A Review of Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed
by BradfordMy wife and I saw Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed tonight. It was worth it. Ben Stein interviewed prominent individuals from both sides of the Intelligent Design issue. The overriding theme of the movie was freedom. Freedom to view questions from all vantage points without retribution. Dembski, Berlinski, Wells, Sternberg, Gonzalez and more from the ID side were interviewed along with Dawkins, Provine, Ruse, Myers and others from the opposing side. I enjoyed Berlinski the most while Provine provided an ample view of the dark side. I was surprised (although I should not be after years of watching internet exchanges) by the obsession of critics with religion and their own philosophical interpretations of it. Religion and science are inversely related according to the simplistic formulation of Myers. More of one necessarily means less of the other.
Dembski made the point that evolution need not be an opposing paradigm to Intelligent Design and Ruse made a comical attempt to explain a crystal based explanation for life's origin. After offering a very abbreviated explanation Ben Stein asked how it works and an exasperated Ruse twice repeated that he already explained it. Crystals and mutations were not enough for either Stein or most of the theater viewers based on their reactions.
Expect the usual charges of dishonesty and a liberal dose of insults from the critics. Ignore it. They spring from motives having nothing to do with science. If you spend a significant amount of time at Telic Thoughts you owe it to yourself to see the movie.
April 19th, 2008 at 4:17 am
Why, then, do ID proponents like Dembski actively censor their own blogs and ban people who don't accept the "party line"
His explanation was dishonestly misrepresented in the film…
I don't understand this comments. Do you deny the fact that the film makes claims that are completley untrue? For example, Sternberg wasn't fired. His tenure was up at that point! And his pro-ID stance was well known even before he was hired!
Comment by srapin — April 19, 2008 @ 4:17 am
April 19th, 2008 at 4:52 am
Just a simple question:
Does the movie ever mention the fact that Stalin rejected evolution because he thought it led to capitalism?
If not, why do you think that is?
Comment by srapin — April 19, 2008 @ 4:52 am
April 19th, 2008 at 7:09 am
Let us talk about how Sternberg was persecuted. What does the movie say happened to him? How does that compare to what other people claim?
http://www.scienceblogs.com/di...
http://www.expelledexposed.com...
Let us talk about how the movie was made. To get interviews with Dawkins and Myers, the movie makers pretending they were making another movie altogether, called "Crossroads". The lie was exposed when it was discovered they had already purchased the doman name for Expelled before the interviews. They never had a domain for any movie called Crossroads. Is this the behavior of honest people? I say no.
Details here:
http://www.expelledexposed.com...
Let us talk about disgraceful tactics. The whole claim that the holocaust is a direct result of Darwin's theory is an old creationist lie. It is disgusting that they continue to use the death of millions to make political points (especially as Stein is himself Jewish).
Details here:
http://www.expelledexposed.com...
Let us talk about why no theistic evolutionists, like Ken Miller, were interviewed for the movie.
Mention of theistic evolution would confuse the false dichotomy they are promoting.
Details here:
http://www.heardworld.com/higg...
Let us talk about the anti-semitic creationist, Maciej Giertych, interviewed in the movie, supporting Stein.
Details here:
http://scienceblogs.com/strang...
Comment by The Pixie — April 19, 2008 @ 7:09 am
April 19th, 2008 at 7:21 am
Pixie, blathering on about this makes me ignore everything else you say. I think your talking points are pathetic and have been dealt with adequately in the past, not just on this blog.
It seems you are unable to critically consider anything which comes from "your" side. Irrational skepticism, meet pixie. Pixie, meet irrational skepticism.
Comment by Jean — April 19, 2008 @ 7:21 am
April 19th, 2008 at 7:28 am
Jran, if you could link to where it was dealt with, I might take you seriously!
Comment by The Pixie — April 19, 2008 @ 7:28 am
April 19th, 2008 at 7:52 am
Here's a question. Would Dawkins and Myers refuse to give an interview to a movie that was about academic freedom for ID? Would they have given different answers? If any of that is true it only proves the movie's point
Peace
Comment by fifth monarchy man — April 19, 2008 @ 7:52 am
April 19th, 2008 at 7:54 am
The Pixie is another Evolution misconception: Evolutionists can explain everything that favors them!
Comment by neddy — April 19, 2008 @ 7:54 am
April 19th, 2008 at 8:01 am
fmm:
Only "they"can answer that. It seems you approve of the movie makers' lies. Is that correct?
Comment by Raevmo — April 19, 2008 @ 8:01 am
April 19th, 2008 at 8:24 am
Good morning,
Long time observer, enjoy the site and insights.
I'll go to see the movie. The interview with Dawkins was funny and revealing with straightforward questions. The latest commercial was understated humor at its best, but to the point and made me laugh thinking back on high school and college classes.
It was very much this way for truly curious students – make that truly skeptical. You'd get shut down. Unlike Math, Physics, you always left wanting for more in biology on OOL and evolution explanations. I believe in open discussion and debate without fear of intimidation. I hope this movie goes a long way in opening up doors and ending the harrasment by peers based upon religious beliefs. Good science can be done by both sides.
Dr. Sanford at Cornell is obvious proof of it. Fortunately he achieved his rewards and recognition prior to "coming out" about his beliefs in a Designer.
Ben Stein Rebel with a Cause – Commercial
He's a little like Saber Tooth Bunnies at myspace. Never knew such famous people like Ringo could enjoy rebellious bunnies so much.
watch out for the wrabblution, it appears everywhere at a theatre new you.
Comment by TeleAboveGround — April 19, 2008 @ 8:24 am
April 19th, 2008 at 8:32 am
Is it a lie for an investigative reporter to not disclose that his story perhaps might not be 100% favorable before he interviews a hostile witness?
I would expect any rational human being to already know this. That is unless every story they were interviewed for was a puff piece.
It it a lie to say you are making a movie called Crossroads and instead call it Expelled?
I don't know about the details but while watching the movie it appeared that if the ID critics had given different answers then a different movie would have been made. This was not a Michael More hatchet Job the critics are given lots of air time. It's not like they are taken out of context.
Actually Eugenie Scott is given lots of time to explain that Darwinism and faith in God are not incompatible. This is followed by Myers and Dawkins saying that she is just being deceitful to gain the support of religious folk. Do you aprove of this type of lying?
Peace
Comment by fifth monarchy man — April 19, 2008 @ 8:32 am
April 19th, 2008 at 8:36 am
Pixie,
Here are Sternberg's rebuttals to critics.
http://www.rsternberg.net/
As well as to outside findings of the Office of Special Council for the United States:
http://www.rsternberg.net/OSC_... which found in his favor.
The emails are revealing and show Sternberg did indeed receive unjust treatment at the hands of zealous scientist over his publication of a scientific paper that did not agree with their worldview.
And here are the details Sternberg provides:
http://www.rsternberg.net/publ...
Comment by TeleAboveGround — April 19, 2008 @ 8:36 am
April 19th, 2008 at 9:58 am
It would seem a prerequisite for all to familiarize themselves with the counter-claims at the Expelled Exposed site. Even the most ardent ID supporter would not be able to dismiss every single counter-claim. What is untrue at that site? I am genuinely and very interested to know.
For my part, I will study the counter-counter claims at rsternberg.net and other sites people wish to suggest.
How many realities are there? There is only one, right? Our perceptions may be different, but at least we should be able to agree on the facts.
Comment by JackT — April 19, 2008 @ 9:58 am
April 19th, 2008 at 10:24 am
fmm:
Yes. There was already a registered Expelled website, no Crossroads site. They lied about the name and the content of the movie.
Those are all opinions, not lies.
Comment by Raevmo — April 19, 2008 @ 10:24 am
April 19th, 2008 at 10:44 am
Where I saw the movie the audience applauded at the end.
Comment by Bert — April 19, 2008 @ 10:44 am
April 19th, 2008 at 10:49 am
No one questions that evolution occurred; many people question that evolution is driven by random mutation and natural selection. I saw the film. Some materialistst seem to be that no one is killed or imprisoned for discussing the possibility that the universe is designed; people who question neo-Darwinism merely lose their jobs if they publicly wonder how "natural selection" might somehow turn a series of genetic mistakes into biological adaptations.
If a sufficient number of people reach the subjective judgment that the universe is not a meaningless mechanical device, intelligent organization will be discussed as an alternative. I hope non-materialists don't then try to impose their views upon everyone by intimidation and appeals to the courts for protection from criticism. However, if non-materialists ever start behaving like today's neo-Darwinists, I personally would probably try to find a way to argue the other side. Academic freedom is more important to me than any individual theory or concept. That is what the movie is about; not about the relative merits of materialism or intelligent design.
Questions about Materialism
http://30145.myauthorsite.com/
Comment by Bert — April 19, 2008 @ 10:49 am
April 19th, 2008 at 11:42 am
JackT:
I haven't seen this movie, but I did look at your linked site. Did the site's author see the movie? I ask because I see no indication in the opening blurb, though the blurb makes bold claims. So I clicked on the claim-rebuttal page for Evolution…
"¢ Claim 1: An anecdote from Paul Nelson, who uses the word 'many' describing the evolutionary biologists he has three or four beers with after meetings. This cannot be "large numbers of scientists," it can only be "many" of Nelson's professional acquaintances friendly enough to have beers with after meetings. Not scary.
The response claims Expelled doesn't define evolution properly, then whines that sure, biologists debate the details, but they're not REALLY saying there are any problems with the theory. This simply confirms the anecdotal statement by Nelson that he hears about problems from colleagues he has three or four beers with after meetings. Waste of space – why'd they put this first?
"¢ Claim 2: A quote from Jeffrey Schwartz from the movie, pointing out that it's "essentially" official policy of NAS that religion and science not be related. Oh, and he uses the word "elite" to describe NAS, which has control of a good deal of funding.
NAS does indeed control a good deal of funding and really does consider its membership an 'elite'. That's its whole reason for being. I sure don't know how anybody could test for God, so I agree that this is a non-issue. How many scientists are requesting money from NAS for God research every year? …Any?
"¢ Claim 3: Stein says there's an "old boys" network and biologists must "go along to get along."
The rebuttal cites several challenging, highly debated researches in the '80s and '90s to demonstrate how open-minded biology is. Then it insists that the "burden of proof" is on ID to show the approach has merit. Of course, since we already know what happens if such research gets published, this just comes across as justification for the charge that's been made.
"¢ Claim 4: Stein quote saying Darwinism doesn't address OOL. The rebuttal readily admits this is true, throws Darwin under the antiquity bus, then turns right around and extols "significant" OOL research. Quite confused – what about OOL not being part of evolutionary theory is supposed to be controversial? I forget…
"¢ Claim 5: NS is an inadequate explanation for information-rich complex structures. Rebuttal admits that yes, selection DOES diminish genetic variability, but insists that it's the origin part of the equation that accounts for complexity. You know, the "random" half of RM-NS. Still looks inadequate to me, no matter how many sub-processes they stick in there (drift, HGT, symbiosis, recombination). You'll have this whenever your theory doesn't adequately explain the phenomena it claims to explain. Very weak.
"¢ Claim 6: ID researchers are "on the edge" of spectacular discoveries. The rebuttal whines about the molecular machine analogy, that 'design' in these complex structures doesn't mean they're 'designed'. Then it complains that its exclusive way of approaching biology is best [duh]. Which doesn't do anything to actually refute the idea that a design approach might be better, it's just whining that a movie dares to suggest that there's any other way to approach biology. Comes across as Snotty-Nosed Kids in a Trailer Park [thanx, Redneck Grease Deluxe].
Comment by Joy — April 19, 2008 @ 11:42 am
April 19th, 2008 at 11:49 am
TeleAboveGround
Thanks for the reply. I am sure Sternberg found himself in a hostile environment after his actions, which undoubtedly infuriated a lot of his collegues. I was asking specifically what the movie says happened to him. Was he actually "expelled" from anywhere? Afterall, that is the name of the movie, and Sternberg would seem to be the most obvious one. Sternberg's web site does not say he expelled from the SI or from the journal.
Bert says: "people who question neo-Darwinism merely lose their jobs if they publicly wonder how "natural selection" might somehow turn a series of genetic mistakes into biological adaptations" Who are these people who have lost their jobs? Sternberg has not. Gonzalez has not. Crocker has not.
Here we have a movie whose basic premise is that people have been fired for promoting ID or creationism, a movie with a title based on that very claim, and yet I am not aware of anyone that that has happened to. May someone can enlighten me. Or maybe not.
It is also interesting how Bert divides the world into materialists and IDists. He has falled for the false dichotomy that is promoted by the movie. Where do theistic evolutionists like Ken Miller fit into such a worl;d view? They do not, so we quietly sweep them under the carpet.
By the way, Bert, I just clicked on your link and found out who you are at ARN. Hi!
Comment by The Pixie — April 19, 2008 @ 11:49 am
April 19th, 2008 at 11:55 am
Hi Bert,
You wrote…
Are you aware of the Chris Comer situation? link
The Culture Warriors on both sides are gearing up for this one.
For the record, I am not a "materialist". I happen to think the telic universe is made up of interconnected quantum effects. While I tend to be a critic of organized religions, people like Ken Miller are not. I understand Ken Miller has indicated that he believes God works through Quantum Mechanics.
But I note with interest, that it looks like Chris Comer situation was a more definative expullsion than anything mentioned in the movie.
The other thing of note, is that it has become clearer that claims that this has nothing to do with the promotion of religion just is no longer credible. The Wedge Document is alive and well.
"Governing Goals:
-To defeat scientific materialism and its destructive moral, cultural and political legacies.
- To replace materialistic explanations with the theistic understanding that nature and human beings are created by God."
Comment by Thought Provoker — April 19, 2008 @ 11:55 am
April 19th, 2008 at 12:17 pm
TP:
??? Comer was acting in a political capacity. In Texas. She compromised her officially 'neutral' status by promoting a Forrest anti-ID lecture. In what way is this equivalent to denying a Ph.D. Astronomer and academic researcher tenure for writing a book about fine-tuning?
Comment by Joy — April 19, 2008 @ 12:17 pm
April 19th, 2008 at 1:14 pm
Hi Joy,
They aren't equivalent. In the Comer case, she actually lost her job.
As I understand it, what you call "promoting a Forrest anti-ID lecture" consisted of forwarding an email to some people she thought would be interested with only an "FYI" as a comment.
Here is the e-mail.
Comment by Thought Provoker — April 19, 2008 @ 1:14 pm
April 19th, 2008 at 1:14 pm
I'm not sure what your point is. If this movie contained cut and paste out of context remarks edited to make folks look foolish that would be one thing but that is not the kind of film it is. Maybe they had an evil plan B but we don't know that and apparently it was not necessary.
If Dawkins and Co would have given any credence at all to the claim that the folks in question were not being "Expelled" for their ID views the movie could not have had that title regardless of what site was registered. That is the whole point of the movie.
I can't emphasize this enough the critics are given plenty of opportunity to say that they were giving ID a fair shake yet as long as they believed they were talking to a friendly audience the contempt for any debate with ID at all was manifest.
It seems to me that the ones who are being dishonest are the critics who have lead us to believe that they have examined the evidence with out bias and found ID lacking.
If you wanted to make a movie about your suspicion that folks were being dishonest in public with those who disagree with them how would you discover if this was true wile making it clear that you disagreed with them?
Remember ID proponents were also told that the working title was the more neutral sounding Crossroads. It seems to be the only way to get honest answers in such a politically charged context.
How would they know the content of the movie before Dawkins as co provided it? It was their call after all. That's the point
Peace
Comment by fifth monarchy man — April 19, 2008 @ 1:14 pm
April 19th, 2008 at 1:31 pm
I read the email, TP. I also read that this was not her first and only conflict with her colleagues, though the other listed reasons for termination were not included by NCSE. But to tell you the truth, I don't care. Texas politics has been nearly as notorious as Michigan, New York, Philly, South Carolina and Oklahoma politics for as long as Americans have been making jokes about politicians.
Surely you don't believe all those indicted and about-to-be-indicted crooks in federal government really leave because they want to spend more time with their families, do you?
If Comer really wants to be a powerful politician she should run for State School Board, see if she can get herself appointed chair. Or maybe she should run for Governor. Or the state legislature. There's a million political jobs to be had if you can convince (or pay) people to vote for you. Most don't even require a college degree!
Comment by Joy — April 19, 2008 @ 1:31 pm
April 19th, 2008 at 1:37 pm
Joy:
How do you know the book was the reason he was denied tenure? His academic performance had been rather mediocre, which seems a legitimate reason for denial of tenure.
It's also interesting that you just mention Gonzalez. Do you agree that the others were not expelled?
It's rather amazing, don't you think, that the movie makers couldn't find a single legitimate example of a person truly expelled for their anti-Darwinism views. Perhaps such persons do not exist?
Comment by Raevmo — April 19, 2008 @ 1:37 pm
April 19th, 2008 at 1:45 pm
Gonzales also lost his job. Being denied tenure = losing your job, only with a little more notice.
Comment by Chester — April 19, 2008 @ 1:45 pm
April 19th, 2008 at 1:48 pm
Thought Provoker wrote "For the record, I am not a "materialist". I happen to think the telic universe is made up of interconnected quantum effects. While I tend to be a critic of organized religions, people like Ken Miller are not. I understand Ken Miller has indicated that he believes God works through Quantum Mechanics.
But I note with interest, that it looks like Chris Comer situation was a more definative expullsion than anything mentioned in the movie."
Hello, Thought Provoker.
If Ken Miller believes god works through Quantum Mechanics, intelligently and purposefully, it sounds to me like a form of intelligent design. If Ken Miller believes god's efforts are devoid of meaning or purpose, it sounds to me like another form of materialism. In either case, Ken Miller (and you) should feel free to promote his (your) ideas without fear of intimidation or reprisal. Whether Darwinists are getting away with harassing people promoting ID or whether ID people are successfully harassing Darwinists is a judgment call. I will change sides when I see evidence that the ID people being more successful as harassers than the Darwinists.
By the way, I also believe the universe is made up of interconnected quantum effects, but I believe those quantum effects interact intelligently and purposefully. Thus I choose to align myself with Intelligent Design. Mainly, because I don't like the way most Darwinists react to any deviation from orthodoxy.
Questions about Materialism
htp://30145.myauthorsite.com/
Comment by Bert — April 19, 2008 @ 1:48 pm
April 19th, 2008 at 1:54 pm
Raevmo:
They're all legitimate. You gotta go along to get along.
Comment by Bradford — April 19, 2008 @ 1:54 pm
April 19th, 2008 at 1:56 pm
Ruse made a comical attempt to explain a crystal based explanation for life's origin
Yeah, yeah, yodda, yodda. Give me the accurately represented version.
Comment by Bradford — April 19, 2008 @ 1:56 pm
April 19th, 2008 at 2:02 pm
Titles of books, movies, magazine and newspaper articles, blog posts, etc. change all the time. This is fully within the rights of the artist/writer and production companies to do (permission from cast members is NOT required). I fail to see how a movie about "the intersection of science and religion" or a movie about a particular conflict under that heading changes anything except which clips of those in-the-can hours of interviews get to the final cut. PZ alone bragged that he'd provided more than 3 hours' worth – multiplied by all the interviewees – that's enough footage to make any of a dozen different films with different target focus. The film makers get to make those artistic and business choices, not PZ or his fan club.
Richard Dawkins and PZ Myers wouldn't have changed their story if they knew the film was about ID instead of about broader science vs. religion conflicts. They answered questions about the subject and gave their opinions. They were paid for their time as well as their opinions, and we all know it's all been said before. Just like Ben Stein was paid, the gaffers were paid, and the cameramen were paid. Film making is a business. It's job is to aim for the largest possible market to get the best return on investment. The religious market is a lot bigger than PZ's fan club or the not-so brights. Even a scientist could figure this much out, it's not that hard.
This is all so much sour grapes, if it's not all paid marketing promotion. I haven't concluded yet that PZ isn't on the payroll. He's certainly done more than anyone else to promote this film, even though what he's done is patently silly. That's just my artistic sensibilities talking, though. He just behaves like a kid in a cheap gorilla suit, and that gets really old after the first round of antics.
Comment by Joy — April 19, 2008 @ 2:02 pm
April 19th, 2008 at 2:12 pm
Well said. The comments of PZ and Dawkins were consistent with their known views. It has been said before. So what's the problem? It's the wrong theme according to the control freaks.
Comment by Bradford — April 19, 2008 @ 2:12 pm
April 19th, 2008 at 2:19 pm
Pixie says:
Pixie, your rhetoric is misleading in a Eugenics Scott sort of way. I wish I had the exact quote from Expelled, but Stein addresses your accusation head on and says that in no way would he make that assertion.
Are you saying that there is no connection between Darwin, Eugenics, and the holocaust?
Regardless of your opinion, there are many people in this country that are now convinced (Due to the uncritical acceptance of Darwinian evolution) that life has no ultimate meaning, that there is no objective basis for morality, and that life is ultimately a just a struggle for survival. School shootings, abortion, and the euthanasia movement are symptoms of this world view.
Comment by David — April 19, 2008 @ 2:19 pm
April 19th, 2008 at 3:05 pm
Judging by the reviews so far I'm guessing this is not a "date movie."
Comment by Rock — April 19, 2008 @ 3:05 pm
April 19th, 2008 at 3:19 pm
LOL! Darnit, Rock! Now you owe me a keyboard…
Comment by Joy — April 19, 2008 @ 3:19 pm
April 19th, 2008 at 4:12 pm
So here we have a movie called "Expelled" about people being fired for their views, and yet apparently no one was actually expelled, no one was fired. The best you lot can manage was:
No, being denied tenure is being denied tenure. Tenure is not a right that you get automatically. He did not lose tenure, he never had it. By your logic getting rejected for a job after a bad interview is the same as getting fired from a job!
I have no idea what that means. Is it supposed to convince us they were all fired? Or what?
David
"Eugenics Scott" Unless that was a mistake (Freudian slip?) or you can find some evidence Eugenie Scott advocates eugenics, I think that is in very bad taste, and does nothing to help your argument or my opinion of you.
I assume that the assertion you refer to is "the holocaust is a direct result of Darwin's theory", rather than the assertion than Stein is Jewish, or that six million Jews died. So you are sure that Stein does not make a connection from Darwinism to Nazism. In that case I apologise. I had been led to believe that images of Nazis feature prominently in the movie, the Stein even visits a concentration camp. It is a relief to hear you say that that is not so. That is what you are sayin right?
No connection at all? I would not claim that. I do believe the holocaust would have happened without Darwin. I believe it was based in particular on anti-semtism (as exemplified by previous progroms and the writings of Marton Luther), which was rife in Germany at that time, fueled by the economic situation in Germany after WW1. The whole eugenics thing is essentially breeding, which was well established in agriculture and eugenics itself dates back to Plato (though it certainly saw a revival after Darwin).
Darwin never advocated eugenics, though according to here Stein indulges in quote-mining to pretend that Darwin did.
Then perhaps the church should concentrate on educating people about how Darwinism does not imply their is no meaning for life, no objective basis for morality.
Comment by The Pixie — April 19, 2008 @ 4:12 pm
April 19th, 2008 at 4:17 pm
I'm planning on seeing the movie tonight. My suspicion is that the movie is an attempt by political conservatives to make ID into another wedge issue, in the tradition of Abortion and Gay Marriage. If it succeeds, it might give them that little edge they need in November.
(Of course, since I'm politically liberal, I find this thought highly distressing.)
But besides the political fallout, I fear that the movie will just succeed in polarizing people into ID or anti-ID camps, with the concommitant yelling and screaming at each other, and making it more difficult for people to approach the topic with open-minded, intellectual curiosity, in the tradition of The Design Matrix.
Comment by Bilbo — April 19, 2008 @ 4:17 pm
April 19th, 2008 at 4:57 pm
Expelled does not mean fired it means removed from the academy or to be driven out. The offence here is not lack of income it is lack of access. I think even you would agree that ID has been removed from the academy or at least you think it should be.
The point is made repeatedly in the movie that Darwinism did not cause the Nazis. Stein does make the Darwinism to eugenics to the holocaust connection and drives this home by visiting a place where the mentally ill and insane were killed so that they could not breed. Sounds like a legitimate point to me
He also has a disturbing interview with Provine in which he in effect says that if he is again diagnosed with cancer he will shoot himself in the head because he believes that such a life is meaningless. He says this belief is the result of his leaving the church and accepting Darwinism.
It's chilling
Peace
Comment by fifth monarchy man — April 19, 2008 @ 4:57 pm
April 19th, 2008 at 5:33 pm
Bilbo
I agree entirely. Maybe that is their aim? ID books, DVDs, etc. will sell better in a culture war with two deeply divided camps than in an honest and open debate, when the sides meet equably.
FFM
Okay, so are we all agreed that no one has been fired for their ID beliefs? The persecution of Sternberg, Gonzalez and Crocker involves what then? This is directed at anyone who has seen the movie; what specifically does Stein claim has happened to these people?
We were have a discussing on another thread (The Real Movement) about the ID movement. I think the ID movement should be removed from academia, certainly, because they engage in dishonest politics (and I gave some specific examples on the other thread; just wauiting for Bradford to get back on that). I have no problem with ID in science, as long as it is done in an honest and scientific way. As yet there is no scientific evidence for ID (as Mike Gene agrees), but I have no problem with IDists looking for that evidence. I would far rather they did that than produce movies like this, or try to inject ID into the classroom by political maneouvring.
So Stein says Darwinism caused the holocaust indirectly via eugenics, but Darwinism did not cause the Nazis, do I understand you right? So when I said "Let us talk about disgraceful tactics. The whole claim that the holocaust is a direct result of Darwin's theory is an old creationist lie. " I was wrong, you argue, because the holocaust was an indirect result of Darwin's theory. I think that is arguing a trivial detail, and missing the point. However, I may well be missing your point.
Please enlighten me: What meaning do you think there is in such an existence, suffering with a terminal disease?
I agree with Provine that it would be preferable to end your life quickly, avoiding the suffering and indiginity of a lingering death. I think it would be better for your loved ones too; how terrible is it for them to watch you slowly deteriorate over months and months, watch you suffer, never nothing if the next day will be your last. If you believe in an afterlife, then a quick death becomes positively desirable, as you get to heaven sooner, and your family will have the comfort of nothing you are there waiting for them. I really have no idea why you might find this chilling.
Comment by The Pixie — April 19, 2008 @ 5:33 pm
April 19th, 2008 at 5:55 pm
What is your aim Pixie other than routine character assasinations of every high profile figure that comes up in these exchanges. Sell more books? You mean like those written by Dawkins and his fellow ideologues? You can't help yourself. If greed is in evidence there is a much better case for it existing on your side of the fence.
BTW, Bilbo there was nary a word about political or social causes unless freedom of expression has now fallen into that category.
Comment by Bradford — April 19, 2008 @ 5:55 pm
April 19th, 2008 at 5:59 pm
Hah. Tell that to William Provine and others. Why walk one way and talk the other? Anti-IDists are constantly talking about morality, religion and issues that are unrelated to science. They're consumed by these things.
Comment by Bradford — April 19, 2008 @ 5:59 pm
April 19th, 2008 at 6:04 pm
Hi Fifth Monarchy Man,
It looks like you got the message the movie was trying to send.
The Spartans were practicing eugenics in 500 BC to purge the gene pool of potentially weak soldiers while they were still babies. Animal husbandry was practiced thousands of years prior to Darwin.
Hitler and Nazism didn't need Darwin. In fact, Darwin's books were banned and, probably, burned.
From Guidelines from Die Bücherei 2:6 (1935), p. 279 (list of things banned by the Nazis)…
"6. Writings of a philosophical and social nature whose content deals with the false scientific enlightenment of primitive Darwinism and Monism(Häckel)." link
It is my understanding that this movie is one of many that has tried to duplicate the success of the Passion of The Christ. The idea was to get churches and religious groups to suggest this is a "must see" movie. It is fairly obvious that the target group is Christians.
While I was originally concerned that this movie was going to do more damage than good, I am not so sure any more. Most people recognize that appeals to Nazism in an attempt to make an argument is an act of desperation. Even Michael Moore wouldn't do that.
Joy is probably right, this is about making money. The movie appears to only be making convincing arguments to people already convinced.
Comment by Thought Provoker — April 19, 2008 @ 6:04 pm
April 19th, 2008 at 6:17 pm
Bradford:
You make anti-IDists almost sound like normal people.
Comment by Raevmo — April 19, 2008 @ 6:17 pm
April 19th, 2008 at 6:24 pm
Hey TP
The problem with that strategy is lots of my fellow fundies hate ID just as much as Dawkins. I know of no calls from the pulpit to see this movie in my neck of the woods and none of the Christian blogs I frequent have mentioned it
Pixie:
They were ostracized and marginalized. Sternberg had his religious beliefs investigated Crocker's contract was not renewed and found it difficult to find a new position. Gonzales was the subject of a petition drive and was eventually denied tenure. I think you already know this stuff
Do you think the folks in question were part of a vast secret movement that must be silenced?
If life was designed it is inherently meaningful to the designer and to folks who admire the designers' handy work. Think of a car collector who finds a classic auto with lots of mechanical problems that is destined to wear out eventually, You just don't destory such a thing with out good reason.
I think this was Hitler's opinion when dealing with the insane and mentally handicapped. Just get it over quickly and avoid all the suffering and indignity. Just take this shower and all will be well.
I've got a friend who is paralyzed maybe he should think of his children and end it quickly. How selfish of him to make them watch him slowly deteriorate.
I guess if you believed your life was the result of random accidents filtered by nature it's not. I rest my case
WOW
Comment by fifth monarchy man — April 19, 2008 @ 6:24 pm
April 19th, 2008 at 6:32 pm
Of course it has to do with making money TP. Does Dawkins tell publishers to keep the profits of the best selling books he authors? Don't some of you understand that if you are going to make inferences about motives you need to be sure your backside is protected? Guess what? When it comes to profit motives we all have them.
BTW, TP, many people, who are not addicted to this stuff, are being exposed to the ID issue, through the movie, for the first time. Many will know that you don't have to be fired to feel the wrath of the establishment. There are other means of comeuppance and many will come away thinking retaliation comes with not towing the party line.
Comment by Bradford — April 19, 2008 @ 6:32 pm
April 19th, 2008 at 6:52 pm
fmm:
Unlike most cars, human beings typically are not owned by anybody and should be able to do with their own body as they see fit, including destroying it. It never ceases to amaze me how people can believe in a designer that insists people maximize their suffering.
Comment by Raevmo — April 19, 2008 @ 6:52 pm
April 19th, 2008 at 8:00 pm
Bradford
My aim is to find the truth and expose the dishonesty.
No, I very much doubt Stein produced the movie to sell books by Dawkins and his fellow ideologues. Do you think that?
Is there? I would be interesting in see the case for that
Do they use Darwinism to support their claims? For the most part I think not. A lot of people have opinions about morality and religion, and I am sure you would not want to stop scientists expressing their opionions – afterall, that is what the movie was about!
FFM
What both? Ostracized and marginalized? Sternberg by-passes normal procedures to get a dubious paper published, and that annoyed a lot of his peers. I assume he realised that would happen. If you do some that annoys your peers, you going to end up with your peers annoyed with you.
Surely not that! Persecution indeed!
I do not know how this is portrayed in the movie, but IDists have claimed that Crocker was fired for "mentioning" ID. For example here:
The truth appears a little different. The Washington Post has a lengthy article here.
Some PowerPoint presentation slides can be found here, apparently as used by Crocker in class (the first matches a description in the Washington Post article).
Crocker did not merely mention ID/creationism, she taught it as science. She taught as science the creation nonsense about Kettlewell fabricating resulting. She taught as science that evolution was wrong because no one had seen a dog turn into a cat in a laboratory. Quite possibly you have no problem with that, but I can understand why her employers would. She was employed to teach mainstream biology. She was not doing her job. Reading the Washington Post article, it sounds like she is proud of that, and would do the same again. And yet she is surprised she has trouble finding a new job!
By the way, Crocker says on her web site "It is a fact that ad hominem attacks and the banning of certain thoughts stand in the way of the advancement of science.", but in her lectures has a slide that says of Darwin "Rich kid who enjoyed partying, drinking and gasmbling". So hypocrisy too.
Gonzales' publication rate had fallen, he was not pulling in funding (besides being a fellow of the DI, an organisation know for its dishonest antics in promoting pseudo-science). Tenure is not automatic, it is not a right.
—
Yeah, but he has billions of other people out there, the loss of one, who happens to be dying a lingering and painful death is not going to make existence any less meaningful for the designer.
But you have alreasy had many, many years to admire the handiwork. Now that handiwork is looking pretty shoddy as cancer cells are ravishing your body. Why is it specifically meaningful to continue living if you are dying a long and painful death?
The reason is to stop suffering. I thought that was obvious. Cars do not suffer, so I really have to wonder why you should chose such an analogy.
Oh how quickly we come back to the holocaust. Usually you are arguing that Hitler killed them all because he was following Darwin's instructions. Now we see a complete flip, and Hitler's reasons have now been twisted to support a wholy different argument.
And the argument misses the point too. What we are arguing about is whether it is reasonable to take our our lives when we are suffering a long and painful death. You twist that to talk about killing others.
But you do not believe that. I was hoping you would be able to explain why. Hoping, but not expecting.
Comment by The Pixie — April 19, 2008 @ 8:00 pm
April 19th, 2008 at 8:31 pm
Pixie:
The self-rightous refrain of the angry young man wiith his foot in his mouth and his heart in his hand.
Comment by Bradford — April 19, 2008 @ 8:31 pm
April 19th, 2008 at 11:00 pm
Hi Bradford,
You wrote to The Pixie…
Are you sure The Pixie is a young man, much less an angry young man?
Are you so self-righteous yourself to be confident that The Pixie can't possibly be ethically motivated?
I suggest religiously motivated people are the ones who generally rationalize that moral imperatives trump ethical restraints (e.g. Dover defendants lying under oath).
Ethics is all we immoral non-believers have in the one nation, under God, trusting in God, respecting the establishment of religion.
Comment by Thought Provoker — April 19, 2008 @ 11:00 pm
April 19th, 2008 at 11:19 pm
I think what this thread needs is a babe bunnah:
Comment by MikeGene — April 19, 2008 @ 11:19 pm
April 19th, 2008 at 11:47 pm
OK, I'm not sure about the age part but chronic anger comes through clearly. Would you prefer this:
Wrong TP. They lied and that is not rationalized by moral relatavism. You do know TP, that all of us fall short of the mark do you not?
Comment by Bradford — April 19, 2008 @ 11:47 pm
April 19th, 2008 at 11:49 pm
TP:
Actually, Pixie lives in a country that really DOES have a state religion. And he's got his tin foil hat screwed on way too tight. Why, from the emotional reactions I've seen over the last couple of days I'd guess the EA contingent is literally terrified of this movie!
Nobody's doing anything unethical to you or your fellow travelers. Some movie-makers made a movie, that's all. They bought hours and hours worth of great film clips of EAs saying the usual outrageous things and academics whining about persecution from these very sort of thugs. It's a story, Stein & Co. are telling it from their point of view. As they have every right to do, and every reason to do if they think it'll sell – this ain't lead painted toys or poisonous pet food or health insurance racketeering or Enron.
Movies get made all the time. It is an actual industry, churning out blockbusters, cartoons, superheroes, bad sci-fi, buckets of blood, mountains of porn, trashy music videos and a few documentaries day after day, year after year, in the US and in Europe and in India and in China… Honestly, all this feigned fear and loathing is just silly. You guys are starting to sound like the Chicken Littles who tried to shut down the Nickelodians at the end of the 19th century for fear that De Debbil was hiding in those flickering lights and moving pictures!
Comment by Joy — April 19, 2008 @ 11:49 pm
April 19th, 2008 at 11:49 pm
Mike:
LOL. You're right. How can anyone get angry at a face like that?
Comment by Bradford — April 19, 2008 @ 11:49 pm
April 20th, 2008 at 12:52 am
Why would Dawkins know much about Sternberg, Gonzalez, etc? The people who should have been asked are the members of the Smithsonian and ISU. People like Dawkins, PZ Myers, Will Provine, etc were interviewed because they are well known atheists.
Will Provine and Allen MacNeill both mentioned in their interviews with the Expelled producers that they regularly invite ID advocates into their evolutionary biology classes to give talks, despite their views on it. MacNeill's interview was not included in the final film, although I'm not sure if the pertinent segment of Provine's interview was included.
Besides, ID had a fair shake at Dover, but many of your figureheads failed to turn up. Those that did, failed to make a strong case for ID – not that courtrooms are the best judge for what is science. Nonetheless, it would have made the merits of ID as a scientific theory the matter of public record. What he have at the end of it is Behe claiming that if Intelligent Design were to be considered science, then the same would apply to astrology.
Or maybe they are not being dishonest, and the evidence for ID really is lacking. Please feel free to show me otherwise.
Comment by np1986 — April 20, 2008 @ 12:52 am
April 20th, 2008 at 1:14 am
Hi Joy,
You wrote…
I can't say for sure about the others, but I meant it when I indicated it looks like the movie isn't as effective as I feared it would be.
From the sounds of it, Expelled is detrimental to the ID Movement.
It's obviously about religion.
The producers got caught using Michael Moore tactics.
The producers got caught plagerizing other people's work.
The movie actually stoops to an Reductio ad Hitlerum.
In my opinion, the EA's (as you call them) are very much enjoying this as much as they enjoyed the rap video.
Bradford seems to celebrate this introduction of the ID Movement to the masses. It might as well have been a movie about getting prayer back in schools. The target audience would have applauded that too.
Comment by Thought Provoker — April 20, 2008 @ 1:14 am
April 20th, 2008 at 1:16 am
The longer I look at that little guy the bigger my smile.
Comment by Pez — April 20, 2008 @ 1:16 am
April 20th, 2008 at 1:21 am
TP, the issues are far more nuanced. See my comment Comment #62, Expelled Impressions.
The target audience was not already convinced. You are presuming Evangelicals and other church goers are supportive of ID. They are not as supportive as you suppose. It is more complex than you presume.
Expelled could energize a sleeping giant…
Comment by Salvador T. Cordova — April 20, 2008 @ 1:21 am
April 20th, 2008 at 1:32 am
Hi Bradford,
You wrote…
I am quite aware that many people admit they are sinners but expect forgiveness because they have taken Jesus in their hearts. The Dover defendants included.
BTW, concerning you watching the movie Expelled you said "It was worth it".
Did you learn anything new?
Assuming you didn't learn anything new, was it worth it because it made you feel good? Did it help reinforce that Group Think feeling that you were on the side of the righteous?
Did your fellow movie goers applaud?
Did you join them?
Comment by Thought Provoker — April 20, 2008 @ 1:32 am
April 20th, 2008 at 2:12 am
Hi Salvador,
Your openness is refreshing. You don't deny being a creationist, and a Young Earth Creationist at that.
In the past, you have even embraced the Wedge Document as accurately representing the goals of the ID Movement…
"Governing Goals:
"-To defeat scientific materialism and its destructive moral, cultural and political legacies.
- To replace materialistic explanations with the theistic understanding that nature and human beings are created by God."
With you, I don't even have to dredge up the Wedge document. You proudly link to your own comments…
link
This shows that we are in general agreement that the movie Expelled was targeted to the same audience as The Passion of Christ.
Thanks again for being open
Comment by Thought Provoker — April 20, 2008 @ 2:12 am
April 20th, 2008 at 2:20 am
Hi Mike Gene,
Nice Baby Bunny picture.
That is worthy of applause.
Comment by Thought Provoker — April 20, 2008 @ 2:20 am
April 20th, 2008 at 3:01 am
That is correct. And judging by the behavior of certain people at the InternetInfidels site who snuck into showings and effectively stole tickets, it is evident the critics of ID would not have been a very good market.
Comment by Salvador T. Cordova — April 20, 2008 @ 3:01 am
April 20th, 2008 at 6:08 am
Bradford
You need a sense of humour.
Joy
Hey it is wiorse than that. I send my children to a Christian school.
What I do not get is why you begrudge us promoting the opposite point of view. Why do you begrudge us pointing out the manner in which they got their interviews, if you are so sure there was nothing unethical involved?
Way to go, Joy. So you think we are both literally terrified AND feigning the fear and loathing. Oh, well, I guess it was all just a rhetorical rant.
Comment by The Pixie — April 20, 2008 @ 6:08 am
April 20th, 2008 at 9:03 am
Oh no. It's the dreaded Movement again.:shock: How do you know it's not celebrating masses to introduce the Movement?
No doubt that's the next thing on the aganda.:wink:
It is good that people still have the sense to applaud hammers on the nails of intolerance attempting to pass itself off as science.
Comment by Bradford — April 20, 2008 @ 9:03 am
April 20th, 2008 at 9:05 am
I'll keep that in mind Monty Pixie.
Comment by Bradford — April 20, 2008 @ 9:05 am
April 20th, 2008 at 9:10 am
Keep dreaming TP. I saw both movies. It's not the same audience. Is Ben Stein an evangelical Christian? Will the anti-ID Movement ever give it up?
Comment by Bradford — April 20, 2008 @ 9:10 am
April 20th, 2008 at 9:22 am
Hey all
Baring unforeseen circumstances this will be my last comment in this thread I need to get back to passing out tracts,handling snakes and conspiring to violate the civil rights of poor folks who want to commit suicide.
My paralyzed friend suffers constantly yet he manages to persevere and this is a great inspiration to me. He loves life even imperfect life because he sees it as a gift. I find this inspiring I thought that was obvious but I guess it's just our different world views showing through.
It's the same argument man!!!! Defective life is meaningless and a burden to the more fit. It's best to end it quickly for the sake of the children. From here
http://www.baycrest.org/Winter...
Quote:
In 1939, a Ministry of Justice commission proposed the following:
Clause 1: Whoever is suffering from an incurable or terminal illness which is a major burden to him or others, can request mercy killing by a doctor, provided it is his express wish and has the approval of a specially empowered doctor.
Clause 2: The life of a person who because of incurable mental illness requires permanent institutionalization and is not able to sustain an independent existence, may be prematurely terminated by medical measures in a painless and covert manner (Burleigh, 1994, p. 99).
End Quote:
np1986
The evidence might be lacking but that's not the reason Dawkins refuses to discuss ID. He admits as much in the movie.
I hope you hang around the folks here talk about it all the time
Peace
Comment by fifth monarchy man — April 20, 2008 @ 9:22 am
April 20th, 2008 at 9:22 am
TP:
TP, are you so blinded by your own views that you can't see the blatent incivility and unfairness of those holding views similar to your own? I thought you might have learned something based on the abuse heaped on you at AtBC for doing nothing more than proposing a quantum varient. Did you ever notice how ID critics think they have a license to say any slimey thing in the name of opposing the ID Movement? I've seen intelligent mathematicans, biologists and doctors slimed by groupies eager to please their heroe science bloggers. You need to reflect on who is really displaying the self-rightousness you dislike.
Comment by Bradford — April 20, 2008 @ 9:22 am
April 20th, 2008 at 9:48 am
FMM
That is great. Buit it does not help me understand what the meaning is in life after you have a terminal illness, or why you find it "chilling" that someone would cpmmit suicide in that situation.
Just to be clear, I am not avocating the killing of people who are suffering, I am advocating the choice. That would be in oppostion to the likes of you and Hitler, who want to force their own opinions on others.
You said it was chilling, but you cannot say why. Odd.
However, I see Bradford studiously avoided reponding to TP's questions in his response to TP, so perhaps this is standard for your side.
Comment by The Pixie — April 20, 2008 @ 9:48 am
April 20th, 2008 at 10:11 am
"Studiously avoided" as in responses to a number of his points including the following so in case you missed:
But I did studiously miss these heavyweights:
Yes.
No.
Comment by Bradford — April 20, 2008 @ 10:11 am
April 20th, 2008 at 11:06 am
From my perspective, ID is not valued in church circles (despite what you may think). The movie Expelled will help change that. ID's exploration will be furthered by adding sheer numbers of interested and educated researchers and lots of money. Without people who value ID the hypothesis (for whatever reason), the inquiry will cease.
I think trying to appease the critics complaints is the worst way to go about doing business. I think that doing the opposite of what they complain about might be the best route (providing that the course of action is ethical).
And to set the record straight, I'm not in favor of legislating things that would force people to believe. I'm all for people believing what their concience dictates, and I don't have anything against atheists personally.
Bradford has a different perspective than I as far as who the target audience is. I could of course be wrong. But from my vantage point, my brethren are not enthusiastic enough about the ID enterprise. Expelled might help get them enthusiastic about the enterprise. Tying success of ID to the deeply held values of a particular demographic group might be the way the ID enterprise will be supported.
The critics of ID (by and large) will not be enthusiastic no matter what is said. That's how I see it.
Finally, independent of what the agendas are, the question of the truthfulness of the ID hypothesis still remains. I personally think the ID hypothesis is promising, otherwise I could not in good conscience be supportive of the enterprise.
Comment by Salvador T. Cordova — April 20, 2008 @ 11:06 am
April 20th, 2008 at 11:25 am
Ok really last time I promise just for you Pixie
What about those who can't tell us what their choice would be like those in comas or the insane or retarded.
I find it chilling that a simple scientific theory will cause someone to regard what I find to be a precious gift to meaningless. I did not say that. it was Provine
Peace
Comment by fifth monarchy man — April 20, 2008 @ 11:25 am
April 20th, 2008 at 11:39 am
Pixie:
I make a distinction between Charles Darwin and the ethical implications of Darwinism. Darwin himself understood those implications and wrote that "we cannot apply the principle of natural selection to the abolition of hospitals and mercy because those are priceless things."
But, some say that Charles Darwin supported the eugenics movement privately, and two close cousins of his, (Leonard Darwin and Francis Galton) were leaders of the eugenics movement in the US in the early 20th century. (Chesterton, Eugenics and Other Evils, 1922)
So, yes, if this comes up in a church setting, all the facts should be presented so people can draw their own conclusions.
What about Eugenics Scott? Well, she is a believer in Secular Humanism and has signed at least one of the Humanist Manifestos. Among other things, these humanists don't accept that there are any absolutes, (except perhaps the ones in their manifesto???) and in consistent fashion, have modified their beliefs as recorded in manifestos 1, 2 and 3. Apparently, what they currently believe, can be summarized as follows. (source Wikipedia)
I don't know about you, but I don't want to live in a world governed by these values, which I would summarize as a kinder, gentler might makes right. But, unfortunately, people like Scott believe in these ideas and want to impose them upon all of us. Like most utopian belief systems, I'm sure you can see how a society based on the above list would go to hell in a handbasket in a very short period of time.
I think Scott's actions in most evolution-creation situations are reprehensible, and one that really demonstrates her Nazi-like zeal for her beliefs regards the Danny Phillips case, concerning a 14 year old Danny Phillips who dared to complain about a typical evolutionary propagandist Nova documentary. The details are documented by Phillip Johnson in his book "Defeating Darwinism." Anyway, Danny wrote a letter to his school's administrators pointing out that the documentary went too far, stating highly speculative ideas as fact. For example, in one part of the film the narrator states "The first organized form of primitive life was a protozoan." At first, the administrators agreed and decided to pull the documentary from its curriculum. That's when Scott inserted herself into the debate. Among other things, Scott publicly ridiculed Danny Phillips (a 14 year old) and chastised the school.
Anyway, all that to say this. I have no respect for Eugenie Scott. I think she is one of the primary actors in the movement to expel any dissent from the mainstream evolutionary position. I don't seek her approval and I don't grant her any more authority regarding what science is or isn't than I would grant you, or Mike Gene or anyone else. Why should I?
Finally, lets talk eugenics and abortion. You say that people have the right (given by who or what authority? God? You?) to kill themselves, and to kill their unborn children. Maybe that sounds good on paper, but 50 million killed children later, I'm not so sure. What do these ideas do to the collective psyche and values of society? If we continue to devalue life as a society, fasten your seat belts, because the number and scale of mass murders and other negative consequences of these ideas will only grow. (Is it a surprise to you that many of these killers cite Darwin and evolution as their inspiration for their killing sprees?)
Comment by David — April 20, 2008 @ 11:39 am
April 20th, 2008 at 12:07 pm
WHAT THE MOVIE MAY ACCOMPLISH: Expelled may motivate more people to inform themselves about the controversy. Many people are only vaguely aware of the meaning of Darwinism, but most people are staunch defenders of academic freedom.
There are probably many "scientific" theories about which the public would be skeptical (multiple universes, for instance), but since no one is attacked for voicing doubt about them, why bother? Once people become aware of the difference between Neo-Darwinism and the concept that life is intelligently organized, I'm content to let everyone choose for themselves which concept appears the most likely. Agnostics will quickly learn that they will be denounced as religious fundamentalists no matter how often they declare their agnosticism. They won't have to take my word for it; they can experience it for themselves. I am confident that, once they analyze it, the vast majority of the public would not agree with the following:
"all organisms have descended from common ancestors solely through an unguided, unintelligent, purposeless, material processes such as natural selection acting on random variations or mutations; "¦ the mechanisms of natural selection, random variation and mutation, and perhaps other similarly naturalistic mechanisms, are completely sufficient to account for living systems."
I urge more people to become involved in these discussions, read some of the Darwinist web sites, and decide for themselves which side is the more arrogant, abusive and intolerant.
Questions about Materialism
http://30145.myauthorsite.com/
Comment by Bert — April 20, 2008 @ 12:07 pm
April 20th, 2008 at 12:39 pm
FMM
I do not know. Do you? What do you base it on?
I wonder what exactly he said. To decide life is meaningless because of a simple scientific theory is stupid.
David
I am not going to debate with someone who stoops to such low tactics as that. I have already asked that you present any evidence that Eugenie Scott advocates eugenics; I see none in your post, and I believe that there is none to be found.
I have said nothing about killing unborn children. More reason not to bother with your posts.
Comment by The Pixie — April 20, 2008 @ 12:39 pm
April 20th, 2008 at 12:41 pm
David:
Wait, Bush, Cheney & The Neocons cited Darwin and evolution before they went on their killing spree? Expelling millions of Iraqis from their homes and jobs and lives.
Oh, sorry, I forgot we have more important stuff to debate. Namely 5 or 6 people who weren't even fired.
Comment by Raevmo — April 20, 2008 @ 12:41 pm
April 20th, 2008 at 12:46 pm
Hi Bert,
Throughout the years, critics have misrepresented my views, ridiculed me, lied about me, sent me hate mail, spread rumors about me, belittled me, tried to out me, and more, all because of the views and arguments I have made on the internet. Recently, the crew at UD attacked me, and some critics here wanted me to notice this. But the critics have thickened my skin considerably over the years.
Comment by MikeGene — April 20, 2008 @ 12:46 pm
April 20th, 2008 at 12:46 pm
By the way TP, I find you refreshing as well. We disagree, but I like you.
Comment by Salvador T. Cordova — April 20, 2008 @ 12:46 pm
April 20th, 2008 at 1:04 pm
TP:
Hahahaha!!! Oh, my [wipes eyes]. I just can't imagine living my life in fear of shadows and movements and things that go bump in the night. The fact that so many seemingly 'normal' people choose to quake in their boots over things like what other people believe or somebody made a movie is just… unfathomable to me. Truly. No wonder there are people so terrified of life that they'd believe ending it – for themselves and others – is the proper reaction. Those scary hard-right religious people, on the other hand, are mostly afraid of death. Two sides to a coin, I think. They're missing out on their own lives by fear of other people's lives.
You've been here for months and months insisting the ID Movement is every scary religious thing you STILL say it is, and ID's still got supporters. Why, Mike Gene just published a book about it!
LOL! Did you SEE F9-11? Did you SEE Sicko? I enjoyed the heck out of both, personally. Heck, I even laughed really hard when puppet Michael Moore suicide-bombed Mount Rushmore in Team America! Hardly an indictment of the movie-making industry. Seen any good porn lately (IS there any?).
The producers say they produced their own animation. I'll let the courts figure out whether cell processes can be copyrighted.
Godwin's the favorite argument on both sides. You've seen it hundreds of times. NOW you're suddenly in a huff? Spare me, TP. I'm not buying it.
And still doing the best job of unpaid mass marketing any genius ever invented. Stein's a lot smarter than I ever figured him for!
So what? Seen any good porn lately? Paid money to see the latest idiotic buckets-of-blood non-thriller? Have the 2-tape video of The Ten Commandments in honor of Charlton Heston's recent demise? I don't care what movies you like and what movies you don't like. And nobody's impressed with your whining about what other people like and don't like in entertainment.
Comment by Joy — April 20, 2008 @ 1:04 pm
April 20th, 2008 at 1:50 pm
David:
If you got that from Chesterton, he was not telling it like it is. While Galton was indeed Darwin's cousin, Leonard was Darwin's SON. The Darwin family maintained leadership of the British Eugenics Society through 1989, when it re-named itself the Galton Institute. Darwin descendants are still there (through the Keynes), and the institute still supports the notorious Pioneer Fund directly.
Comment by Joy — April 20, 2008 @ 1:50 pm
April 20th, 2008 at 2:13 pm
Hi Joy:
Yes, I got that wrong. I meant to say two close relatives.
Hi Raevmo:
Two wrongs don't make a right. If relatively small transgressions (compared to what Al Qaeda is doing to their ideological opponents) such as those suffered by Guillermo Gonzalez to go unchallenged, what next? I don't know, but I'd rather fight the academic freedom debate now rather than some potential larger threat in the future.
Hi Pixie:
Scott's declared beliefs are compatible with eugenics. And there are many connections between Planned Parenthood and the humanist organization. If she was opposed to eugenics, she would not sign the manifesto. If she signed the declaration not knowing it to be compatible with eugenics, she should ask that her name be removed. So, I conclude that Scott is either a eugenecist or supports eugenics of one form or another.
Can you show that she is not a eugenicist?
Comment by David — April 20, 2008 @ 2:13 pm
April 20th, 2008 at 2:29 pm
David:
The web is quite impressive.
David to Raevmo:
Margaret Sanger's eugenics. It's good to acknowledge US eugenics policies' role in the events as well. All US negative eugenics laws and policies were supported with theories and 'research' provided by a strong and well-funded scientific establishment. There were eugenics sermons from the pulpits too. It was all the rage…
Comment by Joy — April 20, 2008 @ 2:29 pm
April 20th, 2008 at 2:33 pm
David:
Back the witch trails! Can you prove you did not get your instructions from Satan? No? Burn baby burn!
Comment by Raevmo — April 20, 2008 @ 2:33 pm
April 20th, 2008 at 2:36 pm
Hi Salvador. You wrote:
That's a good point. Critics would have people believe that ID and religion are the same yet among people who are truly devoted to their faith ID does not stir up a great deal of passion. There is a disconnect between perception and reality.
Barring a gun to the head I think appeasement is bad policy in any aspect of life.
I also want nothing to do with legislating or forcing others to believe in what they do not believe. I think a major theme of Expelled is freedom to think as one wishes.
I believe the target audience is people who are not involved in the weekly debates about Intelligent Design. In other words people from all walks of life who know wrongdoing when they see it but do not come to the issue with predefined agendas.
Comment by Bradford — April 20, 2008 @ 2:36 pm
April 20th, 2008 at 2:44 pm
I only wish you were this highminded about Dr. Egnor. When his name surfaced you directed me to a blog in which the author used the phrase Pigheaded Egnorance in his blog title. Clever heh particularly when it is used against an opponent. In the same blog entry he comes right out with it and says to Egnor: You're an as*****. Nice language for a science blogger. Not surprisingly his syncophants do not call him on it.
Comment by Bradford — April 20, 2008 @ 2:44 pm
April 20th, 2008 at 4:18 pm
David
"compatible with" That is the lamest thing I have seen in a long time.
Are you saying she probably supports abortion, and abortion is a form of eugenics?
Can I ask everyone else: Is it generally accepted or at least accepted by a significant minority that abortion is a form of eugenics? I would have guessed not. I can see that abortion potentially could be employed in a eugenics program, but that is a long way from Planned Parenthood actually engaging in such a program. But I live in the UK; it is not an organisation I know at all, so perhaps you can enlighten me.
So that is the way it works. You get to label someone with an offensive term, and the onus is on the other side to prove it is not true. Perhaps I should call you "peodophile Dave", at least until you have proved you are not a peodophile. Is that reasonable behavior?
I think not (and I imagine the mods would agree with me). Hmm, perhaps we just have different moral outlooks.
Bradford
I agree with you that that sort of name calling is wrong (even when applied to Egnor). I do not think that helps Egnor's case though. The web page did go on to support the case that Egnor displays pigheaded ignorance. If David can prove Scott really does advocate eugenics, I will stop objecting to his name calling.
Comment by The Pixie — April 20, 2008 @ 4:18 pm
April 20th, 2008 at 5:43 pm
Hey Pixie:
this kind of abortion is http://www.washingtonpost.com/...
Peace
Comment by fifth monarchy man — April 20, 2008 @ 5:43 pm
April 20th, 2008 at 6:16 pm
Is it? I do not think the purpose of that sort of abortion is to weed out "weaker" members of the human race, to make the race stronger, so it does not seem to be eugenics to me. I appreciate many people disagree with it anyway, but remember the issue here is whether Eugenie Scott specifically advocates eugenics, not whether she supports abortion.
Comment by The Pixie — April 20, 2008 @ 6:16 pm
April 20th, 2008 at 6:35 pm
Smell the arrogance:
Comment by MikeGene — April 20, 2008 @ 6:35 pm
April 20th, 2008 at 7:34 pm
Thought Provoker:
I'm a bit confused by the "gotcha" of the wedge document. It defines what anyone in his right mind can see that the Intelligent Design movement is up to. Like what's with eXpelled discussing the relationship between Darwinism and Naziism if it isn't "its destructive moral, cultural and political legacies" And what's with the gentlemen wearing hamacas if it isn't a "theistic understanding".
The wedge document does not suggest the use of any subversive techniques at achieving its aim. The wedge document does not attempt to establish whose definition of God is being used — it does not establish support for any particular religion. And most importantly, the wedge document defines the intelligent design movement, which is different than the science of intelligent design.
Now, I recognize that the ID community announces that it does not reject those who, like yourself, seek design without seeking "God". Certainly within the science of ID this is so. However, even though some of the fellows of ID are not religious, there is a belief in God that sigificantly factors into many of their lives. The ID movement is what it is. The wedge document defines the movement quite accurately. It doesn't promote any particular religion, but it is vehemently opposed to those, like Dawkins who vehemently oppose religion.
Lets recognize that the wedge document is accurate, and get past the fact that it was "discovered" by espianage.
Comment by bFast — April 20, 2008 @ 7:34 pm
April 20th, 2008 at 7:42 pm
Hardly. From the blog:
The last word illustrates Chu-Carroll's problem. Egnor understands adaptation and the genomic changes enabling it as well as or better than Chu-Carroll. He has had more first hand experience with real problems related to bacterial resistence. But since Egnor would not utter the creed his understanding was falsely questioned and the blogger even took the low road by appealing to the emotions of the readers in noting his father's illness. Then, once having painted another DIer with a stereotype there is nothing left but to use the poddy words and bask in the applause of willing syncophants.
Comment by Bradford — April 20, 2008 @ 7:42 pm
April 20th, 2008 at 8:08 pm
I'm sorry to hear that. I miss a few days every now and then on the net. I had no knowledge of the incident much less was I a part of it.
regards,
Sal
Comment by Salvador T. Cordova — April 20, 2008 @ 8:08 pm
April 20th, 2008 at 9:55 pm
Pixie:
I think its a matter of degree. I don't have a statement from Eugenie or any specific evidence where Eugenie advocated for eugenics of any form. However, she is a signatory of the humanist manifesto whose moral code, again, is compatible with eugenics, and whose membership claims at least one very prominent eugenicist, Margaret Sanger. I think abortion as it is practiced in the US and around the world is an example of eugenics.
To be more precise, the manifesto advocates a moral code that is best described as relativism. I won't spend time trying to draw out ethical implications of the manifesto, because, like Darwinian evolution, the code is not precisely defined. It leaves many things unsaid. It leaves itself open to many different interpretations. It is contradictory. That so many smart people (not necessarily ethical people) have signed it, suggests to me an agenda that goes beyond what is written in the manifesto.
So, Eugenics Scott or not, I'll leave it to her to clarify her beliefs. If I were in her shoes, I'd take my name off the list. Or ask the organization to distance itself from its infamous signers.
Comment by David — April 20, 2008 @ 9:55 pm
April 21st, 2008 at 3:34 am
David
Martin Luther was anti-semitic. Since Luther was a Christian, it must be that any other Christian is also anti-semitic. See if you can spot the flaw in that logic. Then see if you can spot the same flaw in your logic.
From Eugenics is a social philosophy which advocates the improvement of human hereditary traits through various forms of intervention. I do not think the vast majority of people getting or giving an abortion give a damn about the improvement of human hereditary traits.
So how do you feel about the Expelled movie using a known anti-semite to support its claims? Does that make the movie produicers anti-semite – at least until they distance themselves from Maciej Giertych. Of course, I am sure in your absolute morality you can rationalise how that is entirely different.
From the Humanist Manifesto:
Comment by The Pixie — April 21, 2008 @ 3:34 am
April 21st, 2008 at 2:43 pm
@fifth monarchy man
Your question is dishonest:
"Would Dawkins and Myers refuse to give an interview to a movie that was about academic freedom for ID?"
ID is working AGAINST academic freedom. ID is trying to circumvent the scientific provess, and gain scientific recognition without doing science! That's like a random guy calling himself Ph.D. without going through the proper steps. (Much like Kent Hovind, then.)
Comment by srapin — April 21, 2008 @ 2:43 pm
April 21st, 2008 at 2:57 pm
Dishonest? You probably have this definition in mind.
Untrue. IDists are not trying to obstruct scientific research or avoid the association of empirical results to claims. Indeed one can be an IDist without any claim that it is currently a viable scientific theory. That point of view has been made clear by TTers many times in the past. In addition scientific research is not proprietary with respect to results. I am as free to cite data and link it to an ID favorable overarching theory as an opponent is free to do the same in opposition to ID. The amount of research associated with IDists is small but human concepts are not judged by a specific time frame but rather by the course of history. The future holds promise.
Comment by Bradford — April 21, 2008 @ 2:57 pm
April 21st, 2008 at 3:13 pm
You forgot the exclamation marks. That really helps to prove a point.
Also, mentioning Kent Hovind is very telling.
Comment by Doug — April 21, 2008 @ 3:13 pm
April 21st, 2008 at 10:08 pm
Some of the comments here are simply amazing.
Ladies and Gents, there is no scientific explanation for the beginning of this universe, there is no scientific explanation for the beginning of life on this planet, and there is no scientific explanation for the ascent of self awareness in humanity. Moreover, the gap in our explanatory power is not caused by a lack of knowledge, it growths by the stupendous addition of knowledge.
Wow, kind of a thread of a familair idea runs through those gaps though, eh?
As Berlinski comments in The Devil's Delusion (a must read) there seems to be much energy used NOT to find a new idea, but to avoid an old one at all costs.
And if that is the case, and certainly it is one would expect just exactly the kinds of comments made here by critics that keep ignoring the facts of the ID hypothesis, and instead pay numingly regurgitated froth to misconceptions, relavence denial, and outright misinformation.
Comment by Upright BiPed — April 21, 2008 @ 10:08 pm
April 21st, 2008 at 10:13 pm
Upright Bi Ped:
Whoa! I feel as if I just looked into a mirror of knowledge and saw my own reflection.
Comment by Bradford — April 21, 2008 @ 10:13 pm
April 21st, 2008 at 10:58 pm
Pixie:
The flaw in your logic is that you leave out the part about whether or not Christianity is anti-semitic. My point is that Humanism is compatible with eugenics due to its rejection of moral absolutes. Ultimately, humanism fails because as a philosophy, it is not consistent with itself. Perhaps that's why most experiments in humanistic governance have been total, abject failures, marked by significant levels of genocide to cleanse the population of people who get in the way of progress. Humanists always start out with high faluttin' ideals, but those always get sacrificed along the way to utopia.
Hmmm.. reminds me a bit of Eugenie. (So many examples that there is no need to cite them. Her game is well known.)
That's a good example of a strawman argument. Easy to tear down, but what do you gain by mis-stating my position other than perhaps some debate points if I don't catch it?
Just google "define: eugenics." google "eugenics abortion." I think many practitioners and supporters of abortion rights are eugenicists in terms of their belief that abortion improves humanity. I think abortion is legal in this country to a large extent due to these beliefs, which are racist in nature, and not due to the desire to protect women's "rights."
Regarding the anti-semite interviewed in Expelled, again same flaw in your logic, unless you can point to a shared belief system that links them together. Association is not enough.
Regarding the quote from Humanist Manifesto 1, especially the part you highlighted
I can only shudder at the sneakiness of their language. I'm sure Eugenie feels that by eliminating critics of Darwinism (and she is a committed Darwinist) she is working to establish the conditions of a satisfactory life for all. By the way, those humanists are up to Manifesto III now, and being the relativists that they are, I expect some fine tuning any day now. So, based on their belief that man is ultimately the arbiter and decider of how to live, whose to say that I can't make up my own definitions, and you can't make up yours?
Follow these misguided ideas to their logical conclusion, Pixie.
"Establish the conditions necessary
Comment by David — April 21, 2008 @ 10:58 pm
April 21st, 2008 at 11:14 pm
Joy,
Haha… all it is, is a movie, a harmless documentary. One that allows its participants to talk for themselves freely. You're right, what harm, what great disaster is there in the making? Oh that opposing opinions be displayed and someone finally remove the veil from arrogant militant atheist who constantly mock, scoff and twist the sayings of others they so vehemently oppose.
Dawkins Exposed would've been an better tittle… hehe. little green men cloned us human replicators all Mr. Dawkins
Why not? And unlike him in his hypocrisy, I think he is perfectly allowed to express that opinion and can still perform good science.
Same for IDist. Or for agnostics who happen to allow dissenting opinions. By the way, the paper put forth has been I think authenticated with continued problems in genetic phylogeny and the ever changing darwinian tree, or bushes, or many trees, or whatever new position is stated next.
There is no reason Sternberg should've been treated by the Smithsonian like he was. The treatment he received was scandalous and repulsive to any thinking person. The people that treated him thusly should've been reprimanded at the very least for their actions.
Can you imagine the shoe on the other foot? An atheist puts in a paper and the Smithsonian take the same action?
Could you imagine the outpouring of sympathy from the media? It would be played for days on CNN, MSNBC, etc. And the Darwinist would cry outrage, outrage, exclusion, suppression, oppression.
Comment by TeleAboveGround — April 21, 2008 @ 11:14 pm
April 22nd, 2008 at 7:33 pm
Well, can we talk about it now?
If something were designed by an unknown entity, how can we verify that?
Comment by np1986 — April 22, 2008 @ 7:33 pm
April 22nd, 2008 at 8:47 pm
np1986:
I'm not sure that we could verify, any more than we can verify phylogeny from fossils, that prokaryotes preceded eukaryotes, that mitochondria were ever independent organisms, or specific evolutionary pathways for many biological systems. We have theory and hypothesis. But it doesn't matter FAPP [For All Practical Purposes] what the actual historical situation was if our theories usefully explain what we see and our hypotheses based upon observations are testable. Oh… and upon testing, the hypothesis isn't demonstrated flat-out wrong.
A teleological theory that treats organisms (and systems) as designed might prove a very useful approach in various medical research applications, including pharmacology and genetics. Some applications are already using a design approach, most notably to me being epigenetics – recently opened up wide with the development of microarray technology.
Science can never rule on ultimate causation, but luckily that's not its job. Its job is to quantify the phenomena we investigate so we can understand what it's made of, how it interacts, what it's function is, how it ideally works, and what can go wrong. This is useful knowledge for our practical purposes. Absolute Truth is not the question, so it's never found in the answers.
Perhaps you've had a chance to look at some of the entries on front-loading. I'd also highly recommend his book, The Design Matrix. It's exceptional, and while quite detailed isn't too difficult to understand. I am a particular fan of an EAM model for ID. That's Endogenous Adaptive Mutagenesis – life as intelligent designer of its forms.
Science can handle both a Neodarwinian approach and an ID approach to phenomena. Won't hurt it a bit, and no individual researcher need harbor any metaphysical beliefs whatsoever about his/her subject, there's no place in the actual science to put metaphysical beliefs. They don't matter any more than Absolute Truth matters in science.
Each approach has merits in given applications. The primary difference between the approaches is the mechanism being focused upon. If you're studying selection evidences in a genome to trace a lineage, where the specific variations you encounter came from (and how) isn't important. If you're studying the variants and trying to trace pathways of development toward complex functions, where they came from and how they occurred is more important than the fact that they were selected (duh, there they are).
The defenders of Neodarwinian orthodoxy insist variation must be causally random – there can be no adaptive mutation responsive directly to selective pressure. A lot of incoming evidence gathered by new technologies is better explained as adaptive mutation in direct response to selective pressure. It explains more than "it just poofed into existence and function for no reason."
Comment by Joy — April 22, 2008 @ 8:47 pm