Validating Expelled?
by MikeGeneI guess I'm late to the party, as everyone here has probably heard about Ben Stein's new movie, Expelled. This is not a movie that comes from the Discovery Institute. So why did Stein and the movie producers decide to make this movie? I'd say the clues from their web page are rather obvious. Apparently, the widespread media attention to Sternberg's treatment and the decision to deny Gonzalez's tenure got somebody's attention. Imagine that. Adding to this is the significant role played by none other than Richard Dawkins, whose popular anti-religious crusade now includes telling people to "shut up." In other words, it looks like the words and behavior of the critics of ID suceeded in getting Stein et al.'s attention.
Anyway, what will be most interesting to watch is the reaction from many of the critics. Apart from the expected gnashing of teeth and cursing, we can expect them to bash and smear Stein and the producers of the movie. In other words, the critics will give us a "live show" demonstration that will validate the basic message of the movie!
If you come across any "science blogs" bashing and smearing over the following months, be sure to send us the links. 
August 22nd, 2007 at 11:22 pm
What? I don't get a hat tip? Dang – and I was getting excited about all the new readers to my blog.
I was excited when I heard the news, although perusing the site made me somewhat less so. This debate is just too important, and too interesting, to get locked and loaded into yet another culture war issue.
Comment by Wonders For Oyarsa — August 22, 2007 @ 11:22 pm
August 22nd, 2007 at 11:31 pm
Oh – wait a sec – are they talking about the persecution of scientists in the academy – not keeping it out of High School textbooks? If so, I'm with Ben!
Comment by Wonders For Oyarsa — August 22, 2007 @ 11:31 pm
August 22nd, 2007 at 11:40 pm
Not surprising, I'm with Wonders For Oyarsa with this.
Mike, this isn't good news for you, front loading or ID science. It is downright bad.
Do you think PZ Myers was lying or exaggerating when he said…
link
This is what the fanatics want. This is what PZ Myers wants.
Battle lines are being drawn. Nobody's right if everybody's wrong.
P.S. Wonders For Oyarsa changed his tune. Oh well, fighting Group Think is a lonely task.
Comment by Thought Provoker — August 22, 2007 @ 11:40 pm
August 22nd, 2007 at 11:45 pm
If you come across any "science blogs" bashing and smearing over the following months, be sure to send us the links.
Well, the peanut gallery isn't wasting any time getting started. Check out the comment section. Only 6 more months of this…ugh.
Comment by Lurker — August 22, 2007 @ 11:45 pm
August 22nd, 2007 at 11:48 pm
I got one. PZ Myers posted at 12:51 pm August 22, 2007. It's up ot 176 comments in less than 11 hours, with lots of vulgarity and stein bashing. Here's my favorite G-rated bash here
The other things is that the movie comes about because it is fundamentally a good business proposition. Someone is sensing there will be sufficient interest in the movie for people to go see it. I estimate it will gross $50,000,000, more than the creation museum in Kentucky. I really hope it will hit $200,000,000 with an academy award for a documentary to boot.
Comment by Salvador T. Cordova — August 22, 2007 @ 11:48 pm
August 22nd, 2007 at 11:48 pm
Lurker,
Apparently, PZ Myers isn't the "peanut gallery". He is one of the main attractions. He is quoted on the movie's promo.
I am telling you, this is not good.
Comment by Thought Provoker — August 22, 2007 @ 11:48 pm
August 22nd, 2007 at 11:56 pm
TP,
How could MikeGene possibly know whether or not PZ is exaggerating or lying or how the producers got their interview?
Poor lonely Thought Provoker, the only person alive capable of critical thought.
Comment by Pez — August 22, 2007 @ 11:56 pm
August 22nd, 2007 at 11:56 pm
Hi Salvador,
So you think this is a good thing?
Not surprising. Creationists may get another chance to try and take the field again once the troops are sufficiently mobilized. Nothing like a good movie to do that, right?
Comment by Thought Provoker — August 22, 2007 @ 11:56 pm
August 23rd, 2007 at 12:09 am
What I worry about is that, with this billed as a culture war issue, people will simply make up their minds based on whether they are red or blue, and not by fairly looking at what's going on. Oh well…what else is new?
Comment by Wonders For Oyarsa — August 23, 2007 @ 12:09 am
August 23rd, 2007 at 12:13 am
Hi Pez,
The point is that PZ Myers wants the rhetoric raised. Salvador wants the rhetoric raised. PZ Myers is a victim. ID is a victim. Everyone is yelling about not trusting the "other side".
Telic Thoughts about box still includes the statement…
We think these concepts have real potential to generate insights about our reality that are being drowned out by political advocacy from both sides. We hope this blog will provide a small voice that helps rectify this situation.
If these words have any meaning at all, it should be obvious recent events are NOT a good thing.
Comment by Thought Provoker — August 23, 2007 @ 12:13 am
August 23rd, 2007 at 12:24 am
What makes you think that I'm enamored with creationists (my own family so to speak)? There is reason I joined the ID movement, and left my own….
In anycase, it appears PZ wasn't informed directly that he was going to be in the film. I was filmed about the same time Caroline Crocker was, but I haven't heard if I'll be in the movie.
I'll probably learn indirectly if at all. I was also told it was a documentary. I was worried it was going to be another Lauren Sandler-type setup…. It appears President Bruce Chapman had the same worries. I think the producers kept this under wraps pretty good toward both sides!
If I don't appear in the movie, at least I got featured with Dr. Crocker in that infamous 6-part nationally televized series connecting Darwin to Hitler and Columbine….
But TP, you weren't there when some IDEA chapter members were almost in tears over Dr. Crocker's treatment. You weren't there when the Geoff Brumfiel was interviewing Dr. Crocker and I, and I knew that that could be the end of her teaching career, and it was. Only 3 weeks after the article appeared on the cover of Nature, she was dismissed.
You weren't there to hear some the ugly dealings that some in the departments there were up to. You'd have a different perspective if you saw first hand the nastiness that can go on….
You might think it's all about evangelism, but you'd have a different perspective when you see students worried about their diplomas or faculty members worried about their jobs.
You weren't there when I saw hundreds of college student coerced into an auditorium and lectured about the evils of ID for 2 hours. I knew this would marginalize pro-ID students and faculty. What kind of climate and message does this create?
That's what this film is about. It's not about getting ID in public schools. It's about the intimidation that goes on in universities and to lesser extent industry. I don't think you've grasped why I'm involved and why I care.
Comment by Salvador T. Cordova — August 23, 2007 @ 12:24 am
August 23rd, 2007 at 12:25 am
Hi TP,
You may be right. But there is nothing we can do about it. Like I said, when you couple what happened to Sternberg and Gonzalez to Dawkin's growing anti-religious movement, something like this was front-loaded to happen. One thing seems clear "“ whoever made the movie is very clever. It looks like Dawkins et al. are doing their part to create quite a buzz about it.
Comment by MikeGene — August 23, 2007 @ 12:25 am
August 23rd, 2007 at 12:52 am
TP,
One of the students in the GMU IDEA club who was also Caroline Crocker's student was screamed at by her professors for coming forward to reporters. She was in tears for several days over the incident. This is an innocent 21-year-old girl being bullied by her college professors. That's the sort of crap that goes on. If you read the blogsphere, there should be little doubt what the critics are capable of…..
One of her classmates came forward to an NPR reporter, I advised her to refrain, but she stepped forward anyway. She finds herself in class one day and hears a recording of her radio interview being played back for her classmates….
Well, I'm glad at least one of our own in Dr. Crocker will be in the movie. There are many more like her.
Comment by Salvador T. Cordova — August 23, 2007 @ 12:52 am
August 23rd, 2007 at 12:58 am
Hi TP,
That (12:13) was the point?
I don't know what MikeGene's clairvoyance has to do with anything you just wrote.
While I agree with you and WFO that the culture war is going to engulf this film I can't agree, without having seen the movie, with your prognostication that this is somehow "NOT good". How do you know it won't be good for science? Can't you imagine that this might actually open doors to investigation that are now closed?
It will be a shame when approval for this movie (fairly or unfairly) splits along a red/blue line, but that is nothing new and is probably inevitable. Are we supposed to bury and suppress the truth (if this film tells the truth) just because you won't be comfortable with the climate that will surround it? Is MikeGene supposed to get on the blower and find out how the producers conducted their interviews and maybe even put the kibosh on the film's release?
This split is pre-existing and is confirmed when Michael Moore releases his "documentaries", when politicians like Al Gore put theirs out, when the Passion of The Christ and the DaVinci Code come out, etc.. There is no point ignoring this fact or complaining when somebody on the "other side" makes his case.
We've had school-board elections, trials, book-tours, 9 months (and counting) of 30%-Off sales for Dawkins' book, the Daily Show, etc. for a long time.
The culture war exists and PZ and his gang are going to sit there and flame about anything that crosses their paths, whether it is a cartoonist, author, movie-maker or PhD candidate, either way.
It's called free speech.
One "good" that has already come out of this is the one Mike has alluded to in his OP.
This is (again) a real-time example of what the so-called science-defenders are up to, how they behave, and what passes for civil discourse.
Again, as MikeGene often tells us, these are potential peer-reviewers and tenure voters and they are exposing their tactics to the world.
Besides which, right now all we know is that there is a documentary made that explores the issue of ID censorship on university campuses. Neither you nor I nor the psychic MikeGene know the content or quality of this movie nor the impact it will have.
It can not politicize the issue any further – all it can do is expose that politicization to a wider audience. Is that what you fear is "NOT good"
Comment by Pez — August 23, 2007 @ 12:58 am
August 23rd, 2007 at 1:15 am
Comment by Pez — August 23, 2007 @ 1:15 am
August 23rd, 2007 at 1:43 am
Post-Wedge World, eh?
So much for that, and Mike Gene endorsing it…
Here's a bet: "Expelled" won't mention who is a young-earther, who denies common ancestry, etc., and will pretend that these are people with completely reasonable scientific views who just want to allow a little bit of God in their science.
Comment by nickmatzke — August 23, 2007 @ 1:43 am
August 23rd, 2007 at 2:00 am
Hi Nick,
Sure. Are you under the impression that a Ben Stein movie is somehow going to invalidate the decision of a federal judge?
Nick, why is it so easy for you to misrepresent other people? No where did I endorse the movie. So why did you claim that I did?
Comment by MikeGene — August 23, 2007 @ 2:00 am
August 23rd, 2007 at 2:05 am
Mike, the non-endorsing response would have been to point out that real "revolutionary new scientific movements" don't promote themselves with documentaries that pretend to have scientific support that doesn't exist.
Comment by nickmatzke — August 23, 2007 @ 2:05 am
August 23rd, 2007 at 2:12 am
Hi Nick,
You think like President Bush – if you're not with us, you're against us. Some of us aren't as political about this stuff as you are. Thus, simple logic dictates that a non-endorsing response is simply one that lacks an endorsement.
Comment by MikeGene — August 23, 2007 @ 2:12 am
August 23rd, 2007 at 2:40 am
On the argument you are making here, saying that "someone got scratched" is a neutral description of someone being hit by a bus.
PS: Another bad sign:
http://www.pandasthumb.org/archives/2007/08/im_gonna_be_a_m.html
Why did the people who shot this movie interview their guests under false pretenses?
Comment by nickmatzke — August 23, 2007 @ 2:40 am
August 23rd, 2007 at 3:21 am
Count me in as someone who's looking forward to seeing this movie, and reserving judgement until that point. So far the focus seems rather tame – less dealing with the specific claims of certain ID proponents, and more a take on the arguments that having any manner of ID belief/attitude means you hate science and intend to sabotage it, or are an idiot. (IDiot lol rofl)
It's too early to tell, but I do think this movie is going to focus less on science, more on culture and perceived injustices. If so, well – it's a subject worth broaching.
Comment by nullasalus — August 23, 2007 @ 3:21 am
August 23rd, 2007 at 7:18 am
Hi Sal,
If this article quotes Dr. Crocker accurately, she was an untenured professor flat out lying to her students in the classroom. If an untenured astronomy 101 professor told her students this, shouldn't a college fire her? There is a difference between exploring controversial ideas and telling whoppers, you know.
Comment by Aagcobb — August 23, 2007 @ 7:18 am
August 23rd, 2007 at 7:36 am
If anything, this film will justifiably show how bigoted some atheists and 'skeptics' are. I'm not even a christian or believer in any particular faith[!], and I still can't stand the hypocritical behavior of many atheist critics.
Comment by Jean — August 23, 2007 @ 7:36 am
August 23rd, 2007 at 7:40 am
And again Aagcobb plays silly lawyer rethorical tricks. Just because you believe Dr. Crocker's opinion is tantamount to a flat earth view, does not make it so.
Comment by Jean — August 23, 2007 @ 7:40 am
August 23rd, 2007 at 8:21 am
Crocker misrepresented the relevant science. She was hired to teach a specific curriculum, Biology 101, but she didn't. Crocker was not dismissed, but allowed to serve out her contract.
Comment by Zachriel — August 23, 2007 @ 8:21 am
August 23rd, 2007 at 9:40 am
Hi Jean,
Whether you believe her views or not, they most definitely don't represent the state of biological science in the 21st century, just as geocentrism does not reflect current astronomy. In Biology 101 she is supposed to teach her students basic biology. In the article I found, she is quoted as flatly refusing to do so, and she taught her religious beliefs instead, while lying to her students about the evidence supporting evolutionary theory. It is the equivalent of if I told my superiors that I had converted to Islam, and I was no longer going to recognize state or federal law in the cases I litigated, but would only apply sharia law. I would be justifiably fired, not due to religious discrimination but basic incompetance.
Comment by Aagcobb — August 23, 2007 @ 9:40 am
August 23rd, 2007 at 10:08 am
Hi Nick,
You're not making any sense to me. You need to remember that you come to this issue as someone who is deeply politicized and have been so for several years. Thus, it's seems quite natural to you that one must either endorse or condemn. Failure to condemn is then spun as endorsement "“ if you are not with us, you are against us.
But those of us trying to hold on to some level of objectivity recognize that such simplistic binary choices don't always apply, as there is often much neglected space in the middle. I myself am conflicted about it. I certainly do not like the "˜culture wars' theme that seems to dominate the movie and you know very well about my long-held opposition to such claims. So why is it that someone as political as you want me to condemn a movie I have not seen? Could it be that you are trying to slyly draw me into the cross-fire from both camps of culture warriors? On the other hand, I happen to be quite sympathetic of Sternberg and Gonzalez and their stories are worth telling. As far as I can see, the only ones who have been dishing out pain and suffering in the real world are the critics of ID.
BTW Nick, congrats on your upcoming graduate position! I remember the good ol' days before you joined NCSE and the way you made some effort to remain objective. Perhaps once you've been away from this political organization for some time, you might recover some of that.
Comment by MikeGene — August 23, 2007 @ 10:08 am
August 23rd, 2007 at 10:48 am
Hi MikeGene,
Actually, if you recall the discussion last December about Axe's research being defended by his supervisor, the one guy who got fired for opposing naturalism was George Weber, who was fired from the Biologic Institute, which definitely isn't an ID critic. Poor George might have suffered some pain when he was canned, don't you think?
Comment by Aagcobb — August 23, 2007 @ 10:48 am
August 23rd, 2007 at 11:05 am
Yeah, but patting yourself on the back must be rewarding – so it comes out clean in the end.
Group Think? TP, we spoke about this before. How does the making of this movie count as group think? You have to show that the makers are mindlessly doing it, being lead by the facade of some legitimate authority. Just the fact that a group of people are in agreement with an idea (an idea that provides the foundation of this film) doesn't make it group think.
As much as someone who goes through moments of being forthright and opposing moments of lethargy isn't defined as 'passive aggressive' – you're confusing what you think the term happens to mean with what the term actually means.
Comment by Doug — August 23, 2007 @ 11:05 am
August 23rd, 2007 at 11:08 am
Zachriel:
And your evidence for this would be, what exactly? Both you and Aagcobb I'm sure are convinced this is so, but neither of you have come forward with any concrete evidence that she left out neccessary parts of the curriculum in favor criticism of Darwinism. If she did, those would be proper grounds for dismissal. Instead, you admit she was allowed to serve out her contract. That would seem mighty strange if she did not teach the curriculum properly.
Why do you favor inconsistencies, Zachriel?
Comment by Jean — August 23, 2007 @ 11:08 am
August 23rd, 2007 at 11:29 am
Hi Jean,
You must not have seen my post in the other thread. The article said:
Comment by Aagcobb — August 23, 2007 @ 11:29 am
August 23rd, 2007 at 11:38 am
Wow. The tenor is pretty well summed up by this comment [#135], which says…
The film isn't out yet and nobody in PZ's camp has seen any of it. PZ does admit he accepted $1200 for his time. He doesn't say what questions were asked, but assumes he'll be "quote-mined" into some sort of screaming pig despite his contention that he was just a mild-mannered professor who didn't do any ranting. He also says if they'd told him what the movie was really to be about, he would have been a screaming pig…
Which sort of makes me wonder if the film maker was as dishonest as PZ claims. I mean, if he'd really wanted to portray a screaming pig, PZ would surely have accommodated the request and gone off on how religious believers must be weeded from the ranks of students and teachers. It's not like he's been shy of saying that very thing often on his own blog.
So I'm not convinced by all this pre-emptive slash-and-burn that ANYBODY interviewed is actually going to be quote-mined or miscut or misrepresented. There's just no need for it, since the views and positions of these guys are well known and well represented in their own words everywhere they speak/write. They're not ashamed of their opinions on the subject or concerned about their strong authoritarian tendencies as revealed by those opinions. So why in the world would they not want to express them in a movie?
Still, all the talk of lawsuits is pretty humorous coming from that crew. Looks like PZ's going to need an on-staff lawyer as well as an agent. Maybe Aagcobb should apply for the position… §;o)
Comment by Joy — August 23, 2007 @ 11:38 am
August 23rd, 2007 at 11:48 am
Hi Aagcobb,
Not really. Weber is a retired professor of business and administration at the Presbyterian Whitworth College in Spokane, Washington. I would guess that Weber viewed this position as more of a type of service during his retirement years and I have no reason to think his dismissal from this position caused him any real world pain. In fact, has Weber ever complained about this dismissal?
Comment by MikeGene — August 23, 2007 @ 11:48 am
August 23rd, 2007 at 12:09 pm
Hi MikeGene,
Not that I know of. But do you really think Weber would have felt nothing about being told his services were no longer required? For most people, its not a pleasant experience.
Comment by Aagcobb — August 23, 2007 @ 12:09 pm
August 23rd, 2007 at 1:55 pm
Yes, the standard line from GMU which also coerced her law firm to drop her as a client, and it led in part to Ed Sisson's dismissal from Arnold and Porter because he considered GMU cutting such a deal with Arnold and Porter to be unethical (perhaps legal, but suspiciously unethical).
Here is the story with Sisson's dismissal from Arnold and Porter:
http://tinyurl.com/mtay5
You don't know of the other dealings that got nicely sanitized in official records. Clean up the records. Make sure she gets a glowing evaluation from the university on official records. Make no mention of the scuffle over evolutionary theory in official records, yet it's obvious she was removed mid-semester from teaching. And you believe the contract that expired was one she really negotiated rather than coerced into signing?
Oh well, whatever the details of Dr. Crocker's story, if you're trying to persuade me your side doesn't play hard ball, or that they're above resorting to unethical treatment of students and faculty, I think you've got your job cut out.
I mean, when John Patterson advocates stripping of diplomas after official inquisitions, is there any doubt what depths some on your side will descend if given free rein? When Sam Harris demands Nature express outrage over Francis Collins book, when PZ says he will deny jobs or promotions to people who merely question evolutionary theory, is there any doubt hard ball is being played or advocated?
So what if ID is wrong, and people give credence to an idea that is incorrect? Should it cost them their diplomas and jobs or even something as basic as a work environment not complicated by these sorts of issues?
I'm not advocating legal change, but univerisity adminstrators are being insulated from what's happening under their noses because of the tenure hierarchy. This stuff is plain bad for business, and they might do well to realize they're driving away business by not trying to curb some of this nonsense. Hopefully the movie will help put some business sense back into some academic institutions.
I'm glad John Rennie was politely told to take a hike by university presidents after he demanded a pledge of allegiance from them. At least some guys at the top, know this issue isn't worth losing business over. May there be many more.
Comment by Salvador T. Cordova — August 23, 2007 @ 1:55 pm
August 23rd, 2007 at 2:13 pm
MikeGene wrote (to Nick Matzke):
Yes, this should be an interesting experiment. Of course, it would require Nick to completely divorce himself from the political realm. Personally, I think that his continuing education is to some extent fueled by the political realm, so I don't expect to see Nick become more objective as he gains academic credibility among the politicos.
But still, it would make an interesting hypothesis. Consider the facts:
As Nick became more and more politically involved, and partisan battles became more and more heated, (culminating in a heady and hard fought victory in court for Nick's side), science tells us that Nick's brain… changed.
For better or worse is a subjective question, but it is a scientific fact that an increase in partisan political affiliation correlates to a change in brain activity. Nick's brain has been altered.
How?
Well, according to an Emory University study, partisans defending their views exhibit an increase in activity within the orbital frontal cortex, the center of emotional regulation. There is also a notable lack of activity in the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex which would normally indicate reasoning. Partisans tend to abandon reason and regulate emotion when talking about their partisan views. In the words of one researcher:
This is something we have certainly seen in Richard Dawkins recent abandonment of science, and Mike corroborates that this loss of objectivity can be traced from Nick Matzke's days at ARN to his current political position.
A UCLA study explains how we regulate emotion to support our political biases. In a nutshell, it "feels good" to defend a biased opinion. The stronger one's political affiliation is, the stronger the response in the emotion center of the brain.
The real kicker is that the subject is UNAWARE that this is happening. The partisan subject cannot distinguish the irrational behavior, even when confronted with a rational contradiction about their position. Wow.
Another study, this one from the National Institutes of Health, details distinct regions of the brain which become active when the subject is presented with imagery about a political subject. Our brains clearly change when we become strongly politically affiliated. And the change indicates that *rational / objective* brain function becomes *irrational / emotional*.
So the hypothesis would go as follows:
"Nick Matzke has become more and more politically affiliated over the last 6 years during his rise to political power within the anti ID establishment. This change has led to a distinct pattern of less rational objectivity in Nick's political dialog.
The researchers would like to fit the subject with an fMRI for a 6 month period, while conducting a series of interviews about the subject's most deeply held political positions. The expected result would be a measurable increase in brain activity within the orbital frontal cortex indicating emotional regulation when discussing discussing intelligent design and creationism. The researchers also expect that activity within the subjects dorsolateral prefrontal cortex would be severely diminished, indicating a marked reduction in the ability to reason."
Here are some sample questions for the extended interview, chosen to stimulate / suppress the widest range of brain activity:
1)Isn't ID simply creationism in a cheap tuxedo?
2)Do you think Ben Stein is simply a shill for the Discovery Institute?
3)Don't you think "Of Panda's and People" was the most important piece of ID literature ever in the history of the world?
4)Don't you think that Casey Luskin is a genius?
5)What about those two flagellar genes that lack plausible homologs?
6)Isn't geography fun and rewarding?
7)Aren't you really leaving the NCSE because of your failed romance with Eugenie Scott?
8)Aren't you really leaving the NCSE because of your failed romance with Phina Borgeson?
9)Aren't you really leaving the NCSE because of your failed romance with Wesley Elseberry?
10)Do you think that a Dawkins/Myers ticket in 2008 would beat a Hillary/Obama ticket?
11)Do you think Mike Behe could beat Judge Jones in a mixed martial arts Pride Fight?
12)Do you find it troubling that "The Edge of Evolution" is ranked #4701 at Amazon, while "Monkey Girl", "40 Days and 40 Nights", and "Meaning of Everything" are at 20,000, 40,000 and 70,000?
(The researchers expect that this last question would cause a complete and total collapse of the subject's dorsolateral prefrontal cortex. Proper liability release forms should be signed before adminstering the experiment.)
(BTW, Nick, should you find yourself unable to participate in our research, we wish you the very best in your studies!)
Comment by chunkdz — August 23, 2007 @ 2:13 pm
August 23rd, 2007 at 2:32 pm
Yes, congrats Nick. You're one of the more decent guys I've met in all of this, your boss Eugenie as well (although I'm not sure Rick Sternberg would share my view in that regard).
regards
Salvador
Comment by Salvador T. Cordova — August 23, 2007 @ 2:32 pm
August 23rd, 2007 at 2:54 pm
When I was filmed they told me they were going to make an effort to allow both sides to speak. I asked who is financing this? They said it was a commercial venture which they had been filming for 2 years. I thought the budget for this undertaking must have been enormous. They flew a film crew and a 2-man sound crew out to see lil old me and then travelled around the world interviewing others. I thought, man I hope these guys recover some of their expense for this project. I have no idea who will want to spend money for this sort of film footage….
They said they felt the media was only telling the critics side of the story, and that they were aiming for balance and would try to allow the interviewees to state their case in their own words.
They said some critics refused to participate because ID proponents would be given time as well.
As far as tricking the critics, I think the critics will be accurately portrayed. We'll get to see the critics appear on the big screen being their usual lovable humble endearing selves like Richard Dawkins.
Comment by Salvador T. Cordova — August 23, 2007 @ 2:54 pm
August 23rd, 2007 at 2:55 pm
PZ is such a whiner!!!
Comment by DonaldM — August 23, 2007 @ 2:55 pm
August 23rd, 2007 at 2:59 pm
TP writes:
Well, TP, there is the old adage that any publicity is good publicity!! That said, all the hype, pre-release whining and wringing of hands will only increase interest in the film when it is finally released. In the end, more people will see it and, if the producers did a good job, more people will have a better understanding of what's going on. On the other hand, the producers might be of the same ilk as, say, a Michael Moore, in which case we're all in deep weeds!! (And no, I'm not going to discuss M. M. with anyone…not worth it!!)
Comment by DonaldM — August 23, 2007 @ 2:59 pm
August 23rd, 2007 at 3:09 pm
One PZ follower is advocating breaking the law in the name of science.
From the comments section:
Comment by chunkdz — August 23, 2007 @ 3:09 pm
August 23rd, 2007 at 3:15 pm
Sal:
That's just what I mean, Salvador! Whatever the 'working title' was, that is often changed more than once before it's done editing. If you were told what it was about, I'm sure PZ was too. He's just whining, and NOT threatening to sue (since he'd have no case). Just getting his acolytes all het-up to promote his new-found stardom. Their posts over on Stein's "Expelled!" blog are positively hilarious. Talk about zombies! §;o)
I figure PZ won't have to be edited much (apart from stuff they didn't want to use). He's perfectly capable of being an anti-religious reactionary jerk in his milquetoast persona without any trouble at all. Hope the film plays around here somewhere…
Comment by Joy — August 23, 2007 @ 3:15 pm
August 23rd, 2007 at 3:31 pm
By the way, Sal… PZ's gang is saying you're the "Audio Editor" for this film. Are you?
Comment by Joy — August 23, 2007 @ 3:31 pm
August 23rd, 2007 at 3:46 pm
Salvador Cordova wrote:
Gee, I'm not sure if this is really a compliment, considering the company he keeps. Although Nick is my hands-down favorite ID critic, I am compelled to ask "is it decent to constantly misrepresent others?"
I personally don't like being misrepresented, Sal.
Do you?
Surely you don't think misrepresentation is "decent"…?
The "decent" thing to do would be to set the record straight. That hasn't happened yet.
Comment by chunkdz — August 23, 2007 @ 3:46 pm
August 23rd, 2007 at 3:52 pm
chunkdz:
I wouldn't hold my breath if I were you, chunk!
Comment by Joy — August 23, 2007 @ 3:52 pm
August 23rd, 2007 at 4:00 pm
Here are some more clues for you from their web page:
"Big Science has expelled smart new ideas from the classroom"
"There is a movement on the horizon that has the potential to change the educational system in America and influence your kids, you and the youth you serve."
"…several students challenging Neo-Darwinian materialism, and arguing incessantly for the right to examine Intelligent Design. "
From the trailer:
"There are people out there who want to keep science in a little box where it possibly can't touch God "
Hmmm, I wonder why Stein and the movie producers decided to make this movie… I guess that it has nothing to do with Wegde strategy and getting ID in the classrooms, yeah right!
Comment by Idiot Wind — August 23, 2007 @ 4:00 pm
August 23rd, 2007 at 4:04 pm
Hi chunkdz,
The straight record is that MikeGene basically said that ID critics are going to demonstrate the movie is accurate themselves by bashing the movie. If MikeGene saying the movie's basic message is valid isn't an endorsement, it comes darn close. So I don't see where Nick has misrepresented anyone.
Comment by Aagcobb — August 23, 2007 @ 4:04 pm
August 23rd, 2007 at 4:25 pm
No. That was something "doc bill" conjured up.
In fact, interstingly, the principals in the ID community (Discovery Institute, IDEA, ID Network, etc.) were kept in the dark as to what was going on.
What usually happens is we get calls from people saying they'd like to interview us, and then we decide if they are friend or foe. We could not put our finger on this new outfit which had no identity, but seemed to have lot more money than anyone we'd ever dealt with before.
Let me give a hypothetical situation, reporter Celeste Biever
calls me, "Salvador, I'd like to report on your club in Virginia….blah…blah…".
I then call around and ask, "hey John is Celeste legit?"
And then I get told (hypothetically) "Whoa, didn't you hear she lied and tried to infiltrate the Cornell IDEA club. She's bad news, man, don't grant an interview. Espcially don't tell her of our secret plans to overtake the Federal government [ok, just kidding about the secret plans to overtake the Federal government]."
[Actually the story about Biever lying to infiltrate the Cornell IDEA club is true See: Celeste Biever, Secret Agent? New Scientist Reporter Caught Impersonating a Cornell Student to Get Story on ID.]
I recall being burned by Lauren Sandler. She took me out to dinner, interviewed me like she was on my side and was reporting on the plight of pro-ID students, then writes a story with the absolute opposite spin, along with so many factual misques — i.e. she says we met in the Fall, when it was actully July (the summer). She said I wore baggy jeans, when in fact I wore Kakis, etc….Although, I admit, I sort of like the way she portrayed me as a scoundrel. Good guys are so boring anyway…:mrgreen:….
Well, regarding the film crew, what happened was the usual calling routine goes around. I consult with the usual gang on whether this documentary crew is friend or foe. I'm warned to be cautious as no one knew who the heck they were. Internet searches don't reveal anything of their identity or organization. They ask me somewhat sympathetic questions. Nothing out of the ordinary, "what's IDEA, what is ID, have their been incidents of persecution, tenure denial, diploma denial, abuse, harrassment, etc. " We all wonder, "are these guys Celeste Biever's in disguise?"
One thing was apparent, these guys had a HUGE budget. Their film crew was even bigger than the CBS evening news film crew that covered our IDEA event October 2005 (never aired). And they were flying these guys from all over the place.
You can see DI President Bruce Chapman's pleasant surprise Hollywood Gets the Message About Suppression of Intelligent Design
So in sum, the principals on both sides of the issue had little clue where all this was headed. I certainly will not be the sound editor, and I was in the dark as much as everyone else.
Comment by Salvador T. Cordova — August 23, 2007 @ 4:25 pm
August 23rd, 2007 at 4:41 pm
Hi Aagcobb,
I'll just ask you the same question that Mike asked.
Your assertion that Mike endorsed the movie is refuted by Mike's own words.
Mike obviously
1)Thinks that the premise of the movie will be justified by the ID critics themselves.
2)Does not like the "culture war" theme of the movie.
3)Did not endorse or reject the movie.
Furthermore, Mike is well on record for being against the culture war mindset of the DI, against ID in schools, and against ID being called a science.
Only someone who is not activating their prefrontal dorsolateral cortex would think that Mike has issued an endorsement for this movie.
Hmmm…Here try this fMRI on. The battery pack goes in your pocket. Try not to get it wet, and don't use your cell phone while the red light is on.
Comment by chunkdz — August 23, 2007 @ 4:41 pm
August 23rd, 2007 at 4:45 pm
Aagcobb:
And that's precisely what Myers' acolytes have been doing for two days over at the "Expelled" blog! The NAM groupies outnumber supporters of the premise 3-1 easily, and are lobbing the usual ad hominem garbage against Stein as well as trashing a film they haven't seen (and won't be released for 6 more months because it's still in post-production).
All based on PZ's hilariously juvenile whining. As someone who has had some experience with the film industry and television production, changing the working title and/or the production teams and money angels is standard operating procedure for any well-invested project. PZ's complaint would be like Patty Duke whining for two whole years' worth of post-production business finagling that "The Helen Keller Story" got changed into "The Miracle Worker" without her personal permission, therefore her entire performance is discredited and was obtained by false pretenses.
What a load of hooey! You get hired to do the work (in PZ's case, answer the questions) and you cash the check. It's not "your" film, you don't have anything to say about how much screen time you get or if you even show up in the final cut. PZ's opinions about ID and what Neodarwinian orthodoxy should do about it are freely available. He publicizes them daily himself. I sincerely doubt he changed his tune for this particular paid interview, and has no business complaining now that he's being featured for who and what he *is* per the subject matter.
He's just making sure everybody knows that. Which is why he brags he's now a *movie star* and dutifully deployed his fan club to attack Stein as soon as the "Expelled!" site appeared. It's just PR, and Myers is playing his role to the hilt – we call that "emoting." I wouldn't be at all surprised if he's getting paid under the table for that, too.
Comment by Joy — August 23, 2007 @ 4:45 pm
August 23rd, 2007 at 4:46 pm
Hi chunkdz,
You are apparently thinking of "endorsement" as a positive movie review. A reasonable person can think that saying the basic message of the movie is accurate is an endorsement of the accuracy of the movie. You don't have to define "endorsement" so strictly; remember, MikeGene has defined "theistic evolutionist" so loosely that it encompasses all theists from Kent Hovind to Ken Miller!
Comment by Aagcobb — August 23, 2007 @ 4:46 pm
August 23rd, 2007 at 4:52 pm
So, if someone actually thought (independent of DI and the prominent ID proponents) that some dominant understanding of science is myopic in its view in eliminating teleological insight from having any epistemological worth it therefore must be part of some nefarious plan.
How so?
Comment by Doug — August 23, 2007 @ 4:52 pm
August 23rd, 2007 at 4:54 pm
From Pharyngula:
I'm not going to be the sound editor of that movie. And yet Glen says here:
Does anyone pick up the irony of Glen Davidson talking about people not having a grasp on reality and being vulnerable to facts and truth?
PS
Actually Glen it's not "Slimy Sal" it's "Slick Sal". Actually, "Sleazy Sal" will do as well.
Comment by Salvador T. Cordova — August 23, 2007 @ 4:54 pm
August 23rd, 2007 at 4:59 pm
Aagcobb
Yes, Aagcobb, an "endorsement" in the movie industry usually evokes images of Roger Ebert's thumb in the "up" position.
Roger Ebert usually doesn't give a separate thumb for "accuracy". He may comment on it, like Mike did, but the endorsement is entirely different.
And I'm still looking for where Matzke accused MikeGene of endorsing the "accuracy" of a movie that neither of them have seen.
Or you could define "endorsement" so loosely that someone who clearly states that they are conflicted about a movie could be misrepresented as saying that they "endorse it".
Misrepresented now by two people, not just one.
Comment by chunkdz — August 23, 2007 @ 4:59 pm
August 23rd, 2007 at 5:22 pm
After reading the comments, it's taken 24 hours for the critics to come up with this history thus far: MikeGene endorsed the movie, Salvador is working on the movie, and Ben Stein is part of the Wedge!
Comment by MikeGene — August 23, 2007 @ 5:22 pm
August 23rd, 2007 at 5:53 pm
ScienceAvenger (a regular in the blogsphere)
Expelled: And I Used to Like Ben Stein
We'll have 6 months of speculation and then see how the movie actually unfolds. My bet, they'll just let the critics be their old lovable tolerant selves.
The issue is far less about what is allowed in classrooms. The Expelled site goes clues us in that this is about treatment of individuals (some of whom like Sternberg, Lonnig, Gonzalez, etc.) didn't even have a (public school) classroom ID issue!
The same could go for Behe, Dembski and so many others. The post-Wedge world is wonderful. It crystalizes what the issues really are about.
Comment by Salvador T. Cordova — August 23, 2007 @ 5:53 pm
August 23rd, 2007 at 6:10 pm
Conspiracy theories abound at pharyngula…
The fimmaker is a "fake"…
Somehow the film is tied to the 15 million dollar lawsuit against PZ!
One PZ accolyte has taken it upon himself to do a little spy work against the film maker…
And of course, "It's the Republicans!!!"
Comment by chunkdz — August 23, 2007 @ 6:10 pm
August 23rd, 2007 at 6:13 pm
About blurb from Stein's blog:
Stein's actual blog entry:
Notice that both the blog entry and the promo blurb use the word "controversial" to describe a film still in post production, which no one has seen. Also note that PZ did NOT describe his bit part interview as in any way "confrontational." Just some questions and answers filmed over a couple of hours' time, for which he was paid $1200.
But the really interesting part (to me) is the part of the blurb and the blog bolded and italicized (by me). Notice the difference in wording, because it's telling us something.
Is the "widespread suppression and entrenched discrimination" doing irreparable harm to some of the world's top scientists, educators and thinkers, or are those top scientists, educators and thinkers "helping" Ben Stein to "confront?"
For this particular incident – and noting that ScienceBlogs isn't listing this post of PZ's among its "Most Active" (which would normally happen, given more than 200 comments) – I'd suspect PZ's doing some on-purpose promotion for the film by dutifully supplying his share of "controversy" and "confrontation." And Seed either doesn't want to be seen as endorsing this extracurricular activity, or they really are piqued at PZ right now about the lawsuit and are leaving his blogs off that list. When his acolytes get bored with it, I'm sure Dawkins will post something equally inciteful on his blog, and the across-the-pond crew will keep the "controversy" and "confrontation" going.
Stein's apparently got enough on both sides of the fence to keep all this "controversy" and "confrontation" going for six months. So I'll just say the same thing Deep Throat (that guy Stein never believed existed when he worked for Tricky Dick) said to Bob Woodward in that parking garage in Rosslyn all those many years ago…
"Follow the money."
Comment by Joy — August 23, 2007 @ 6:13 pm
August 23rd, 2007 at 6:13 pm
Like ScienceAvenger, another blogger who was a Stein fan turns sour:
Ben Stein – "Expelled" pro-ID movie
But there is something here. Look at this: Ben Stein, Creationist — and phoney-baloney huckster
Now wait a second. It's presuming it was false pretenses. It could well ironic that the critics will be asked to simply argue their case in the most forceful manner they can against ID and ID proponents. They get a fair shot. We could see the critics being their usual lovely tolerant welcoming selves on camera and have the recipients of their wrath on camera as well. That is pretty even handed.
I would be curious to know if the critics were told that ID proponents would be in the movie. My rather faint recollection was that the documentary crew was not granted interviews by some critics when it was revealed the other side (the ID side) would get air time.
What are we going to get from the critics. Is PZ going to say, "I would never deny a job to someone because he accepted ID. I was tricked into saying something I didn't mean."
Are they going to do their usual complaining that the ID proponents might have gotten slightly more than equal time, that the critics were bamboozled into thinking this would be another monopoly like they usually get from the media.
We will see. Remember, the theme of the documentary (according to the website) is how critics will treat those who disagree, it's less about the correctness of ID.
Comment by Salvador T. Cordova — August 23, 2007 @ 6:13 pm
August 23rd, 2007 at 6:19 pm
In only 24 hours, Ben Stein's Wikipedia entry has been changed:
Ben Stein (wiki)
HT: JJS P Eng at UD
Comment by Salvador T. Cordova — August 23, 2007 @ 6:19 pm
August 23rd, 2007 at 6:36 pm
Another Ben Stein fan from the science blogs turns sour.
Orac: The Fall of Ben Stein
So much commentary on a film no one has seen. Of course, I've been positive on it, and I haven't seen it either. But I'm in the camp of "there is no such thing as bad publicity" at this stage.
Comment by Salvador T. Cordova — August 23, 2007 @ 6:36 pm
August 23rd, 2007 at 6:50 pm
Isn't there a Wiki edit tracer out there now? Some have been using it to trace edits to CIA, FBI and FoxNews. It should be easy for someone with broadband to find out who edited in about 3 minutes.
Comment by Joy — August 23, 2007 @ 6:50 pm
August 23rd, 2007 at 7:14 pm
Pro intelligent design! What a shocking atrocity.:shock:
That goes along with accumulating evidence of stereotyping, hate, intolerance, reaching conclusions based on preconception instead of evidence…
Comment by Bradford — August 23, 2007 @ 7:14 pm
August 23rd, 2007 at 7:26 pm
I love it. All the atheist critics are doing exactly what Stein says they are doing.
I agree with Sal, this film will be about how people (scientists, pro ID and critics) interact with one another. Not about the correctness of ID itself, which is all the beter. People can see just how horribly vulgar, bigoted and dismissive these critics are.
Comment by Jean — August 23, 2007 @ 7:26 pm
August 23rd, 2007 at 7:39 pm
This "encyclopedic entry" is based on the non-evidence of a film unseen. Aren't these critics something. They can't help being the prejudiced jerks they are.
Comment by Bradford — August 23, 2007 @ 7:39 pm
August 23rd, 2007 at 7:53 pm
Ah yes, how can we have a listing of proscience blogs without Pandas Thumb.
Comment for Eugenie Scott! Comment 19856
Even if the scientists were duped (which I don't believe they were), there is almost an irony in their claims of being less gullible than ordinary folk. But for the record, no slight inteneded against Ms. Scott personally.
If I had to hazard a guess, when our IDEA club was interviewed by NPR in 2005, the scuffle between Eugenie Scott and Rick Sternberg was highlighted. I speculate there is going to be a repeat performance of this scuffle. It would be too good a thing not to show.
Comment by Salvador T. Cordova — August 23, 2007 @ 7:53 pm
August 23rd, 2007 at 7:56 pm
Nah. It could also just as well read:
Comment by Salvador T. Cordova — August 23, 2007 @ 7:56 pm
August 23rd, 2007 at 7:59 pm
Comment by HaroldJenkins — August 23, 2007 @ 7:59 pm
August 23rd, 2007 at 8:38 pm
And how can we forget science blogger Ed Brayton!
Dishonest Producers of ID Persecution Film
Gee, Mike, we'll have a chance to do this for 6 months before and 6 months after. LOL!
Comment by Salvador T. Cordova — August 23, 2007 @ 8:38 pm
August 23rd, 2007 at 9:03 pm
These people are absurd.
We are preparing to counter the lies in this film that we haven't seen a milisecond of. It's a propaganda film, though I don't know what's contained in it.
You can't help but sit back and laugh at these guys when they admit they haven't seen a second of the movie, yet are "preparing to counter the lies and exaggerations in the film" !!! Do they realize how foolish they look?
Do they realize that from the trailer for the film, these attacks on the film they haven't seen are proving a very good point?
I'd also like to figure out how on earth Ed thinks how these "tales" are totally made up? Does Ed deny the federal report that says Sternberg was, in fact, abused? Does he deny that Gonzalez was denied tenure and those related to the issue said that ID DID come into play? I guess if you support ID in any manner, you're a cretin in Ed's mind. Worse- any story told about you is a made up fairytale, in you were actually treated fairly.
Ugh. Blind group think is so wonderful.
Comment by HaroldJenkins — August 23, 2007 @ 9:03 pm
August 23rd, 2007 at 9:37 pm
WHOA! Confirmed!!!! I was filmed by the same group of individuals that filmed PZ Myers. I was not 100% sure until just now.
The name of the company that filmed me was not Rampant, but I recognized the names in the staff. It turns out there is indeed a film named "Crossroads – The Intersection of Science and Religion"
See: http://www.rampantfilms.com/
Will there be two films after all? Hmmmm…. the plot thickens.
Comment by Salvador T. Cordova — August 23, 2007 @ 9:37 pm
August 23rd, 2007 at 9:41 pm
What PZ and the others were told about the documentary (tentatively entitled "Crossroads" (by Mathis):
What Rampant Films (Mathis' outfit) offered as the blurb:
Which PZ considered "perfectly reasonable," so he agreed to be interviewed.
They asked their questions, PZ (and Eugenie, and Dawkins, and whoever else they contracted) gave them answers. They all knew it was about NDS vs. ID, they all knew it was about the theist vs. atheist "culture war" they've all been waging for many years, and I doubt very much that anyone would have to edit anything at all that any of them said. Though obviously the documentary isn't 2 hours' worth of PZ pontificating, so a lot that was said didn't make it into the film. Not a single one of them has reason to complain about that, they all signed a valid contract, they were paid for their time.
At some later point in the process the primary production company bought in (making Mathis the associate producer), and apparently Stein got involved. The focus also apparently changed. No doubt because of some of the things they said when they thought the movie was their personal propaganda vehicle.
One need not be partisan in these debates to figure out very quickly who's who and what's what. The amount of bile is simply inconsistent with the non-threat of ID. Once again the NAM illustrates its broader sociopolitical ambitions in the post-wedge world. The only excuse for sic'ing the dogs is that PZ knows very well what he DID say and is suddenly concerned that he might not come across as the good guy.
Unless he's getting paid by the production company to generate the requisite "controversy," that is. Not at all out of the realm of possibility.
I don't know what to think, and won't until I see the film. I'm not convinced it's not a "Borat" take-off that's just edgy comedy and everybody comes out looking silly. It's 6 months away, so there's no reason to get all upset.
Comment by Joy — August 23, 2007 @ 9:41 pm
August 23rd, 2007 at 10:02 pm
Comment by Salvador T. Cordova — August 23, 2007 @ 10:02 pm
August 23rd, 2007 at 11:10 pm
Ben Stein? He's no biologist, nor does he do work in biology. Interesting. If he had good stuff, don't you think he'd take the non-crank route, and publish it, instead of doing a parody movie?
Anyway, his premise is quite interesting as I understand it from this discussion. He claims that biologists are somehow being unfair in not allowing ID advocates to get into classrooms and teach ID without first doing some research that makes a case for ID.
Would Stein be so open in his own profession? For example, does he tell about how he has championed the careers of several Marxist economists in U.S. universities? There's a lot of research in economics on Marxism, much, much more than there is in biology on ID. Marxist economies have worked in various guises for more than 200 years, producing dramatic increases in industrialization and technology in formerly agrarian, feudal societies. So, certainly Stein should be an advocate of Marxist economists in U.S. schools.
What? What did you say? There are no Marxist economists in U.S. universities? Well, Ben Stein must be absolutely apoplectic about that. Surely he's leading the charge, demanding that fair play requires we go find some Marxists and give them jobs.
Doesn't he? Isn't he?
Hypocrisy is too easy.
Comment by edarrell — August 23, 2007 @ 11:10 pm
August 23rd, 2007 at 11:17 pm
Well, folks, you heard it from edarrell: Corruption and censorship is rampant in our universities!
Comment by nullasalus — August 23, 2007 @ 11:17 pm
August 23rd, 2007 at 11:25 pm
Hi Idiot Wind,
I'd like to thank you for actually addressing one of the points in my opening post. You wrote:
I think this wedge-centric perspective has you missing the hard edge of reality. This is not a DI movie. You need to let that sink in. This is not a DI movie. What you are dealing with here is something that is much, much larger and much more clever. And if we take the trailer and web page at face value, yes, you are dealing with people who are willing to shout, "There are people out there who want to keep science in a little box where it possibly can't touch God."
You need to ask yourself why in the world would such Big Money and someone as mainstream as Ben Stein become involved in this debate, just as it seemed as the ID Movement was fading into history? I'm guessing that it is because the critics resurrected it. How? Because of their overblown sense of threatiness, needed to arouse battle troops in the scientific community, they were willing to abandon principle for politics and succeeded in making martyrs. But it's not just that alone. Juxtaposed against Sternberg and Gonzalez, we'll get to see Dawkins and his movement bash religion, while telling us science has shown God does not exist. Has it occurred to you that this is very powerful imagery, made possible only because of the actions and words of the critics?
Imagine if the critics had listened to me. The Dover decision would still exist, but there would be no martyrs to catch the attention of some major league players. And all those scientific organization that made it clear ID is not science? They would have also made it clear that the anti-religious agenda of the most popular scientist in the world, along with his movement, does not represent science and the scientific community. The only question remains is how much the critics will continue to bash and smear about a movie made possible by their bashing and smearing?
Comment by MikeGene — August 23, 2007 @ 11:25 pm
August 24th, 2007 at 12:02 am
edarrel wrote:
You are not a biologist either. If I recall correctly you are an attorney. Does that disqualify you from rendering opinions and would it make it impossible for you to go to court over a matter concerning an issue having to do with biology? Movies are works of art particularly when done well. Something does not become crank because you dislike it. That's a child's tactic.
It is premature to render an assessment. You have not seen the movie and neither have I or anyone else. I thought people were entitled to a trial before being sentenced and that evidence was presented before deliberation. The focus might be Sternberg not the classroom. Why can't you wait?
Comment by Bradford — August 24, 2007 @ 12:02 am
August 24th, 2007 at 12:36 am
Ben Stein
I accept Ben's word that it was the behavior of the critics that got him interested. When John Angus Campbell saw the behavior of his Darwinist collegues, he was so appalled he joined the DI. If a Darwinist like Campbell will join the DI because he's appalled at what's going on, it is easy to see Stein joining the ID debate.
Big Money
Even though the movie has a big budget compared to anything else so far in ID vs Evolution, by Hollywood standards, I would presume the actual expenses are quite modest. 5 million, maybe? Potential profit? Conservative guess $15.
The marketing will be grass roots and thus cheap. It is a very profitable proposition. Recovery of the initial investment pretty easy. The rest will be like printing money. That is the bottom line.
By way of comparison, a movie which was marketed by the same organizations, The Passion of Christ, was colossal success financially. It was a modest budget movie with a big payoff.
This documentary has all the earmarks of being highly profitable in the same way. Low risk but almost ulimited payoff. It also has a very natural marketing mechanism. The Critics!
The news headlines: "Stein's Movie Angers University Professors on Darwin Day" We can imagine them as Darwin Day approaches doing everything they can to get it in the news and mainstream media.
The was a comparable issue with Last Temptation of Christ. If Church groups hadn't noticed the movie, it would have faded into oblivion. But all their protestations made this movie a box office success.
The most desirable thing for the movie is we see enraged professors with steam coming out of their ears and froth dripping out of their mouth on TV protesting the movie.
Would the critics actually do the sensible thing and ignore the movie. If the past is a guide, the answer is no.
And if I could be a bit cynical. The anti God movement is now a profitable industry. They have a vested interest in mutually marketing Stein's movie and keeping the "threat" alive. Big Money realizes this, and Big Money intends to make more Big Money as a result.
Comment by Salvador T. Cordova — August 24, 2007 @ 12:36 am
August 24th, 2007 at 1:26 am
Salvador T. Cordova,
Oh, come on now. Profitable? This is an intellectual movement. It's not as if they're getting paid speaking fees or selling clothes or…
…
*ahem* Nevermind.
Comment by nullasalus — August 24, 2007 @ 1:26 am
August 24th, 2007 at 6:46 am
MikeGene
Yes, this is not DI movie althoug I think it's possible that DI was/is strong background force behind this movie. In any case, the people behind this movie seem to share very much the same ideology, rheotoric and objectives that the old Wedge promoters did. At least in that sense it is Wedge.
It is my understanding that Stein is a neocon and that there are lots of rich people in USA who are ready to give money "for the cause of Jesus" no matter how stupid and desperate it would be. I think it is rather clear that the movie is not for genuine concerns about academic freedom or any other noble cause – I smell Christian Right agenda.
The recent media fuss may very well have given a great opportunity to make this movie. When there is opportunity to create martyrs, ID folks will try to create martyrs. And everybody hates atheists. I think it is at best controversial that Gonzalez or Sternberg were unrightfully discriminated.
I also don't think we should stop fighting pseudoscience because it may give ID propagandists fuel for their fire. I don't really care who we ought to blame for this movie because in any case the movie seems to be counterproductive to your mission and the whole science vs religion truce.
BTW. I remember Dawkins clearly stating that "science cannot disprove the existence of God" and I recall that the chapter in God delusion was not "Why there certainly is no God" but "Why there almost certainly is no God"…
Comment by Idiot Wind — August 24, 2007 @ 6:46 am
August 24th, 2007 at 10:20 am
Bradford to edarrel:
Um… because PZ Myers deployed his troops to do his bidding? Stein's blog now has more than 300 comments, the vast majority from bent-nosed PZ acolytes who take themselves SOOOOOO seriously, hell-bent on demonstrating the film's stated premise to be blisteringly accurate!
What a bizarre production number this dance is. Stein couldn't buy this much promotion for all of Montezuma's gold. The only question I've got is how they can keep it up for six whole months, and when one of them is finally going to notice Stein's ridiculous short-pants costume and maybe figure out the rich-as-chocolate comedy angle… §;o)
Comment by Joy — August 24, 2007 @ 10:20 am
August 24th, 2007 at 8:33 pm
Hi chunkdz:
That was a nice comment. In fact, if you could slightly edit it to make it more general (so it doesn't target someone in particular), and re-post it in a Rabbit thread, I'd be happy to guest host it for you.
Comment by MikeGene — August 24, 2007 @ 8:33 pm
August 24th, 2007 at 9:02 pm
Idiot Wind:
You have no way of knowing this based on evidence. Your claim is propaganda.
Comment by Bradford — August 24, 2007 @ 9:02 pm
August 24th, 2007 at 10:21 pm
Um…
Anybody seen PZ's Latest Excuse? Guess he must have figured out it's too late to whine, thought he'd get the worst of his comic book references out there now. Just in case… §;o)
Comment by Joy — August 24, 2007 @ 10:21 pm
August 24th, 2007 at 10:36 pm
"Ben Stein? He's no biologist…"
Neither are you, but you like to play one on the internet.
Comment by obrienr — August 24, 2007 @ 10:36 pm
August 25th, 2007 at 1:44 am
PZ and the folks commenting over at his site are just out of it if you ask me. NONE of them have seen any of this movie, and neither PZ nor any of those commenting have any idea what interview footage of PZ will be used (if any at all) yet merely because it's a film that seems to be taking on those who constantly attack design in nature they're evil and "that film crew" and whatever other names others have used in the comments.
It's almost like a devout religion with some of these sites. Grandmaster Pez speaks and the chorus line joins in with uninformed rants for the sole reason that the people they're attacking aren't raging atheists or people who deny that anything but blind luck is to work in the universe.
How is a college professor and those who flock to his site like he's their god so shallow in the reasoning dept?
Comment by HaroldJenkins — August 25, 2007 @ 1:44 am
August 25th, 2007 at 6:31 am
edarrel said:
Your ignorance is appalling!
Comment by inunison — August 25, 2007 @ 6:31 am
August 25th, 2007 at 7:35 am
Marxism has been tested and falsified in the real world. No wonder edarrell cannot give ID a fair shake. Once your mind is made up, edarrell, even contrary evidence does not change it.
Comment by Bradford — August 25, 2007 @ 7:35 am
August 25th, 2007 at 9:11 am
Hi Aagcobb,
Perhaps, but we can't even say this for sure. Let's consider all the relevant facts.
First, Weber was a retired professor, meaning that he is a) probably financially comfortable and b) he is finished with his career. As one of four "directors" for the Biologic Institute, I'd guess his main job was fund-raising for this new institute. Given his situation in life and probable role, Weber was probably engaged in service during his retirement years and never felt the threat of losing one's career or family health care.
Second, Weber was not a victim of public campaign that sought to smear and bash him for months.
Third, there is no record of Weber ever complaining about being "fired." In fact, come to think of it, where is your evidence that he was fired? The only source of information we appear to have is the one biased article from New Scientist. Yet even it does not make this clear:
"Weber left the board" is not necessarily Weber gets fired. The decision to leave could have been mutual and cordial. It might even have been Weber's, who might have decided he was not going to serve any longer if the Biologic Institute isn't going to actively promote religion. In other words, unless you have something other than the New Scientist article, you claim about Weber being "fired" is not supported.
Comment by MikeGene — August 25, 2007 @ 9:11 am
August 25th, 2007 at 2:24 pm
Perhaps some clue from 2005:
Urban Legend: Status True
Comment by Salvador T. Cordova — August 25, 2007 @ 2:24 pm
August 25th, 2007 at 4:24 pm
Sal, quoting Ben Stein:
I wasn't going to say anything about Stein's heritage, not knowing (or caring) what his present metaphysics might be. But I'll tell you true, we've had a couple of dear Jewish friends in our after-Navy lifetime who loved nothing better than that they had Christian friends with little children who celebrated Christmas. Both played Santa to our kids (different years), buying great stuff and staying up late setting up matchbook car racing tracks and slot-tab playhouses and God knows what else under the tree, positively twinkling at the childrens' delight on Christmas morning. I've long thought of Santa as a Jew, since some of the Santas I've worked with as Mama Elf WERE Jewish…
They begrudged us nothing, nor did we begrudge them. Even set up a Menorah in our home and lit the candles every night (and exchanged little gifts) as part of our holiday celebrations. My own godparents, who both had tattoos from the camps and couldn't have children of their own, sent me and all my siblings Christmas presents every year, and sent presents for my kids after I was married, until they died. My experience – which isn't vast but is considerable – with people of other faiths one-on-one – is that we really can all get along. Don't even have to try that hard.
Thanks for this, Sal. I'll reserve judgment on Stein's film until I've seen it, hope I can get a pre-screening invite. It could be comedy in the 'Borat' frame, and as such would probably be a runaway success and win academy awards. Stein is perfect for such a part. But if he indeed got involved for more personal reasons on seeing a presentation of interview cuts from folks like PZ, Dawkins and Scott juxtaposed with cuts from Gonzalez, Steinberg and Behe, he just might be serious. You never know, he can do both characterizations.
Comment by Joy — August 25, 2007 @ 4:24 pm
August 25th, 2007 at 6:50 pm
MikeGene says:
Surely not directly. But the decision at issue affects only one of the more than 10,000 school districts in the US. In this one area, I have to agree with those who argue that the fat lady has yet to sing on this issue.
Comment by RogerRabbitt — August 25, 2007 @ 6:50 pm
August 25th, 2007 at 11:05 pm
Sal quoting Ben Stein:
Thanks for this Sal. Ben Stein is spot on.
Joy:
I had similar experiences as a kid. My parents' best friends were our Jewish next door neighbors who got a big kick out of celebrating Christmas with us. We were also very much aware of and respectful toward Hanuka, Passover and other holidays they celebrated. I think that sort of thing is America at its best.
Comment by Bradford — August 25, 2007 @ 11:05 pm
August 25th, 2007 at 11:06 pm
Hi RogerRabbit,
As I see it, the movie will simply cement the ID = religion perspective. What's more, it will probably raise emotions so that you could very well have several school districts trying to get ID taught or "teach the controversy" with people publicly proclaiming their need to "take a stand for Jesus." I think the movie could very well lead to many fat ladies singing all at once.
It's the post-wedge world. And it will remain so.
Comment by MikeGene — August 25, 2007 @ 11:06 pm
August 26th, 2007 at 12:12 am
Actually Mike, the Discovery Institute is encouraging that we Explore Evolution.
The standard cry might be, let's Explore Evolution.
Comment by Salvador T. Cordova — August 26, 2007 @ 12:12 am
August 26th, 2007 at 1:04 am
Well, there's at least one thing that Ben Stein and Richard Dawkins agree on.
Stein:
Dawkins:
Comment by keiths — August 26, 2007 @ 1:04 am
August 26th, 2007 at 2:07 am
Well, it's nice of Dawkins to at least recognize the positive things religion can offer even atheists.
MikeGene,
Do you really see it as that bad? I'm not so sure, at least if Stein points out how the 'creator' or intelligent force in ID is not limited to any specific faith's God or even concept of God necessarily. Though I'm tempted to think that even if the movie improves the public perception of the more religious-focused proponents of ID, the more religiously neutral still stand to gain.
Comment by nullasalus — August 26, 2007 @ 2:07 am
August 26th, 2007 at 3:24 am
Ben Stein said,
Rarely have I heard such a straightforward claim of ethnic purity. If there was no interbreeding, then why do European Jews like Stein resemble Europeans more closely than they they do Jews from the Middle East?
Comment by rachelrachel — August 26, 2007 @ 3:24 am
August 26th, 2007 at 8:35 am
MikeGene Says:
For some, most certainly. But if they are 97.8% certain before the movie and 98.3% certain after, that is of little significance. Depending on what the movie is actually about, and how it is done, we also may experience folks going the opposite direction as well.
I know you think that more excursions into the K-12 arena would be a mistake, but I don't agree. There is a pretty deep cultural/political divide about public education that needs to be resolved in some manner. Kitzmiller doesn't come close to doing that. So I welcome more disputes. That's how representative democracies resolve these issues.
I'm not really sure what you mean by the "post-wedge world". For all intents and purposes, it looks just like the "wedge world" to me.
Comment by RogerRabbitt — August 26, 2007 @ 8:35 am
August 26th, 2007 at 8:39 am
Hi nullasalus,
Based solely on the website, and what Ben Stein says in his blog, it looks like the film is in fact designed to incite hatred of agnostics and atheists, for instance by suggesting that Einstein would be prohibited from working as a scientist today because he made public comments about God. One can only hope the rhetoric of the website isn't matched in the movie it promotes, but I'm not optimistic.
Comment by Aagcobb — August 26, 2007 @ 8:39 am
August 26th, 2007 at 9:15 am
Aagcobb:
From the blog:
The blog quote appears to fairly represent the views of the author of what is touted as the number one science blog. Are you claiming that views opposed to the likes of PZ, Dawkins and others in that crowd are intrinsically inciteful? Do their views merit special sensitivities?
Comment by Bradford — August 26, 2007 @ 9:15 am
August 26th, 2007 at 11:36 am
I also don't understand what "post-wedge world" means. ID = God. The part we need to un-cement is God = Right wing. evangelical, dominionist Christian religion.
Comment by WedgeHead — August 26, 2007 @ 11:36 am
August 26th, 2007 at 1:40 pm
Hi Bradford,
Are you telling me that you sincerely believe that Einstein would be blocked from receiving research grants today? Stein of all people should be ashamed of himself for suggesting that a despised minority control a powerful secret conspiracy to persecute theists.
Comment by Aagcobb — August 26, 2007 @ 1:40 pm
August 26th, 2007 at 1:57 pm
Not if it was known to be Einstein of course but obviously the example is metaphorical. The point made was that a highly talented young scientist would be well advised to keep certain thoughts to himself. That is particularly applicable when the likes of PZ are in a position to affect his career. PZ has made his position clear with regard to ID leanings and denial of tenure.
Stein's site was specific with regard to the matter. He's not talking about persecution in a general sense. He is saying however that there have been enough incidents to portray the reality that a profession of ID beliefs can be hazardous to one's future. My college age son got a dose of ID directed hostility from one of his profs. Choosing what not to say is sound advice.
Comment by Bradford — August 26, 2007 @ 1:57 pm
August 26th, 2007 at 5:36 pm
WedgeHead:
Oddly, I know of more than a handful of ID supporters who aren't theists or deists at all. They see design in life and evolution and suspect it's real, while not believing it's the product of divine intervention. Your basic ET possibilities, intelligence inhabiting more than 4 dimensions, and even versions of vitalism (life as designer of itself).
So the fact that many Christians (and other theist/deist types) do interpret the acknowledged appearance of design to the designer they already believe designed life and the universe, that's certainly not a prerequisite for strongly suspecting the acknowledged appearance of design is real.
Everyone interprets experience and knowledge of the world to their a priori metaphysical beliefs. Even scientists. This is an unarguable aspect of our nature, whether or not that nature is a product of design or happenstance. The issue with Neodarwinian 'orthodoxy' is the imposed assumption of happenstance where causation should be, for no other reason than that happenstance better suits a certain exclusive metaphysic than intentional cause does.
IOW, the NDS vs. ID miasma is all about dueling metaphysics and not about science. That is a corruption of science, which was intelligently designed to seek knowledge of the world for all of humanity, serving humanity's desire and/or need to understand natural processes for the practical purpose of control over them. It simply doesn't matter what ANY individual's a priori metaphysical beliefs about such things might be. Never did matter.
Comment by Joy — August 26, 2007 @ 5:36 pm
August 26th, 2007 at 7:43 pm
I've gotten approximately this response before. I believe these are just different ways to describe or think about God. If ETs are responsible for this incredible biological milieu then they are god-like. Intelligence inhabiting more than 4 dimensions sounds like God to me. "Life as designer of itself" might be a good way to think of God. I don't see how you can have "design" without intervention if only at the outset.
Comment by WedgeHead — August 26, 2007 @ 7:43 pm
August 26th, 2007 at 8:17 pm
Dawkins (As quoted by keiths):
Leave it to Dawkins to have to have a paragraph disclaimer for "Merry Christmas". If he thinks the phrase has "zero Religious significance", then he really is as out of touch with reality as I think he is. Hunderds of millions of people, who Dawkins has clearly never met, think that the phrase is ALL about religious significance! And not one thing Dawkins has ever written or stated has in any way contradicted or even threatened that conviction!! (Dawkins self-appraisal of his own logic, not with standing!)
Comment by DonaldM — August 26, 2007 @ 8:17 pm
August 27th, 2007 at 11:03 am
WedgeHead:
Well, any advanced enough – or strange enough – benefactors would probably qualify as god-like for most practical human purposes of conceiving them. Even if the life begun here was just an accident or a byproduct of some intentional act or natural condition in their broader spacetime.
You can call it/them God if you want. But there is no particular reason why science couldn't handle the existence of such beings/things as part of their explanations for phenomena here in our 3+1 spacetime. Per the causation end of things, now left conveniently isolated behind that thick brick wall biologists have arbitrarily labeled "random."
As it becomes more and more evident that the forces of order and self-organization in our universe can only be explained through appeal to 'extra' dimensions (degrees of freedom), it also must be acknowledged that we've no sound scientific reason to arbitrarily rule out the existence of life and/or consciousness in them. Thus even if you do choose to call it/them God, that doesn't mean science can't develop theories inclusive of such beings/things.
Comment by Joy — August 27, 2007 @ 11:03 am
August 27th, 2007 at 1:00 pm
And you can call it/them consciousness, intelligence, or a pimply faced adolescent cosmic computer hacker but ID forces you to call it something. I just think that most are threatened by is the traditional concept of God.
That and Republicans.
But there is no particular reason why science couldn't handle the existence of such beings/things as part of their explanations for phenomena here in our 3+1 spacetime.
Agreed.
Comment by WedgeHead — August 27, 2007 @ 1:00 pm
August 27th, 2007 at 10:47 pm
Um, there is some revision of history going on there, MikeGene didn't say he was conflicted about the movie until after my initial comments.
Comment by nickmatzke — August 27, 2007 @ 10:47 pm
August 27th, 2007 at 11:15 pm
Nick Matzke:
If they describe Sternberg and Gonzalez as YECs who deny common ancestry then they will be lying. If they do the same with regard to Dembski and Behe- ID's two most prominent spokesmen- then they also will be lying. No pretending is necessary when you tell the truth.
Comment by Bradford — August 27, 2007 @ 11:15 pm
August 28th, 2007 at 8:21 am
Hi Nick,
Chunkdz is spot on, as there is no revision of history. I did not comment on my own views about the movie until after you misrepresented me. The focus on my blog (appropriately categorized under The Debate and The Critics) is how the behavior and words of the critics have not only made this movie possible, but that the bashing and smearing tactics that are likely to ensue will work to validate the basic message (judging from the way it is presented on its web page).
Comment by MikeGene — August 28, 2007 @ 8:21 am
August 28th, 2007 at 1:57 pm
Ruloff explains his motivation for producing a pro-ID movie.
Ruloff's Interview
Rulloff made piles of money developing "Disruptive Technologies", he felt the the neo-Darwin paradigm is hindering the advance of medical technology, because inhibits the progress of "disruptive technologies".
TOTALLY MAKES SENSE! YEAH BABY!
Salvador
Comment by Salvador T. Cordova — August 28, 2007 @ 1:57 pm
August 28th, 2007 at 3:21 pm
Designers typically "inhabit" designscapes of "beyond astronomical" dimensions. E.g., what are the dimensions of the "protein universe," that designers work within? Well, they can't be "beyond astronomical" as I suggested, because the protein universe must be contained within the universe. Right?
Designers are not restricted to work within any a priori "scientifically" defined spacetime. (?!)
We are not just free to discover and explore additional dimensions–We are free to create, design, them…
Indeed, it is (I feel) the central problem of design–The universe allows us to do just about anything we can imagine…
Comment by Rock — August 28, 2007 @ 3:21 pm
August 28th, 2007 at 10:48 pm
Rock:
It's a matter of constraint. All things accessible to science must be constrained to that which is available for us to examine in this spacetime where it counts. Any and all "other" spacetimes than never interact or cause effects in our spacetime are outside the job description as well as outside rational consideration of empirical data.
What has happened is that our best theoretics dealing with the parameters of what's real has failed. Despite its' having been the most successful scientific theory ever devised, for a respectably long time. They trusted math to get them that far, so now they're trusting math to tell them where they went wrong. The math demands extra dimensions to explain what's real here. Rather than admit we're dealing with extra dimensions – that which may someday become available for us to 'know' scientifically and empirically – they'd rather postulate an infinity of extra universes by which to explain away what's real.
It's actually quite sad if you've followed physics (and science in general) as long as I have. A disconnect that can only be remedied by a new, better theoretic.
Meanwhile, there's biology. Stubbornly clinging to crap that physics could never have justified in the first place, pretending their version of reality needn't mesh with any actual models of spacetime and all that inhabits it. That's been sad for a century and a half, it's not getting less sad lately.
Comment by Joy — August 28, 2007 @ 10:48 pm
September 4th, 2007 at 7:20 am
I would like to know of a single example involving the existence or non-existence of a God of any sort as being in any way involved in scientific progress. I would also ask for the identification of any great scientist of the past who was so weak minded as to even dream of presenting himself as an atheist. Indeed there are now several such persons polluting cyberspace and hard print with exactly that sort of foolishness, notably, in alphabetical order, Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens and P.Z. Myers. Others, like Wesley Elsberry and Ken Miller, expend their energy mindlessly denigrating anyone who questions Godless Darwinism while simultaneously professing to be Christians!
It is hard to believe isn't it?
We live in an era of hate which has infected every aspect of our culture, our music, our literature, our arts and, most remarkably, even our science. Just examine the subject matter being offered at Pharyngula, and Panda's Thumb. Ask yourself, as I have, what has ever come of any of it. After The Bar Closes now presents pornography as an antidote to reason. P.Z. Myers presents himself not as a scientist but as a "godless liberal" promoting "random biological ejaculations" none of which has anything whatsoever to do with the only issue which has ever been at stake which is – THE MECHANISM OF A LONG PAST EVOLUTION. Those who can deny God or Gods are just as deluded as those who deny evolution. While it is true that there is no tangible evidence for a living God, that does not mean that one or more such entities did not exist in the distant past. Indeed that is ALL that NEEDS to be assumed and all that IS assumed by the Prescribed Evolutionary Hypothesis. The notion that it is intrinsic in the nature of matter to self-assemble into a living evolving organism even once is absurd and those who believe in such a scenario are congenital, "prescribed," "dyed-in-the-wool," "born that way," damn fools. We are all victims in a determined universe. Some of us have been luckier than others!
"EVERYTHING is determined …by forces over which we have no control."
Albert Einstein, my emphasis.
"A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable."
John A. Davison
Comment by John A. Davison — September 4, 2007 @ 7:20 am
September 4th, 2007 at 8:04 pm
Surely not everyone agrees with my summary or do they?
"A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable."
John A. Davison
Comment by John A. Davison — September 4, 2007 @ 8:04 pm
September 5th, 2007 at 6:50 am
I am certain that Dawkins, Elsberry and Myers, the new "Three Stooges" of Darwinian mysticism, don't agree with my assessment as each has banned me (or had me banned) from his atheist enclave. Of course I have also been banned at Uncommon Descent (twice) by David Springer, the biggest bully in cyberdom. As all know I am a great fan of Albert Einstein. While I am not competent to understand all his physics, I do share his unshakable determinism, which is intrinsic in the Prescribed Evolutionary Hypothesis (PEH). However, unlike Einstein, I am universally loathed and even vilified. I think I know why.
"Why is it that nobody understands me, yet everybody likes me?"
Albert Einstein
"Why is it that everybody understands me, yet nobody likes me?
John A. Davison
I believe I can answer the second question. It is because I have rejected any role for either a personal God or for chance and have alienated both factions in a debate that should never have taken place.
Einstein managed somehow to avoid that result even though he said much the same thing -
"Then we have the fanatical atheists whose intolerance is the same as that of the religious fanatics, and it springs from the same source…They are creatures who can't hear the music of the spheres."
Alice Calaprice, The New Quotable Einstein, page 204.
I now invite the three major proponents of Darwinian mysticism, Dawkins, Elsberry and Myers to come here, as I have invited them elsewhere, to present their case for a tychogenetic evolution, confident that they will not respond. To make that invitation formal -
RSVP to my UVM email address available at my old home page.
"A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable."
John A. Davison
Comment by John A. Davison — September 5, 2007 @ 6:50 am
September 5th, 2007 at 10:31 am
Hi John,
I don't think so but you and Einstein may be right. However, it seems a very odd psychological way to approach life. But then according to your beliefs, you couldn't really be any other way. You might say, well I want to know and live by the Truth, but then you couldn't really want anything else anyway. The infinite regress is astounding. Even your self reflection is determined. Also, why should you be so angry with those who reject your positions when they can't really do otherwise? Oh yeah, you couldn't be any other way.
William James was well known for his consistency and intellectual honesty. At one point he accepted determinism and it sent him into a deep depression. I don't know the details, but he only came out of it when someone he respected changed his mind.
What an odd world to live in when meaning really has no meaning and we are all victims.
BTW, atheists who see causation only in terms of chance and necessity have the same issues.
Comment by Steve Petermann — September 5, 2007 @ 10:31 am
September 5th, 2007 at 11:45 am
Steve Petermann
I know it is a very ungratifying view of the world but everything that I can discern points to it. I am also not very happy with the idea that the function of the male is to prevent evolutionary change but the facts demand that conclusion. Unvarnished truth need not be beautiful or even pleasant. Nevertheless -
"If you tell the truth, you can be certain, sooner or later, to be found out."
Oscar Wilde
In the meantime -
"Let my enemies devour one another."
Salvador Dali
"A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable."
John A. Davison
Comment by John A. Davison — September 5, 2007 @ 11:45 am
September 5th, 2007 at 11:32 pm
Steve
I am not angry with Myers, Dawkins and Elsberry. I am DISGUSTED with them. I am convinced that all three know that the Darwinian model is a farce. It is only pride that prevents them from facing reality. Why else would they ban me from all their proceedings? The so called ID movement has also isolated me from their gatherings for similar reasons. Surely they too must realize that there is no place for a personal God in science. Every serious student of the history of science knows that there is no place for any dogma in the search for the truth. Louis Pasteur was a devout Catholic throughout his life, yet never let his belief in any way influence his science. I don't know of a single instance in which religion has played any role whatsoever in the search for the truth and I can safely say neither does anyone else. All true science is completely secular and always has been. It was a terrible error on the part of those who initiated the so called "ID movement" to associate themselves openly with Christianity. Look at the "Discovery Instutute, A Christian Institution," the words with which it is introduced. Uncommon Descent has the same posture. The very words I find offensive.
My cardinal sin is my determinism which I share with Einstein. Does anyone here think Einstein was depressed about his determinism? I don't, and nearing the end myself, I am not depressed either. Neither of us ever denied a God anyway. God or Gods are like that don't you know. It is my opinion that a personal God is a crutch, necessary for some but not all.
The Darwinians not only deny a living God but extinct ones as well. That is a fundamental error. Instead they worship the absence of God or Gods, living or dead. That one must not do, one cannot do, because the notion that it is intrinsic in the nature of matter to spontaneously self perpetuate and then evolve even once is transparently absurd. It is my unshakable conviction that those that claim otherwise are fools, helpless victims of their "prescribed" fate to be "dyed-in-the-wool," "born that way" fools.
"EVERTHING is determined…by forces over which we have no control."
Albert Einstein, my emphasis.
Frederich Nietzche is often regarded as an atheist because of his celebrated "God is dead." I reject that conclusion. One cannot die without first having lived. That is all that is required for the Prescribed Evolutionary Hypothesis or for an understanding of every aspect of the world around us.
"To assume the existence of an unperceivable being…does not facilitate understanding the orderliness we find in the perceivable world."
Albert Einstein
"A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable."
John A. Daviosn
Comment by John A. Davison — September 5, 2007 @ 11:32 pm
September 5th, 2007 at 11:56 pm
Steve
Congratulations on being willing to use your real name. It is your real name isn't it? This blog, like most, is crawling with anonymity which is unfortunate. It renders most of the comments meaningless. Why is it that anyone might refuse to divulge his identity while freely offering his opinion? It is the greatest weakness of internet communication and should never have been allowed. I would love to see a forum in which it would not be tolerated. There is a great need for such. It is not permitted in journal publication so why should it be allowed in the world wide web? It often strikes me as little more than therapy for unfulfilled wannabes!
"A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable."
John A. Davison
Comment by John A. Davison — September 5, 2007 @ 11:56 pm
September 6th, 2007 at 12:53 am
John,
I appreciate your following your interpretation of the evidence where it takes you no matter what. What more honesty can one ask for. I don't happen to agree with you in rejecting a personal God but that is not based soley on science but also on a religious sensibility I seem to have. Having said that I do not believe that science has made such a sensibility unreasonable. For a while I also begrudgingly accepted determinism as the best explanation. However, that acceptance was based on a Western ontology that modern physics dispelled. As I learned more about physics and particularly the physics of emergence I began to change my mind. Accordingly, I don't think that classic theism or supernaturalism represent a reasonable interpretation of current science or the best of theology. I think that the personal relationship of God to the world is much more subtle and organic. Here I have been influenced by Eastern theology much like Erwin Schrodinger. I don't think it is scientific to frame causation only in terms of chance and necessity. To do so is an inference that is open to challenge from others.
And yes, I use my real name. However, within the current climate I don't begrudge others for using pseudonyms because many have careers and famililies that some low-life people are more than willing to destroy. Unfortunate times.
Comment by Steve Petermann — September 6, 2007 @ 12:53 am
September 6th, 2007 at 7:03 am
Steve
I have often heard about how the use of ones real name can lead to its destruction. I don't believe that for a minute. Quite the contrary, it is only by presenting ones true identity that one can force ones enemies to display their real selves. I am very pleased with the results of my efforts. To be vilified, denigrated and banned by the likes of Myers, Dawkins and Elsberry are among my most treasured achievements. I challenge you or anyone else to show me an example of how anonymity has protected one's reputation. Quite the contrary, it damages it, revealing the anonymous author as an insecure coward. Imagine a scientific literature based on such a convention. It is out of the question. Those with sincere convictions have nothing to fear by presenting them. I don't know how or why this convention first became established, but it was a ghastly mistake.
I learned long ago to pay no attention to such sources. Nevertheless, I have often succumbed to my convictions by responding to them. In so doing however, I now preface my reponse with "whoever that is" as a gesture of my contempt. There is no more significant demonstration of ones insecurity than to attack from behind the shield of anonymity or to send forth ones hired goons to do the dirty work as Dawkins, Myers and Elsberry all have done and continue to do. We all know who these despicable souls are so I need not name them here. The internet is crawling with them, the dregs of cyberspace. Not one of them or their equally despicable heros has ever attacked me or even mentioned my name in the only venue that matters – refereed journal publication. I am persona non grata even in their unnumerable books, not one of which contains even a grain of truth concerning the ony issue whcih has ever been involved – the MECHANISM of a long past evolution. Most of these arrogant ideologues have never published a word concerning the great mystery of organic evolution. The reason is obvious. They are ashamed to! If they should denigrate me openly and fairly they will be attacking not just John A. Davison but several of the greatest biologists of all time, not one of whom was either an atheist or a religious fanatic. That can of worms they will never open which is why I have opened it for them!
We several opponents of the Darwinian fairy tale have not been allowed to exist by ruling establishments still dominated by religious zealots or equally fanatical worshippers of the Great God Chance. What tangible contribution to our understanding of organic evolution has come from either faction? I will answer that question with one word – none. The truth lies elsewhere and I am convinced I know where that is. It is where it has always been in the fossil record and the experimental laboratory. Nothing found there has anything to do with either Darwinian mysticism or Christian Fundamentalism.
"Let my enemies destroy each other."
Salvador Dali
"Then there are the fanatical atheists whose intolerance is the same as that of the religious fanatics, and it springs from the same source…They are creatures who can't hear the music of the spheres."
Albert Einstein
Amen
"A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable."
John A. Davison
Comment by John A. Davison — September 6, 2007 @ 7:03 am
September 6th, 2007 at 7:05 am
John,
Authors publish under pseudonyms.
Is it possible to to freely offer an opinion under determinism?
Comment by WedgeHead — September 6, 2007 @ 7:05 am
September 6th, 2007 at 2:30 pm
I have no reason to respond to Wedgehead, whoever that is, so I won't!
If he wants to engage me I recommend "brainstorms" forum, where most of the posters use their real names. He should do the same if he expects my respect.
Quite separately, let me say that I am not enamored of determinism either but how else can one explain animals like Myers, Dawkins and Elsberry? Free Will is just as unjustified as Darwinian mysticism or any other form of religious fanaticism. We are all victims in a determined historical sequence. Some of us have been luckier than others. The lucky ones include every one my several sources, some of the finest minds of two centuries. I have been little more than their champion. It has been most gratifying for this old man.
"Our actions should be based on the ever-present awareness that human beings in their thinking , feeling, and acting ARE NOT FREE but are just as causally bound as the stars in their motion."
Albert Einstein, my emphasis.
Amen
"A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable."
John A. Davison
Comment by John A. Davison — September 6, 2007 @ 2:30 pm
September 6th, 2007 at 2:38 pm
Hi John,
Does free will need justification? If it is foundational to the general human experience couldn't it be the case that it is something that should be accepted despite the fact that it is not easily justified (because of its fundamental status – if it is indeed fundamental)?
Like arguing against human reason because it doesn't appear to be justified under a framework of naturalism, it might best be something to just accept – understanding that justification for something as fundamental as reason seems to lead one into a vicious cycle.
Comment by Doug — September 6, 2007 @ 2:38 pm
September 6th, 2007 at 4:22 pm
Doug, whoever that is.
What makes you think that humans are all capable of reason? Can you honestly assume that Richard Dawkins is capable of reason when he has generated a completely artificial world in which there is no room for anything other than what was conceived by his own bizarre imagination? I will stick with Einstein's view that we are not free, thank you very much. Einstein's understanding of human nature is every bit as significant as his physics, perhaps even more so. His physics, wonderful as it is, would have developed even if he had never existed. I accept without reservation his claim that EVERYTHING is determined. It also just happens to be in complete accord with my Prescribed Evolutionary Hypothesis so you can understand my natural enthusiasm. Poor souls like Dawkins, Myers and Elsberry were "determined" to be losers just as were all their thousands of adoring followers.
"Birds of a feather flock together."
Cervantes
It is hard to believe isn't it?
If you ask me anyone who can still believe in a tychogenetic evolution is incapable of reason as that word is usually understood to mean.
"A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable."
John A. Davison
Comment by John A. Davison — September 6, 2007 @ 4:22 pm
September 6th, 2007 at 5:28 pm
That is Timothy Lambert (born Manitowoc, WI)….. good enough for you?
Isn't it good enough that some humans are capable of reason? If no humans were capable of reason then you might have a point…. however, you'd never be able to coherently make it – nor I coherently understand it.
Yes, Richard Dawkins is capable of reason. I think many of his conclusions and assumptions seem to have the consequence of undermining reason – but that's another topic. Richard Dawkins is a realist, he believes that nature can be apprehended, he obviously trusts his faculties of cognition, he rationally tries to pursue a consistent (internally and externally) worldview. Some of the conclusions appear to be self-refuting, but I don't see how that is an argument for him being incapable of reason. Kind of like a good chess player that is not the best at anticipating future moves.
I'm not saying you can't have those views. But how do those views explain the tendency of one to change their position on a topic of scientific interest? Either you write that change into the deterministic fabric of existence, but then you undermine reality. Reality then, whether or not it is objective, certainly doesn't seem to be something that one could ever hope to apprehend.
The best bet still seems to be: accept that free will exists.
If he denies the existence of free will, why be impressed with anything that he thinks? Become a pantheist and direct that admiration where it should logically be directed then, at the deterministic universe that spawned Einstein.
Then you did nothing. You just let the deterministic conglomeration of atoms that comprise you, that are a deterministic product of a star's nuclear furnace, do what they would have done regardless.
Knock that off. Trust me, they are not losers. They are men that are very dedicated to their work, who are clearly driven, motivated and intelligent. I'm like you, I don't care for their conclusions or how they handle themselves (at times)…. but that doesn't make them 'losers'.
Comment by Doug — September 6, 2007 @ 5:28 pm
September 6th, 2007 at 6:40 pm
John doesn't like pseudonyms. So what name should I offer? I had this same issue with the IRS in the last day-job I held. They didn't like the one I use on the joint checking account, because the SS card I got when I was 16 included a nickname my Filipino Amah gave me when I was too young to know any better, but it's all anybody ever called me. Except for a few gnarly teachers, who insisted on my Aunt's name, one of my 'givens'…
But my husband couldn't spell it, since he had an uncle with the same name, so my Navy ID came with the misspelling, and he never learned my middle initial either because he didn't want to spell it as 'given'. Different initial entirely…
Though I've been filing taxes for 40 years with the same SS number that's on the card, and for 38 of them I've used my husband's last name. Which I never 'officially' had my name changed to, since it wasn't necessary back then…
But after my mother and father divorced, my Mom began using her ex-married name as her middle name, making her middle initial different from the middle name she was 'given' when she was born. I decided it was okay to use my maiden name as a middle name, so that gives me yet another middle initial different from the one my parents gave me, and the one my husband gave me because he didn't know how to spell it…
Homeland Security said my checks must come to "Joy" because of that 40-year old SS card, but my 'given' first name is on that card too – along with the nick. And that's how I'm listed on the bank accounts, and how I've been signing tax returns all these years…
Of course, having been born in a god-foresaken hovel of a Navy hospital halfway around the world, my birth certificate comes courtesy of the Philippine government, which doesn't speak English. Try convincing a cheap NC DMV license examiner that such a document (yellowed and practically unreadable as it is) actually DOES establish that I'm a "natural born" citizen of the U.S. even though I wasn't born in the U.S., by virtue of that smudged check in the "citizenship" box for both of my parents…
Sometimes I think I'd be better off without a name. That way I could just go by what my friends and family call me, rather than what my Father called me. Which was "Hey, you." I would not have to justify myself to the Navy, the DMV, any outside employers, my banker, the IRS, or even my husband who can't spell.
Give us a break, John. I can use any name, initial, spelling or permutation of any/all of 'em I want.
Comment by Joy — September 6, 2007 @ 6:40 pm
September 6th, 2007 at 8:00 pm
Well, John A. Davison, how do I know that's your real name? My real name is Wedge A. Head. No, seriously. My parents have a weird sense of humor. Better than blockhead I suppose. My friends call me wedgy but I don't think you want to be my friend.
Comment by WedgeHead — September 6, 2007 @ 8:00 pm
September 6th, 2007 at 9:08 pm
Sorry Doug but I say Dawkins is a loser. He has never published a word that has contributed to our understanding of the great mystery of organic evoluition, not a word. Neither have Myers, Elsberry, Gould, Mayr or Provine. They have all been blind champions of a myth, a phantom which never existed. Dawkins has gone even further. He has conjured up an even more bizarre scheme than conventional Darwinism, inventing mechanisms that cannot possibly exist like "selfish genes." He is to atheist Darwinism what Paul Kammerer was to Lamarckism in the 1920's, the consummate charlatan. He is either a charlatan or deranged and I don't believe he is deranged – yet. I will have to read his next book before passing final judgment on his sanity. Just remember, Kammerer killed himself once exposed. Like many ideologues, Dawkins may prove to be rather fragile when proven to be completely wrong. I am convinced that was established long ago when he had blind watchmakers climbing improbable mountains. Tychogenetic Darwinism, like the Ether and Phlogiston is headed for the scrap heap. It should have become a footnore 12 years after Darwin's Origin when Mivart asked the question -
"How can natural selection be involved in a structure yet to appear?"
Long before Darwin, William Paley claimed-
"Where there is design there is a designer." All that can be established with certainty is that there WAS a deisgner. That is all that is required by the Prescribed Evolutionary Hypothesis.
Pierre Grasse, the greatest French biologist of his generation, put it this way -
"Let us not invoke God in realities in which He NO LONGER HAS TO INTERVENE. The single absolute act of creation was enough for Him."
Evolution of Living Organisms, page 166, his emphasis, italicized in the original.
I am not at all certain that there was a single Creator or a single creation. A monophyletic evolution is far from established.
It is hard to believe isn't it?
I love it so!
"A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable."
John A. Davison
Comment by John A. Davison — September 6, 2007 @ 9:08 pm
September 7th, 2007 at 11:17 am
This is not the first time I have left unanswered comments.
I love it so!
"A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable."
John A. Davison
Comment by John A. Davison — September 7, 2007 @ 11:17 am
September 7th, 2007 at 4:04 pm
I left twelve, 12, unanswered challenges at John Rennie's old SciFi blog at which time he closed it down and opened a new one with limited registration. I love leaving the last word.
I love it so!
"A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable."
John A. davison
Comment by John A. Davison — September 7, 2007 @ 4:04 pm
September 7th, 2007 at 4:26 pm
John,
who is this directed at?
Comment by Doug — September 7, 2007 @ 4:26 pm
September 8th, 2007 at 10:25 pm
I am lecturing in an empty auditorium. I have been for some time, here and elsewhere. My published papers are for all time, right next to those of my several sources, some of the greatest biologists of all time.
"Meine Zeit wird schon kommen!"
Gregor Mendel
"If you tell the truth, you can be certain, sooner or later, to be found out."
Oscar Wilde
"A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable."
John A. Davison
Comment by John A. Davison — September 8, 2007 @ 10:25 pm
September 8th, 2007 at 10:49 pm
John Davison:
Could be because you don't like my name. Though I'm kinda fond of it. Probably because it's mine.
You haven't "proved" a thing, darlin'. If your papers are so convincing, we'd have them all on file, and you wouldn't be berating us for using our first, middle, last, maiden, nick or otherwise contrived names. Bye.
Comment by Joy — September 8, 2007 @ 10:49 pm
September 11th, 2007 at 9:02 pm
Anonymity is nothing but license for abuse. Bye to you too Joy. I am busy over at BenStein's blog and at the Valve and anywhere else where I can evoke your brand of arrogant silliness.
Comment by John A. Davison — September 11, 2007 @ 9:02 pm