. 01 2008,16:07

Quote (Kristine @ Mar. 01 2008,15:18)
       
Quote (Glen Davidson @ Feb. 29 2008,17:30)

What do you know, Kevin Miller finally responded to what I wrote, only I had to hit him elsewhere before he babbled incoherently:          

---------------------QUOTE-------------------

I see Glen D. has been having a heyday with the following statement that I made on antievolution.org: "I see ID as a challenge not just to Darwinian evolution but to the very foundation of the scientific enterprise itself."
Somehow he takes that to mean I oppose the very foundation of science, which is patently untrue. What I meant to communicate is that one of the reasons I think ID is so controversial is that it doesn't just represent an evidential challenge to evolutionary biology, it also represents a philosophical challenge to our current definition of science. That's why I find this whole controversy so interesting, b/c it forces us to ask a number of fundamental questions about the nature of science that we wouldn't be asking if the IDers weren't around. I fail to see how this observation pits me against science in any way.  
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


---------------------QUOTE-------------------


---------------------QUOTE-------------------


The way I read it, his defense is that it's not him who's challenging science; it's those IDists who are doing it. He's just observing selling the controversy.

[Edit: "who's" rather than "that's"]
Posted by: celdd on Mar. 01 2008,17:45

A poster on Dailykos (< linky >) gives a heads-up that Mark Mathis, producer of Expelled, will be on the Coast to Coast radio show tonight - 11 pm to 2 am PST (check your local listings).

Wednesday night, the main guest was Uncle Walt with his views about Noah's Ark. (< linky >) However, he did get to mention many other topics in his book, including hydroplates, and how for over decades, no one will accept his debate terms.  Ugh.  What's worse, they took about ten calls at the end, and all but two thought he was wonderful.
Posted by: Mr_Christopher on Mar. 03 2008,10:40

Does anyone have the history on how Ben came to be involved in the film?
Posted by: carlsonjok on Mar. 03 2008,11:14

Quote (Mr_Christopher @ Mar. 03 2008,10:40)
Does anyone have the history on how Ben came to be involved in the film?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


My guess is that they probably needed a conservative entertainer-type and their first choice was busy.



EDIT: Fixed grammar not so good.
Posted by: Kristine on Mar. 03 2008,11:22

Quote (Mr_Christopher @ Mar. 03 2008,09:40)
Does anyone have the history on how Ben came to be involved in the film?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Well, that's a documentary in itself, is it not? I am certainly interested in doing a little digging. :)

This "two sides to every story" let's-debate hogwash in popular discourse needs to be replaced with the fact that "there's always a story behind the story."

P.S. I just saw Sicko last night, and while Moore gets on my nerves in a major way the personal stories, plus the footage in Europe (and my experience of Europe) really drove home how irresponsible at best Stein is to scare people with Nazis when in fact we are practicing not eugenics ("good birth") in this country, but lousy birth and shitty treatment and rotten death. We are waging a medical war against the poor and middle class, while Stein (and Kevin et al) are jerking themselves off about Hitler.

How selfish.
Posted by: Mr_Christopher on Mar. 03 2008,11:43

I'm not sure where I read it, maybe it was in one of his interviews, but according to Ben he's already been paid for his work in the film (and it wasn't much says he).  That leads me to believe the film wasn't his idea.  

I'm just curious who sold him.  Well and how he began his new career as a fundamentalist, anti-science toady.

Simply tragic that he never spoke to any legit biologists but I suppose in his tiny world biologists are demon posessed liars that suck up to "big science" anyhow.  Did they even try and interview Ken Miller?  I know Barbara Forrest spotted a rotten pig right off the bat and declined to be interviewed.

random thoughts:

Interesting that the outfit who's promoting the film is the same one who promoted the mel gibson christian snuff film.  

I have a feeling we'll see more taunting from the crossroads expelled blog like they did last week with PZ Myers.  I bet they'll do more adolescent stuff like that thinking this will create buzz that will result in more ticket sales.  

Final question - Does any self-respecting person plan to actually pay money to see it?

ediztd:

Has everyone read < New mutation in Darwin debate: Doc 'Expelled' aims to discredit evolution > at Variety?   The DI just left their usual dishonest crap in the comments section.  Maybe a few folks here might want to leave comments.
Posted by: Kristine on Mar. 03 2008,13:04

Quote (Mr_Christopher @ Mar. 03 2008,10:43)
I'm not sure where I read it, maybe it was in one of his interviews, but according to Ben he's already been paid for his work in the film (and it wasn't much says he).  That leads me to believe the film wasn't his idea.  

I'm just curious who sold him.  Well and how he began his new career as a fundamentalist, anti-science toady.

Simply tragic that he never spoke to any legit biologists but I suppose in his tiny world biologists are demon posessed liars that suck up to "big science" anyhow.  Did they even try and interview Ken Miller?  I know Barbara Forrest spotted a rotten pig right off the bat and declined to be interviewed.

random thoughts:

Interesting that the outfit who's promoting the film is the same one who promoted the mel gibson christian snuff film.  

I have a feeling we'll see more taunting from the crossroads expelled blog like they did last week with PZ Myers.  I bet they'll do more adolescent stuff like that thinking this will create buzz that will result in more ticket sales.  

Final question - Does any self-respecting person plan to actually pay money to see it?

ediztd:

Has everyone read < New mutation in Darwin debate: Doc 'Expelled' aims to discredit evolution > at Variety?   The DI just left their usual dishonest crap in the comments section.  Maybe a few folks here might want to leave comments.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Stein says this in the < Variety > article itself, too. I've heard this before - it's not me, it's the Lord.

Interesting now that the DI is focusing on, through Stein, changing school curricula after denying that they wanted this during the Dover trial. A timeline with the DI's contradictory statements - there's another documentary film. Instead of "healthy debate," healthy context.
Posted by: Mr_Christopher on Mar. 03 2008,17:53

Has anyone posted this lecture by Crossroads Expelled producer Logan Craft yapping about Church and State at a 2006 Centre for Cultural Renewal Renewal conferance?  

Watch it < here >
Posted by: Jason Spaceman on Mar. 04 2008,08:46

Ben Stein writes in today's WingNutDaily: < Charles Darwin:  Imperialism's pawn >



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Imperialism had a short but hideous history – of repression and murder.

But its day is done.

Darwinism is still very much alive, utterly dominating biology. Despite the fact that no one has ever been able to prove the creation of a single distinct species by Darwinist means, Darwinism dominates the academy and the media. Darwinism also has not one meaningful word to say on the origins of organic life, a striking lacuna in a theory supposedly explaining life.

Alas, Darwinism has had a far bloodier life span than imperialism. Darwinism, perhaps mixed with imperialism, gave us Social Darwinism, a form of racism so vicious that it countenanced the Holocaust against the Jews and mass murder of many other groups in the name of speeding along the evolutionary process.

Now, a few scientists are questioning Darwinism on many fronts. I wonder how long Darwinism's life span will be. Marxism, another theory which, in true Victorian style, sought to explain everything, is dead everywhere but on university campuses and in the minds of psychotic dictators. Maybe Darwinism will be different. Maybe it will last. But it's difficult to believe it will. Theories that presume to explain everything without much evidence rarely do. Theories that outlive their era of conception and cannot be verified rarely last unless they are faith-based. And Darwinism has been such a painful, bloody chapter in the history of ideologies, maybe we would be better off without it as a dominant force.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Posted by: Jason Spaceman on Mar. 04 2008,08:49

And WingNutDaily publisher Joseph Farah is all giddy about the upcoming release of Expelled:  < I can't wait to be 'Expelled' >



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
It turns out some of the most hardened, doctrinaire anti-design zealots in the scientific establishment – people like Richard Dawkins, author of "The God Delusion" and, coincidentally, the de facto leader of the worldwide atheist movement – aren't really opposed to the notion of design at all. They just can't accept God as the designer.

You will hear some of the world's most celebrated evolutionists admit design is possible – just not by the hand of God.

They will attribute the possibility of design to visitors from other planets and even to crystals. The two things they cannot tolerate are consideration of God's role and any of their colleagues deviating from their own ideas about origins.

It's not so much the architects of evolution are opposed to religion. It's that they have formed their own religion – absent the God of Christianity and Judaism.

As Ben Stein explains it: "Big Science in this area of biology has lost its way. Scientists are supposed to be allowed to follow the evidence wherever it may lead, no matter what the implications are. Freedom of inquiry has been greatly compromised, and this is not only anti-American, it's anti-science. It's anti-the whole concept of learning."
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Posted by: Mr_Christopher on Mar. 04 2008,10:05

Back in the day if biology or science had been a topic on "Win Ben Stein's Money", he'd be broke.

What a total dumb ass.  I still have such a hard time accepting the fact that Ben Stein is a complete dumb ignoramous who toadies for the Discovery Institute.  I mean the Wingnut Daily are the guys who said consuming soy makes you gay.  If that were true most every Asian on the planet would be gay.  Maybe Ben can do a propaganda piece about "Big Soy Industry" who's purpose is to make all men gay.

For some reason I still find Ben's stupidity shocking.

Silly me...

edit:

Ben's < Stanford Review interview > is somewhat telling.  Here Ben demonstrates what a hypocritical ignoramous he is when he mumbles,



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
"When you say that “everyone knows” something, that doesn’t prove anything at all. We’ve never seen a species evolve; we have no idea how life started; we have no idea where the laws that govern the universe came from; Darwin doesn’t explain any of these. All these gigantically big issues still can only really be answered by saying, “well, some intelligent guy or gal or being had just done this; some being that always was and always will be…Part of the problem I have with both Christopher Hitchens’ and Jay Richards’ observations is that I don’t think it’s up to man to judge God. God’s not on trial, God isn’t a defendant, God’s the boss. It’s not up to us to judge him. God’s the boss!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Even juicier than his obvious god of the gaps ignorance is his hypocricy - note where on one hand Ben howls about Big Science suggesting "everyone knows something" without having to prove it.  The he goes on to suggest everyone knows god is the boss and no one should question that.  WTF?

What a tard.

Hey Ben, if you're going to push your ignorant god of the gaps theory in science class guess what?  Science relies on evidence and testing.  You're going to have to prove your god is science theory.  First prove god exists, then prove he's the boss.  

Please show your work, and no cheating Benjamin Stein.

Like it or not, if you shove god into science class then he's fair game for being judged and keep in mind, ignorance is not evidence.
Posted by: Kristine on Mar. 04 2008,20:18

Quote (Mr_Christopher @ Mar. 04 2008,09:05)
Back in the day if biology or science had been a topic on "Win Ben Stein's Money", he'd be broke.

What a total dumb ass.  I still have such a hard time accepting the fact that Ben Stein is a complete dumb ignoramous who toadies for the Discovery Institute.  I mean the Wingnut Daily are the guys who said consuming soy makes you gay.  If that were true most every Asian on the planet would be gay.  Maybe Ben can do a propaganda piece about "Big Soy Industry" who's purpose is to make all men gay.


---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Except in Korea. There are no < gay people in Korea >! :p
Posted by: J-Dog on Mar. 04 2008,21:17

Quote (Kristine @ Mar. 04 2008,20:18)
Quote (Mr_Christopher @ Mar. 04 2008,09:05)
Back in the day if biology or science had been a topic on "Win Ben Stein's Money", he'd be broke.

What a total dumb ass.  I still have such a hard time accepting the fact that Ben Stein is a complete dumb ignoramous who toadies for the Discovery Institute.  I mean the Wingnut Daily are the guys who said consuming soy makes you gay.  If that were true most every Asian on the planet would be gay.  Maybe Ben can do a propaganda piece about "Big Soy Industry" who's purpose is to make all men gay.


---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Except in Korea. There are no < gay people in Korea >! :p
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I dunno Kristine...Kim Jong II looks pretty gay to me, and Sung Myung Moon, ain't no doubt about it for sure.

I think you are on to something with your Big Soy Theory.
Posted by: Mr_Christopher on Mar. 05 2008,09:34

Kristine, the Korea thing just shows you how deep the BS (Big Soy) Industry conspiracy lurks. They are making us all ghay!  In fact I had sushi last night and without thinking I used low sodium soy sauce.  Now all the sudden I'm finding J-Dog's logo to be very handsome, what's up with that?

It's just a matter of time before Ben Stein champions the BS cause!  I heard a rumor they are going to promote his BS documentary at men's bath houses.  The films motto is going to be "STOP the BS Ben!"

Thank god for intellectual heavy weights like Ben Stein who are unafraid to take on a BS cause!  

Down with Big Soy!


edit:

J-Dog, do you have plans Friday night?  I thought we might grab some sushi and see Brokeback Mountain if you haven't seen it yet.
Posted by: Mr_Christopher on Mar. 06 2008,12:04

Speaking of the WingNutDaily publisher Joseph Farah, he gives us a glimpse into his views on science < here > and < here. >

Here are some of the juicier tidbits, and we can thank propagandists like Kevin Miller XI and Ben Stein for helping wingnuts like this come out of the woodwork.  

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
The primary reason I believe, of course, is because the Bible tells me so. That's good enough for me, because I haven't found the Bible to be wrong about anything else.

The evolutionists insist the dinosaurs lived millions and millions of years ago and became extinct long before man walked the planet.  I don't believe that for a minute. I don't believe there is a shred of scientific evidence to suggest it. I am 100 percent certain man and dinosaurs walked the earth at the same time. In fact, I'm not at all sure dinosaurs are even extinct!

And what about the not-so-unusual sightings of contemporary sea monsters? Some of them have actually been captured.

There are also countless contemporary sightings of what appear to be pterodactyls in Asia and Africa.

You know what I think? I think we've been sold a bill of goods about the dinosaurs. I don't believe they died off millions and millions of years ago. In fact, I'm not at all convinced they've died off completely.

Evolutionists have put the cart before the horse. They start out with a theory, then ignore all the facts that contradict the theory. Any observation that might call into question their assumptions is discounted, ridiculed and covered up. That's not science.

How could all the thousands of historical records of dragons and behemoths throughout mankind's time on earth be ignored? Let's admit it. At least some of these observations and records indicate dinosaurs were walking the earth fairly recently ? if not still walking it today.

If I'm right about that ? which I am ? then the whole evolutionary house of cards comes tumbling down.

This is the evidence about which the evolutionists dare not speak

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Yes indeed, evilutionists dare not speak of all that evidence of sea serpants living amongst us, and say nothing about all that evidence of pterodactyls in Asia and Africa currently flying about the treetops, and of course NOTHING in the bible is wrong.  Nothing at all.  

If evilutionists began admitting they've been hiding all the dinosaurs all these years (in their basements no less!) their little charade would crumble faster than the Berlin wall!

And these guys wonder why they're ridiculed. Kevin wonders why he and Ben are ridiculed.  What a bunch of complete tards.

Um, Joeseph (and Ben and Kevin Miller XI), believing the bible is correct because it tells you to is not science.  Complaining that your ideas are ridiculed when you make fantastic claims (dinosaurs currently flying around Asia/Africa) without providing a shred of evidence is not science and it begs ridicule.

Seeing who enjoys this movie is so freaking hilarious to me.  Nothing but flat earther and wingnuts.  Nice job Ben!  I wonde rhow long it will be before Ben Stein starts marketing healing magnets and power crystals and subsequently starts whining because he's ridiculed for it.
Posted by: Glen Davidson on Mar. 06 2008,16:45

I've mostly sworn off subjecting myself to Expelled's censorious blog, but couldn't resist trying to get one of the first posts in jeering at their triumph in fooling a carefully-picked audience of fools.  Since I don't trust them, though, I'm cross-posting to here:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Blast, let’s try that again [mistake made in first attempt]:

So, you kept competent critics (scientists, etc.) out of the preview, stacked the audience with religiously-biased poorly educated sorts, and played your Godwin’s Law-evoking, science-avoiding, and ignorant-of-scientific-methods diatribe. And wow, you were cheered by the ignorant folk whom you intend to bamboozle with your snake-oil.

You must be so proud.

You can manipulate the ignorant and the prejudiced by displaying ignorance and prejudice. It’s one of those Kodak moments.

Glen D
< http://tinyurl.com/2kxyc7 >

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Posted by: Glen Davidson on Mar. 06 2008,21:02

Likely my last post on that particular blog topic is in response to an egregious, stupid, and ignorant concern troll who doesn't mind that IDists haven't had the decency to engage our points, yet whines when we call them the ignorant clotheads that they are:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
<blockquote>Belittling your opponents, and using crude colloquialisms to insult them results in nothing. If you wish to change hearts, use the balm of charity, not the flamethrower of outrage and disgust.

Honestly, please debate courteously. Yelling down opponents, no matter how idiotic you think they are, is never the right thing to do. Listen, and respond intelligently to your opponents.</blockquote>

Dear Geoffrey, try to learn something before you go off accusing falsely as you did.  

We have answered Ben and the rest copiously and well.  They have not had, choose one or more:  the courtesy, decency, intelligence, knowledge, or the evidence, to give us a decent and intelligent response.

The fact is that the audience is as tilted, biased, and ignorant as I wrote.  You only complain because you don't like the truth.  

If you wish to actually debate something, look at my past posts, tell me how ID accounts for the fact that all vertebrate wings happened to be modified legs of their apparent ancestors, why taxonomy closely fits the predictions of (non-teleological) evolutionary theory, and why it is that the macroevolutionary patterns of prokaryotes and of eukaryotes look so different, as would be expected of a combination of clonal/conjugating evolutionary processes in the first case, and as expected of sexual processes in the second case.

I have asked that repeatedly here, and the IDists/creationists have been too rude, too ignorant, or most likely, far too fundamentally wrong, to give me a fair and honest answer to those questions.  

You, too, have failed to engage with me properly, or to fault the endlessly dishonest prattle of the IDists on these forums.  Not that I'm surprised, since I have yet to meet an IDist who will engage with the issues in an intellectually honest fashion.

And I'm already probably out of this thread (not a promise, a present intention).  The fact is that I have properly characterized the dishonesty of the blog article posted here, the evidence that supports this fact has been presented copiously by myself and others on these forums, and the mere fact that you prefer not to engage the substantive posts does not give you warrant to complain when I simply repeat the judgment that has been rendered in so minute detail in former posts.  

I really lack the patience to deal with someone who won't engage with the many issues I and others have brought up, but only faults us for dealing with IDists/creationists as they have exhibited themselves to be, at least on this blog.

Glen D
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Posted by: Glen Davidson on Mar. 06 2008,21:23

Every time he had a chance to back up his lies and false accusations, brave Sir Kevin courageously ran away.  The moment that some mindless concern troll (perhaps Kevin) decided to show how partial and stupid he was, Kevin came back to scold (on TalkOrigins):

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Here's a good word for good old Glen D. taken from today's Expelled
blog. Just in case you missed it there, Glen!

Dear Glen Davidson,


Belittling your opponents, and using crude colloquialisms to insult
them results in nothing. If you wish to change hearts, use the balm of
charity, not the flamethrower of outrage and disgust.


Honestly, please debate courteously. Yelling down opponents, no matter
how idiotic you think they are, is never the right thing to do.
Listen, and respond intelligently to your opponents.


And no, just in case anyone has the idea in mind, mentioning that
idiotic, childish, annoying, and downright stupid "spaghetti monster"
is not an intelligent response. It doesn't do anything. It's like a
kid sticking his tongue out and saying, "you're stupid!" There are
more charitable and effective ways to communicate a point.


Don't be mean, don't be nasty. Okay? Now, play nice.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



It's official, he's incapable of doing anything but faulting others while he turns a blind eye to the colossal dishonesty of the movie he helped to write, and his failure to engage the issues.

Glen D
Posted by: Glen Davidson on Mar. 06 2008,22:14

I ran across a review of  Expelled that tells us a bit more about it.  Here's what I posted at Pharyngula:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
This seems something like an open thread, and I think I have something good for a bit of bar talk.  It has some of the specifics of the Expelled film, and the ignorant blather of an engineer who thinks it's a "revealing" movie:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I attended a screening of EXPELLED: NO INTELLIGENCE ALLOWED yesterday in Dallas.  We got struck in traffic, and arrived about twenty minutes into the picture.  It was still wonderful.  My son Joshua, a business major at Baylor, and Charley, my long time retired air force father in law, came too.  On about three hours each of sleep the previous night, we watched the movie with unwavering interest.  Wow. I want everybody to see this important film.  I now know where I will do my Christmas shopping.
 
 John Sullivan, one of the movie’s producers, said EXPELLED will open on about a thousand screens in February.  This is about the same number of screens for Michael Moore’s last documentary.There is sooooo much great stuff in this movie.  Here are some bullets.
 
 Like many great movies do, EXPELLED takes you on a roller coaster from belly laughs about some of the ridiculousness of Scientism, to anger at the manner Scientism treats good people, to alarm that atheism is being forced down our throats by the Academy, to hope that this problem can be corrected, and back to a belly laugh at one of Ben Stein’s quips.
 
 The identity of Scientism as atheism dressed in a cheap tuxedo (my words) came across strongly in the movie – especially in the interviews with atheists Richard Dawkins,  PZ Meyers, and Michael Ruse.  These men may have to change their occupation descriptions in 2008 to “Punch line for EXPELLED.”  
 
 There are great animations of the inside workings of a cell.  I’m not a biologist, but seeing this as an engineer invariably causes my jaw to drop.
 
 The contribution of  Darwinism to Nazi atrocities was addressed.  This could have been over the top – but came off well.   Parallel quotes from Hitler and Darwin were appropriately tempered by Berlinski saying something like “Of course Darwinism does not always lead to Nazism.  It is, though, a necessary albeit not sufficient component.”  There was a chilling visit to a Nazi “hospital” where the “unfit” were gassed by Hitler’s cult.  The contribution of the euthanasia movement to the founding of  Planned Parenthood was identified.
 
 Old B&W movie clips were sprinkled throughout the film.  One showed a 1950’s middle school bully (Big Science) sitting on the stomach of a victim (ID proponent) pinning his arms back.  The bully boy keeps saying “OK.  Now you’re on our side.  Say you’re on our side!”  It was hilarious.  
 
 There are also a bunch of short custom animated cartoons.  One is an animation of Richard Dawkins frustrated at the low probabilities emanating from a bank of slot machines.  The audience roared.
 
 There is plenty for the cerebral from both the scientific and political perspective.   Dr. Richard von Sternberg, Dr. Doug Axe, Dr. Guillermo Gonzalez, Dr. William Dembski, Dr. Jonathan Wells, Dr. Walter Bradley, Dr. Alister McGrath, Dr. Stephen Myer, Dr. Carolyn Crocker, Dr. David Berlinski, Dr. John Polkinghorn and yours truly were on screen.  (I KNOW I’m missing some. Sorry.)   Doug Axe and Stephen Myer did a lot of the heavy lifting concerning biology.
 
 Here’s a teaser.  How do Michael Ruse and Richard Dawkins explain the origin of life?  Be prepared to grin.  I am reminded of Richard Feynman’s explanation of all that is bogus:  The closer you look, the more it goes away.  
 
 The Berlin wall is used as a metaphor for the divide between ID and the Academy.  On one side of the wall are researchers who are required to conform to an ideology in order to get funding and tenure.   Near the end of the movie, there is a back and forth between Reagan’s “tear down this wall” speech and Ben Stein giving an speech on academic freedom.  (a part of Ben Stein’s speech is in the EXPELLED Teaser Trailer.)  I admit getting a wonderful shiver.
 
 This is the ice berg tip.  There is so much wonderful stuff in the movie.  Co-Producer Mark Mathis said there are a lot of fantastic scenes that could not be included in the movie.  When the EXPELLED DVD is released, there will be a second DVD with these extras. This takes care of my Christmas shopping for next year.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


 
< The wisdom of an engineer brought to bear on biology >

There you are, Berlinski saying what he doesn't know, the old bugabear of atheism, a bunch of cheesy animations to get around the fact that they can't make a case out of their sad little morons.

Glen D
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Posted by: Glen Davidson on Mar. 06 2008,22:34

Sorry for the repetition, but after posting the last comments I decided to go ahead and try to post at Expelled, since the idea of anyone on the side of that bit of dishonest maligning of what they don't know telling somebody else to "play nice" is the height of hypocrisy:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Oh yeah, intentions change, things are found, and I decided I'd point out how <em>Expelled</em> fits Geoffrey's prejudicial "concerns" to a T, you know, "Belittling your opponents, and using crude colloquialisms to insult them results in nothing."

Here, it's should be interesting both to those who like the belittling that <em>Expelled</em> engages in (but doesn't trouble the hypocritical Geoffrey), and those who do not:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I attended a screening of EXPELLED: NO INTELLIGENCE ALLOWED yesterday in Dallas. We got struck in traffic, and arrived about twenty minutes into the picture. It was still wonderful. My son Joshua, a business major at Baylor, and Charley, my long time retired air force father in law, came too. On about three hours each of sleep the previous night, we watched the movie with unwavering interest. Wow. I want everybody to see this important film. I now know where I will do my Christmas shopping. John Sullivan, one of the movie's producers, said EXPELLED will open on about a thousand screens in February. This is about the same number of screens for Michael Moore's last documentary.There is sooooo much great stuff in this movie. Here are some bullets.

Like many great movies do, EXPELLED takes you on a roller coaster from belly laughs about some of the ridiculousness of Scientism, to anger at the manner Scientism treats good people, to alarm that atheism is being forced down our throats by the Academy, to hope that this problem can be corrected, and back to a belly laugh at one of Ben Stein's quips.

The identity of Scientism as atheism dressed in a cheap tuxedo (my words) came across strongly in the movie - especially in the interviews with atheists Richard Dawkins, PZ Meyers, and Michael Ruse. These men may have to change their occupation descriptions in 2008 to "Punch line for EXPELLED."

There are great animations of the inside workings of a cell. I'm not a biologist, but seeing this as an engineer invariably causes my jaw to drop.

The contribution of Darwinism to Nazi atrocities was addressed. This could have been over the top - but came off well. Parallel quotes from Hitler and Darwin were appropriately tempered by Berlinski saying something like "Of course Darwinism does not always lead to Nazism. It is, though, a necessary albeit not sufficient component." There was a chilling visit to a Nazi "hospital" where the "unfit" were gassed by Hitler's cult. The contribution of the euthanasia movement to the founding of Planned Parenthood was identified.

Old B&W movie clips were sprinkled throughout the film. One showed a 1950's middle school bully (Big Science) sitting on the stomach of a victim (ID proponent) pinning his arms back. The bully boy keeps saying "OK. Now you're on our side. Say you're on our side!" It was hilarious.

There are also a bunch of short custom animated cartoons. One is an animation of Richard Dawkins frustrated at the low probabilities emanating from a bank of slot machines. The audience roared.

There is plenty for the cerebral from both the scientific and political perspective. Dr. Richard von Sternberg, Dr. Doug Axe, Dr. Guillermo Gonzalez, Dr. William Dembski, Dr. Jonathan Wells, Dr. Walter Bradley, Dr. Alister McGrath, Dr. Stephen Myer, Dr. Carolyn Crocker, Dr. David Berlinski, Dr. John Polkinghorn and yours truly were on screen. (I KNOW I'm missing some. Sorry.) Doug Axe and Stephen Myer did a lot of the heavy lifting concerning biology.

Here's a teaser. How do Michael Ruse and Richard Dawkins explain the origin of life? Be prepared to grin. I am reminded of Richard Feynman's explanation of all that is bogus: The closer you look, the more it goes away.

The Berlin wall is used as a metaphor for the divide between ID and the Academy. On one side of the wall are researchers who are required to conform to an ideology in order to get funding and tenure. Near the end of the movie, there is a back and forth between Reagan's "tear down this wall" speech and Ben Stein giving an speech on academic freedom. (a part of Ben Stein's speech is in the EXPELLED Teaser Trailer.) I admit getting a wonderful shiver.

This is the ice berg tip. There is so much wonderful stuff in the movie. Co-Producer Mark Mathis said there are a lot of fantastic scenes that could not be included in the movie. When the EXPELLED DVD is released, there will be a second DVD with these extras. This takes care of my Christmas shopping for next year.

<a href="http://www.interstructure.ca/pipermail/truth/2007-December/000296.html">An account how "Expelled" attempts to make fun of scientists and of science</a>
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Well, there you are, Kevin Miller, Ben Stein, and the rest spend a great deal of time simply trying to belittle and make fun of scientists and what they have done.  IDists, on the other hand, are empty-handed on the science front.  

Still, Kevin Miller tried to shame me with Geoffrey's concern troll post on the TalkOrigins forum, after he has participated in a film which is little more than a nasty attempt to belittle science.  

The hypocrisy is astonishing, but not unusual for ID.

And yes, I expect that I'll most likely be out of here, since I have yet to have an intellectually honest engagement with an IDist.  But this was just too much to pass up, imagine Kevin Miller and Geoffrey telling others to "play nice," when <em>Expelled</em> does quite the opposite, and did so well before we noted what a mean little bunch of dishonesty it turns out to be.

Glen D

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Posted by: Kristine on Mar. 07 2008,10:16

You're in the heart of the beast, Glen.

Ben Stein says < give Exxon a hug >!


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Exxon Mobil, in fact, is owned mostly by ordinary Americans. Mutual funds, index funds and pension funds (including union pension funds) own about 52 percent of Exxon Mobil’s shares. Individual shareholders, about two million or so, own almost all the rest. The pooh-bahs who run Exxon own less than 1 percent of the company.

When Exxon Mobil earns almost $12 billion in a quarter, or $41 billion in a year, as it did in 2007, that money does not go into the coffers of a few billionaire executives quaffing Champagne in Texas. It goes into the pension and retirement accounts of ordinary citizens. When Exxon pays a dividend, that money goes to pay for the mortgages and oxygen tanks and in-home care of lots of elderly Americans.

So, Mr. Obama, which union pension plans — and which blue-collar workers who benefit from them — will be among the first you would like to deprive of the income that flows from Exxon’s rich dividends?

When Mr. Obama or his Democratic rival, my fellow Yale Law School graduate Hillary Rodham Clinton, go after the oil companies and want to take away their profits, they are basically seeking to lower the income of the ordinary American. Why do that? It’s just cutting off one end of a blanket and sewing it to the other.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Notice how he always gets “and by the way, I went to Yale” in there?

At this point, his "opinions" are buckshot - still aimed, but flailing. Stein is not so much expressing opinions as shoring up his various justifications for a NY Times column and other innoculations against obscurity. That’s the real Brownshirt stomping across his American dream – obscurity. He, like Ann Coulter, are trying desperately to be known for being known. That’s what I’ve concluded about Ben Stein thus far.

Now if you’ll excuse me, I’ll go annoint my arms in petroleum to give that hug. ;)
Posted by: Glen Davidson on Mar. 07 2008,13:01

That reminds me, Kristine, that I was flipping through news channels last night and on Glenn Beck (change your first name from Glenn, buffoon) was Ben Stein.  So I thought I'd watch a bit, and yes, I heard that we're all just Exxon, and we ought to love it.

The rationale was more interesting, I thought.  A lot of his point (which I've heard previously) was that oil companies are not conspirators jacking up the price of oil.  I do actually agree with that (OPEC took over from the Texas rail commission, or something like that), but it struck me as odd that someone who thinks there's an overwhelming and comprehensive conspiracy to prevent any questioning of "Darwinism" disagrees with those who think oil companies are conspiring against us (which they have at times, occasionally being caught at it).

One other "idea" from Ben's lips--capitalism has made us the richest and most free nation on earth.  Um, what did you say Ben?  Supposedly the Marxists of academia prevent anyone from asking the most fundamental questions of life (as Ben so ignorantly construes a mere scientific theory), and yet we're the most free nation on earth?  Did Hitler win, that other nations are even less free than the one in which, "Under a new anti-religious dogmatism, scientists and educators are not allowed to even think thoughts that involve an intelligent creator"?

The guy makes no sense in his own mind, holding incompatible beliefs on the same subjects.  How could he possibly make sense in his blogs, in Expelled, in his columns, or anywhere else?

He didn't talk about Expelled while I was watching, only Glenn Beck mentioned it in passing.  And "Expelled:  No Intelligence Allowed" was displayed under the identifier "Ben Stein".

An intelligent interviewer would have pointed out what an incoherent mess Stein's claims are.  Unfortunately, the interviewer was Beck, one of the least competent talking heads on television.

Glen D
Posted by: Glen Davidson on Mar. 07 2008,16:39

I have seen April 11 as the debut date for Expelled previously, but it seemed not to be the prevailing wisdom, and no certain authority seemed known.  A recent source makes April 11, rather than April 18, seem more likely:

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
April 11

"Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed" (PG) -- Comedian/pundit Ben Stein hosts this pot-stirring documentary that questions science and evolutionary theory.

"Prom Night" (PG-13) -- Hello, "Carrie"? We need to borrow some of your pig's blood for this high-school horror flick. But not too much -- this is PG-13, after all.

"College" ® -- Hello, "Animal House"? We need to borrow some of your raunch for this comedy about high-school kids visiting a college campus. We need all the help we can get -- Drake Bell is the only recognizable person in the production.

"Street Kings" ® -- Gritty drama stars Keanu Reeves as a cop facing all sorts of tangled conspiracies after being accused of killing a co-worker. Also stars Forest Whitaker and Chris Evans.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



< Grand Rapids Press movie release schedule >

I'm sure some people are planning to see it as soon as possible (I might wait until TBN runs it), so be advised that it may very well be a week earlier than it has been expected.

Glen D
Posted by: rpenner on Mar. 07 2008,16:54

Maybe it is just "premiering" in Grand Rapids, with official opening in the rest of the country the next week. They clearly have spared no expense: I had no idea that forcing academics to compete in a meritocracy required documentary footage of Nazi Germany.

Anyway, more Expelled Blog fun is coming up on March 8 from "Guest Lecturer" -- no idea who it is -- their site seems sticky and broken right now.
Posted by: rpenner on Mar. 07 2008,16:56

Sorry - it looks like it's dated March 6, not 8. 23 comments filed but I can't read the post "Ben Stein Smart Bombs Darwinian Bunker" yet.
Posted by: Assassinator on Mar. 07 2008,17:25

It's actually pretty funny to see how people follow a comedian/actor on a subject like this. I still wonder how those minds work, makes me want to study psychology.
Posted by: J-Dog on Mar. 08 2008,14:32

Thanks to the link catch from John Lynch, we can all look forward to this new site dedicated to exposing the lies of expelled, the movie:

< http://expelledexposed.com/ >
Posted by: bystander on Mar. 08 2008,16:29

All those with websites and blogs will have to make sure they link to it so it goes up the google charts.
Posted by: Jason Spaceman on Mar. 10 2008,08:49

Yet another < WingNutDaily columnist > reviews Expelled:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Atheists are enraged. The politically correct academic nomenclature is upset. A reporter in Florida even posed as a minister to sneak into a church screening to stop actor, pundit and financial guru Ben Stein's new movie about the totalitarian attempts by Darwinian scientists to suppress dissent, "Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed."

The totalitarian left should be upset because "Expelled" is a wry, funny, well-crafted documentary. The juxtaposition of popular music, dramatic vignettes, documentary footage and Ben Stein's quest for truth is often laugh-out-loud funny. At the same time, it is heart-rending, convincing and transformational. Like any documentary, of course, there are a few moments when the tension relaxes, but most of the movie, especially the last third, is captivating because Ben Stein takes on atheists and Darwinian evolutionists like Richard Dawkins and exposes the fact that they are logically challenged.

Ben Stein starts out talking about the fact that the United States was built on freedom. He quotes the Founding Fathers and juxtaposes the freedom of the United States with the Communist Berlin Wall in Germany. Meanwhile, Pink Floyd is singing about the "crack" in the wall.

Carefully, Stein makes the case that the academic community has become as oppressive of freedom as that same community oppressed freedom in Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union. He interviews professor Richard Sternberg, who lost his long-term job at the Smithsonian Institute because he dared to publish a peer-reviewed article with two or three references to intelligent design. The article did not endorse intelligent design, but the very mention of intelligent design brings severe repression from the pseudo-scientific academic community. He then talks to Dr. Caroline Crocker, who lost her professorship at George Mason for having one reference to ID.

One by one, Stein introduces us to prestigious scientists at major universities who were expelled because they dared to mention intelligent design and open up the academic discussion to non-Darwinian viewpoints. He moves from there to questioning the institutions and the administrators who expelled these academics. The administrators squirm under his interrogation but eventually admit that the academic community has no room for freedom and honest intellectual inquiry.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Posted by: Richardthughes on Mar. 10 2008,09:40

Atheists are enraged.

How quick they are to conflate evolution with Atheism, agnosticism, immorality, dogma, faith, Hitler, Stalin...
Posted by: Kristine on Mar. 10 2008,09:43

Quote (Richardthughes @ Mar. 10 2008,08:40)
Atheists are enraged.

How quick they are to conflate evolution with Atheism, agnosticism, immorality, dogma, faith, Hitler, Stalin...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I hereby suggest that we all stay on message and burst into hysterical laughter whenever anyone mentions Expelled. :) *expel*
Posted by: Glen Davidson on Mar. 10 2008,10:30

There's a bit more regarding the Roger Moore invite/disinvite/accusation story, plus some transparent lies ("not polished enough") for why critics are carefully kept from seeing their dishonest production.  NYT:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
The film, which takes a position on intelligent design shared by President Bush, has also been shown at California Baptist University and the Dallas Theological Seminary. Glowing reviews have popped up on AnswersInGenesis.org, whose co-chief executive, Ken Ham, founded the Creation Museum, and in The American Spectator, whose senior editor, Tom Bethell, said that the movie evoked “tears of joy.”

Mr. Lauer said the marketing strategy was “about finding and serving people with deep-seated motivations” and then hoping those people would talk up the movie to their friends. The general media will be invited to screenings in early April, he said.

Logan Craft, executive producer of “Expelled” and chief of Premise Media, said he thought Mr. Moore had been wrong to attend the screening after being disinvited, but both he and Mr. Lauer denied any involvement in an online “media alert” that purported to be from a backer of the film. The alert accused Mr. Moore of posing as a minister to gain admission, calling his actions a “security breach.” Mr. Moore said he never represented himself as other than a reporter.

After Mr. Moore’s review, Mr. Stein commented, “Oh well. This will probably happen a lot more times.”

< New York Times >
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Moore's take:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
My position on this is that I am not going to let Lauer and company sneak another movie out with lots of like-minded preachers and lay-people "reviewing" it before I do, aka The Passion of the Christ. A whole lot of conservative Christians endorsed that movie prior to its release and apparently didn't recognize its anti-Semitism. They praised Mel Gibson to the high heavens (sorry) until he was outed as the raving anti-Semite that he actually is. Real critics, even non-Jews (like myself) spotted the film's hateful caricatures of Jews right off.

On another note, it is odd that, by strange coincidence, much of the anti-Golden Compass mass-emailing that I wrote about back last fall, some of it very nasty, with return-email addresses from Nashville churches, comes from the same town as Lauer's company. Is Motive behind these nasty astro-turf "grass-roots" chain letters? If so, who paid them? Bill Donohue and the Catholic League? Just wondering.

< Roger Moore >
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Yeah, it just wasn't polished enough.  How the hell did all that stuff about Nazis and the Berlin wall get in there?  They should be given enough time to clear out what those vile hackers did, putting in all that nasty defamation that no Christian would stoop to commit, before the critics see it.

Or, uh, were the problems Moore addressed possibly deliberate?

Glen D
Posted by: Glen Davidson on Mar. 10 2008,10:53

On Mar 10, 6:38 am, jspace...@linuxquestions.net wrote:
> From the article:
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Posted: March 10, 2008
> 1:00 am Eastern
>
> © 2008
>
> Atheists are enraged. The politically correct academic nomenclature is
> upset. A reporter in Florida even posed as a minister to sneak into a
> church screening to stop actor, pundit and financial guru Ben Stein's
> new movie about the totalitarian attempts by Darwinian scientists to
> suppress dissent, "Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed."
>
> The totalitarian left should be upset because "Expelled" is a wry,
> funny, well-crafted documentary. The juxtaposition of popular music,
> dramatic vignettes, documentary footage and Ben Stein's quest for
> truth is often laugh-out-loud funny. At the same time, it is heart-
> rending, convincing and transformational. Like any documentary, of
> course, there are a few moments when the tension relaxes, but most of
> the movie, especially the last third, is captivating because Ben Stein
> takes on atheists and Darwinian evolutionists like Richard Dawkins and
> exposes the fact that they are logically challenged.
>
> Ben Stein starts out talking about the fact that the United States was
> built on freedom. He quotes the Founding Fathers and juxtaposes the
> freedom of the United States with the Communist Berlin Wall in
> Germany. Meanwhile, Pink Floyd is singing about the "crack" in the
> wall.
>
> Carefully, Stein makes the case that the academic community has become
> as oppressive of freedom as that same community oppressed freedom in
> Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union. He interviews professor Richard
> Sternberg, who lost his long-term job at the Smithsonian Institute
> because he dared to publish a peer-reviewed article with two or three
> references to intelligent design. The article did not endorse
> intelligent design, but the very mention of intelligent design brings
> severe repression from the pseudo-scientific academic community. He
> then talks to Dr. Caroline Crocker, who lost her professorship at
> George Mason for having one reference to ID.
>
> One by one, Stein introduces us to prestigious scientists at major
> universities who were expelled because they dared to mention
> intelligent design and open up the academic discussion to non-
> Darwinian viewpoints. He moves from there to questioning the
> institutions and the administrators who expelled these academics. The
> administrators squirm under his interrogation but eventually admit
> that the academic community has no room for freedom and honest
> intellectual inquiry.
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------­---------
>
> Read it athttp://worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=58473
>
> J. Spaceman

"Even so, however, this movie proves the truth of what the Psalmist says in the Bible, "Only a fool says in his heart there is no God" (Psalm 14:1)."

So, let's see, ID is kept out of the science journals because "Big Science" (and anyone who can think) considers it to be religion.  The point of these liars is that, well, ID is religion and irreligion is simply wrong and the viewpoint of a fool.

Damn we're evil.  We said that ID was religion when the IDists were lying and saying that it wasn't, and that religion shouldn't be taught as science.  Now they're pointing out that ID is religion and that we prevented it from being taught as science, and, of course, we're evil for being correct about what ID was and because we agreed with the IDists' claims that religion shouldn't be taught as science.

There's one consistancy running through the IDiots' jumble of inconsistent claims:  We're wrong because we want science to be taught as science, not religion being taught as science.

Glen D
Posted by: Kristine on Mar. 10 2008,11:09

Quote (Glen Davidson @ Mar. 10 2008,09:30)
Yeah, it just wasn't polished enough.  
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


There's another meaning to such unending "polishing" of one's product, if you get me. :p Poor Ben. And in front of all those < pretty girls >, too.


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Ben Stein is a publicity hound with a taste for girls younger than George Soros's. His intellect is lighter than yogurt and just as uninformative.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

:D
Posted by: Glen Davidson on Mar. 10 2008,16:43

This is OT, but as it comes from the Expelled thread, I'll still archive it here:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
<blockquote>Hey Glen Davidson, I read your book. IT SUCKS!</blockquote>

I doubt that you did read it, buffoon.

Anyway, it's not for the stupid.  And apparently you are far too stupid to do anything but write "IT SUCKS."  I have yet to receive a single competent criticism of my book, though dumb hatred such as yours is something I've encountered previously.

You see, it is actually true that science could be a lot more open than it is at present.  That is not a problem with respect to evolution, which is a very well established theory whose primary detractors are religious bigots who have no alternative science at all.

But stupidity will do what it must, hate the intelligence it lacks.  And so it goes with stupid little Ralphie.

Glen D
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Posted by: Wesley R. Elsberry on Mar. 10 2008,17:21

A "George Lange" popped up in comments on PT, my blog, and Jim Lippard's blog claiming that everything on "Expelled Exposed" was wrong. I went through the current set of links at "Expelled Exposed" and showed how the specifics of what was being said was verifiable stuff. Lange hasn't shown up again at my blog.

There's obviously some touchiness when it comes to criticism over on the antievolution side.
Posted by: Kristine on Mar. 11 2008,10:32

< All conspiracies, all the time >.


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
The New York Times is working on it's THIRD negative story covering this independent film.
Doesn't that seem even a little bit ODD to anyone?
What is going ON???
Anyone? Anyone?
geo
Posted by: george lange | March 10, 2008 at 02:58 PM

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Somebody page Flaubert. We have someone who needs a couch on which to faint. :)
Posted by: Chayanov on Mar. 11 2008,12:49

It's so obvious that the producers don't care how the film does, just so long as it has the strongest opening weekend ever. They can't hide the movie forever -- it has to be released eventually. And as soon as the film hits the screen, an outporing of negative reviews will ensue, but by then they'll have had their opening numbers to crow over. As has been constantly noted, if they really believed they had an important message to deliver, wouldn't they want to ensure the sustainability of that message? Why is it so important for them to say, "Expelled opened at #3 in the box office, even though it dropped off the charts the following week"?
Posted by: JohnW on Mar. 11 2008,13:19

Quote (Chayanov @ Mar. 11 2008,10:49)
It's so obvious that the producers don't care how the film does, just so long as it has the strongest opening weekend ever. They can't hide the movie forever -- it has to be released eventually. And as soon as the film hits the screen, an outporing of negative reviews will ensue, but by then they'll have had their opening numbers to crow over. As has been constantly noted, if they really believed they had an important message to deliver, wouldn't they want to ensure the sustainability of that message? Why is it so important for them to say, "Expelled opened at #3 in the box office, even though it dropped off the charts the following week"?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


It's better than that.  After the fundies see it on opening day*, the negative reviews will come out, no-one else shows up, and they'll start showing it in church basements.  The marketing will then be "Expelled was #7 on opening weekend, before the Evil Darwinist/Atheist/Nazi/Stalinist Conspiracy produced all those scathing reviews and got it thrown out of commercial cinemas.  See the film THEY don't want you to see."  Ka-ching! Thank you very much!





* I'm not convinced this will be enough people to give it more than a half-decent opening weekend.  "The strongest opening weekend ever" is going to be well out of reach.


[edit - fixed a couple of sloppy word choices.  Either too much coffee this morning, or not enough.]
Posted by: J-Dog on Mar. 11 2008,13:47

If only we had saved the video of Gonzalez getting burned at the stake, Sternburg getting beheaded, Dembski getting pantsed and Behe being forced to publish a joke of a book*.

Then, we could open up our competing Darwinista Martyr-Drama the same weekend as Expelled and distract their target  demographic.


Added in edit:  *Ah yes, good times...
Posted by: Kristine on Mar. 11 2008,14:35

Quote (JohnW @ Mar. 11 2008,12:19)
 
Quote (Chayanov @ Mar. 11 2008,10:49)
It's so obvious that the producers don't care how the film does, just so long as it has the strongest opening weekend ever. They can't hide the movie forever -- it has to be released eventually. And as soon as the film hits the screen, an outporing of negative reviews will ensue, but by then they'll have had their opening numbers to crow over. As has been constantly noted, if they really believed they had an important message to deliver, wouldn't they want to ensure the sustainability of that message? Why is it so important for them to say, "Expelled opened at #3 in the box office, even though it dropped off the charts the following week"?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


It's better than that.  After the fundies see it on opening day*, the negative reviews will come out, no-one else shows up, and they'll start showing it in church basements.  The marketing will then be "Expelled was #7 on opening weekend, before the Evil Darwinist/Atheist/Nazi/Stalinist Conspiracy produced all those scathing reviews and got it thrown out of commercial cinemas.  See the film THEY don't want you to see."  Ka-ching! Thank you very much!

* I'm not convinced this will be enough people to give it more than a half-decent opening weekend.  "The strongest opening weekend ever" is going to be well out of reach.
[edit - fixed a couple of sloppy word choices.  Either too much coffee this morning, or not enough.]
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Makes me want to help these poor Darwinian Abolitionists out and get a hold of the film, and make as many pirated copies to distribute far and wide so that The Film They Won’t Let You See gets as much exposure as possible! That’s what they want, isn’t it? This isn’t about $$$ - this is about ideals! Freedom! Of! Speech! and all that. People will lose their jobs if they see this film, unless they get a pirated copy from me for them to safely view in their own home – and to copy themselves and distribute! I’m sure my efforts would make Ben Stein very happy. ;) I’m sure he’d write a grateful NY Times column about brave, activist me. :p
Posted by: Glen Davidson on Mar. 12 2008,12:43

Cross-posts from Talkorigins:

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
"Stein also joined John Stemberger, head of the Florida Family Policy
Council, and Casey Luskin, a lawyer from the Seattle-based Discovery
Institute, in defending a private screening of Stein's new film that
has been arranged tonight for legislators. They showed a brief preview
of the film, in which Stein recounts his meetings with teachers and
scientists who have been shunned for questioning evolutionary theory.

...


"Two bills by Rep. Alan Hays, R-Umatilla, and Sen. Ronda Storms, R-
Brandon, would forbid school districts or state authorities to punish
teachers or students in any way for raising questions about evolution.
Stemberger said the new law is needed because of "dogmatic" new
science standards adopted by the State Board of Education last month,
which allow teaching of evolution as "a theory."


"Stein said all scientific approaches ought to be protected in
classrooms, not just evolution or creation-based theories.


""This bill is not about teaching intelligent design," said Stein.
"It's about freedom of speech.""


The rest is here:


< http://www.news-press.com/apps....S012... >


Only problem, liar Benjamin, ID and creationism aren't scientific
theories.


And the reason you can tell your lies, Stein, is that there is freedom
of speech.  If you could be prosecuted or sued for lying, your ass
would have been in prison long ago.


Glen D
< http://tinyurl.com/2kxyc7 >


[A follow-up post I made]

   
> "Stein said all scientific approaches ought to be protected in
> classrooms, not just evolution or creation-based theories.



OK, all scientific approaches should be protected, according to
Stein.

But the Expelled producers write that belief in the designer is a
worldview, or essentially, not science:


"Belief in atheism, agnosticism and belief in a designer are real
beliefs - let's not pretend that they don't exist, can be side stepped
or pretend that it is fair, constitutional or intellectually rigorous
to favor one such worldview over another... especially in the realm of
science. To oppose such academic freedom - especially at the
taxpayer's expense - is simply wrong. If you agree, look here."


This is found at:


< http://expelledthemovie.com/chronicle.php?issue=2&article=1 >


OK, so atheism, agnosticism, and belief in a designer are beliefs.
Why should beliefs be taught in a classroom?  Lord knows, agnosticism
and atheism aren't permitted to be, so why should belief in the
designer be permitted to be taught in the classroom?


They're shooting themselves in the foot, and are too stupid to realize
it.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------




Glen D
Posted by: Glen Davidson on Mar. 12 2008,20:16

Anyone live near Chicago, and want to see Expelled?

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
This might interest some people:

<blockquote>You are invited to a FREE PRIVATE SCREENING of Ben Stein’s upcoming, history-making film, Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed (Opening in theaters April 2008).


....
<br /><br />

The private screening details are as follows:<br />

Date: Tuesday, March 18, 2008<br />

Time: 7:00PM<br />

Location: AMC Lowes Streets of Woodfield 20, 601 N. <br />Martingale Rd., Suite 185, Schaumburg, IL 60173


RSVP: < http://rsvp.getexpelled.com/events/special/expelled > <br /><br />

For some reason this takes you to the list of all of the private screenings for Expelled, which is not where I was when I copied the address.  But then, that's all the better [this paragraph was added in edit]



< Source for the above >
Glen D
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Posted by: Peter Henderson on Mar. 13 2008,11:0