I went to see Expelled yesterday. I am happy to report it was a private screening. Had the theater to myself. Last time that happened was when I saw Snakes on a Plane (a far more scientifically accurate film, by the way).
Granted, it was a Monday night. Indeed, when I go to see movies I nearly always do so on Mondays or Tuesdays specifically to avoid the crowds. The fact remains that for a new release I can typically count on about a dozen people watching the film with me. And let's not forget that I am living in a town that is -- how shall I put this? -- somewhat right of center politically. Should have been a ready-made audience for this dreck. Indeed, the low turnout even made me scotch my plans to write a letter to the editor of the local paper urging people to check out the Expelled Exposed website. Why call attention to the film if no one else seems to care?
Short review: The best part was the trailer for Get Smart that ran before the movie. (No, Steve Carrell does not do the voice.)
Long review below the fold.
Folks, this movie is seriously boring. Granted, I am not an unbiased source. But I can honestly say this is one criticism I did not expect to be making. I was expecting to be laughing at the funny parts, getting angry at the getting angry parts, and hating myself all the while for getting sucked into the sick little Spock-with-a-goatee world the creationists and ID folks have created for themselves. It didn't happen. This movie is capital-B boring. I find this subject enthralling and still couldn't manage to pay attention.
The movie is, of course, a pack of lies from start to finish. How bad is it? The opening scene shows Ben Stein at a podium lecturing about freedom and America's greatness to an auditorium filled with Pepperdine University students, several of whom are seen stroking their chins thoughtfully while Stein does his thing. Only they are not Pepperdine students, who it turns out are too savvy to have anything to do with this. Turns out they are extras.
From here we get a whirlwind tour through the annals of Darwinian oppression. The most pathetic here was Discovery Institue flak Michael Egnor. It seems that after he started expressing his creationist sympathies at the Discovery Institute blog he faced the full wrath of the Darwinian establishment. As he tells the story, and if you are not already doing so I recomment sitting down, some bloggers wrote nasty things about him! Also pathetic was journalist Pamela Winnick. Apparently when she started turning her news articles into platforms for adovcating ID, the Darwinan steamroller of doom revved up and -- wait for it -- people criticzed her!
Folks, oppression just ain't what it used to be.
Of course, the usual martyrs were also trotted out. Rick Sternberg, Caroline Crocker, Guillermo Gonzalez. Yawn, Yawn, and Yawn. In each case the film either relied on outright distortions of the facts or pretensions that ordinary hardball criticism now consitutes oppression.
But here's the thing. This portion of the film, which did at least have some interesting human drama, goes by very quickly. It seems that Stein couldn't wait to persuade us all that ID is good solid science, and toward that end he trotted out the usual flunkies to tell us that it was. So here comes Paul Nelson, Steve Meyer, William Dembski and a motley crew of other bitter, hapless, creationist superstars. And they run through the usual talking points, careful to be as boring as possible so as to convince their witless fans that they are, indeed, serious scientists. The cell is really complex! Design is scientific! We should follow the evidence wherever it leads! We just want to be heard! It's a battle of worldviews! Waaaaaaaa!
Cry me a river folks.
It is difficult for me to convey in words precisely how unintersting this portion of the film was. There's little hope of understanding anything these folks are saying unless you were already well-versed in the subject, and if you were then you were certainly not in the film's target demographic. Yet it goes on and on and on. And on.
Of course, this was public face ID that was on parade, so everyone was quick to remind us that the designer may not be God and that all of this had nothing to do with religion. Stein, I am happy to report, was having none of it. Oh, he nodded at all the right moments and pretended to go along with it, but then spent a good chunk of the movie getting various scientists (Richard Dawkins, P.Z. Myers, Peter Atkins and others) to make snide remarks about religion. The whole movie is so God suffused it feels like a revival. Stein certainly leaves no doubt that God is the designer he has in mind, rather undercutting the intended message of ID's leading spokesflaks.
The final scene in the film is a Stephen Colbert-like interview between Stein and Dawkins. As far as I can tell the point of this segment was for Stein to ask Dawkins the very dumbest questions he could think of, and then chuckle as Dawkins struggled to reply intelligently to them. It's funny when Colbert does it. The strange thing here is that Dawkins comes off looking pretty good. The set-up to the scene is a voice-over by Stein boasting of how he is unafraid of the Darwinian horde and that he was going to confront Dawkins. But the main question he wnated answered was, “So you don't believe in any God, anywhere?” or something like that. He kept repeating it over and over again, even after Dawkins replied that he did not, in fact, believe in any Gods. Then Stein started listing specific gods. How about the Hindu gods, do you believe in any of them? And then he was back to the any God, anywhere nonsense.
There was, of course, another segment to the film. That was where Stein, after assuring us that he wasn't blaming the holocaust on Darwinism, proceeds to blame the holocaust on Darwinism. Just in case you were worried that this segment was insufficiently offensive and tasteless (not to mention historically misinformed), Stein is quick to remind us that the spirit of the holocaust lives on in the form of Planned Parenthood, abortion and stem-cell research. He trots out a rogue's gallery of cranks for hire (David Berlinski, Richard Weikart, Steve Fuller) to help him make his case. Berlinski, for example, assured us that while Darwinism was not sufficient to lead to the holocaust, it was necessary for it. Ahem. I'm pretty sure attemps to exterminate the Jews long predate Charles Darwin, but why bother with such details.
I won't waste your time fulminating about the tawdriness of all this. I'll just remark that for anyone with any interest at all in facts or logic this film simply confirms that the ID folks and the right-wing propaganda machine that supports them are just about the most odious, soulless, conscience-free, dishonest, lying, political hacks on the planet.
We should mention the sheer ineptitude of the filmmakers as well. Frequently there are people braying at you from the screen with no identifying tag to tell us who these people are. Every few seconds the action is interrupted to show us some stock, black and white footage meant to reinforce the message being spouted by whoever was talking. (For example, some ID flak would tell us of the Gestapo like tactics of the evil Darwinian stormtroopers, and then there would be a cut to some black and white footage of a policeman writing a ticket for some hapless driver.) The interviews with the good guys are so clumsily edited that even the most die hard right-winger has to start wondering what got left on the cutting room floor. The film has so many false endings, where a suitably dramatic line is uttered followed by a fade to black, that I had my jaacket on a full fifteen minutes before the film mercifully ended.
That's about it. It seems the movie grossed under three million dollars on its opening weekend. This despite opening on a thousand screens. (For comparison, Michael Moore's Sicko raked in 23 milion opening on fewer than half that number of screens.) Considering that prior to the opening the producers themselves offered fifteen million dollars as the threshold for what constitutes success, and figuring that they surely lowballed that figure as part of the expectations game, I'd say the film's performance has been pretty embarrassing.
Comments
I was determined to see it so I too could confront Brendemuehl on this utter nonsense, but if it's not even going to be entertaining then I think I'll just let other people pick that particular scab.
Posted by: JimCH | April 22, 2008 8:28 PM
The film has so many false endings, where a suitably dramatic line is uttered followed by a fade to black, that I had my jaacket on a full fifteen minutes before the film mercifully ended.
Well, that's one better than Jack Nicholson, who (according to Elias "Frodo" Wood), left early and missed most of the "fade to black" endings of Return of the King.
Of course, it also goes to show that even in ending a film, they can't be original but instead steal a technique from an Oscar winner for artificial clout.
Posted by: Joe Shelby | April 22, 2008 8:28 PM
excuse me, "Elijah" not Elias.
Posted by: Joe Shelby | April 22, 2008 8:30 PM
Ah. That explains the "As a sex maniac ..." in the Expelled trailer parody Sexpelled.
Posted by: The Science Pundit | April 22, 2008 8:33 PM
I'll just remark that for anyone with any interest at all in facts or logic this film simply confirms that the ID folks and the right-wing propaganda machine that supports them are just about the most odious, soulless, conscience-free, dishonest, lying, political hacks on the planet.
Jason, you really have to get over this tendency to soften your criticism. :)
Posted by: RBH | April 22, 2008 9:13 PM
Apparently, the film-makers used the same multi-media short film about the inner-workings of the cell that Dembski had shamelessly been using, without permission, before being asked to stop by the creators (a group from Harvard). Only, as I understand, the Expelled people used creationist BS to over-dub the original dialog. It is hard to imagine, as both Dawkins & Myers speculate, that permission was given for this.
Posted by: JimCH | April 22, 2008 9:15 PM
But Jason, can't you see what a victory this is for Intelligent Design! They actually made the movie! They haven't been sued! You and PZ and Dawkins handed them a stunning victory! Why, they even got YOU to go see it and give them free publicity! You've played right into their hands!
Nope. Still looks stupid. Expelled has failed beyond my wildest dreams. And Yoko Ono still hasn't spoken. Pity some are intent on spoiling the victory.
And seriously Jason, had I held my nose and gone to see the movie and found myself in an empty theatre, I would have laughed throughout as I drowned in Schadenfreude. However did you pay attention? I haven't had a solo viewing (well, me and my two friends) since "The Golden Voyage of Sinbad".
Posted by: Science Avenger | April 22, 2008 9:45 PM
I had a feeling people already attached to ID will buy into it, most others won't. I think the main question would be: is it so stupid that it could show "fence-sitters" the falseness of ID?
Posted by: Michael | April 22, 2008 10:31 PM
Nah, these are just the second-raters who couldn't swim with the real sharks in D.C.
Posted by: Pierce R. Butler | April 22, 2008 10:40 PM
You know, as many times as cdesign proponentsists have been called flat-out liars in public fora, it's kind of surprising that there hasn't been a single libel suit filed against their critics.
Or at least, it would be surprising, if I didn't know what the "discovery phase" was in civil law.
Posted by: HP | April 22, 2008 11:28 PM
I'm trying to envisage what a Jewish revival would look like, and I'm not succeeding.
Posted by: Pseudonym | April 22, 2008 11:46 PM
Oh. I was busy reviewing the Premise lawsuit against XVIVO
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2008/04/expelled_draws_more_aggro.php#comment-848670
From my notes on the film (Friday, 11:30 am):
One group of bored kids from a Christian school sat in the back of the 20% filled theater, one family group including a visitor from PA (I thought it was inappropriate to assume Dover), and one unpleasant woman who barked derisively at every film editing trick.
Ben Stein is concerned about American Science, but professional scientists alway tell me there is one science which is universal.
Shermer is marched out to profess what a disgrace it would be to expel academics for what they said -- a point the film never scores on despite the titling choice.
Crocker, Egnor and Marks make laughable statements. Then Stein tells us about the silent fearful hordes who got the same treatment. Good scientists don't stay silent, they get evidence, but this film would have not of that.
Someone I didn't recognize makes the statement that ID is boring, but no follow-up questions are asked.
"all varnish, no product" -- the gold standard for knowing ID or DI or Expelled
Scott comes off as very nice, but also as "bring it [the evidence] on" -- a plea which falls on deaf ears.
DI says it is not religious, but Stein knows better than that.
Some BIOLA hack describes Evolutionary Theory as random mutation and natural selection which is (I think) 85 years out of date or so. Stein glosses over the same hack saying that Evolution actually happened. But Stein want to know about Origin of Life, not Origin of Species.
They travel all over the world and never made a case for ID or even a case against Natural Selection or Common Descent.
I think it was Wells who makes the claims that Darwinists distort the evidence, but no idea how that might be possible when the same evidence is available to everyone.
Berlinski makes the idiotic point that biology is messy to the point that biologists haven't defined species. That is a prediction of Darwin (1859). Even Berlinski should know that you can't infer that God does not exist from the declaration that evolution is a fact. They are independent of each other. My estimation of Stein's intelligence drops when he says this.
Stein then tells lies about what is known about the origin of life. He says Miller-Urey "didn't work" which means he didn't know what they were trying to do. We get asserted as fact that 250 proteins are necessary for life. We get bad math and an animation that doesn't make anyone laugh.
We get riducule of "directed panspermia" which is, of course, ID. Damn facts, ruining Stein's movie!
We get bad information about "information."
We get told Catholics are OK with Evolution, so they must not be Christian. We get Congressman Souter presented as an unbiased judge.
The much-talked about Lennon song Imagine -- two lines -- proving that atheists are as evil as John Lennon. -- Well played, Stein, well played. Of course, Yoko Ono will have to kill you for this....
After we get the 1871 quote mine of Darwin, which is left to hang without discussion, we get images of ape faces which drive home a point known for centuries -- apes look like people. Damn facts, ruining Stein's movie!
And I don't know what Dawkins saw when he saw the unreleased picture, but the camera-work did not make his nose look too big even when it filled the screen. Who plays with the zoom on the camera with a seated interviewee?
Neither did Dawkins atheistic-eye-cannons reduce Ben Stein to ash after Dawkins is kept waiting an unreasonable time for the "star" of the film.
Posted by: rpenner | April 23, 2008 12:01 AM
Steve Fuller? Wow. His appearance on Dawkins's The Enemies of Reason made me want to reach into my computer monitor and slap some sense into him, and he's been impressing me with his ability to serve the Dark Side ever since. Expelled probably didn't even need to interview him under false pretenses. . . .
Posted by: Blake Stacey | April 23, 2008 3:22 AM
Someone wants to confront me? Gee. I'm scared.
You missed the language regarding "blame" for the Nazi situation. It was not sufficient but it was necessary. That makes Darwinism a meaningful contributor, not a cause. Please get your facts straight.
All you have to do is read Sanger's material. Or is that just more right-wing, Christian false history? Come on now. You, and Mr. Lynch, state plainly in your title that there is Antisemitism in Expelled. Where?
I will agree with you that Dawkins was sort of refreshing. Much like Nietzsche. He was more candid and truthful about his beliefs than, say, the lady from NCSE.
Let's not take Darwin outside of the product of the post-enlightement philosophers.
http://evangelicalperspective.blogspot.com/2007/01/how-much-deal-from-liberal-world.html
Collin
My respose to you and Mr. Lynch, from the earlier thread, have not been published. Just courious why not?
Posted by: Collin Brendemuehl | April 23, 2008 8:17 AM
"You missed the language regarding 'blame' for the Nazi situation. It was not sufficient but it was necessary. That makes Darwinism a meaningful contributor, not a cause."
Colin,
Anyone who would think this, let alone say it with an straight face, is an idiot.
Posted by: Grant Canyon | April 23, 2008 8:59 AM
Grant,
Thanks. That really contributed to the converstion. You show such an evolved vocabulary.
The language in Expelled was precise and accurate terminology. Jason missed it.
Jason,
You belittle the idea that it is not a matter of mere science but of world views. I think there are some on your side who take the battle-of-world-views approach. But no sense in being truthful. Just call us anti-semites and otherwise racists like Ed and you can make your sheeple happy.
Posted by: Collin Brendemuehl | April 23, 2008 9:24 AM
Collin said: My respose to you and Mr. Lynch, from the earlier thread, have not been published. Just courious why not?
Perhaps because it made as little sense as these offerings. For example:
It was not sufficient but it was necessary. That makes Darwinism a meaningful contributor, not a cause.
Um, "necessary" doesn't mean "meaningful contributor". "Necessary" means "required", which pretty much makes it a cause, insofar as that term is even meaningful.
"You belittle the idea that it is not a matter of mere science but of world views. I think there are some on your side who take the battle-of-world-views approach."
You are conflating two issues. Evolution is a matter of science because the evidence for it is predictive and falsifiable, meaning no worldview required.
Now it happens that there is a worldview clash in our society which overlaps with the evolution-creation controversy in the political arena. But they aren't the same thing, any more than "creationist" is the same as "Republican".
Posted by: Science Avenger | April 23, 2008 12:25 PM
Science Avenger,
I understand the terms. Because it was necessary it was also a meaningful contributor. It could not be viewed as incidental. That should make sense enough.
Naturalism is a world view that Darwinism depends upon. As goes naturalism so goes Darwinism and modern evolutionary theory. Hence Plantinga's works:
Warrant: The Current Debate
Warrant and Proper Function
Naturalism Defeated? (Bielby)
Warranted Christian Belief.
Enjoy,
Collin
Posted by: Collin Brendemuehl | April 23, 2008 12:53 PM
You are conflating two issues. Evolution is a matter of science because the evidence for it is predictive and falsifiable, meaning no worldview required.
Both Gould and Mayr would (did) dispute that assertion. It is simplistic and naive.
Posted by: Collin Brendemuehl | April 23, 2008 12:58 PM
Collin, the point is that countless developments were necessary for the rise of Nazism as it actually happened. Just to list a few: Hitler's parents, Christianity, human tribalism, technological advances in weaponry, anti-semitism, the country of Germany, economic conditions in the 20's, capitalism, Hitler himself, nationalism, fear, jealousy, religion, blah blah blah....
By CHOOSING to cite just one broad and distant societal influence on an emotionally evocative piece of history, you are NOT noting a simple fact, rather you are playing guilt by association. Spare us the "necessary vs sufficient" justification.
This reminds of that scene in Animal House when the frat is at a hearing for breaking some campus rules and Otter gets up and says something like " ... and if we are guilty, then isn't the whole fraternity system guilty, and if the fraternity system is guilty, then isn't our culture guilty, and if American culture is guilty, then isn't that an indictment of our whole great country? Well, i don't know about you, but I'm not standing by while you insult the United States of America!"
The logic of conflating evolutionary science with naziism makes about as much sense as Otter's argument. Our course, Otter knew it was BS, that's why it was funny.
Posted by: ned rosen | April 23, 2008 1:42 PM
Ned,
I'm not going to pretend to treat the problem of Nazism simplistically. And in that same light it seems equally unreasonable for some to throw out some real and destructive components of that history.
There was on conflating of evolutionary science with naziism. I am (and the movie is) saying only that this relationship (like others as you mentioned) is direct and necessary. It took a lot to create the problem. Conveniently denying part of that world view is dishonest.
Posted by: Collin Brendemuehl | April 23, 2008 2:23 PM
Hitler specifically said that the elimination of the Jews was his continuation of the work of Pasteur and Koch. I look forward to Collin's denunciation of germ theory anytime now.
Posted by: Stephen Wells | April 23, 2008 3:18 PM
The ADL National Director Abraham H. Foxman issued a public criticism of the TV Documentary Darwin's Deadly Legacy in which he objected to its linking Darwin to the Holocaust. The situations are so similar, I would expect another ADL press release momentarily.
http://www.adl.org/PresRele/HolNa_52/4877_52.htm
To claim that reducing the diversity of a population increases its potential evolutionary fitness is to show ignorance of the actual science. Even if a scientific discovery is used for immoral purposes, how is that a criticism of the validity of the science?
The Eugenicists did not need Darwin in order to develop their racist and elitist ideas. Animal and plant husbandry were the only basis necessary.
Posted by: JohnnieCanuck, FCD | April 23, 2008 3:21 PM
Collin-
I don't know why people have given you a pass on the "necessary" bit. It was not necessary. If Darwinian Evolution hadn't been available to the Nazis then the agenda would have morphed from some other means. What you are saying is tantamount to suggesting that because puritanism flourished in New England it was necessary for the Pilgrims to have settled there by a 200-ton merchant ship.
Posted by: JimCH | April 23, 2008 3:24 PM
JimCH,
It's "necessary" because the Nazis behaved and believed that it was "necessary". Their system depended upon it. This is not an insertion of an idea into Naziism in retrospect but from their own material. That makes it, from their own perspective, Necessary.
It was also a necessary because it was a part of Darwinism. Though we was not as sold on it as were others of his contemporaries, it was there nonetheless. Let's not forget that Utilitarianism was a significant movement in the 19th c. and it is in this context (Bentham & Co.), the idea of a better world, a postmillennial postivism, that Darwin was writing. He can't be removed from his historical context. He was, in fact, somewhat driven by it.
Johnnie,
To claim that reducing the diversity of a population increases its potential evolutionary fitness is to show ignorance of the actual science.
It would seem to provide the same benefit as genetic isolation on islands or other regions, a regular hypothesis for the development of peculiar traits. It is a part of mainstream evolutionary science today.
You are certainly correct that the eugenecists did not need Darwin. The utilitarian movement was destructive enough on its own. BTW, was Sanger a Darwinist?
Wells,
Don't confuse dependence with necessity.
Posted by: Collin Brendemuehl | April 23, 2008 4:00 PM
Collin...
You argue in circles. Darwinian Evolution was definitely not necessary. It was easily manipulated & therefore was manipulated which in no way makes it necessary, merely economical.
I'm afraid that this doesn't even make sense. The "it" in your statement is Darwinism.
rpenner...
Thanks for the XVIVO update & link.
Posted by: JimCH | April 23, 2008 4:48 PM
I'm afraid that this doesn't even make sense. The "it" in your statement is Darwinism.
Has dude even told anybody what he means by "Darwinism"? You guys are all arguing with him about Darwinism, and nobody probably even knows what the heck he means by it.
According to Ben Stein, freakin even the theory of frakkin gravity is something to do with "Darwinism". Lol.
Posted by: 386sx | April 23, 2008 5:09 PM
"Thanks. That really contributed to the converstion. You show such an evolved vocabulary.
The language in Expelled was precise and accurate terminology. Jason missed it."
Ha. And "idiot" was "precise and accurate terminology." You make the same mistake that the eugenicists made and today's "Darwin-lead-to-Hitler" idiots make today, by not understanding the importance of the difference between artificial and natural selection.
Posted by: Grant Canyon | April 23, 2008 5:10 PM
See this post for what Collin probably means every time he says the word "Darwinism". http://scienceblogs.com/dispatches/2008/04/in_which_i_let_my_readers_have.php#c850413
Careful with arguing "Darwinism" with these guys folks, they probably mean something else entirely!
Posted by: 386sx | April 23, 2008 5:25 PM
JimCH,
Yea, I screwed that sentence up. Dang it.
But yet, what you're saying is tantamount to saying that Eugenics was not necessary for the existence of Planned Parenthood. You just can't remove major philosphical planks and maintain consistency within the systems. It does not work.
Posted by: Collin Brendemuehl | April 23, 2008 5:25 PM
Yea, I screwed that sentence up. Dang it.
Probably because even yourself is confusing yourself with the term "Darwinism". If it isn't Darwinism you are talking about when you say "Darwinism", then don't call it Darwinism for crying out loud dude! Tell all your other friends too. Especially tell Ben Stein! Spread the news, man. Thanks.
Posted by: 386sx | April 23, 2008 5:46 PM
386sx,
Not really. I'm using Darwinisn broadly as did Gould.
Some use it narrowly as has Mayr.
Yes, even evolutionists have varied uses of the term.
Enjoy,
Collin
Posted by: Collin Brendemuehl | April 23, 2008 6:04 PM
Not really. I'm using Darwinisn broadly as did Gould.
Some use it narrowly as has Mayr.
Yes, even evolutionists have varied uses of the term.
Oaky I'm glad those guys got that one pinned down pretty good then. Thanks dude!
Posted by: 386sx | April 23, 2008 6:24 PM
Posted by: Bayesian Bouffant, FCD | April 23, 2008 7:30 PM
Posted by: Bayesian Bouffant, FCD | April 23, 2008 7:33 PM
Posted by: Bayesian Bouffant, FCD | April 23, 2008 7:35 PM
Dear Bayesian Buffoon,
It was not claimed that Darwinsim was untrue because of the problem. It was claimed that Darwinism helped create a problem. Again, get your facts straight.
Naturalism Defeated? has some major naturalists interacting directly with Plantinga's material. These men are no lightweights in the field. Plantinga is no lightweight either. It makes for a good read.
Posted by: Collin Brendemuehl | April 23, 2008 9:04 PM
Have you put any thought into how much responsibility "Newtonism" bears for the Holocaust?
Posted by: Bayesian Bouffant, FCD | April 23, 2008 9:40 PM
Posted by: Bayesian Bouffant, FCD | April 23, 2008 9:43 PM
Plantinga claims that if you remove the supernatural from science & it turns out that there is a supernatural cause then science can't hope to approach the truth. Therefore, we should change the definition (he must of learned this little gambit from watching 5 year olds play). The man has libeled himself from the start.
Posted by: JimCH | April 23, 2008 10:12 PM
JimCH,
(chuckle)
You've clearly not studied the material.
(chuckle)
The theme is not a definition of "science".
(chuckle)
P(R/N&E) & warrant are the subject at hand.
(chuckle)
Comments where the opinion differs is one thing.
(chuckle)
Even a difference in paradigm can be understood.
(chuckle)
If you were seeking understanding (asking questions) that would be admirable.
(chuckle)
But not knowing anything of what you're talking about and making statements like that is laughable.
(chuckle)
Collin
Posted by: Collin Brendemuehl | April 24, 2008 7:45 AM
chuckle-head...
You mentioned Plantinga as a credible source, I merely pointed out that what credible means to you is not what it means to rational people. Don't you live in fear of being hauled away when you chuckle at nothing & have imaginary friends?
Posted by: JimCH | April 24, 2008 12:49 PM
JimCH,
Spoken like a true man of science, ready to read and learn what he does not understand.
(deja-chuckle)
Posted by: Collin Brendemuehl | April 24, 2008 1:01 PM
Collin,
I am not a scientist, but I have a good, solid, layman's understanding of the basics of evolution. It is apparent to me and to most of the rest of the "educated" American public that evolution is correct and ID/Creationism is complete hog wash. (The stats behind this are available almost everywhere on the web. Do a google search to satisfy yourself if you care to)
America is languishing in basic scientific understanding behind most of the rest of the developed world. Doesn't that bother you? I mean, seriously! Doesn't it make you cringe a little that America ranks behind almost every other developed country in the world in scientific understanding, math skills and critical thinking? That is the real damage of what you are pushing here - a continuation of the slide of the future generations of America into ignorance and superstition.
Finally, if you hope that your rude and sarcastic remarks will bring anyone to your way of thinking, you are mistaken. It only makes you look foolish and diminishes any point that you are attempting to make.
Posted by: RichC | April 24, 2008 1:38 PM
But that's just the point - 'supernatural cause' is a contradiction in terms.
It is not just possible but likely that our understanding of nature is incomplete, as it has always proven to be so in the past. When we discover phenomena that we cannot account for in our current understanding, we'll respond the same way science always has: by changing our understanding.
Posted by: Caledonian | April 24, 2008 2:25 PM
Caledonian...
You used my quote but your comment, I'm guessing, must be intended for Collin because that was exactly my point. In addition though, what Plantinga claims is demonstratively untrue. That is, we haven't yet invoked the supernatural into science & we clearly do know something about the natural world. So, if there were a supernatural force in the mix, not considering it hasn't prevented us from learning something anyway.
Posted by: JimCH | April 24, 2008 2:43 PM
It's true that, if science excluded a priori a real phenomenon, science would screw up trying to account for anything it interacted with.
But the supernatural is impossible. So science loses nothing by excluding it.
If unicorns, leprechauns, the Mi-Go, and deities exist, they're part of nature. If they're not part of nature, they don't exist.
Posted by: Caledonian | April 24, 2008 2:56 PM
Collin said:Both Gould and Mayr would (did) dispute that assertion [that no worldview is required for evolution]. It is simplistic and naive.
An empty assertion without the argument to back it that doesn't rely on lightweight jokes like Plantinga. Gould's NOMA arguments aren't much better. I can't speak for Mahr.
I've not seen one argument that deals completely and honestly with the predictive nature of science. That wipes away all notions of worldview dependency that I've seen asserted. I anxiously await a refutation of that position that's more involved than chuckling.
Posted by: Science Avenger | April 24, 2008 3:44 PM
Science Avenger,
I've documented Gould & Mayr so that you don't have to look it up:
http://evangelicalperspective.blogspot.com/2008/04/what-is-evolution.html
RichC,
America is languishing in basic scientific understanding behind most of the rest of the developed world. Doesn't that bother you?
Yes, it does. The evolutionists (well, liberals in general) have had (almost all of) the schools for the last 70 years and this is the result. Don't blame us.
Posted by: Collin Brendemuehl | April 24, 2008 4:52 PM
Caledonian...
I disagree with nothing that you've stated.
Collin...
If the nations that America is languishing behind are nations that you would, I'm sure, consider more "liberal" than the US, how is it that "liberalization" is the problem?
Posted by: JimCH | April 24, 2008 7:06 PM
what a crock! You people are CAVEMEN! Get with it...your thinking is OLD..maybe that's why you are STILL an ASSISTANT professor!
Posted by: Teri | April 24, 2008 7:37 PM
Posted by: JimCH | April 24, 2008 7:59 PM
I just have to ask if you are anti-ID where did we come from? Crystals? Seeded here from another planet.
You mentioned no where in your review that these were the options. Even Dawkins himself is clueless about where we came from.
Please just tell me where we came from?? A real answer! Please don't try to convince me I was formed on the back of a crystal! Give me a solid answer.
Also, what are Dawinists so afraid of??
Posted by: Heather | April 24, 2008 10:16 PM
At the risk of being ridiculed I'll share my experience of the movie Expelled, which I just returned from. I'm sure Richard Dawkins and other atheists may accuse me of child abuse, as I took our church youth group to the showing (gasp!). And I have to disagree with much of Jason's review.
After reading Jason's review of how boring the movie was I admit I was a bit concerned. But once the movie began I spent the rest of the movie wondering when the boring parts would come. Perhaps I was too into the movie to notice the boring parts. The students and adults were laughing throughout the movie (especially at Dawkins, who has no idea how life began... perhaps an intelligent race aliens did it! But not God!!!) Afterwards the students (junior high and senior high) gave it positive reviews. I specifically asked, on a scale of one to ten, with one being boring, and ten being entertaining, how would they rate the film. Of the four students I asked they gave a 7, 7.8, 7.8 and 8. The adults I asked said it was well done and very, very good. I looked at the people leaving the theater, and everyone was smiling. Near the end of the movie I thought about applauding, but I decided not to unless it was started by someone else. And I wasn't disappointed as the rest of the audience started applauding, and we joined in.
Jason criticized Stein for asking "Dawkins the very dumbest questions he could think of" and "kept repeating it over and over again, even after Dawkins replied that he did not, in fact, believe in any Gods." Of course Stein was being absurd in his questioning, which is what made it enjoyable to watch, and exposed Dawkins atheism as absurd.
There's plenty more to comment on, but I'll leave it here for now. Basically we were all very pleased with the movie, and I hope it helps promote academic freedom, which is something all good Americans should applaud :-)
Posted by: Jon S | April 24, 2008 11:35 PM
Collin, thanks for showing me just exactly where you are coming from. Check your skirt, your bias is showing. You are obviously also not a thinker, but a dogmatist.
I'm done with you.
Posted by: RichC | April 24, 2008 11:53 PM
Heather said:
"I just have to ask if you are anti-ID where did we come from? Crystals? Seeded here from another planet.
You mentioned no where in your review that these were the options. Even Dawkins himself is clueless about where we came from.
Please just tell me where we came from?? A real answer! Please don't try to convince me I was formed on the back of a crystal! Give me a solid answer.
Also, what are Dawinists so afraid of??"
Perhaps if you knew what the theory of Evolution actually stated or explained you would not appear so ignorant when asking that quesstion.
Darwin had nothing to say about "where we came from". What Darwin proposed/explained, and now factually supported was, how life evolved...after the spark of life. The theory of Evolution does not address, nor was it meant to, explaining Abiogenesis.
Are you ID/Creationist to stupid or dishonest to understand that?
Posted by: Steverino | April 25, 2008 8:27 AM
Perhaps it might be illuminating to find out what Mr. Brendemuehls' views are on all the parts that make up the theory of evolution.
1. Does Mr. Brendemuehl agree with the scientific finding that the earth is 4.5 billion years or so old?
2. Does Mr. Brendemuehl agree with the scientific finding that animals have gone extinct in the past?
3. Does Mr. Brendemuehl agree with the scientific finding that most animals that currently inhabit the earth did not exist millions of years ago (i.e. that there were no cats in the pre-Cambrian)?
4. Does Mr. Brendemuehl agree with the scientific inference that items 2 and 3 above are best explained by the theory of common descent?
5. Does Mr. Brendemuehl agree with the scientific theory that items 1-4 are best explained by natural selection and genetic drift?
Re JonS
Mr. JonS, a YEC and a man of no accomplishment whatever and generally an asshole of monumental proportions once again trolls on this site with his views on Expelled. By the way, Mr. JonS is a god damn liar when he says he is in favor of academic freedom. He has made it clear on a previous thread that he is a dominionist who favors what amounts to a Christian Taliban type regime in the US. Mr. JonS is cordially invited to take his comment and deposit it in his posterior orifice. If this were Ed Braytons' blog, I would be less inhibited in expressing my contempt for Mr. JonS.
Posted by: SLC | April 25, 2008 9:31 AM
Perhaps if you knew what the theory of Evolution actually stated or explained you would not appear so ignorant when asking that quesstion.
Darwin had nothing to say about "where we came from". What Darwin proposed/explained, and now factually supported was, how life evolved...after the spark of life. The theory of Evolution does not address, nor was it meant to, explaining Abiogenesis.
Are you ID/Creationist to stupid or dishonest to understand that?
Steve: Where did the spark of life come from? Who cares what Darwin says...just someone tell me where this spark came from!!!
I guess I am just too stupid to understand that no one has given a SOLID answer for this!
Why are you so against there being an IDer who caused the spark!?
About this Abiogenesis this is what I found: Charles Darwin made the suggestion that the original spark of life may have begun in a "warm little pond, with all sorts of ammonia and phosphoric salts, lights, heat, electricity, etc. present, so that a protein compound was chemically formed ready to undergo still more complex changes". He went on to explain that "at the present day such matter would be instantly devoured or absorbed, which would not have been the case before living creatures were formed."[12] In other words, the presence of life itself makes the search for the origin of life dependent on the sterile conditions of the laboratory.
He "suggest" this "may" have caused. Again there is no solid answer and I again ask, "What are you so scared of?" Why not let us stuid, unintelligent, uneducated people cling to our believe in an ID! Why are you being so intolerant of me and my beliefs? Why attack me? Very strange indeed.
Posted by: Heather | April 25, 2008 10:32 AM
I guess I am too stupid to spell it correctly! ;-)
Posted by: Heather | April 25, 2008 10:35 AM
JimCH,
Whoa there! Liberalism has affected the US differently than other nations. Those in their 50s may remember being experimented upon with set theory New Math as well as non-directed education, in the 60s. Today's ed system is filled with over-regulation and bureaucracy, union influence on curriculum, and other issues. The US Dept. of Ed. is one agency that, in all its existence, has accomplished nothing. NCLB was a good principle but burdened with red tape. It's all a complicated mess.
John S,
I would rate it a 5 because the tone was so horrible. The Nazi and Communist images were unnecessary. But the statements of the naturalists were nevertheless enlightening. Crystals. Aliens. Primordial soup + lightning.
SLC,
1. Does Mr. Brendemuehl agree with the scientific finding that the earth is 4.5 billion years or so old?
I think it's much older. Probably in the trillions of years. Seriously. Cosmology seems to provide some mixed data and older seems more likely. I'm leaning toward Hawking's idea that there was no Big Bang.
2. Does Mr. Brendemuehl agree with the scientific finding that animals have gone extinct in the past?
My favorite is the recent dinosaur find which contained soft tissue. While a great extinction of dinosaurs probably occurred long ago, there's something about soft tissue that says it was not a general extinction. And given the very large creatures on New Zealand until just a few centuries ago when humans arrived, the probabilities of modern very large dinosaur-type creatures is not out of the scientifc question. Some facts just dosn't sit well with some theorists. I don't know that it's as simple as some might make it.
3. Does Mr. Brendemuehl agree with the scientific finding that most animals that currently inhabit the earth did not exist millions of years ago (i.e. that there were no cats in the pre-Cambrian)?
I'm not certain. It depends upon when creation occurred.
But it is a given that genes are genes and animals change.
4. Does Mr. Brendemuehl agree with the scientific inference that items 2 and 3 above are best explained by the theory of common descent?
Maybe. Maybe not, per #2.
5. Does Mr. Brendemuehl agree with the scientific theory that items 1-4 are best explained by natural selection and genetic drift?
No. The earth is not old enough.
****
RichC,
Dogmatist? Are you saying that there is no dogmatism among the evolutionists and naturalists here?
****
steverino,
Mayr was clear that evolutionists would like to answer the question if theer were a quality theory. There are bad theories out there. Even the primordial soup idea is not held in high enough regard to gain his approval.
****
Not all special creationists are 6K, Very YEC.
****
Brayton is undeniably a religious bigot.
But I would still interact with him if his
attitude and his "French" were to improve.
Posted by: Collin Brendemuehl | April 25, 2008 10:41 AM
Re Collin Brandemuehl
1. Would Mr. Brandemuehl care to provide a link citing where Prof. Hawking claimed that the big bang theory of cosmology is suspect. A Google search fails to turn up such a claim.
2. Mr. Brayton is certainly prejudiced against fundamentalist religious believers, particularly when they insist on foisting those beliefs on the rest of us. However, I think it is unfair to term him a religious bigot. In fact, he is not even an extreme separationist as was Madison, as to the relationship between church and state.
3. Mr. Brendemuehls' claim that soft tissue was discovered in dinosaur bones is somewhat of a stretch. The news article I read indicated that some proteins were discovered; however, the scientists who made the discovery in no way support a recently deceased Tyrannosaurus. As an aside, Prof. Jack Horner, Dr. Schweitzers' thesis supervisor during the time when the discovery was made, has speculated that the apparent close relationship between chickens and Tyrannosaurs might allow the use of chicken DNA to reverse engineer a Tyrannosaurus, using advanced DNA manipulation techniques.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/04/24/AR2008042402025.html?sub=AR
Posted by: SLC | April 25, 2008 11:24 AM
Re Collin Brendemuehl
Regarding Mr. Brendemuehls' claim that the earth may be trillions of years old, that is quite impossible. The sun is about 5 billion years old and our knowledge of nuclear physics precludes any possibility of any age appreciably greater. This is quite independent of whether the big bang occurred or not.
Posted by: SLC | April 25, 2008 12:11 PM
slc,
I could be wrong. ;)
Brayton insists on misrepresentation as his methodology.
Read his post on the term "Judeo-Christian"
and then my response regarding straw-man arguments.
Posted by: Collin Brendemuehl | April 25, 2008 12:35 PM
Dogmatist? Are you saying that there is no dogmatism among the evolutionists and naturalists here?
That's not really the point of the discussion, is it, but to engage in arguing over semantics for a moment... Check the definition of dogma. In fact, I'll do it for you.
From Merriam-Webster:
1 a: something held as an established opinion; especially : a definite authoritative tenet
b: a code of such tenets - pedagogical dogma -
c: a point of view or tenet put forth as authoritative without adequate grounds
Check especially definition "c". While definition "a" may certainly apply to most of us here, "c" certainly does not.
You, nor any other ID/Creationist has ever put forth once speck of evidence for your belief in the supernatural, not one. No where in this discussion or else where have you or your fellow creationists offered anything but misdirection, lies (or made up truths as Steve Martin likes to call them), and name calling. Please, if we are to have an actual discussion of this, offer one, just one piece of evidence that either contradicts the theory of evolution, or that shows evidence of a designer. That's it, one. See, that's the beauty of science and rational thought - anyone can participate, contribute and even take down the most established theories of science with just one piece of evidence. But it had better be one damn good (and repeatable) piece of evidence.
The reason that definition "c" does not apply to the rational people, and especially the scientific community at large, is that our beliefs can be changed by evidence, and in fact, they quite often are. Our beliefs, truths and ideas are constantly changing and evolving through the introduction of new evidence. There are not absolutes in science. There is no absolute truth in any theory of science. There is an explanation of the observable facts in the best way possible, done without bias, malleable and refutable by others. ID/Creationism is none of those things. ID starts with the answer and works backwards to fit as much as they can into the pre-determined answer. It is not refutable, offers no proofs, cannot be refuted or changed by evidence, makes no predictions and ignores all claims to the contrary. Creationism, of course, doesn't even bother with the evidence. It is pure, unadulterated dogma.
So, in answer to your question, yes, I suppose some of us could be called dogmatists in one sense of the word. All IDers/Creationists can be called dogmatists. However, I still put the challenge out to you, provide us one shred of evidence for your dogma. I think you will find that all of us "darwinist dogmatic" types are perfectly willing to look at, analyze and comment upon your evidence. Hell, maybe you will even change someone's mind!
Looking forward to see what you can come back with.
Posted by: RichC | April 25, 2008 1:05 PM
RichC,
You are about to see the most breathtaking example of slight-of-hand. It will be entertaining but not entirely satisfying. Let's watch...
Posted by: TBA | April 25, 2008 1:26 PM
RichC,
Let's see -- I'm name-calling while you class me outside of the "rational" people. PotKettle? Get over it.
evidence for your belief in the supernatural
I didn't put forth "evidence" for the supernatural because I wasn't asked. What kind of evidence would you want?
What would satisfy you?
There is an explanation of the observable facts in the best way possible, done without bias, malleable and refutable by others.
You've misdefined "science" and even Rosenhouse would argue with you about the shallowness of that statement. And you still avoid the issue of the metaphysical. that's the nonsense of the quasi-science you propose. It's like reading a HS text book saying that Science is mere Empiricism. Read Rosenhouse's essay on how ID might abuse mathematics -- his science is there comprised of mathematical models -- not a thing Empirical.
So, if you want empirical evidence for the supernatural, for God, you will be disappointed. Even science falls short of your limited definition.
Posted by: Collin Brendemuehl | April 25, 2008 1:31 PM
RichC,
You see? It's like nailing snot to the wall. But, it does have a certain nickelodeon quality.
Posted by: TBA | April 25, 2008 1:58 PM
RichC,
Do you mean scientific (as in reproducible, by experiment) physical evidence for the existence of the supernatural (God) or prima facie physical evidence? If it is the latter, then I would argue that the success of science is prima facie evidence that God exists.
Posted by: heddle | April 25, 2008 2:41 PM
Heather said: I guess I am just too stupid to understand that no one has given a SOLID answer for this! [abiogenisis]
No one has, because there isn't one. Got it? There is no scientific theory of abiogenisis. All we have now are speculative hypotheses with little experimental data (relative to what we have for evolution).
Why are you so against there being an IDer who caused the spark!?
We aren't mostly. Imagine one if you like, no skin off my nose. But that isn't what ID is about. If the IDers restricted it to abiogenisis, we wouldn't be having this discussion.
Hold whatever beliefs for yourself you like, no one cares. But what we are afraid of Heather, is a bunch of, in your words, "stupid, unintelligent, uneducated people" screwing with science education so as to make the children just as stupid, unintelligent and uneducated.
Posted by: Science Avenger | April 25, 2008 3:18 PM
I didn't put forth "evidence" for the supernatural because I wasn't asked. What kind of evidence would you want?
What would satisfy you?
Well, let's start simple for starters, how about an observable phenomenon and/or fact whose most probable explanation is supernatural.
You've misdefined "science" and even Rosenhouse would argue with you about the shallowness of that statement.
Actually, I wasn't defining "science", I was defining a scientific theory. Also, I fail to see how that statement is shallow. The aim of a "scientific" theory is to explain the observable facts and make predictions based on the theory. The method by which that is done is very straight forward. Any bias in either the testing or explanation is rooted out by having others look at your methodologies and conclusions, offering criticisms, and pointing out any flaws. Am I incorrect in that statement? If so, what is the definition of a theory?
And you still avoid the issue of the metaphysical. that's the nonsense of the quasi-science you propose. It's like reading a HS text book saying that Science is mere Empiricism. Read Rosenhouse's essay on how ID might abuse mathematics -- his science is there comprised of mathematical models -- not a thing Empirical.
I'm not avoiding the issue of the metaphysical, I fail to see how it is relevant to the discussion of whether or not Intelligent Design is a better theory than Evolution. To understand the natural process by which all living things on this planet have evolved does not require a discussion of the metaphysical. What I can't fathom is how you can call evolution "quasi-science." Are you actually suggesting that ID is "real science" and evolution is "quasi-science", or am I reading that incorrectly?
I have to admit that my understanding of metaphysics is not as strong as my understanding of physics. With that said, it has always seemed to me that the metaphysical is more about philosophy than science, is it not? It is to ask why we are here, not how are we here. To criticize a science book for not addressing the question is akin to criticizing an automobile mechanics book for not addressing the history of transportation on the earth. Physics can run the universe back to just after the moment of creation but, by definition cannot tell us what came before it. You may call it "God", but there is no more proof for calling it that than calling it "Zeus" or "Strawberry Shortcake." There is no reason to suppose that there was anything before it, or a sentient cause for it. A need to put a sentient cause on an event is a failing of a thought process.
I haven't looked at Rosenhouse's essay, but I will read it. I would be interested to see what he has to say.
So, if you want empirical evidence for the supernatural, for God, you will be disappointed. Even science falls short of your limited definition.
"My" definition is not limited. It's "THE" definition. By saying that you cannot provide empirical evidence for anything of a religious nature is to completely tear apart your entire argument for ID. ID is a horrible mish-mash of God and science for which you have bad evidence for the science part and no evidence for the God part.
Science itself does not fall short of the definition. It is the embodiment of the definition. Observation - Question - Hypothesis - Experiment - Evidence - Conclusion. ID is: Conclusion - Hypothesis - Observation. No experiment, no questions, no evidence.
Posted by: RichC | April 25, 2008 3:34 PM
Do you mean scientific (as in reproducible, by experiment) physical evidence for the existence of the supernatural (God) or prima facie physical evidence?
Well, I had to go look up prima facie to try to figure out exactly what you were asking, and I'm still not sure if I understand exactly what it is you are trying to say. If you are asking if I mean evidence to mean "evidence", then yes, I would like some evidence. If you are asking if I mean evidence to mean made up facts, intuition, mythology, non-existent historical references, feelings and hunches, then no.
If it is the latter, then I would argue that the success of science is prima facie evidence that God exists.
Again, I'm not really sure what you are trying to say here. Are you trying to argue that the success of a system that is designed (and this time I actually do think the system is designed - by scientists themselves, no less!) to be self-regulating, dependent on evidence, open to change and critisism - is a prima facie argument for God? I don't think prima facie is the term that you are going for here. Perhaps sarcina testimonium?
Posted by: RichC | April 25, 2008 3:48 PM
RichC,
The question you raised was about the existence of God and to that you demand an empirical proof. (Then you go and change the subject to ID. You're hard to satisfy when you keep changing the subject.) Your position is shallow because not everything matches your empiricism. Period. Science does not fall short of that definition. Instead, it goes much further. Rosenhouse's proofs in the cited paper are not empirical, they are calculated. They are both Math and Science. You must get it through you head that there is more to science than empiricism.
If you're in physics then you are either in HS or early in your undergrad work. If you're beyond that point then there are thre books you should read on theory-making: Suppe's The Structure of Scientific Theories,Machamer & Silberstein's The Blackwell Guide to the Philosophy of Science, and Roy Clouser's The Myth of Religious Neutrality published by Notre Dame Press. The former is a standard text. The latter will help you root out the metaphysical in your theory-making processes -- that's the problem Plantinga is also attacking. But Clouser identified it clearly in the 60s and the latter edition corrects what critics found in the earlier edition.
"Strawberry shortcake" or its California equivalent "Flying Spaghetti Monster" only show that you're criticizing an apologetic that you've not studied. Van Til's Christian Apologetics will give you a good start in that field.
Posted by: Collin Brendemuehl | April 25, 2008 3:59 PM
RichC,
No it is prima facie.
I decided to post the argument on my blog, but instead of linking to myself I'll just cut and p