…and this is a 
Ahistorical garbage from the producers of Expelled
Category: BPSDB • Creationism
Posted on: February 13, 2008 11:47 AM, by PZ Myers
The gang of prevaricators behind Ben Stein's Expelled movie had their own way of celebrating Darwin Day: they wrote a blog post that was a solid wall of lies and nonsense. In a way, I'm impressed; I'd have to really struggle to write something that was such a dense array of concentrated stupid, but for them, it seems to be a natural talent, allowing them to blithely and effortlessly rattle off a succession of falsehoods without blushing.
Let's begin with the beginning. You don't even have to be a biologist to be embarrassed by these wankers.
Until the late 1980's when the generic "President's Day" became the official holiday that subsumed them, America used to celebrate the birthdays of both George Washington and Abraham Lincoln.
As a result, "Darwin Day" has now supplanted Lincoln's Birthday in the popular imagination; both men were born on February 12, 1809.
We think that that is a shame.
I agree that the consolidation of "President's Day" did diminish awareness of Lincoln's birthday and reduced the appreciation of a president in exchange for a 3-day weekend, but Darwin had nothing to do with that, and it did not replace Lincoln with Darwin in the popular imagination — ask most people what the significance of 12 February might be, and you'll get a blank look. Darwin Day is a public relations effort to make people aware of the contributions of a great scientist, nothing more; there is no official holiday and no government recognition.
The title of Charles Darwin's book is not "The Origin of The Species." The full title seems shocking: "On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life." That last half of the title, often overlooked, sounds like it could come straight out of a Ku Klux Klan manual - which is precisely why Big Science rarely quotes the full title (even though Darwin was not referring specifically to "man" in his use of the words "favoured races."). Big Science is uncomfortable with even the suggestion that evolutionary theory might favor politically incorrect thinking.
Umm, no, that's not why scientists rarely state the full title: it's because saying "the Origin" is an awful lot shorter than saying "On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life." It's really that simple. When I introduce the book to my classes, I've got a presentation slide of the cover page and I state the title in full the first time, and then just say "the Origin" afterwards. I've only got an hour!
As they note, the book isn't about giving human races special privilege at all — he seems to go on and on about 'races' of pigeons, and is really using the word in an old-fashioned sense to refer to varieties. But hey, if a propagandist wants to tar biologists with a false equivalency to the Ku Klux Klan, they'll go ahead and do it.
Try to parse the last sentence in that paragraph now. Is he really trying to suggest one of the flaws of modern science is that we're trying to bury the notion of 'favoured races' because it is politically incorrect? I'm puzzled about the inconsistency of on the one hand accusing biologists of being akin to Aryan supremacists, while also accusing them of falsely promoting a PC notion of racial equality. But then nothing in their tirade is particularly consistent.
Darwinian evolution theory is a viable scientific theory. Author of The God Delusion Richard Dawkins has stated that Darwin's evolution theory has provided atheists with "intellectual fulfillment." If you grant that, then you must also grant that it has given a great many racists "intellectual fulfillment," too.
The Bible has also been a source of intellectual fulfillment to racists. So? In the case of atheism, we can say it provides fulfillment because the theory is a framework for studying the origin of life on earth that makes a creator god superfluous; it also provides a framework for studying biological diversity within a single species. When a scientist says something is intellectually fulfilling, it doesn't mean it slaps down an answer that fits his predispositions, it's because it provides a path for probing deeper. The Expelled losers are confusing what a real scientist finds valuable with the post hoc rationalizations of racists and Christians who are not open to real inquiry.
Here is how Darwin himself translated his own gloomy scientific theory into an even more disturbing worldview (from the Descent of Man)
'At some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilized races of man will almost certainly exterminate, and replace, the savage races throughout the world. At the same time the anthropological apes… will no doubt be exterminated. The break between man and his nearest allies will then be wider, for it will intervene between man in a more civilized state…even than the Caucasian, and some ape as low as a baboon, instead of now between the Negro or Australian and the gorilla'.
Whenever I see an ellipsis in a creationist quote, I always reach immediately for the original source. So, just for the sake of completeness, here's the offensive paragraph from Darwin's Descent of Man.
The great break in the organic chain between man and his nearest allies, which cannot be bridged over by any extinct or living species, has often been advanced as a grave objection to the belief that man is descended from some lower form; but this objection will not appear of much weight to those who, from general reasons, believe in the general principle of evolution. Breaks often occur in all parts of the series, some being wide, sharp and defined, others less so in various degrees; as between the orang and its nearest allies- between the Tarsius and the other Lemuridae- between the elephant, and in a more striking manner between the Ornithorhynchus or Echidna, and all other mammals. But these breaks depend merely on the number of related forms which have become extinct. At some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilised races of man will almost certainly exterminate, and replace, the savage races throughout the world. At the same time the anthropomorphous apes, as Professor Schaaffhausen has remarked, will no doubt be exterminated. The break between man and his nearest allies will then be wider, for it will intervene between man in a more civilised state, as we may hope, even than the Caucasian, and some ape as low as a baboon, instead of as now between the negro or Australian and the gorilla.
It is entirely true that Darwin was a Victorian gentleman who carried the full measure of the prejudices of his time, and he did believe that non-Caucasian people (and actually, non-British people, and he probably had doubts about the Irish) were inferior. At the same time, he knew and described his personal relationships with, for instance, black people, and he regarded them as fully human and deserving of all the privileges of humanity, so he was actually a good step above a great many Christian gentlemen of his day.
Note also the context. He isn't advocating extermination, he's explaining the absence of extant intermediates: because breaks in a series inevitably occur, over time we'll see a widening of the differences between the surviving nearest neighbors in a lineage. He's describing a fact, not a desired end. He has also been shown to be right: the "savage races" of his day are being displaced and increasingly adopting the "civilized state" of today. Now, though, most of us wouldn't consider an Australian closer to a gorilla than a British civil servant is. Darwin was wrong about that (or perhaps now Ben Stein will berate me as being PC for considering that a false statement.)
Now, before you protest the analogy, consider that Professor Dawkins himself understands full well the analogy - to the extent that he'd prefer to just side step it:
In his "The Ancestor's Tale," he posed the Welfare State as a challenge to Darwinism. When asked by an Austrian journalist in an interview (Die Presse -July 30, 2005) how he would justify that challenge?
Dawkins: "No self-respecting person would want to live in a Society that operates according to Darwinian laws. I am a passionate Darwinist, when it involves explaining the development of life. However, I am a passionate anti-Darwinist when it involves the kind of society in which we want to live. A Darwinian State would be a Fascist state."
Or, in other words, "I really don't want to think about it!"
What a bizarre mangling.
The term "Darwinian" refers to a specific, selectionist mode of change in which some individuals die or suffer impaired reproduction, while others thrive and are fecund. It is a fact. It happens. When a gazelle out-runs a fellow member of the herd and allows the slower member to be eaten by a lion, that's Darwinian. When a tree drizzles a few toxins onto the ground to suppress other species from growing in its neighborhood, that's Darwinian. It's not pretty and it may not be the utopian paradise fantasists dream of, but it's a description of reality. It's how live evolved and is evolving on this earth.
Dawkins has a clear understanding that an is isn't an ought, something these amateur filmmakers need to learn. A Darwinian world is a harsh sort of place; it's perfectly legitimate for a product of evolution to aspire to a less dangerous situation and to work towards reducing the threats surrounding it. It is -10°F outside my window right now, but that harsh, measurable, empirical, irrefutable reality does not mean that I am obligated to strip off my clothes and go stand in the snow right now.
It's quite clear that Dawkins has thought about the implications of evolution quite a bit, unlike our simple-minded friends in the creationist movement.
The new film, ” EXPELLED: No Intelligence Allowed" does not presume to bury the theory of evolution… but it declines to praise it, either. As a worldview…no thinking person (certainly no moral person) can view a scientific theory of life based on an undirected, purposeless and random process as anything but pessimism. Certain people, and many scientists are drawn to pessimism, and thus pessimistic scientific theories. But that does not make their theories, or them, for that matter, any more attractive or intelligent.
Pessimism is a malady to be overcome, not encouraged - and it is certainly not a quality (or a theory) to be celebrated. As history teaches us - inherently pessimistic scientific theories, like all decadent theories (socialism, communism) eventually give way to those that actually work.
Evolution is pessimism? What kind of inane argument is that?
First of all, we don't judge the validity of a theory on whether it's conclusions are what we want to hear, or on whether it is pessimistic or optimistic. If that were the case, my optimistic hope that magic elves will scamper over and take care of some necessary maintenance on my house would be a useful and powerful idea. Scientists adopt ideas that work, which is why evolution is popular and Intelligent Design creationism is a dead end; they are drawn to utility, not pessimism.
As far as optimistic theories go, has this bozo ever read the Communist Manifesto? Communism is an incredibly optimistic idea — human beings are perfectable, societies are working towards an inevitable workers' utopia, etc. It's highly non-Darwinian, unlike capitalism, which is very Darwinian. It's like they don't even think their own arguments through.
They certainly don't read their critics' arguments through. Dawkins was just quoted as rejecting Darwinian ruthlessness as a just principle for society, yet here they go off ranting and raving about his pessimism, and the ultimate failure of evolution. It's insane.
The sixteenth President of the United States believed what our country's founders believed and that The Bill of Rights so clearly stated - that all men were endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights, including life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
That's a "theory" that works.
Like Darwin, Lincoln was a man of the 19th century. Here's something Lincoln did say:
I will say then that I am not, nor ever have been in favor of bringing about in anyway the social and political equality of the white and black races - that I am not nor ever have been in favor of making voters or jurors of negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people; and I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will forever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality. And inasmuch as they cannot so live, while they do remain together there must be the position of superior and inferior, and I as much as any other man am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race. I say upon this occasion I do not perceive that because the white man is to have the superior position the negro should be denied everything.
Squirm, Lincoln hagiographers, squirm. That's pretty much the standard background noise of the cultural beliefs of the period — everyone was putting everyone else in a hierarchy of superiority and inferiority on the basis of race. Lincoln was brought up in it and accepted it, as did Darwin; we don't judge them by how much they reflected the false prejudices of their society, but by how much they rose above them. Both Lincoln and Darwin were liberal for their time in their views on race, and they did their part to move culture forward.
Shall we quote Lincoln saying, "the white man is to have the superior position" and therefore declare that the aspiration of the Bill of Rights must be invalid and rejected? That's what these twits are doing by quoting fragments of Darwin's work, declaring, "Golly, that sounds like the Klan," and trying to discredit a major scientific principle.
Choosing to believe in but one scientific theory that effectively negates the whole notion of an intrinsic intelligence, a higher power, an intelligent designer - is fine, if pessimism is what floats your boat.
But that is your choice - or at least it should be a "choice" - for there is ample scientific evidence accumulating under the theory of Intelligent Design that presents an equally compelling - and much more optimistic scientific perspective on life's "origins."
It's odd how they constantly claim that there is growing scientific evidence for their theory of ID, but they never present any. I guess that's what they mean by calling ID an optimistic theory: they have hope that someday they'll actually have something constructive to propose.
But currently, Big Science is still enamored with only the gloomy, 150-year old theory originally developed by Darwin, the man who believed that "superior" races would eventually wipe out the "inferior" races. The problem is…the scientific theory justifying that repugnant view is being forced on all of us, to the exclusion of any other scientific theories, in our nation's public schools and taxpayer-funded government science institutions.
Abraham Lincoln ended slavery in America forever, to put to bed the whole notion of "inferior" races. And to be fair - the gentle Mr. Darwin himself did not favor slavery - even of those whom he described asbeing of the"savage races."
The 150-year old theory is not the modern theory. I wish we could get that through their heads: they could prove that Darwin was a baby-raping cannibal, and it wouldn't matter a whit to what we teach and study now. And seriously, get over yourselves: whining that Darwin was a racist does not turn your belief that invisible magic being(s) conjured life into existence into a scientific theory that should be taught in schools.
And you really have to be an ahistorical ignoramus to think that Abraham Lincoln ended the notion of "inferior" races. He subscribed to it. It's still an issue in our culture today.
Should the theory of Intelligent Design be allowed to be debated alongside Darwin's depressing 150-year-old theory of Evolution? Should scientists who want to explore Intelligent Design Theory be shunned, ostracized and even fired from the teaching profession?
If you have to ask the questions - perhaps you don't understand the difference between academic freedom… and the State-sponsored pessimism that is currently all but mandated by Big Science.
Science, even little-s science, only mandates that there be a an empirical foundation and open inquiry into what we're going to call science. Bad ideas that presume their conclusion and insist that evidence is not required for their proposals is not suitable for science classrooms. Show us what new evidence and ideas you're going to introduce and we'll think about it; whining about conspiracy theories and protesting that you have support but will not show it is not the answer.
"EXPELLED: No Intelligence Allowed" is a new film that will open your eyes to the scientific evidence that challenges Darwin's lurid theory of life. It reveals the distinctly non-scientific agenda that is driving Neo-Darwinism today. It also presents exciting new evidence accumulating behind the theory of intelligent design.
But most importantly - it will also remind you of the importance of maintaining the values of freedom and hope that Abraham Lincoln championed, and that some folks wish to deny us by fiat.
We stand squarely behind The Bill of Rights and our constitution's First Amendment guaranteeing freedom of speech.
Interesting. Every review I've read so far fails to mention this challenging scientific evidence for ID. When I get a chance to see it (hey, they interviewed me, even if they don't use much of the footage — are they going to send me a DVD?) I'll be sure to look for that evidence. It's not in any of their books, so it's a little odd that they'd pack it into fluffy little movie.
Don't you just love how they wrap themselves in the flag, the bill of rights, and the first amendment while trying to force their religious ideology into the schools? Patriotism really is the last refuge of the scoundrel.
Politics
Comments
Posted by: deviljelly | February 13, 2008 12:04 PM
from the Wikiplex.....
Here the term "races" is used as an alternative for "varieties" and does not carry the modern connotation of human races - the first use in the book refers to "the several races, for instance, of the cabbage", and Darwin proceeds to discuss "the hereditary varieties or races of our domestic animals and plants"
Posted by: Brownian, OM | February 13, 2008 12:05 PM
These people should have every medieval torture implement used against 'witches' and in the Inquisition until they confess their sins.
Bastards. Complete fucking fact-twisting, lying, douchebag fucktard bastards.
Posted by: Daldianus | February 13, 2008 12:11 PM
How can people be so utterly ignorant??
Posted by: Geoffrey Alexander | February 13, 2008 12:12 PM
PZ, since your posting of this analysis, they have taken down their blog posting, and the link you supplied gives a "404 Not Found" error from within their website. Curious.
Posted by: Geoffrey Alexander | February 13, 2008 12:13 PM
...aha, it's back now; I wonder if there were any edits? I didn't get to see the original.
Posted by: MAJeff | February 13, 2008 12:14 PM
I now know why I don't like cabbage. Because I'm a Darwinian racist.
Posted by: H. Humbert | February 13, 2008 12:16 PM
If evolution is a "gloomy" theory, why is always the IDers who come off like whiny emo kids?
Posted by: Jit | February 13, 2008 12:16 PM
Yep, they've either been hacked or have realised too late their own babyish stupidity.
Welcome to the University of Happy Theories (Nappies supplied free of charge - we change them for you if you're not potty-trained yet).
The Lincoln quote is a doozy. When will the ID brigade i) realise that everyone was a racist in the mid 19th century and ii) Darwin's fancy book really only started the ball rolling. Unlike them, scientists don't just stick to the one book. The bits that are wrong get thrown out. New bits that are better get added. Science evolves, guys.
Posted by: Jit | February 13, 2008 12:18 PM
Still 404 error for me.
Posted by: Bob O'H | February 13, 2008 12:19 PM
PZ, this post seems to be missing an icon.
Bob
Posted by: Raynfala | February 13, 2008 12:20 PM
Oh my...
They've updated the page to lead off with a quote from our illustrious host. They label PZ as a "fabulist", which apparently means storyteller or, more pejoratively, liar.
Pot, meet kettle...
Posted by: Glen Davidson | February 13, 2008 12:20 PM
Watch the trailer--in it they move from the bottom of the title of Origin to the top, thus showing the part with the "favoured races" first.
So this dishonesty is nothing new for them. And since they really are ignorant slobs, they know as little about language and history as they do about science.
Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/2kxyc7
Posted by: AL | February 13, 2008 12:23 PM
When I entered college as a freshman at 17, the very first class I took was Economics 1, and on the very first day of lecture, the very first time I set foot in a college lecture, the professor went over the difference between descriptive claims and normative claims, and how normative claims do not follow from descriptive ones.
Evolution is a descriptive theory. It describes reasonably well what happens in our world. Racism is a normative concept. Racists can certainly appeal to the descriptive claims of evolution, but that those claims support racism is a non-sequitur.
The fact-value distinction is not rocket science. I grasped it at 17. I don't get what's up with these IDiots/Cretinists that keep bringing up this tired "evolution = racism" nonsense that is easily refuted by someone who didn't fall asleep in his very first college lecture.
Then again, I didn't attend Bible University.
Posted by: barron | February 13, 2008 12:27 PM
Yes, let us pick our fields of inquiry based on how happy they make us.
Germ theory of disease? Depressing!
Happy Dancing Elf theory of disease? Filled with joy (and dancing elves)!
Einsteinian Gravitational Theory? Too impersonal!
Gravity caused by Earth loving us soooo much theory? Happy!
This is a clear advancement in intellectual inquiry. Self esteem is the best criteria for judging a scientific theory.
Posted by: Glen Davidson | February 13, 2008 12:27 PM
Of course evolution is not gloomy to those of us who grew up as fundamentalists.
It's actually quite liberating (some have pointed out an important parallel between Lincoln and Darwin, that one liberated slaves, the other liberated minds--though Lincoln had a mind liberated of Xianity, he didn't have great ammo against it). I'm not, of course, saying that MET is atheistic in a way that physics is not, but it is contrary to the literalism and puritanical ideals in the Bible.
Furthermore, as I made the point yesterday on another thread, it began a whole new set of ideas about how complex orders emerge, and about how information interacts in laterally, rather than being imposed top-down.
And whatever Darwin's Victorian prejudices, it remains the fact that evolution, coupled with the rest of biology, is what scientifically demolishes the categories and ranks that have been used to prop up racismm, and it has demonstrated that we're pretty damned close to everyone genetically.
Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/2kxyc7
Posted by: Rey Fox | February 13, 2008 12:28 PM
Condensed version: "If it feels good, believe it!"
Even more condensed version: "BAAAAAAAWWWWWW!!!"
Posted by: David Denning | February 13, 2008 12:30 PM
Guess I'll just go to work and hang out with my thoughtless, amoral (or is it immoral?) pessimistic friends.
Posted by: Penny | February 13, 2008 12:30 PM
No - it's still there - bottom left under the Recent posts heading (or maybe they've just forgotten to remove that copy of it?)
Posted by: SteveM | February 13, 2008 12:31 PM
Sorry, not in The Bill of Rights, try The Declaration of Independance
Posted by: Penny | February 13, 2008 12:31 PM
Oops sorry - lot of folks posted while I was looking. The above was in reply to #4.
Posted by: Nick | February 13, 2008 12:33 PM
It really is depressing quite how ignorant and deluded some people can be.
One of my housemates, a christian, does not believe in evolution, and yet most of the time appears to be perfectly intelligent. Religion has a lot to answer for...
Posted by: Rick | February 13, 2008 12:33 PM
When the creationists write "150-year old theory" what is it they are trying to get across? That any science that old is no longer useful? Or is it that Darwinian theory is too new and we need a theory with foundations going back several thousand years?
Posted by: MAJeff | February 13, 2008 12:33 PM
It gives a 404 error using PZ's link...here's the thread
http://expelledthemovie.com/blog/2008/02/07/we'll-take-lincoln-day-over-darwin-day...any-day/
Posted by: gg | February 13, 2008 12:33 PM
"Note also the context. He isn't advocating extermination, he's explaining the absence of extant intermediates: because breaks in a series inevitably occur, over time we'll see a widening of the differences between the surviving nearest neighbors in a lineage."
Ya gotta love the hypocrisy. I mean, the way they talk, it's like God never advocated extermination and genocide.
Posted by: croor | February 13, 2008 12:35 PM
i tried that link you sent me, and it gives me a 404 error.
you think the ignoramuses caved under your attack and removed that post from their page?
on the other hand, IDiots learning from rational arguments made against their side doesn't seem likely, does it?
Posted by: Vic | February 13, 2008 12:36 PM
I love the whole "Big Science" thing they've got going on there. As if there were some kind of mega-buck-funded think-tank behind the whole thing... oh, wait... I get it now - projection.
Posted by: Glen Davidson | February 13, 2008 12:36 PM
No, it's rather more like Dawkins understands much about how we happened to evolve as a social species. We could not be a social species and have a truly "Darwinian State."
The wolverine is what lives in a fairly Darwinian state (not State, of course), with some necessary exceptions (mating, mother caring for young). That is one reason wolverines haven't come up with science.
What's the excuse for these social beings never coming up with, or even comprehending, science? Could it be their Darwinian will to power, which I have to admit is not something I can absolutely condemn, but can for various reasons, including the fact that our nation will be likely to decline if we become too much like Algeria or some other theocratic bastion of anti-science.
Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/2kxyc7
Posted by: Geoff | February 13, 2008 12:37 PM
Another glaring error: the Bill of Rights does NOT state that "all men were endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights, including life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness." That's a paraphrase of a passage from the Declaration of Independence.
This isn't just a nitpick; the fact that the Constitution contains no references to God or a Creator at all is a pivotal argument against the notion that America was founded as a Christian nation, because the Constitution is the overriding law of the land, whereas the Declaration is simply a historical artifact, with no legal force.
Posted by: Molly, NYC | February 13, 2008 12:37 PM
Should scientists who want to explore Intelligent Design Theory be shunned, ostracized and even fired from the teaching profession?
Yes.
The evo v. ID debate isn't about emphasizing one set of facts over another one, or about competing models. It's about whether you understand how science works. Proponents of ID may as well have a tattoo on their foreheads that says "I don't get it."
Posted by: Dale | February 13, 2008 12:37 PM
Sounds to me like someone should make a film of rebuttal
Posted by: gg | February 13, 2008 12:38 PM
#15 wrote: "Of course evolution is not gloomy to those of us who grew up as fundamentalists."
Nicely put. I wonder if the 'Expelled' producers consider this sermon to be a fount of positivity?
Posted by: Geral | February 13, 2008 12:39 PM
Every time I see the 'No Intelligence Allowed' banner, I think of the irony.
Posted by: Glen Davidson | February 13, 2008 12:44 PM
Utter bullshit. MET doesn't justify racism at all. Had they any evidence that it did (other than their retarded notion that a book which was not peer-reviewed tells us what evolutionary theory "is"), I'm sure they'd have presented it, rather than just lying.
And what other "scientific theories" are there to explain evolution? Are you pushing Lysenkoism? You may as well, it's as well-supported (zero, like ID), and requires as much anti-freedom governmental intervention to implement, as ID.
Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/2kxyc7
Gl
Posted by: Olaf Davis | February 13, 2008 12:45 PM
Thank goodness those pessimistic systems like Communism and Socialism have fallen to a system that really works: free-market Capitalism!
Heaven forbid anyone should try replacing that with something like Darwinism based on cut-throat competition in which the weak are destroyed by the strong, leading to all striving to become stronger and...
Oh, wait.
Posted by: MAJeff | February 13, 2008 12:48 PM
Now, the link I used gives a 404; they've simply blocked incoming traffic from this site to the post.
Now that's intellectual honesty and strength of conviction.
What a worthless bunch of fuckwits.
Posted by: Bob L | February 13, 2008 12:48 PM
You can have hours of fun with Lincoln and the ID crowd, beyond Lincoln would be considered a racist today there is the whole bit the Lincoln was certainly a panthiest, if not an outright atheist.
Posted by: Dan | February 13, 2008 12:49 PM
These ID bastards will never stop lying, will they? They just don't seem to care how erroneous or deceptive their statements are, and the fact that they are broadcasting nothing but gleaming ignorance will do nothing to slow them down.
Most normal human beings of conscience would be embarrassed at the open displays of dishonesty and shoddy scholarship as we see coming from the ID crowd.
Gyaagh! I hate these slimy, little fuckers.
Posted by: Hank Fox | February 13, 2008 12:49 PM
At 12:48 p.m. EST, I get a 404 Error too.
I think they must have taken it down, possibly for some frantic rewriting.
It would be nice to know WHO, specifically, wrote that mess. And maybe Ben Stein should consider hiring somebody brighter to write for him.
Posted by: Glen Davidson | February 13, 2008 12:51 PM
That isn't a theory at all, and the scare quotes only indicate that you intended to suggest to idiots that it is even though you know that it is not.
And as Geoff notes, the bit about "The Creator..." is not in the Bill of Rights. Lincoln did refer back to the Declaration (and wasn't dumb enough to confuse Constitution and Declaration) in his speeches, nevertheless.
I suspect that they're claiming it is in the Bill of Rights not just because they're ignorant IDiots, but also because they'd like to use it to enforce their "right" to inject their theocratic notions into science. They wish to appeal to the Bill of Rights for "free speech" in science, the kind that would, of course, destroy science as a meritocratic discipline with standards requiring evidence.
They are just stupid, they're also sinister.
Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/2kxyc7
Posted by: Glen Davidson | February 13, 2008 12:53 PM
Oops, that was supposed to be, "They aren't just stupid, they're also sinister."
Glen
Posted by: Chris | February 13, 2008 12:54 PM
Lol, "we believe in free speech"
Then they go around and block traffic from this website
/loves me the smell of Christian hypocrisy in the morning
Posted by: Siamang | February 13, 2008 12:59 PM
Ben Stein and his cronies should re-read the fucking Bill of Rights. Is it the stupidity that makes them creationists, or creationism that makes them stupid?
I think they should keep it up. They're a great argument for atheism. Surely bald, wild-eyed hooting stupidity isn't the best that the God of the universe can muster.
Posted by: Joe | February 13, 2008 1:00 PM
They can't even get their recent American history correct. Legislation enacting President's Day was passed in 1968 and went into effect in 1971, not "the late 1980s" as they state.
Posted by: kmarissa | February 13, 2008 1:01 PM
For those having trouble accessing, (someone already said this but) the post is still listed under "Recent Posts." Scroll down to the bottom of the page.
Posted by: Glen Davidson | February 13, 2008 1:01 PM
If so, that's an absolute first.
We've been asking for evidence from you lying IDiots forever, and all we've received in return are more lies.
Present your evidence, even if you're not following standard protocol in doing so. We'll welcome it if it exists, and if you actually do something other than whine for once.
But if you'd like to make an unfriendly wager about whether the film actually does present any such evidence, I'll bet everything I have that it doesn't. The judges have to be those who actually do science, however, not necessarily evolutionary biologists, yet certainly people who care about evidence.
Even the friendly reviews of Expelled never mention evidence in favor of ID being presented, and indeed, the first review by a newspaper said the film doesn't even tell us what ID is. So I'm at a loss how evidence for something the which is not explained or defined could be presented, at least in any sensible manner.
Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/2kxyc7
Posted by: Holbach | February 13, 2008 1:02 PM
Tried several times, less than a minute ago to get in;
404 Error still there. Probably a good thing, otherwise
I would have really vented with the most ascerbic crap
I can utter, and then PZ would not post as happened on an
earlier statement. This religious crap boils my blood to no end and I believe in responding in kind, to the
consternation of others who are not so easily perturbed
with this ranting insane muck.
Posted by: June | February 13, 2008 1:03 PM
In their Recent Posts, I clicked "We'll take Lincoln Day ..." and the following loaded at about 12:50 EST.
---------- BEGIN THEIR POST ---------------
Until the late 1980's when the generic "President's Day" became the official holiday that subsumed them, America used to celebrate the birthdays of both George Washington and Abraham Lincoln.
As a result, "Darwin Day" has now supplanted Lincoln's Birthday in the popular imagination; both men were born on February 12, 1809.
We think that that is a shame.
The title of Charles Darwin's book is not "The Origin of The Species." The full title seems shocking: "On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life." That last half of the title, often overlooked, sounds like it could come straight out of a Ku Klux Klan manual - which is precisely why Big Science rarely quotes the full title (even though Darwin was not referring specifically to "man" in his use of the words "favoured races."). Big Science is uncomfortable with even the suggestion that evolutionary theory might favor politically incorrect thinking.
Darwinian evolution theory is a viable scientific theory. Author of The God Delusion Richard Dawkins has stated that Darwin's evolution theory has provided atheists with "intellectual fulfillment." If you grant that, then you must also grant that it has given a great many racists "intellectual fulfillment," too.
Here is how Darwin himself translated his own gloomy scientific theory into an even more disturbing worldview (from the Descent of Man)
'At some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilized races of man will almost certainly exterminate, and replace, the savage races throughout the world. At the same time the anthropological apes... will no doubt be exterminated. The break between man and his nearest allies will then be wider, for it will intervene between man in a more civilized state...even than the Caucasian, and some ape as low as a baboon, instead of now between the Negro or Australian and the gorilla'.
Now, before you protest the analogy, consider that Professor Dawkins himself understands full well the analogy - to the extent that he'd prefer to just side step it:
In his "The Ancestor's Tale," he posed the Welfare State as a challenge to Darwinism. When asked by an Austrian journalist in an interview (Die Presse -July 30, 2005) how he would justify that challenge?
Dawkins: "No self-respecting person would want to live in a Society that operates according to Darwinian laws. I am a passionate Darwinist, when it involves explaining the development of life. However, I am a passionate anti-Darwinist when it involves the kind of society in which we want to live. A Darwinian State would be a Fascist state."
Or, in other words, "I really don't want to think about it!"
The new film, " EXPELLED: No Intelligence Allowed" does not presume to bury the theory of evolution... but it declines to praise it, either. As a worldview...no thinking person (certainly no moral person) can view a scientific theory of life based on an undirected, purposeless and random process as anything but pessimism. Certain people, and many scientists are drawn to pessimism, and thus pessimistic scientific theories. But that does not make their theories, or them, for that matter, any more attractive or intelligent.
Pessimism is a malady to be overcome, not encouraged - and it is certainly not a quality (or a theory) to be celebrated. As history teaches us - inherently pessimistic scientific theories, like all decadent theories (socialism, communism) eventually give way to those that actually work.
The sixteenth President of the United States believed what our country's founders believed and that The Bill of Rights so clearly stated - that all men were endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights, including life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
That's a "theory" that works.
Choosing to believe in but one scientific theory that effectively negates the whole notion of an intrinsic intelligence, a higher power, an intelligent designer - is fine, if pessimism is what floats your boat.
But that is your choice - or at least it should be a "choice" - for there is ample scientific evidence accumulating under the theory of Intelligent Design that presents an equally compelling - and much more optimistic scientific perspective on life's "origins."
But currently, Big Science is still enamored with only the gloomy, 150-year old theory originally developed by Darwin, the man who believed that "superior" races would eventually wipe out the "inferior" races. The problem is...the scientific theory justifying that repugnant view is being forced on all of us, to the exclusion of any other scientific theories, in our nation's public schools and taxpayer-funded government science institutions.
Abraham Lincoln ended slavery in America forever, to put to bed the whole notion of "inferior" races. And to be fair - the gentle Mr. Darwin himself did not favor slavery - even of those whom he described asbeing of the"savage races."
Should the theory of Intelligent Design be allowed to be debated alongside Darwin's depressing 150-year-old theory of Evolution? Should scientists who want to explore Intelligent Design Theory be shunned, ostracized and even fired from the teaching profession?
If you have to ask the questions - perhaps you don't understand the difference between academic freedom... and the State-sponsored pessimism that is currently all but mandated by Big Science.
"EXPELLED: No Intelligence Allowed" is a new film that will open your eyes to the scientific evidence that challenges Darwin's lurid theory of life. It reveals the distinctly non-scientific agenda that is driving Neo-Darwinism today. It also presents exciting new evidence accumulating behind the theory of intelligent design.
But most importantly - it will also remind you of the importance of maintaining the values of freedom and hope that Abraham Lincoln championed, and that some folks wish to deny us by fiat.
-------------------- END OF THEIR POST --------------------
Posted by: Dawn | February 13, 2008 1:05 PM
I wonder if the IDiots know that in the Commonweatlth of Virginia, at least when I lived there, if not still today, Presidents Day was called "Washington, Lee, Davis" day. No Lincoln in there...
Posted by: Brownian, OM | February 13, 2008 1:10 PM
Surely bald, wild-eyed hooting stupidity isn't the best that the God of the universe can muster.
Apparently their God is fucktard too.
Posted by: Rey Fox | February 13, 2008 1:10 PM
It's hard to believe that they still sometimes come out with something that just absolutely stuns me.
I'll take our 150-year-old theory over your 4,000-year-old one any day.
God DAMN, I wish I could be paid to just prattle on for thousands of words.
"Dawkins has a clear understanding that an is isn't an ought"
Oh don't be such a downer, man. Watch Expelled, and you can turn your ought into an IS!
Posted by: G Felis | February 13, 2008 1:15 PM
To your last sentence, PZ, I can only reply with a quotation from Ambrose Bierce's The Devil's Dictionary:
Posted by: Peter Ashby | February 13, 2008 1:15 PM
Dale:
David Attenborough's next project is a series on Evolution. Over on this side of the pond we are part way through his latest Life In Cold Blood, about amphibia and reptiles. These series are usually made in partnership with PBS or another North American channel so I am sure it will be coming to a TV near you soon. As the Guinness ads say, good things come to those who wait.
Posted by: Leukocyte | February 13, 2008 1:17 PM
@26, The "Big Science" bit cracked me up too. Every lab I've worked in has been the equivalent of a small independent business struggling in a very competitive field. There's certainly no monolithic organization the equivalent of Exxon and "Big Oil" or Detroit's "Big Three." What are their criteria for big? The budget and scope of this moronic movie dwarfs that of almost any science lab... so does that make them "Big Ignorance?"
Posted by: Rey Fox | February 13, 2008 1:17 PM
"Darwin's lurid theory of life."
Lurid! I mean really, how do you relate to someone who writes like that? He must be a KKK member. Or a repressed scuba fetishist. Certainly not a sane and rational member of human society.
Posted by: Tom | February 13, 2008 1:20 PM
Everything like this that comes out of the Expelled crowd or the Disco Institute should be accompanied by a soundtrack of endless repetitions of Laurie Anderson's "Big Science." I quote:
Big Science. Hallelujah.
Big Science. Yo-de-lay-he-hoooooooooo.
Posted by: kmarissa | February 13, 2008 1:21 PM
I haven't read all their posts, but I think my favorite, of the ones I did read, item 15. One person had posted the same Lincoln quote above, and someone else replied,
"Weather intentional or not, Lincoln ended the brutality of slavery and made the way for equality. Quote mining is all well and good, but in this case, I'm afraid you'll find no footing."
Quote mining. I love that.
Posted by: Rey Fox | February 13, 2008 1:21 PM
Okay, one more and then I swear I'll get back to work.
"Sounds to me like someone should make a film of rebuttal"
I think the Nova documentary on the Dover trial serves pretty well. And then there's that Bill Maher documentary that will be coming out around the same time. Not about evolution, but I have to imagine that religious supression of science will be in there somewhere.
"so does that make them "Big Ignorance?""
Pretty good, but after this last screed, I'm more inclined to think of them as "Big Durrrrr"
Posted by: Scott Hatfield, OM | February 13, 2008 1:21 PM
PZ: That icon for blogging on pseudo-scientific, um, matters, absolutely made my day.
Posted by: Paul | February 13, 2008 1:23 PM
As far as the 404 error goes, it looks like the difference betweeen a ' and ' in "we'll-take" in the url (the latter being correct, the former being what PZ's link contains).
Posted by: Paul | February 13, 2008 1:27 PM
Doh, the difference between those quotes showed up in the preview, but not in the actual post. The first character is Unicode character Apostrophe U+0027, the second is Right Single Quotation Mark U+2019.
Posted by: MAJeff | February 13, 2008 1:30 PM
As far as the 404 error goes, it looks like the difference betweeen a ' and ' in "we'll-take" in the url (the latter being correct, the former being what PZ's link contains).
That's not it. If you look at my link (comment 23) it contains "we'll take" and still leads to a 404 error. It's traffic from here that's the target.
Posted by: Kcanadensis | February 13, 2008 1:31 PM
Hmmm I got a 404 for the link to that blog entry...
But your dissection of it was better to read anyway, I'm sure.
Posted by: Paul | February 13, 2008 1:32 PM
And now to post something actually on topic. An analogy I thought of the other day is how Newtonian gravity doesn't dictate we must fall at 9.8m/s2, meaning we shouldn't invent parachutes. :-p
Posted by: gg | February 13, 2008 1:34 PM
#42 wrote: "Ben Stein and his cronies should re-read the fucking Bill of Rights. Is it the stupidity that makes them creationists, or creationism that makes them stupid?"
Probably been said somewhere before, but I suspect this proves that the title "Expelled" refers to high school expulsion, or at least suggests that the expulsion should have happened at a far earlier level...
Posted by: JC | February 13, 2008 1:35 PM
Big Science? I did a genuine LOL at that.
I think I'll start calling Stein, the DI, etc. Big Creationism, and thinking about it, that is a pretty appropriate name for them.
Posted by: Paul | February 13, 2008 1:35 PM
Your link still contains an apostrophe, not a right single quotation mark (the curly version). I think the blogging software may just be turning the curly quote into an apostrophe (it did on my original comment).
Posted by: Lana | February 13, 2008 1:36 PM
I'm actually looking forward to the release of the movie. I'm sure there won't be even an attempt to provide evidence and I'm hoping the reviewers will point that out.
Posted by: Patrick Quigley | February 13, 2008 1:40 PM
So in order to demonstrate that religion is good and science is evil, they compare Darwin's use of the phrase "favoured races" (which they admit did not refer to humans), to the writings of a Christian terrorist organization that used the Bible to justify threatening, assaulting, and even murdering black and jewish humans?
Do they really think that this is a good argument for religion?
Posted by: Sili | February 13, 2008 1:42 PM
I guess this means that Denmark will soon be
amBushedliberated by our dear BenSteinian overlords.We still talk about races in reference to breeds of cats, dogs and horses. Cows too. (But not cabbages, I think. Mmmmmmh - broccoli ...)
Posted by: windy | February 13, 2008 1:49 PM
Maybe the ellipsis in the link is the problem, not the apostrophe. Testing...
Their post has convinced me: we must start teaching Lincolnism as an alternative theory in biology class.
Posted by: Mike Magee | February 13, 2008 1:49 PM
I'm coming from a computer science background, so take this with a grain of salt. It seems to me that Darwin has nothing to do with any of this. We know about DNA and what it does. We know how it gets carried from generation to generation. We know that changing it can change what chemicals appear in a cell. Even without Darwin it seems pretty obvious that this mechanism will result in optimizations of fecundity. In fact, modeling this mechanism, even for short periods, results in a fantastic ability to search for all kinds of optimizations.
Darwin may have been the first to notice what was happening, but he is far from being any kind of cornerstone for why we know natural selection causes evolution.
I think what the followers of ID really are denying is the existence of emergence. Biology is probably the one area where emergent properties are searched for and exploited naturally, so there is an abundance of 'things to be explained'. But science is all about finding the rules behind emergence and explaining each on a case by case basis.
Posted by: Bryson Brown | February 13, 2008 1:49 PM
There's a more substantial point lurking under the claim that ID is 'optimistic'. Since ID abjures any claim about God's aims and values (unlike, say, Paley), there is no way to show that facts about life that horrified Darwin (parasitic wasps and cats playing with mice, for instance) count against their claims of design. This is a key element in the emptiness and untestability of their claim of design. So how can they claim the title of 'optimists'? For all they know, the designer is utterly indifferent, or even malevolent. (Morris, if I recall rightly, rejects theistic evolution in part because of the terrible history of suffering and death it requires-- peculiar, for a Xian who accepts the existence of hell, but nevermind...) Some optimist-- too optimistic to even notice how pessimistic his views are...
Posted by: Stanton | February 13, 2008 1:52 PM
I think I'm going to start calling it "Expelled: No Intelligence Currently Present"
Posted by: Odonata | February 13, 2008 1:57 PM
http://expelledthemovie.com/blog/2008/02/07/we%e2%80%99ll-take-lincoln-day-over-darwin-day%e2%80%a6any-day/
I get the Stein post with the above link.
Posted by: Stanton | February 13, 2008 1:59 PM
Well, on the bright side concerning ID, despite being an utterly vacuous "explanation," at least it is more optimistic than the YEC's explanation that everything is wrong and dies because of Adam and Eve's fault.Of course, that's like a starving man choosing the wax apple over the dumbcane.
Posted by: Holbach | February 13, 2008 2:00 PM
G Felis @ # 51 I have Ambrose Bierce's Devils Dictionary
and am not content with his "Excommunication".
My description would be "Banishment From Fantasyland"
All these insane rituals of all religions can best be
summed up with "Everlasting Insane Bullshit"
Posted by: windy | February 13, 2008 2:02 PM
+ =LOLPosted by: Scrofulum | February 13, 2008 2:03 PM
Reminds me of Chrsitopher Brookmyers term for beliefs that people will continue to cling to despite a lack of evidence and the presence of alternative, feasible explanations - 'attack of the unsinkable rubber ducks!'
Posted by: gg | February 13, 2008 2:04 PM
windy wrote: "Their post has convinced me: we must start teaching Lincolnism as an alternative theory in biology class."
Is that the theory where only the tallest men with the biggest hats survive? :)
Posted by: Matt | February 13, 2008 2:04 PM
Self-pitying, lying, bigoted, anti-science dickheads.
Posted by: windy | February 13, 2008 2:09 PM
"Is that the theory where only the tallest men with the biggest hats survive?"
or maybe they are sexually selected?
Posted by: PoxyHowzes | February 13, 2008 2:10 PM
@#1: "the several...races of the cabbage.."
Would Ben Stein belong to one of those? Maybe ID theory has just invented "Stein's slaw..."
Posted by: Jason Failes | February 13, 2008 2:15 PM
#2: "These people should have every medieval torture implement used against 'witches' and in the Inquisition until they confess their sins.
Bastards. Complete fucking fact-twisting, lying, douchebag fucktard bastards."
I understand your anger, but we must hold ourselves to a higher standard, especially as we can get by on facts alone to win our case.
Besides, a more humane (and funny) treatment would be a brain implant that caused an ice cream headache whenever a certain theshold of stupid was surpassed (not my idea, came from a standup comic, but not sure the name I should hat-tip to)
P.S. As time goes by, the people at the DI seem less and less concerned with hiding their Christian roots, evidenced both by an increased number of "creator" quotes, the Darwin vs God framing of Expelled, and perhaps most damning: if you are considering all possible intelligent design scenarios, why is evolution even a problem?
If we are in a pocket universe created by an advanced species, it would make sense to develop life in that pocket universe via evolutionary processes. If an alien species "seeded" the planet Earth (a la Star Trek: The Next Generation), we would still develop from that genetic material via evolution. If aliens found a primate-filled Earth and tweaked us into humans, evolution would still have gotten us to the primate point, and would still be in effect now across the natural world.
Indeed, even for some sort of deity in the traditional sense, why would such a being not use evolution to develop living organisms? There is no contradiction between evolution and some sort of god, just between evolution and the specific God that the IDers certainly absolutely are not advocating or even mentioning (wink wink)
Posted by: gg | February 13, 2008 2:18 PM
"or maybe they are sexually selected?"
Awesome! I'll so owe you a beer if you can get that link onto the comments page at Expelled!
Posted by: craig | February 13, 2008 2:21 PM
Naw, expelled refers to how they came up with their "argument."
It was shot out of an orifice accompanied by a deep grunt.
Posted by: tsig | February 13, 2008 2:27 PM
Hitler said that the theory of eviloution allowed him to be an intellectually fulfilled genocidal maniac.
Posted by: Davis | February 13, 2008 2:28 PM
I also grant that sex has given a great many racists "physical fulfillment."
Posted by: BlueIndependent | February 13, 2008 2:34 PM
Here's my take:
The creationists always use their conscious/unconscious religion frame for this debate. They use it consciously as a means of devaluing something they view as being in direct opposition to their mythical beliefs. They use it unconsciously when they think that science amounts to a religion because the workstyle of a scientist is tied to the lifestyle, and the work many times informs the life aspect.
If you think about how people steeped in science careers operate, and then compare that to say, a brick layer, a scientist's lifestyle is very much related to his work. Brick laying you can just put down at the end of the day. Science is relentless inquiry and examination, reading, researching, etc.
Then, consider that the life of a preacher is at least in some functional way somewhat similar. A life usually alone thinking about and talking about one thing and one thing only, devoting your life to one specific purpose.
Now, the material benefit of a scientist's life's work versus a preacher's I'll leave for another time. But it seems to me the creationists find it easy to think of scientists as "evil" preachers because the product of scientific work informs real life. Thus in this way they see it similarly because they take what preachers say to inform their lives. Where the difference comes in is that people are indoctrinated in old books from birth, unlike adherents of science, who must learn how to do it properly for years, decades, and also surrender some level of ego to allow one's self to be questioned.
The other key difference is this: the Bible is, as creaionists say, the "revealed truth" of life and god. Science is a discivered truth in contrast. The similarity is that both can be followed correctly or inncorrectly according to the consensus developed by the wider practicing majority. The difference lies in the fact that when someone misuses the Bible, it's basically impossible to tell them they're necessarily wrong, because the Bible is one singular book that's been translated and retranslated more times than is known by unknown writers, and is not clear unless it's talking about punishing people for many trivial (and very few good) reasons. What happens when a scientist misuses research? Well, we can check the backlog to see what is really true and what really has been discovered, and punish the misuser with the truth of documented results and research.
How's my assessment?
Posted by: David Denning | February 13, 2008 2:34 PM
Re: #17.
My thoughtless, immoral friends and I decided four things today:
1) Life is undirected.
2) The purpose of life over all is to strive to survive and reproduce. The purpose of human life in its biological and cultural context (now marked by our self-awareness and capacity to greatly modify nature) is what we make of it. We can choose to spend our time and effort on useless (if not destructive) fantasies about an afterlife for a selected few (talk about the moral equivalent of racism!). We can ignore the fascinating processes at play in the natural world around us, focusing instead on some far-fetched interpretations of a limited, cobbled-together metaphorical and political text edited by a parade of charlatans over the last 1700 hundred years. Or we can try to understand how the living world works and how it got to be the way it is by observing it in great detail and comparing our notes in the context of a vibrant community of fellow observers (one of the early ones having been Charles Darwin).
3) The over-riding process that led to the life around us was (and is) anything but random - three billion years of building on life's previous successes, can hardly be called "random".
4) The main reason to be pessimistic is that human societies are being choked by zealots and purveyors of snake oil trying to prevent people from learning to pay attention to the natural world and learning to live within its natural bounds.
Posted by: mothra | February 13, 2008 2:34 PM
'Big Ignorance- perfect' :)
As I have stated before, 'you'll know they are christians by their hate.'
To the computer programmer- evolution is only partially an 'optimization process.' You might want to read: Novak and Sigmond. 2004. Evolutionary dynamics of biological games. Science 303(5659): 793- 799.
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/303/5659/793?ck=nck
Posted by: Brownian, OM | February 13, 2008 2:38 PM
Of course, of course, but I'd like them to own up to the bigoted, misogynist, and frankly evil baggage that their own beliefs carry.
If these people had their way, the Bible would be rewritten to claim the Fall occurred in 1859. No darwinist invented the Pear of Anguish. No, the certainty of an eternal reward by a benevolent Creator for inflicting suffering on His other creations provided the inspiration for this example of spiritual fulfillment.
Dishonest asses. Fine then. Can I at least wish that their favourite foods cause them excruciating acid reflux?
Posted by: Ecpyrosis | February 13, 2008 2:38 PM
PZ Myers Terrified of New Film
"they could prove that Darwin was a baby-raping cannibal" says Myers
Oh quote-mining, is there anything you can't do?
Posted by: Grimalkin | February 13, 2008 2:39 PM
Soo... essentially what it boils down to is optimism vs. pessimism. It makes sense. Science has taught us that fossil fuels are coming to an end, that global warming will bring mass destruction, that our world is filled with all sorts of microscopic creepy-crawlies. It's depressing, it's scary. It makes sense that a large group of people (dare I say, a majority?) would shut their eyes, put their fingers in their ears, and aggressively maintain that it's all wrong - that the only end of the world will be a salvation, that we are special and loved, that we are better than the creepy-crawlies that surround us, etc.
Their emphasis on "Darwinism" being wrong BECAUSE its pessimistic tells me that these people just can't handle the reality of the world and are trying their very best to shut everything out and believe in a sky daddy who will protect them. They are essentially infantilising themselves because "ignorance is bliss."
Posted by: Deepsix | February 13, 2008 2:41 PM
When you get the "404 error" message, go to the top of the page and click on "The Blog" in the menu bar. This should then load the page correctly.
Posted by: Holbach | February 13, 2008 2:41 PM
Since this post makes mention of Abraham Lincoln who I
admire and have a small libray of biographies of one
our best Presidents, I am perplexed by the absence of
any reference to Charles Darwin in any of these books,
including the best written to date, not even a mention
that Abe shared a birthdate with the also great man. Their
adult years were contemporaneous and you would think that
news would filter over from England about the work of the
then not too well-known great man. Did Lincoln know of
Darwin, or perhaps he did but never made any mention of it.
I can picture an aide or someone in the sciences saying to
Abe: "Mr President, did you know that you were born on the same day as Mr Charles Darwin of England, who is formulating a theory of Evolution that is causing the god
fanatics much concern and anguish and who will one day be
the target of the religiously deranged?" Snicker, I would
like to surmise, be audible on Abes' breath: "Go get them
Chuck, and make the tards squirm"! Anyway, I cannot find a
single word on both great men sharing a birthdate in any
of these books. Perhaps I may have missed a small mention
by a not too careful reading of the text. Can anyone give
me an indication or reference to this dilemna?
Posted by: ron | February 13, 2008 2:48 PM
can you please get rid of comic sans for the blockquoting, its the worst font ever. although it does properly convey the childishness of who you're quoting.
Posted by: Martin | February 13, 2008 2:50 PM
Ron: "...although it does properly convey the childishness of who you're quoting."
Well, that kind of is the point.
Posted by: Evolved | February 13, 2008 2:50 PM
Those theistards need to go back to science AND history class.
Or better yet, out of the gene pool.
Posted by: CalGeorge | February 13, 2008 2:55 PM
lurid.. gloomy... depressing... pessimism... what a bizarre set of adjectives they employ to characterize one of the greatest advances in modern science. It's not like their beloved Bible is all sweetness and light.
May I suggest a set of adjective to characterize the weenies who made this inane movie: moronic, misguided, childish, and irresponsible?
A new disease should be added to the DSM-IV: Darwinphobia.
They've got it.
Posted by: mothra | February 13, 2008 3:03 PM
@95. At the time of the Civil War, evolution was 'parlor discussion' in this country. A quip by a Confederate soldier (I have forgotten which battle- and am remembering a High School presentation of 30+ ybp): "We may be descended from apes but General Lee could only have been made by Gad." This is pretty close. I do not know if Abraham Lincoln knew that he shared a birthday with Charles Darwin.
Posted by: Karley | February 13, 2008 3:10 PM
Reading them complain about how pessimistic biology is, I was inexplicably reminded me of my high school classmates. When we were watching The Lion King in Spanish class, they demanded that the teacher fast forward through the wildebeest stampede. Really demanded it; I thought they were going to cry if they didn't get their way. That Disney movie was too, too pessimistic for them to handle.
High school students.
What brought that up? Well, I remember that they were vocal creationists as well. Poor folks can't have their beautiful minds sullied I guess. :/
Posted by: Karley | February 13, 2008 3:14 PM
Ignore that unnecessary "me", and anything else I mistyped. Preview has failed me.
Posted by: Spaulding | February 13, 2008 3:19 PM
Another thing they get wrong: Lincoln, freethinker, was not especially fond of throwing around platitudes in homage to an assumed creator. However as an atheist, agnostic, or deist (it's unclear to me), he does have something in common with many of America's founding fathers. So they got that right! I wonder why they weren't more explicit in pointing out the heritage of secular ideals that Lincoln shared with Jefferson, Adams, Franklin, Madison, etc.
"The Bible is not my book nor Christianity my profession. I could never give assent to the long, complicated statements of Christian dogma." - Abraham Lincoln
Posted by: raatrani | February 13, 2008 3:20 PM
PZ! I'm ashamed of you!
"The Bill of Rights so clearly stated - that all men were endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights, including life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness."
You neglected to point out that they aren't even quoting the correct document. They are quoting the Declaration of Independence. What nincompoops!
Posted by: Blake Stacey | February 13, 2008 3:21 PM
mothra (#100) said,
It's in the movie Gettysburg (1993), that's for sure:
Posted by: PZ Myers | February 13, 2008 3:27 PM
I know...I didn't point out every stupidity in their blog entry. I limited myself to going paragraph by paragraph, when I could have practically gone word by word. I'm trusting you all to see the degree of inanity there without my syllable by syllable analysis.
Posted by: Sastra | February 13, 2008 3:28 PM
What about a Quantum State? A Thermodynamic State? Can you imagine the horrors of a system of government based on the atomic theory? Organizational chaos, totalitarian mandates. Plus all the bombs.
Or, worst of all -- gravity. We need to fight, constantly, against a State of Gravity. I do my part by reading polemics like this one from the producers of Expelled. It is hard to maintain a State of Gravity afterwards.
Posted by: Kseniya | February 13, 2008 3:36 PM
Wow.
Excellent critique, Professor Myers.
Arrogant stupidity strikes again. This stuff makes my eyes hurt. The "pessimism" argument is perhaps the most mind-numblingly stupid thing I've read in weeks. I wonder if they reject the Second Law of Thermodynamics on the grounds that it's the basis of what might be the most pessimistic scientific hypothesis of all time. Surely it will give way to something else that "actually works." Gawd!
Posted by: antaresrichard | February 13, 2008 3:36 PM
That wrapping themselves in the flag: more annoying is the way they wrap it around their faces. Can't see a damn thing!
Posted by: John Marley | February 13, 2008 3:41 PM
Clearly, this was written for a target audience (unfortunately a significant portion of the US) that doesn't know that The Constitution establishes and defines the US government, but the Declaration of Independence is inflamatory rhetoric written with the sole purpose of telling off George III. I suppose it is possible that the authors of the above quote don't know this either. But this nonsense has been going on too long for it to be mere stupidity, and I am inclined to attribute it to malice.
Posted by: raven | February 13, 2008 3:44 PM
Then Hitler must be your hero.
tsig has a proposal to murder all religions and religious people with weird old books. This includes Moslem, Xian, Jewish, Budhist, and Hindus. Roughly somewhere between 5 billion people and everyone human on the planet.
I doubt it will get very far. It may take him to a secure lockup with padded walls though.
Posted by: knutsondc | February 13, 2008 3:46 PM
One of the things I most admire about Lincoln was his ability to grow and learn over time. Yes, he was born in a time when racism was nearly universal in this country and he absorbed much of that poisonous attitude. As the Lincoln quotation PZ includes in his post shows, he carried it into adulthood. However, his attitude towards African-Americans did change over time. Frederick Douglass' comments on President Lincoln's warm yet respectful treatment of him, Lincoln's genuine perplexity and distress over how best to rectify the nation's treatment of its black residents, and Lincoln's candor in discussing those issues with Douglass all bespeak a man who had indeed transcended the inherited bigotry of his times.
Posted by: Escuerd | February 13, 2008 3:53 PM
And just what do physicists have to hide by leaving the first two words off of Philosophiæ Naturalis Principia Mathematica? Some of them go so far as to just call it Principia. I think this is part of a concerted effort to diminish the importance of Bertrand Russell's work with one that happens to share a similar title. Is nothing sacred to those Newtonists?
Posted by: Jon McKenzie | February 13, 2008 3:55 PM
You know what else is a pessimistic scientific theory? Gravity. Gravity forces us to the ground against our will (which God gave us). It's our right to fly if we want to. But Big Science just won't let that happen.
Posted by: Bronze Dog | February 13, 2008 4:13 PM
Since some people have suggested a rebuttal movie, I'll throw my two cents in for the title concept: "Flunked: Intelligent Design didn't do any of the homework."
Posted by: Laura | February 13, 2008 4:22 PM
@#114 but wait... didn't their god give us gravity too? What does he want from us?!?! free will or not!?! my head hurts...
Posted by: Dahan | February 13, 2008 4:23 PM
Sorry if this's been said, no time to read through all the comments right now. They have a problem with a theory being 150 years old and gloomy? Theirs is millenia old and about the most depressing thing you could ever think up.
Posted by: joe bobby | February 13, 2008 4:23 PM
Dembski showed up in the thread (comment #200) as Galapagos Finch and linked to his photo of himself photoshopped in with truly great scientific minds. I guess that is as close as he will ever come to being great. Cutting out a picture of himself and taping on a poster of some real scientists. So sad.
Posted by: Leon | February 13, 2008 4:28 PM
Let's not forget, Lincoln didn't end slavery in America. Slavery was ended by the 13th Amendment, which was ratified in December 1865. Lincoln himself was assassinated in April. As for the Emancipation Proclamation, it only declared that slaves in non-Union-occupied Confederate areas were now free.Posted by: SteveM | February 13, 2008 4:34 PM
re pessimism:
maybe a little off-topic, but whenever I hear creationists talk about how sad it would be to be an atheist and to believe you were not created for a purpose, I think of a scene in Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy. At one point the story encounters a machine that reveals the immensity and grandeur of the universe to the "victim" with a little arrow pointing at nothing with the legend "you are here". Everyone who enters the machine is then driven to suicidal despair by the knowledge of just how insignificant they are in the grand scheme of things. Then Zaphod steps into the machine and emerges joyfully declaring "Wow, I must be the most important person in the universe; out of the whole universe I am the only one with an arrow pointing out exactly where I am! "
The point being of course that I think it is much more exciting to exist in a universe where I determine my own purpose. I can't for a second find any joy in the concept that my only purpose is to "give glory to God". That is far more depressing than a universe devoid of deity.
Posted by: Zeekster | February 13, 2008 4:35 PM
This site removes posts and edits posts that are being commented on ALL THE TIME. I actually commented to challenge them on the very topic of their post editing and they did write me an email back. I have no clue what to say to them anymore. It's all so scary and dishonest.
Posted by: Pablo | February 13, 2008 4:47 PM
My wife is not very happy with gravity right now, after falling down an breaking her arm this weekend...
Posted by: Budbear | February 13, 2008 4:55 PM
Long time lurker here. I'm just wondering if Mr. Stein was the writer of the "I am not a crook" speech. Just wondering. It just seems so... consistent.
Posted by: Kseniya | February 13, 2008 4:58 PM
Be of good cheer!
Gravity is a pessimistic theory (I dunno about you, but it really brings me down) and one day will be supplanted by something that actually works.
And LOL @ Sastra for her difficulty in maintaining a state of gravity. :-D
Posted by: stogoe | February 13, 2008 5:08 PM
Budbear, Ben Stein was a Nixon speechwriter, but I don't know if that one was his.
Posted by: Skemono | February 13, 2008 5:08 PM
And here's some more!
Posted by: Robert M. | February 13, 2008 5:35 PM
If they think Evolution is pessimistic, obviously they haven't thought things through! Let's look at ID: if an intelligence was powerful enough to create us, then surely it is powerful enough to destroy us! What if it/he/she/they decide(s) to send us a little virus a la Ebola (or a flood, why the hell not?) to get rid of us? What could we do? We're doomed, that's what we are!
Now I feel depressed...
Posted by: G | February 13, 2008 5:46 PM
I think a fitting punishment for this type of anti-scientific cretin would be to get a nice - albeit large - case of MRSA...and being sure to treat it with penicillin.
Posted by: Duff | February 13, 2008 5:58 PM
I suggest a contest between religion and science....Oops, I forgot Galileo and all the other guys.
Posted by: Kevin | February 13, 2008 5:59 PM
On the Origin... just imagine if you had to repeat this name in full every time you said it:
Johann Gambolputty de von Ausfern- schplenden- schlitter- crasscrenbon- fried- digger- dingle- dangle- dongle- dungle- burstein- von- knacker- thrasher- apple- banger- horowitz- ticolensic- grander- knotty- spelltinkle- grandlich- grumblemeyer- spelterwasser- kurstlich- himbleeisen- bahnwagen- gutenabend- bitte- ein- nürnburger- bratwustle- gerspurten- mitz- weimache- luber- hundsfut- gumberaber- shönedanker- kalbsfleisch- mittler- aucher von Hautkopft of Ulm.
Posted by: Zeno | February 13, 2008 6:07 PM
Kevin, I'm pretty sure you meant "schönendanker" in there, to say nothing of the fact that many musicolologists consider the plethora of hyphens to be spurious, claiming that Johann preferred to sign his last name without them. The claim, of course, is difficult to determine unambiguously, because there are few surviving copies of his signature and it is believed that he generally avoided giving autographs.
Posted by: The other Dan from Milwaukee | February 13, 2008 6:23 PM
@3: copying blindly from Wikipedia, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meme, third paragraph ---
"Memeticists argue that the memes most beneficial to their hosts will not necessarily survive; rather, those memes that replicate the most effectively spread best, which allows for the possibility that successful memes may prove detrimental to their hosts."
So what we have here is a wrong idea that is very effective at spreading itself.
Posted by: jeh | February 13, 2008 6:32 PM
Maybe Ben Stein's next project could be to look at the exercise of academic or personal freedom at Bible Colleges or so-called Christian universities.
It doesn't take much for either faculty, staff, or students to get Expelled! at these institutions. We're not talking seven deadly sins, heresy, or blasphemy--no we're talking about something usually a lot more trivial. Some examples that I have personal knowledge of: (1) an editor of the student newspaper being asked to leave because he asked a legitimate question about student behavior in an editorial--and when we refused to retract it, he was Expelled! (2) a faculty member (a really excellent teacher) was Expelled! because he refused to rein in his "uppity" wife who believed in something called equal rights for women, (3) a wonderful , caring young woman was Rejected! [Expelled! before even starting] because she admitted on her application that she had been able to survive an abusive marriage and was now divorced--which to the college meant she was a potential temptress (apparently she had tasted on the forbidden fruit, so she would be insatiable and lead many young men astray).
On the other hand, if you were the child of an administrator at the college, and you were a complete hell-raiser or jerk--breaking every rule that bound others--you were NOT Expelled! You were Tolerated! But if you didn't have filial ties to an administrator, and broke even the most minor rules, then you were maybe Warned!, but much more likely Expelled!
There are plenty of other examples that can be found on the web. That stench coming from Expelled!--it's the smell of hypocrisy.
Posted by: SLPage | February 13, 2008 6:43 PM
As an interesting and telling aside, see what the subtitle of this website is:
http://www.kkk.com/
Hint: it doesn't mention Darwin
Posted by: rick | February 13, 2008 7:19 PM
What a relief. In checking the Expelled web site, I found that the comments following Stein's rant were so intelligently critical, on the whole. With the exception of a handful of totally ignorant comments by anti-Darwinists, the majority of comments pointed out the inconsistencies of Stein's approach. All is not lost. 8-)
Posted by: C. Claire | February 13, 2008 7:22 PM
I haven't had any 404 errors for the blog link, perhaps because I have the Firefox extension RefControl installed, with the referrer setting 'Default for sites not listed' set to 'Forge' (for 3rd Party requests only).
Posted by: raatrani | February 13, 2008 7:22 PM
@134
I now feel filthy. Honestly, that was one of the more disturbing taglines I've come across.
Posted by: ngong | February 13, 2008 7:41 PM
A Nixon speechwriter, a gang of lawyers, and a movie critic (Medved). These are the earnest, truth-seeking voices of optimism that "intelligent design" gives us?
Posted by: dogmeatib | February 13, 2008 7:42 PM
Socialism is a "decadent (and presumably pessimistic) theory" that eventually gave way to theories that worked?
Have they looked at ... oh, say, EUROPE???
Socialism:A theory or system of social organization that advocates the vesting of the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution, of capital, land, etc., in the community as a whole.
2. procedure or practice in accordance with this theory.
3. (in Marxist theory) the stage following capitalism in the transition of a society to communism, characterized by the imperfect implementation of collectivist principles.
These are the same folks who argue that universal healthcare is "socialized medicine" and then point to Europe, while exaggerating flaws within their systems, and insist that our "if you can play, you can stay" medical system works better. How can you possibly condemn something as socialist, point to functioning examples, and then claim that socialism has failed?
Posted by: MS | February 13, 2008 7:44 PM
I just read Alan Brandt's The Cigarette Century (sure to rile you up and spike your blood pressure, especially if cigarettes have killed someone close to you, like they did my dad a few years ago). I was struck by the similarity of some (by no means all) of the tactics used by the tobacco industry and the creationism/ID movement.
Two in particular jumped out at me:
1) The tobacco companies dismissed mountains of compelling evidence because scientists and researchers couldn't completely answer every single question raised in the research or explain every single link in the causal chain. They demanded a level of proof much higher than required for virtually any other field of inquiry.
2) They generated a "controversy" where none really existed by calling on people with some scientific credentials (occasionally very impressive ones) who expressed their skepticism or even outright disbelief in the idea that cigarettes caused lung cancer and other diseases. Left conveniently unmentioned were the facts that few of the skeptics, however impressive their credentials in their own fields of study, had expertise in relevant disciplines and that virtually none of them had conducted any research into the matter. The actual researchers were virtually unanimous in their conclusions as early as the mid 50s. Essentially the only researchers denying the link between cigarettes and disease were those in the employ of the tobacco industry.
I think the parallels with the creationism/ID movement are pretty obvious.
Posted by: Roger Scott | February 13, 2008 8:15 PM
Superb, PZ, superb. I don't know how you do it. Do you get ANY sleep?
Posted by: 386sx | February 13, 2008 8:33 PM
Author of The God Delusion Richard Dawkins has stated that Darwin's evolution theory has provided atheists with "intellectual fulfillment."
Big deal so does every other discovery in the universe. The planets aren't pushed around by magic puppies anymore. Insects don't "poof" to life from out of the mud anymore. Big yahoo.
"Darwin's evolution theory, blah blah blah." Boy those guys don't like Darwin very much, do they? "Darwin this, Darwin that, blah blah Darwin, blah."
Posted by: Node of Evil | February 13, 2008 8:41 PM
As a religious person who thinks "Intelligent Design" is useless junk, I feel like part of the their agenda is to reign in other religious people. I get that vibe from reading their stuff; sure they're arguing for ID to be taught in schools, but implicit in that argumet is that religious people all accept intelligent design. They do not, and I'd love to make a documentary about all of the various people I know who are scientists, who are religious, and who think pseudoscience like this is nonsense. There's a great essay on the supposed dichotomy between science and religion in an older Bible commentary I have on my bookshelf at home (published by Cambridge, I believe). The main purpose of the essay is dispel the myth that these two things must be in conflict, or that you have to believe in crank theories like ID if you're religious. I think there's a lot of jockeying going on right now in many religions where the neanderthals are trying to woo those who are new to their faith, or who may not currently have the experience or knowledge to understand the debate. Those of us who are religious and support modern science ought to be aware of those influences and stand ready to counter them when possible.
Posted by: 386sx | February 13, 2008 9:07 PM
There's a great essay on the supposed dichotomy between science and religion in an older Bible commentary I have on my bookshelf at home (published by Cambridge, I believe). The main purpose of the essay is dispel the myth that these two things must be in conflict, or that you have to believe in crank theories like ID if you're religious.
Of coarse they don't have to be in conflict. Just stick to what the science says literally. And then just use some of your fancier allegoricals and metaphoricals (at your whim's desire and with no rhyme nor reason other than to kiss science's butt) with the religion stuff, so that the religion stuff says the same thing as the literal science stuff says. There you go, no conflict at all.
Posted by: Leonard Hatred | February 13, 2008 9:11 PM
On a possible unexpected (and entirely unwarranted - I am, after all, an Oxford student) note, I'm continually pleased by your emphatic use of the word "wanker" to describe your opponents. It's a great word. More Americans should use it, definitely.
Keep up the good work!
Posted by: John B. Sandlin | February 13, 2008 9:12 PM
As I put up on my blog - the Producers of that movie are not telling the truth. They've likely willfully misconstrued as much about evolution as they think they can get away with. They went to far.
JBS
Posted by: LisaJ | February 13, 2008 9:30 PM
I am really interested to see what the response is to this movie when it comes out. I wonder if anyone will even go see it. What an idiot Ben Stein is, he just looks completely retarded on that website of theirs. I'm sure this has been commented on already, but the blog entry shows up if you go to their site on your own, it just doesn't work when you link through this site. haha, someone's a little intimidated by the 'Big Scientists' I think!
Posted by: Turcano | February 13, 2008 10:01 PM
I've been of the same persuasion for quite some time. Richard Dawkins may be the Disco Institute's favorite whipping boy, but I get the feeling that they feel much more threatened by people like Kenneth Miller; theistic evolutionists undermine by their very existence the notion that evolution is inherently antithetical to religion and/or morality, which is their primary talking point. As far as I can tell, they think that TEs are either misguided or are closet creationists, but both of those options are demonstrably false.
Posted by: Citizen Z | February 13, 2008 10:31 PM
"EXPELLED: No Intelligence Allowed" is a new film that will open your eyes to the scientific evidence that challenges Darwin's lurid theory of life."
Man, the posters just make themselves.
Posted by: Kimpatsu | February 13, 2008 10:40 PM
...we don't judge the validity of a theory on whether it's conclusions are what we want to hear...
PZ, write out 1,000 times, "I will NOT misuse the apostrophe"!
Posted by: Kristine | February 13, 2008 10:44 PM
Thanks for that, Citizen Z! I envision Expelled turning into a party-DVD [pirated] with grad students yelling and throwing toilet paper at the screen.
Thing is, the creationists are so whiny. They're so uncool. They just can't do it right. Michael Moore, while annoying, is at least funny. These people aren't. They're so serious and earnest and, well, so FUCKING GRATING that eventually they're going to turn everyone but themselves off.
I mean, everyone loves a winner. Nobody likes a loser story - "They're being mean to us because we read the Buy-Bull, wah, wah, academic freedom, homeschooling, sob!" Give me a break.
Posted by: Ira Fews | February 13, 2008 10:50 PM
Forget the cavalcade of throaty lies on that absurdity of a site. Anyone who reads the phrase "Big Science" and does not immediately burst into laughter isn't thinking right; anyone who reads it and somberly thinks "Yeah!" is a fifth-degree fucktard.
Wow.
Posted by: Nullifidian | February 13, 2008 10:51 PM
The fact-value distinction is not rocket science. I grasped it at 17. I don't get what's up with these IDiots/Cretinists that keep bringing up this tired "evolution = racism" nonsense that is easily refuted by someone who didn't fall asleep in his very first college lecture.
Then again, I didn't attend Bible University.
And therein lies the problem. To creationists, there are no morally neutral facts. Instead, this world was created by the will of God, humankind was created in the image of God, and anything that is unfortunate in this world is representative of the post-Fall world, and can be taken as visible proof of humankind's perverse, sin nature.
Naturally, we who are scientists (or apprentice scientists, like myself) have a problem with this kind of thinking, because we are not trained under the unifying concept of mediaeval Scholasticism. It really is a case of two wholly incompatible worldviews. It's not that one can't do science and religion, but one cannot do mediaeval thinking and modernism, including modern science, in any form.
Posted by: LisaJ | February 13, 2008 10:52 PM
#149: that was hilarious! Well done. Thanks for that :)
Posted by: Mister DNA | February 13, 2008 10:59 PM
Holy shit, Citizen Z, that poster is awesome.
Great job.
Posted by: J | February 13, 2008 11:11 PM
Re: barron's post at #14:
Priceless. May I suggest picturing Will Ferrell delivering these lines in the "Little Cletus" sequence from Zoolander?
And hey, I never got my Big Science membership card. What's the deal?
Posted by: Mike from Ottawa | February 14, 2008 12:18 AM
Heck, I'm a Christian and Darwin's evolution theory has provided me with intellectual fulfilment (well, part of such intellectual fulfilment as I can lay claim to). The insights of evolutionary theory fill me with a sense of awe, wonder, delight and joy. The thought that the elaborate structure of a tree I walk past is the product of simply laws of physics and chemistry coupled with the subtle process of evolution is a constant source of wonder to me.
I react very negatively to creationists of any stripe (and by 'react negatively I mean I want to give them a solid kick - I don't do it, but I want to) because with their narrow, blinkered, incurious view of the world, they'd deprive people of the joy I take from such imperfect understanding as I have of how evolution has shaped our natural world and would have deprived me of it if they could have.
Pretty clearly the nitwits who promote crap like 'Expelled: the Movie So Bad They Have to Bribe People to Watch It' are entirely incapable of intellectual fulfilment of any type or degree.
Posted by: Badger3k | February 14, 2008 12:28 AM
#147 - considering that they have a push going on to get churches and schools to force students to go to the movie says w huge amount about what they think their chances are. Apparently the movie is so spectacular that they can't let the audience evolve, but it has to be intelligently designed.
Posted by: Kseniya | February 14, 2008 12:36 AM
Nicely put, Mike from Ottawa.
Posted by: Shigella | February 14, 2008 1:16 AM
Citizen Z, I laughed until my sides hurt at your "revised" movie poster. Awesome.
I'm getting reeeal tired of IDiots resorting to ad hominem attacks on Darwin in lieu of presenting the elusive "scientific evidence" they claim to have (where? Hidden in a pickle jar at Area 51?) for intelligent design. They obviously don't understand that pathetic whiny little rants like this one demonstrate exactly how vacuous that claim really is.
Posted by: JMP | February 14, 2008 2:46 AM
Try pointing at Ben's face on the expelled banner. Arrogant to scared in under a second, that's how rock solid ID is.
Posted by: Lilly de Lure | February 14, 2008 5:54 AM
Mike from Ottowa said:
Ah, more evidence that the evil Darwinist conspiracy preverts the morality of decent religious youth. ;-)
Oh, and Citizen Z, Awesome poster - do you have any more?
Posted by: DiscoveredJoys | February 14, 2008 7:13 AM
As a suggestion for a title of a counter film to 'Expelled', how about 'Groundhog Dei: No repeated inanity allowed'?
Posted by: Michelle | February 14, 2008 10:33 AM
When you want to destroy something, you can take any sentence or phrasing out of context and turn it to your advantage.
That's what these assholes did. The part of how they messed up the "darwinian state" thing made me choke
Posted by: Jim | February 14, 2008 11:23 AM
After reading all the comments here, it appears that the main purpose of this blog is to allow members of the PZ Myers' amen chorus to compete for "The Most Insufferable Ass in the Blogosphere" award. Granted, PZ is a hard act to follow in that regard, but the authors of the following "arguments" merit at least honorable mention....
- "Bastards. Complete fucking fact-twisting, lying, douchebag fucktard bastards."
- "How can people be so utterly ignorant??"
- "Yep, they've either been hacked or have realised too late their own babyish stupidity."
- "(S)ince they really are ignorant slobs, they know as little about language and history as they do about science."
- "It really is depressing quite how ignorant and deluded some people can be."
- "What a worthless bunch of fuckwits."
- "I hate these slimy, little fuckers."
- "They aren't just stupid, they're also sinister."
- "Ben Stein and his cronies should re-read the fucking Bill of Rights. Is it the stupidity that makes them creationists, or creationism that makes them stupid?"
- "Self-pitying, lying, bigoted, anti-science dickheads."
- "Those theistards need to go back to science AND history class."
I'm particularly impressed by those who use variations of the "f" word, a manner of speaking that exhibits the height of wit and erudition. Keep up the good work, boys and girls. I'm sure that the Pharyngula group grope must give you some emotional satisfaction, but the likelihood that you'll persuade skeptics that Darwinism is (in the words of Darwinian philosopher Michael Ruse) a "fact, fact, FACT!!!" is nil. Since you show no respect for the opinions of skeptics, you command no respect from them. All the preaching to the choir and adolscent name-calling that goes on here ensures that Pharyngula will win no converts to the Church of Darwin. As I said, keep up the good work. With friends like you, Darwinism needs no enemies.
Posted by: Jim | February 14, 2008 11:29 AM
WARNING! If your critical argument is so FLAWED that its persuasiveness relies on the use of font and style changes like ITALICS and BOLD to connect emotionally with what sympathetic readers already believe, then, it is highly likely that your argument is CRAP.
Posted by: moon_grrl | February 14, 2008 11:38 AM
There's no reason to respect the opinions of skeptics when they're flat-out wrong, Jim.
Posted by: Glen Davidson | February 14, 2008 11:43 AM
Yes, they're a bunch of hypocritical censorious weasels, who, naturally, don't allow people to comment about how they censor out critical posts. That's why I don't post there any more, for once it is clear that they can and will prevent the appearing of any argument that they don't like, one realizes that one is at a great disadvantage in trying to make sense to them.
So yes, they're whining about "being expelled," while just about anything can be written on this and many other "Darwinist" forums, and they protect their especial lies.
In the spirit of freedom, I'll note that Jim is a STUPID FUCKTARD with nothing worth saying. The nanny strikes, telling people what droning pedants have always claimed, that there is no percentage in obscenity and profanity. FUCK THAT and all the BULLSHIT that such righteous bigots spew in their never-ending attempts to legislate that LIARS should never be called on their mendacity (I almost never capitalize like I did in this paragraph, but thought I would for granny Jimmy there).
Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/2kxyc7
Posted by: negentropyeater | February 14, 2008 11:48 AM
Jim,
I have some sympathy for what you are saying. I too dislike some of the name-calling, but I filter through. And I still prefer Pharyngula to most other blogs, as there are many good commenters here, and I learn a lot.
If you can name me better blogs, please do so, and I'll look at them.
As far as persuading you that Darwinism is a fact, I don't know, but a good start would be if you could explain what you consider Darwinism to be.
Then, maybe we can have a discussion.
Posted by: October Mermaid | February 14, 2008 11:53 AM
I didn't know I was supposed to be winning converts for a church or whatever. I'm way too lazy for that.
Posted by: Matt Penfold | February 14, 2008 12:03 PM
"Since you show no respect for the opinions of skeptics, you command no respect from them. All the preaching to the choir and adolscent name-calling that goes on here ensures that Pharyngula will win no converts to the Church of Darwin. As I said, keep up the good work. With friends like you, Darwinism needs no enemies."
Jim,
You seem to be harbouring the illusion that respect does not need to be earned.
If you really think that lying and ignorance are things deserving of respect then all I can say to you is go fuck yourself.
And just so you are in no doubt, I do not have any respect for you and the insult is quite intentional.
Posted by: Jim | February 14, 2008 1:12 PM
Hey y'all,
The "argument" I was referring to was the original post PZ referenced. It was directed at the writers of that nonsense crap. The absurdity of their argument is well documented above. I hoped to draw attention to the weak and lazy literary style they used. Sorry for the confusion.
Posted by: Matt Penfold | February 14, 2008 1:31 PM
"Hey y'all,
The "argument" I was referring to was the original post PZ referenced. It was directed at the writers of that nonsense crap. The absurdity of their argument is well documented above. I hoped to draw attention to the weak and lazy literary style they used. Sorry for the confusion. "
Sorry then Jim, I guess I have exceeded my daily exposure limits to stupid fundy crap.
Posted by: Jim | February 14, 2008 1:45 PM
negentropyeater: "If you can name me better blogs, please do so, and I'll look at them."
Although it's a talk forum, not a blog, you might try OriginsTalk at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/OriginsTalk/
Because the forum is moderated, it has a much more adult tone than Pharyngula.
negentropyeater: "As far as persuading you that Darwinism is a fact, I don't know, but a good start would be if you could explain what you consider Darwinism to be. Then, maybe we can have a discussion."
If you're sincere in this, go to the OriginsTalk forum and search for message #13,617. In that message (which marks my entry into the forum), I explain what I mean by "Darwinism."
If you'd like to talk, join the forum. I'm done with Pharyngula.
Posted by: Rey Fox | February 14, 2008 1:47 PM
Jim #172: Are you Jim 165 or Jim 166? And would one of you please change your handle to Jimmy Jimjim to avoid confusion?
Posted by: Matt Penfold | February 14, 2008 1:48 PM
"Because the forum is moderated, it has a much more adult tone than Pharyngula."
I thought you were complaining about the adult nature of Pharyngula earlier. The word "fuck" is kind of adult in nature you know.
Posted by: Matt Penfold | February 14, 2008 1:51 PM
If the word "fuck" is ok on the BBC after 9pm then who I am I to disagree ?
To quote the opening of "Four Weddings and a Funeral".
"Fuck, Fuck, Fuck, Fuckity Fuck Fuck. Fuck. Fucking Fuck".
Posted by: MAJeff | February 14, 2008 1:52 PM
If you'd like to talk, join the forum. I'm done with Pharyngula.
*sniff, sniff*
Posted by: Rey Fox | February 14, 2008 1:55 PM
"I'm done with Pharyngula."
Yeah, us Darwinists are just so MEAN to liars like the Expelled people. Cry me a river.
Posted by: Glen Davidson | February 14, 2008 2:07 PM
Stupidity is actually not an opinion, dumbfuck, and it ought not to be respected. Thus I don't respect your stupidity and dishonesty.
As for name-calling, your hypocrisy is intense as you write of the "Church of Darwin". Actually, if you assholes could even begin to deal respectfully and honesty with the evidence, we wouldn't resort to the language you do understand. You can't and don't understand science, but you do understand words like "dumbfuck," so rather than deal with your tendentious dishonesty, I'd rather call you the dumbfuck that you are.
Do let the door slam on your ass as you leave, Jim-bo. We made it close especially hard (with uncomfortable angles) for idiots like you as you whinge about how we disrespect your tedious and stupid lies.
Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/2kxyc7
Posted by: Kagehi | February 14, 2008 2:25 PM
Jim. Like most religious fools you seem to think the wording or a message is more important than the content. Worse, you seem to think calling people liars, when they lie, or other such things constitutes "unreasonable" statements. I agree that too many of the people that jumped over there to comment opted to simply call you fools, liars, etc., rather than refuting any points. I even slipped a it into that myself. By FSM damn it, when someone posts a stupid piece of gibberish on their site, which contains not one sentence that isn't inaccurate, intentionally altered to make the original person look bad, actually contradicts their own position (which you only need the damn title for in this case, given its comparing someone that thought black people could be civilized to someone that *you* thought was better, but thought black people where so inferior they shouldn't vote, involve themselves in legal issues or marry anyone not the same color), and all of it is the same useless BS we have heard from the same sources for years, debunked a million times, provided direct refutations to from historical documents and the writings of people that either authored the comments or witnessed the events, well.. what kind of reaction would you expect from people seeing the same useless BS again? At some point rational attempts to correct the blatant ignorance, intentional dishonesty and just plain clueless thinking of such people is exhausted and all you are left with is, "@$@#! Not #$#$$%# again!"
Congratulations, having failed to present one valid fact, one scrap of evidence for your position, one historically accurate statement, one single correctly attributed and complete quote, and having spent absurd amounts of time trying to convince people you are right about *anything*, you can claim the moral high ground on one, and only one, position. You don't call us fucking stupid, asshole, morons, but some of us have reached the point where logic, reason and truth are so obviously incapable of penetrating the morass of bullshit you people babble all the time that we, who usually go to careful lengths to make clear and precise statements are left with nothing but, "How the hell can these people be so fucking stupid?
If truth, history, fact, valid science or *anything else* non-imaginary was determined by how nice the people stating it was, instead of on something far sillier, like provability, you would be the hands down winners. Thankfully, its not, and even you own fracking God supposedly looks down on liars, con artists, people that bare false witness to the facts, and all the other idiocy you people use 24/7 to push your useless guesses about biology (I won't deign to dirty the word theory by using it instead), your desire for what history *should have* been, or your need to be right, as though you had any of it even vaguely right, instead of having to bend everything you touch into a pretzel to make the ignorant and gullible *think* you are telling them something important.
Driving your opponent to the point where they are at a complete loss for words in the face of your ignorance and incompetence, and they are only left with silence or cussing, is not a sign you won, its just a sign that you are too far gone for rational arguments and you should be standing on a street corner with a dirty coat and a sign saying, "Repent! An evil conspiracy is preventing my truth from being seen!" At least then you *might* get enough sympathy from us to receive spare change and a look of pity.
Posted by: Owlmirror | February 14, 2008 4:39 PM
Jim points to OriginsTalk as having his definition of "Darwinism". Well, the direct link is here:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/OriginsTalk/message/13617
Where he says:
In other words, by "Darwinism" he means the entire modern science of evidence-supported evolutionary biology.
I am disinclined to join OriginsTalk to dispute the misconceptions expressed, though. The main page says:
As much as I actually agree that some of the violent and vituperative language occasionally seen here is excessive and sometimes counter-productive, I think I prefer a more open forum to one where comments are so carefully controlled. The intelligent comments on Pharyngula have been worth having to cope with the outbursts of anger.
Posted by: Jim | February 14, 2008 4:47 PM
Just so there's no confusion upon my departure, messages 165 and 174 are mine; messages 166 and 172 were posted by another "Jim."
Also, in an apparent attempt to gild his lily in "The Most Insufferable Ass in the Blogosphere" competition, Glen D. wrote: "I'll note that Jim is a STUPID FUCKTARD with nothing worth saying. The nanny strikes, telling people what droning pedants have always claimed, that there is no percentage in obscenity and profanity. FUCK THAT and all the BULLSHIT that such righteous bigots spew in their never-ending attempts to legislate that LIARS should never be called on their mendacity (I almost never capitalize like I did in this paragraph, but thought I would for granny Jimmy there)."
Similarly, Matt P. wrote: "If you really think that lying and ignorance are things deserving of respect then all I can say to you is go fuck yourself."
One can only marvel at such virtuosity in infantile argumentation.
Posted by: windy | February 14, 2008 4:48 PM
It's there, but it doesn't seem like much of an accomplishment since most comments are mocking the original post anyway :)
Posted by: Rey Fox | February 14, 2008 4:50 PM
Wank wank wank.
Posted by: Glen Davidson | February 14, 2008 5:04 PM
Shit-fuck, you dishonestly quote-mined some of my comments, which I have supported here and elsewhere. Rather than dealing with any sort of the considerable support and substance I have given for calling the Expelled people lazy slobs, and not only stupid but sinister, you merely bitched and whined about it, without even acknowledging the context.
You are a stupid fucktard. All of the evidence points to it. But of course you ripped the bit I wrote out of context yet again, apparently in a bid to show that there isn't the slightest bit of honesty in your slimy soul.
"Infantile argumentation," indeed. You're such a fuck-minded fool that you didn't even begin to make any kind of argumentation at all, rather you began with dishonest quote-mining while ignoring all substance, and you end in the same dishonest vein with which you began.
Here is about the worst insult you can receive, and you completely deserve it--you have the honesty and intelligence of an IDist.
Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/2kxyc7
Posted by: raven | February 14, 2008 5:21 PM
For Jim the moronic troll.
The reason why the rhetoric is heated here is simple. There aren't words in the English language to express our contempt for the intellectually and morally bankrupt liars of Expelled and the DI crew.
Most derogatory words have become devalued by overuse. Still people feel like they have to try.
If Stein and his cohort of lying religious bigots weren't completely dishonest and stupid, it wouldn't be necessary. And BTW, when you grow a brain and some ethics and move out from under your bridge on the information superhighway, people won't call you a moronic troll anymore. This could be as soon as a decade but will probably be after the sun goes nova.
Posted by: AL | February 14, 2008 5:48 PM
So Jim, what's your point? That people who utilize profanity and get angry are necessarily wrong about the positions they hold? That people who are nice and polite are necessarily right about theirs? Sorry, but rationality doesn't work that way. This is so obvious that I'm not sure why it needs to be explained to you, but I guess you're too busy focusing on formalities like civility and etiquette that you forget to actually think about the substance of what you say before you blab about it.
Posted by: negentropyeater | February 14, 2008 6:33 PM
Jim,
don't worry too much about the rude words, these people don't really mean what they write, they are just challenging you. It's a bit strange at first, but it works.
Or at least it works for me.
It forces you to think more and to try to make comments that will not warrant these insults. Because, believe me, if you express an opinion which has some merit, even if people might disagree, you won't get that many insults. Because many Pharyngulites are, contrary to what you might think, very well educated.
I checked some of your posts over at the forum you mentionned. We don't seem to be that far apart, or at least, from where I was about one year ago.
You seem to be a well educated person who is searching for answers. But are you willing to challenge your preconceptions ? You can do two things, first is leave Pharyngula and not bother anymore. Second is try to do better, and dig more profoundly into an understanding of what is meant with Evolution.
Ask questions, you'll get some answers, and you can think about them. Make statements with no evidence to back them up, and you'll get insults.
And don't forget one thing, saying that Evolution is a fact (what you call Darwinism) just means that life on earth really evolved according to that framework. It doesn't mean that there be no God, but it makes it a serious possibility. Sometimes, I'm still hoping that there might be a God, an as yet undiscovered evidence, but I admit that even if there are gaps in our understanding of the Universe, and all the details of the emergence and evolution of life on earth are not known, these gaps are no evidence for the existence of God.
ID pretends it has found a great scientific method in order to detect those evidences. Wouldn't it be great if it were true ? That'd be the most important discovery of humankind. Why wouldn't 99.9% of the scientific community proclame the genius of it's discoverers, Behe, Dembski et al? I mean, think about it, is it because those dogmatic Scientists don't want there to be a God, or simply, because the framework suggested by ID is worthless ?
What do you think, what makes you so certain that ID has scientific value ?
Posted by: David Marjanović, OM | February 14, 2008 7:48 PM
I think what the kooks mean by "pessimism" is their confusion of evolution and atheism -- the latter being pessimistic in not believing in a life after death. (Never mind the Sumerian afterlife: everyone's shadow, regardless of faith or works, goes to the permanently dark underworld to eat mud and live in depression for all eternity.)
It's called ignorance.
Show me that there's a purpose. I bet you can't. I think "what is the purpose of life" is a wrong question, like "why did Napoleon cross the Mississippi".
Hey, they're right.
It's called ignorance.
------------------------
Jim, are you the one who once said the Intelligent Designer was ineffable?
Anyway, you said "Darwinian philosopher". That's a contradiction in terms. Biology is a science, not a philosophy.
Posted by: David Marjanović, OM | February 14, 2008 7:55 PM
No, they really do mean it -- for quite understandable reasons.
Where "merit" is a synonym of "evidence".
That's nice of you. To me he seems more like a poorly educated person who believes he already has all answers, and doesn't even get the idea that he might not have all of them. -- But, Jim, you're welcome to prove me wrong.
Posted by: Owlmirror | February 14, 2008 8:12 PM
I don't think it's a contradiction, exactly. But it does appear to be a confusion of methodological naturalism with metaphysical naturalism.
Jim never did offer any sort of meaningful response to the long list of scientific refutations of his confusion in the "Wells lies. Again." thread from Sept 2007. Shrug.
Posted by: QueenoftheHarpies | February 14, 2008 8:25 PM
I find it very interesting that they keep talking about how out of date the 150 year old theory is, but their claims are based on something 2000 years old. And it's contained in a book, which has been proven wrong on many points through science.
Posted by: negentropyeater | February 14, 2008 9:12 PM
David,
"That's nice of you."
It's just that I too, not so long ago, had similar problems. I wanted so badly that there be a God, because I was afraid to die, that I was hoping that Science might help to justify my need (faith).
It took me a while to understand that it doesn't work that way, that it only leads to intellectual dishonesty.
I'm still not an Atheist, probably will never be. But I now admit that all we can only know, is through the scientific method, and that means methodological naturalism.
The rest is just hope.
Posted by: jeh | February 15, 2008 1:45 AM
Here's a good example of Expelled! in practice.
Dembski to UD contributor: "That said, I don't like your tone, so unless you find another way in, you won't be posting at UD any longer."
Posted by: Jim | February 15, 2008 8:39 AM
Some afterthoughts....
For negentropyeater: For further discussion of what I mean by "Darwinism," go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/OriginsTalk/message/15423
For David M: No, I never said that Intelligent Design is "ineffable." You must be thinking of someone else.
For Kagehi: No, I don't think "the wording of a message is more important than the content," but I do think that it's possible to converse with cordiality and respect. To point out the obvious, that's a skill that many of the Pharyngula posters (including the head man, PZ) have never acquired. I'm actually doing them a service by pointing out how harmful their adolsecent argumentation is to their own position, but if they want to keep giving people reasons to ignore them, so be it. Thoughts expressed in offensive ways tend to be thoughts ignored (except, perhaps, by those of a like mind). Whatever merits Darwinism might have, the hostile defense mounted for it on Pharyngula does more to harm it than to help it. I'm sure Darwin would be appalled by the polemics of his modern-day followers.
For AL: I neither said nor suggested that "people who utilize profanity and get angry are necessarily wrong about the positions they hold" or that "people who are nice and polite are necessarily right about theirs." I was simply saying that people who routinely resort to profanity and name-calling come across as insufferable asses, in detriment to their own "arguments." These are the kind of people who presume that those who don't agree with them are, ipso facto, ignoramuses, liars, and idiots. If they want to inflict harm on their own position by expressing themselves with adolesecent immaturity, I say "keep up the good work."
To Owlmirror: If you think I provided "no meaningful response to the long list of scientific refutations of (my)confusion in the 'Wells lies. Again.' thread from Sept 2007." I invite you (and others who might be interested) to reread that thread. I think a fair-minded reading of the things I posted would show that I made a lot of meaningful responses. That you might disagree with what I said doesn't mean that my responses weren't meaningful.
Posted by: Glen Davidson | February 15, 2008 12:16 PM
Looks like Jim will never be able to support any of his idiotic prejudices, so enough of that moron.
Here's an interesting piece on Stein's idiocy, not so much interesting because it adds to the responses given, but because it's from the Britannica Blog:
I like it when Britannica (blog) calls Stein an "ignoramus," albeit restricted to science and related topics (he could have added at least several more), since that's the only reasonable conclusion to be made re that blithering anti-freedom operative.
Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/2kxyc7
Posted by: JIMC | February 15, 2008 12:30 PM
No it doesn't. The theory is just fine and very useful in scientific circles. It is widely misunderstood by goobers who attack it in a far more aggressive manner than anything said on this blog.
I would hope you are consistent in the same type of commentary to those who attempt to destroy science in the USA and bring real substantial harm to the nation.
Posted by: Rey Fox | February 15, 2008 12:42 PM
You sure are taking a long time to leave, Jimjim.
Posted by: Kagehi | February 15, 2008 1:25 PM
Precisely, just as Jimc says, the number, extent, anger and bad language, not to mention often obvious insanity, of the endless list of people that attack this site and Evolution, and then ban people, even when being civil, from theirs for disagreement makes our occasional use of colorful words to emphasize a point makes us look like saints by comparison. Mind you, if your sole criteria is whether or not we take some stupid Protestant mistranslation of the demand that people don't curse to be accurate, their is often more insanity than profanity from the wackos. After all, you can't get into heaven by being *clear* about your views, you have to use convoluted and absurd wording to express your craziness.
Oh, and in case Jim is still around, here is why your, and others, hyped up reaction to so called profanity is BS. In the original Hebrew, "profane", meant, "anything not done in the worship of God, including sleeping, eating, etc.", if it wasn't done in church and in praise of God, it was profane (i.e., of the earth, not heaven), so profanity, as everyone uses the word today, is just nonsense, of course its profanity, it doesn't praise god, but then neither does listening to the latest album, watching TV, or any other damn thing that you do outside a church. "Cursing" and "taking the lords name in vain", on the other hand, specifically referred to either demanding, and or trying to cajole and/or bribe God into hurting others or giving *you* things, because *you* thought God should given them to you, rather than being satisfied with what God wanted.
Now, I consider the later quite useless. If I believed it, then I would be horrified at the people that insist that one my death bed I would commit such a blasphemy by begging god for more life, and I would be even more horrified by how much time everyone around me spent begging god to smite people they don't like, give them things they think they need, force other people to vote for the officials they want elected, or the billions of other blasphemies committed on a daily basis, all because some ass Protestant, back when the church was founded, decided to ignore the original meaning, and instead convince everyone to burn people at the stake for calling people dung heaps, or otherwise talking about bodily functions and other "icky" things in reference to the character of other people, possibly even the insane priest that came up with the idea. I still wouldn't be screaming about how calling someone an ass "hurt" their argument, especially when the comments made where appropriately descriptive of their behavior.
Posted by: Owlmirror | February 15, 2008 2:01 PM
Speaking of "inviting to read", in that thread, you were invited to read Kevin Padian's Dover testimony, as well as many other biological resources. Did you ever do so? Have you ever read any book on what you so continually denigrate, modern evolutionary biology?
And one last question... You asserted, in a different thread, that the ID movement was working "to develop the theoretical, logical, evidentiary, and mathematical tools needed to detect actual design in the biosphere"
How nice. Can you point to any specific tool that can in fact be used to detect design in the biosphere?
I have actually thought of one such a metric, but I don't think it would do the ID movement any good whatsoever...
Posted by: JimC | February 15, 2008 2:18 PM
In their defense I don't think they have the translation wrong at all. Others bend the words to make it say what they will but the words are what is written.
I can assure you this is not a ass Protestant position and many ass catholics have it as well.
Posted by: defective robot | February 15, 2008 6:16 PM
Pessimistic? ATHIESTS are pessimistic? Who are the ones on the soap boxes shouting about the death of Western Civilization and the end of the world?
Actual conversation between a presumed pessimist (me) and a presumed optimist (a fundamentalist friend):
Fundamentalist friend: "People begin to die the instant they are born."
Me: "Then why do they grow?"
Fund Friend: "Pardon?"
Me: "You're saying that at the instant of birth, people hurdle toward death, right?"
Fund Friend: "Yes. When cells die they are never reborn."
Me: "That discounts a few observable facts, not the least of which is that an organism needs to actually live before it can die. We are not sprung from the womb fully formed with a set number of cells that instantly hurtle toward death--at conception, cells divide; after birth, people grow. The act of procreation is a mean of insuring that life will continue after we die."
Fund Friend: "Huh. I never thought of it that way."
Me: "That's because you're a solipsistic twit who swallows whole the inherent negativity of ignorant dogma."
OK, I actually added that last part, but everything that proceeded it was (a-not-exactly-verbatim-but-otherwise) accurate.
Posted by: Kagehi | February 15, 2008 11:43 PM
Well, the point JimC is that historically, even if some Catholics would have *wanted* the same meaning and interpretation, the Protestants where the ones that made it the rule of their faith. The Catholics at the time had no formal rule saying that bad language was part of that category of sins, and not just one of an absurd number of sins they babbled about. It was *specifically* the Protestants that stretched the already over used idea of such things being sins and married them to the idea that profane was something other than a synonym for "mundane". Prior to that, most of the religious groups frowned on it, said it was offensive to god, mostly, but didn't equate it with making curses or trying to make demand of their god.
That the original mistranslation was probably from Hebrew to Latin, much like the stupid mess that led to two different words, which we might call spirit and soul (i.e., that which animates and that which defines self), being identical in meaning, is only relevant in that it provided a convenient means to further distort the meaning among people that thought *they* had a better idea what it was supposed to mean that people who based their view of the matter on older forms. You get the same BS today, of course, from all the gibbering fools that insist the KJV is the perfection of the Bible, having not only never read anything earlier than the copy their church handed to them as a child, never mind having a clue what **any** of the original meanings, passages or wording was, for any of it.
Posted by: Douglas Watts | February 16, 2008 3:49 AM
Actually, evolution is the most optimistic theory to explain the origin and existence of many of the very weird, sinister and seemingly sadistic forms of life, ie. weird parasites, Sphex wasps paralyzing caterpillars so they can be eaten alive by wasp larvae, etc. If any intelligent creator deliberately designed and made these creatures, He/She would have to be one sadistic, creepy Jeffrey Dahmer of a Creator. Black Plague anyone?
Posted by: negentropyeater | February 16, 2008 4:25 AM
I wonder how one can associate the words "optimistic" or "pessimistic" with a scientific theory.
When a theory is valid, and does explain the way things really happened, then it is neither optimistic nor pessimistic, it's just, the truth.
So, when talking of Evolution, let's not get into an optimism contest.
Posted by: AL | February 16, 2008 12:00 PM
Yes you did suggest it, and you just did it again! Watch:
In detriment to their arguments? So if you say "2+2=5," and I say "no, 2+2=4, dumbass," you're implying that the dumbass ad hominem somehow defeats the FACT that 2+2=4. Sorry, but once again, rationality doesn't work that way.
No, it is not presumed ipso facto that those who disagree with evolution are ignoramuses, liars or idiots. It's established by observing that they in fact do behave in a manner befitting such labels. If they were ipso facto such, PZ's thread need not be more than one sentence long, but here we have detailed elaborations on why the arguments of the Expelled crowd are wrong. That you choose to gloss over all this so as to make the equivocation that those of us who defend evolution passionately with facts are just as militant and dogmatic as those who defend creationism with fabrication is indicative of your own willful ignorance more than anything else.
Posted by: Keith Douglas | February 16, 2008 1:48 PM
Vic: The "Big Science" thing seems to be yet another example of the fundies coopting the postmodernists/"critical theorists"/"cultural studies" crowd.
Brownian, OM (re: fucktard): Seems that you've stated an individualist version of the Feuerbach-Durkheim thesis that religions duplicate a delayed version of the social structure of their ambient society.
windy: If big hats leads to sexual selection, why does the pope wear one?
MS: The global warming "skeptics" and Holocaust deniers do the same sorts of stuff, too.
Posted by: defective robot | February 16, 2008 2:26 PM
OK, so I just watched the preview of "Expelled." Two glaring things:
1) There was a clip of Richard Dawkins saying [paraphrasing] "As a scientist, I'm hostile to opposing positions." Then cut. It was particularly obvious by the tone of his voice that there was more to the quote than that, but the producers say fit to create their own context. Ironically, of course, the producers don't recognize the manner that Dawkins' quote, in this context, accurately describes their position as well.
2) In voiceover, Stein says something to the effect that he's distressed by the fact that in all other communities but scientific, freedom of speech is a respected freedom. Frankly, I neglected myself to finish the quote (yes, thereby creating my own context, I know, but I was just too pissed to continue), but it was clear by the preamble to that statement that his position is that by denying some doddering "scientists" tenure, scientific and academic communities (and media) were suppressing the free speech of the rebellious ID proponents. Need I point out the simple fact that denying one a venue in which to make a statement is not the same as denying one the right to make that statement. Just ask Bill O'Reilly, who has made a career out of shouting down opposing arguments before cutting te video feed of those who make those arguments. Like it or not, Fox News does NOT owe me the right to broadcast time on their network to refute Bull O'Rightey. I can find my own venue to do so.
So to all those ID morons out there who been "repressed" and denied tenure because of their slippery academics, quit your whining and run to the welcoming arms of the Discovery Institute. They have a nice, warm, welcoming venue for you in which to spew your misguided research.
Posted by: E in Md | February 19, 2008 11:54 AM
Damnit! The Theory of Gravity is too depressing! So I will propose the new theory of Intelligent Falling where in some creator deity uses his time to push stuff down.
Yay! So much better! Now I can justify my useless existence to my own mind!
Posted by: David | February 19, 2008 4:27 PM
It is discouraging that the massive intellect that obviously resides in this community has to resort to juvenile name-calling and personal attacks. The subject matter is easily debunked by you (collectively), yet you continue to berate a single poster for daring to come into your forum with little-to-no argument.
Instead of educating, you belittle. Instead of explaining the faults, you go into tirades of self-righteousness(intended). One can almost see the spittle at the corners of your mouth as you attempt to shout down the uninformed, even as you complain about others doing the same to you. It is unnecessary and uncouth. Respect is not owed to them, but it is owed to yourselves.
ID may be the most idiotic psuedo-argument ever created. It may be the last sanctuary of the religious against the onslaught of modern science. That is hardly an excuse to show your lack of mastery of the language by responding as you have.
A rapier wit so rarely includes words of profanity, and when it does, it is quite pointed (hence the 'rapier'). I don't believe that "fuck-tard" (though somewhat amusing), ever qualifies. I do understand the frustration involved, but personal attacks reduce the writer's message.
The attacks on Stein for being a former speech-writer and actor simply muddy the water, when the facts are a crystal clear stream. I haven't witnessed anywhere that Stein pretends to have credentials he doesn't possess. He is an entertainer, and he is pushing a movie in the same way Michael Moore does - create controversy, collect money. The facts are a sideshow to the main event.
The movie will be the focus of sermons and church get-togethers, they will take field-trips to the movie theater as they did for The Passion of The Christ, and they will deliver to Ben Stein a mountain of cash.
And Ben Stein saw what he had Created, and it was Good (for Ben).
Posted by: Rey Fux | February 19, 2008 4:44 PM
David, with all due respect, fuck you, you fucking fuck. Come back when you have more to fucking say than to fucking whine about our fucking lack of fucking manners. We hear it all the fucking time, every time the fucking same, from some fucking milquetoast who thinks he's a fucking angel. We don't give a fuck. You can get plenty of shit across even when using "profane" language. Fucking A.
Posted by: David | February 19, 2008 4:56 PM
Rey,
I wasn't concerned with manners and it wasn't a request for all to become literary angels. It would be an incredibly dull world if that happened.
I had plenty more to say than that in the post, but you evidently read only a few words.
Thanks for the amusing use of the words in your post, I understand your point. You did not grasp mine.
Posted by: Keith Eaton | February 19, 2008 5:17 PM
"The gang of prevaricators behind Ben Stein's Expelled movie had their own way of celebrating Darwin Day: they wrote a blog post that was a solid wall of lies and nonsense." PZ Myers
You can always detect a wirehead, egomaniac, whose debate skills consist of ad hominem attack, red herring, strawmen, appeals to popularity, and nearly every other form of sophistry and rhetorical fallacy one can find in a standard text on critical thinking. Thus the opening attack paragraph is devoid of any factual statement and nothing more than an extended ad hominem.
continuing......
"In a way, I'm impressed; I'd have to really struggle to write something that was such a dense array of concentrated stupid, but for them, it seems to be a natural talent, allowing them to blithely and effortlessly rattle off a succession of falsehoods without blushing."
More meaningless blather that could have been written by an editor in some nondescript yellow journalism rag in Eastern Europe in the late fifties.
The facts are that the neo-nazi darwin cult in control of Big Science have attempted to elevate the miserly contibutions to science by a manic depressive, bi-polar, recluse to the level of contribution to mankind of Abe Lincoln, the man who saved the United States of America, freed a couple of million human beings from slavery, and restored the moral purpose to the country.
If Darwin had been eaten by a pack of wild dogs on his unfortunate voyage nothing of any lasting consequence benefitting the human condition would have been lost.
We of course would have possibly fewer bone polishers with H.S. educations out digging up extinct animals, fewer people wasting money and manpower trying to create life from non-life without a single possible useful outcome in 100 years of failed efforts, and real science would have proceeded without the wasteful, meaningless side-trips and deadends that darwinism has occasioned by encourageing the stupidity of atheism to invade legitimate science.
Biology was and is a legitimate science, its efforts and results are extraordinary, but the plague of darwinism in its virilent, virus-like invasion of the field has rendered biology sterile, seemingly unable to get back to the job of following evidence, understanding how life works at the most detailed level, independent of abiogenesis, common ancestors, macro evolutionary events, decent with modification other than the most direct lineages in clearly defined and narrow biological lines.
The small vocal minority, the larger public special interest groups, secular humanist based political groups, and far left think tanks that band together to proclaim the critical importance of a world view of naturalism and humanist philosophy need to be smacked down by any and all legitimate means and the Expelled movie is a good start.
PZ and his fellow travelers are hardly at a loss for words concerning the subject of darwinism other than hiding his racist views and severe mental psychosis from the public for a century. His slides not withstanding , PZ is full of crap and the evidence is prima facia.
Nowhere in the Expelled essay does the writer imply that biologists as a community are racists, white-supremeists and thus PZ is a liar and a bold faced liar at that.
What is clear in the literature is that darwin was a racist, mentally ill, became a rabid atheist, understood nada about biology at the molecular level, and made not a single lasting practical contribution to biological science that would not have happened more quickly and efficiently than if he had never lived.
I am never surprised by this band of elitists including PZ in their defense of Marxism, I am aware of the politics of Dawkins, Gould, etc. while living off the U.S. taxpayer dole and teat his entire paltry, meaningless, and non-productive career.
It is quite amusing to see how Stein and the Expelled team have used the cynicism, egomania, anger, foment, and inability to keep their cool in effect to jujitsu the major cult spokespersons and their frailties into a profitable and extrremely clever expose of the Big Science enterprise and its stalking horse, darwinian evolution.
Did I mention PZ, that you are a liar, a nobody, and of no particular import in any respect.
Posted by: PZ Myers | February 19, 2008 5:40 PM
But, but...Keith! Your whole comment was nothing but a string of screechy insults, and that's bad! You said so yourself.
Did you notice the first word in the title to this piece, "Ahistorical"? Your comment is likewise.
Darwin was less racist than many of his contemporaries, and advocated for justice for all races.
Darwin was not mentally ill at all; he maintained a vigorous and thoughtful correspondence with his peers throughout his life.
He was not an atheist, especially not a rabid one. He called himself an agnostic. You might want to read his autobiography, in which he touched on his love for his wife and his respect for her faith.
It's true. He wasn't a molecular biologist. But then, that field wasn't really established until the 1950s, so it's awfully silly to complain about that. I understand Jesus was also not a diesel mechanic, and Mohammed didn't know the first thing about polymer chemistry.
And Keith...who the hell are you?
Posted by: Steve_C | February 19, 2008 5:52 PM
Fucking hell. Keith is a liar and an ass.
Posted by: Stanton | February 19, 2008 5:52 PM
Mr Eaton is apparently a retired engineer/widower who lives in Oklahoma City, and is a very annoying creationist troll who's been lurking about the 'Net, and recently came over to the Panda's Thumb to display his subpar social skills.
Posted by: Rey Fox | February 19, 2008 6:59 PM
I grasped your point, David. It's just the same tiresome concern trolling we always get here. Attacking the tone of the message rather than the content.
And to Keith, anyone who thinks evolution makes biology sterile has his head so far up his ass that he could do his own colonoscopy.
Big Science, yodelay hee hoo.
Posted by: Keith Eaton | February 19, 2008 11:03 PM
Just someone who knows a paid empty suit when I see, hear, or read from one..that's you, based on every silly utterance you're made in the last decade.
You started attacking Stein, the producers, the distributors, and anyone allied with them on the issues, before you could possibly have seen the movie.
You and the other evo-bitchers who were in the film have two choices: either you are stupid enough go into the opponents camp and spill your guts in an egoistic diatribe and screed that if and now when viewed by the American public will reveal the true nature and intentions of the hard core evolutionary community and its foot soldiers or you are ignorant enough to so perform without the slightest idea that you might be putting you foot in your mouth.
Which is it PZ, stupid or ignorant?
Yes the Darwin who spent years putting together a case for origins that needed no non-natural processes to create life and deliver the entirity of the biology past, present and future. ..."the sensation one get when dunking ones head in cold water is in great degree the same as those previously ascribed to supernaturalism and religious insight"... yes no atheist here.
"The gang of prevaricators behind Ben Stein's Expelled movie had their own way of celebrating Darwin Day: they wrote a blog post that was a solid wall of lies and nonsense." PZ Myers
You can always detect a wirehead, egomaniac, whose debate skills consist of ad hominem attack, red herring, strawmen, appeals to popularity, and nearly every other form of sophistry and rhetorical fallacy one can find in a standard text on critical thinking. Thus the opening attack paragraph is devoid of any factual statement and nothing more than an extended ad hominem.
continuing......
"In a way, I'm impressed; I'd have to really struggle to write something that was such a dense array of concentrated stupid, but for them, it seems to be a natural talent, allowing them to blithely and effortlessly rattle off a succession of falsehoods without blushing."
More meaningless blather that could have been written by an editor in some nondescript yellow journalism rag in Eastern Europe in the late fifties.
The facts are that the neo-nazi darwin cult in control of Big Science have attempted to elevate the miserly contibutions to science by a manic depressive, bi-polar, recluse to the level of contribution to mankind of Abe Lincoln, the man who saved the United States of America, freed a couple of million human beings from slavery, and restored the moral purpose to the country.
If Darwin had been eaten by a pack of wild dogs on his unfortunate voyage nothing of any lasting consequence benefitting the human condition would have been lost.
We of course would have possibly fewer bone polishers with H.S. educations out digging up extinct animals, fewer people wasting money and manpower trying to create life from non-life without a single possible useful outcome in 100 years of failed efforts, and real science would have proceeded without the wasteful, meaningless side-trips and deadends that darwinism has occasioned by encourageing the stupidity of atheism to invade legitimate science.
Biology was and is a legitimate science, its efforts and results are extraordinary, but the plague of darwinism in its virilent, virus-like invasion of the field has rendered biology sterile, seemingly unable to get back to the job of following evidence, understanding how life works at the most detailed level, independent of abiogenesis, common ancestors, macro evolutionary events, decent with modification other than the most direct lineages in clearly defined and narrow biological lines.
The small vocal minority, the larger public special interest groups, secular humanist based political groups, and far left think tanks that band together to proclaim the critical importance of a world view of naturalism and humanist philosophy need to be smacked down by any and all legitimate means and the Expelled movie is a good start.
PZ and his fellow travelers are hardly at a loss for words concerning the subject of darwinism other than hiding his racist views and severe mental psychosis from the public for a century. His slides not withstanding , PZ is full of crap and the evidence is prima facia.
Nowhere in the Expelled essay does the writer imply that biologists as a community are racists, white-supremeists and thus PZ is a liar and a bold faced liar at that.
What is clear in the literature is that darwin was a racist, mentally ill, became a rabid atheist, understood nada about biology at the molecular level, and made not a single lasting practical contribution to biological science that would not have happened more quickly and efficiently than if he had never lived.
I am never surprised by this band of elitists including PZ in their defense of Marxism, I am aware of the politics of Dawkins, Gould, etc. while living off the U.S. taxpayer dole and teat his entire paltry, meaningless, and non-productive career.
It is quite amusing to see how Stein and the Expelled team have used the cynicism, egomania, anger, foment, and inability to keep their cool in effect to jujitsu the major cult spokespersons and their frailties into a profitable and extrremely clever expose of the Big Science enterprise and its stalking horse, darwinian evolution.
Did I mention PZ, that you are a liar, a nobody, and of no particular import in any respect.
"The gang of prevaricators behind Ben Stein's Expelled movie had their own way of celebrating Darwin Day: they wrote a blog post that was a solid wall of lies and nonsense." PZ Myers
You can always detect a wirehead, egomaniac, whose debate skills consist of ad hominem attack, red herring, strawmen, appeals to popularity, and nearly every other form of sophistry and rhetorical fallacy one can find in a standard text on critical thinking. Thus the opening attack paragraph is devoid of any factual statement and nothing more than an extended ad hominem.
continuing......
"In a way, I'm impressed; I'd have to really struggle to write something that was such a dense array of concentrated stupid, but for them, it seems to be a natural talent, allowing them to blithely and effortlessly rattle off a succession of falsehoods without blushing."
More meaningless blather that could have been written by an editor in some nondescript yellow journalism rag in Eastern Europe in the late fifties.
The facts are that the neo-nazi darwin cult in control of Big Science have attempted to elevate the miserly contibutions to science by a manic depressive, bi-polar, recluse to the level of contribution to mankind of Abe Lincoln, the man who saved the United States of America, freed a couple of million human beings from slavery, and restored the moral purpose to the country.
If Darwin had been eaten by a pack of wild dogs on his unfortunate voyage nothing of any lasting consequence benefitting the human condition would have been lost.
We of course would have possibly fewer bone polishers with H.S. educations out digging up extinct animals, fewer people wasting money and manpower trying to create life from non-life without a single possible useful outcome in 100 years of failed efforts, and real science would have proceeded without the wasteful, meaningless side-trips and deadends that darwinism has occasioned by encourageing the stupidity of atheism to invade legitimate science.
Biology was and is a legitimate science, its efforts and results are extraordinary, but the plague of darwinism in its virilent, virus-like invasion of the field has rendered biology sterile, seemingly unable to get back to the job of following evidence, understanding how life works at the most detailed level, independent of abiogenesis, common ancestors, macro evolutionary events, decent with modification other than the most direct lineages in clearly defined and narrow biological lines.
The small vocal minority, the larger public special interest groups, secular humanist based political groups, and far left think tanks that band together to proclaim the critical importance of a world view of naturalism and humanist philosophy need to be smacked down by any and all legitimate means and the Expelled movie is a good start.
PZ and his fellow travelers are hardly at a loss for words concerning the subject of darwinism other than hiding his racist views and severe mental psychosis from the public for a century. His slides not withstanding , PZ is full of crap and the evidence is prima facia.
Nowhere in the Expelled essay does the writer imply that biologists as a community are racists, white-supremeists and thus PZ is a liar and a bold faced liar at that.
What is clear in the literature is that darwin was a racist, mentally ill, became a rabid atheist, understood nada about biology at the molecular level, and made not a single lasting practical contribution to biological science that would not have happened more quickly and efficiently than if he had never lived.
I am never surprised by this band of elitists including PZ in their defense of Marxism, I am aware of the politics of Dawkins, Gould, etc. while living off the U.S. taxpayer dole and teat his entire paltry, meaningless, and non-productive career.
It is quite amusing to see how Stein and the Expelled team have used the cynicism, egomania, anger, foment, and inability to keep their cool in effect to jujitsu the major cult spokespersons and their frailties into a profitable and extrremely clever expose of the Big Science enterprise and its stalking horse, darwinian evolution.
Did I mention PZ, that you are a liar, a nobody, and of no particular import in any respect.
http://www.thedarwinpapers.com/oldsite/number1/Darwinpapers1Htm.htm Revealing the for the quite mentally and physically perverse man he was.
http://ministries.tliquest.net/theology/evolution/Darwin's%20Racism.html
Posted by: Kseniya | February 19, 2008 11:08 PM
I see it's Tin-Foil Hat Time here on Pharyngula.
Posted by: Ichthyic | February 19, 2008 11:10 PM
I am never surprised by this band of elitists including PZ in their defense of Marxism,
PZ is a marxist? who knew.
oh, I guess Keith did.
I am aware of the politics of Dawkins, Gould, etc. while living off the U.S. taxpayer dole and teat his entire paltry, meaningless, and non-productive career.
again, who knew that UK researchers lived off the US taxpayers?
Keith did.
Keith...
you're a complete and utter moron.
congratulations.
Posted by: Stanton | February 19, 2008 11:12 PM
I mean, really, if PZ Myers really was of "no import," then why did Keith see fit to copy and paste the exact same rambling, incoherent rant twice?
Posted by: PZ Myers | February 19, 2008 11:13 PM
You can call me names all you want, but boring me with this copy and paste crap where you just take up space is a good way to get banned.
That's a warning.
Posted by: Owlmirror, Pvt | February 19, 2008 11:18 PM
PZ has foot soldiers???
Hey, can I get a promotion?
Hey, that's General PZ Myers you're talking about! Show some respect!!
Posted by: Owlmirror | February 19, 2008 11:24 PM
I think his Screed-o-mat broke down after it expelled the first one, so he had to make do with repeating himself, twice.
Obviously, the silly thing wasn't intelligently designed.
Posted by: Bronze Dog | February 19, 2008 11:28 PM
You started attacking Stein, the producers, the distributors, and anyone allied with them on the issues, before you could possibly have seen the movie.
Well, if they lie, they should be pointed out for lying. The ID crowd has long been in the business of lying, and this movie looks to be more of the same, judging from the trailer and the early reviews.
You and the other evo-bitchers who were in the film have two choices: either you are stupid enough go into the opponents camp and spill your guts in an egoistic diatribe and screed that if and now when viewed by the American public will reveal the true nature and intentions of the hard core evolutionary community and its foot soldiers or you are ignorant enough to so perform without the slightest idea that you might be putting you foot in your mouth.
Which is it PZ, stupid or ignorant?
They interviewed him under false pretenses. And why are they so scared to post the whole, unedited interview? Come back when you don't stink of desperation.
You can always detect a wirehead, egomaniac, whose debate skills consist of ad hominem attack, red herring, strawmen, appeals to popularity, and nearly every other form of sophistry and rhetorical fallacy one can find in a standard text on critical thinking. Thus the opening attack paragraph is devoid of any factual statement and nothing more than an extended ad hominem.
That settles it: The crew who put up that post were the egomaniac wireheads. When PZ tore apart the post by pointing out all the lies, what did they do? Whined that he actually took a little time. They didn't address any of the substance.
They told lies, hence PZ accurately labeled them as prevaricators.
[Long tinfoil hat screed involving ignoring all the evidence for evolution and the utter lack of evidence for ID]
Where's the substance?
What is clear in the literature is that darwin was a racist, mentally ill, became a rabid atheist, understood nada about biology at the molecular level, and made not a single lasting practical contribution to biological science that would not have happened more quickly and efficiently than if he had never lived.
That's very, very irrelevant ad hominem, even more irrelevant than is inherent in ad hominems. WHO CARES ABOUT DARWIN? Darwin's irrelevant to the argument. He's dead, got some right, got some wrong. We fixed the wrong. Darwin is just for this history books and occasional bouts of nostalgia. Why focus on Darwin? Oh, I know: Because IDers can't discuss the real issues, so they need an irrelevant scapegoat to ad hominem.
Did you, or did you not read anything anyone said in this post and comment thread? I think not.
Keith, your actions and single-minded devotion to irrelevant derails demonstrates that you're an even bigger wuss than that Philip troll over at the Expelled blog. Are you now going to start screaming for 2 more months of damage control before we can see the PZ interview? We're ready to see the whole interview now. And yet, the people at Expelled blog are chronically scared to post the video.
I wonder if they snipped out the bit the reviewers found unremarkable and destroyed the rest to save face.
Posted by: JimC | February 19, 2008 11:37 PM
It never ceases to amaze me, never ever, how completely arrogant and clueless people like this keith fellow are in the above.
He clearly knows nothing about Darwin and even less about biology and evolution yet he is so self assured(deluded)he feels ok attacking PZ personally. I presume he has never met PZ and yet verbally assaults him and not his position.
How small. He represents the worst of his religion quite adequately.
Posted by: MAJeff | February 19, 2008 11:40 PM
PZ has foot soldiers???
Hasn't technology advanced to the point where we should all get Segways?
Posted by: Ichthyic | February 19, 2008 11:45 PM
destroyed the rest to save face.
Tthere is no saving face on this one.
They closed that door long ago. The only money they will see for future productions will have to be from the same sources as funded this one.
Just like Dembski, Wells, etc., they have decided the career path they wish to follow. Honesty and integrity had to be left by the side of the road before even coming close to where they are now.
There is no room left to "save face". There is no going back. Dembski himself occasionally laments this fact, and it is the source of much of his angst towards Baylor.
I wonder if Ben Stein realizes this? He'll never be employable in regular entertainment channels ever again.
meh, no big loss.
Posted by: MAJeff | February 20, 2008 12:06 AM
I wonder if Ben Stein realizes this? He'll never be employable in regular entertainment channels ever again.
meh, no big loss.
Would if this were true. Remember the failures of Mel Gibson after his anti-semitic rampages, and how Apocalypto failed so miserably?
Hollywood isn't some liberal bastion--it's pure capitalism. Sell the tickets and you're good in their eyes. Truth? Who cares as long as the seats are filled.
That's why conservative criticism of Hollywood is so laughable. The movie studios are better capitalists than anyone at the Cato Institute could ever dream of being.
Posted by: Ichthyic | February 20, 2008 12:15 AM
Hollywood isn't some liberal bastion--it's pure capitalism.
exactly.
do you think "Expelled" will be a capitalistic success story, calling to Hollywood execs to shell out the bucks for more of same?
hardly. You of course recall that they are actually bribing groups to come and see it, yes?
It's not Stein's insanity alone that has Hollywood turning it's collective back on him, it's throwing his hat in the ring with perennial losers like the producers of Expelled.
In fact, it's quite likely that this is more "end result" than beginning, even if it is the final door closing for him. I'm sure if I were privy to all of Stein's career decisions over the last 10 years, I'd see a pattern emerging that would clarify exactly how he ended up being involved with these losers to begin with.
Posted by: Owlmirror | February 20, 2008 12:19 AM
I dunno, I keep hearing how weird and... Byzantine the movie business is. Really. As in "Byzantium". Have you heard about how Waterworld was made?
Posted by: Nullifidian | February 20, 2008 12:24 AM
I am never surprised by this band of elitists including PZ in their defense of Marxism,
PZ isn't a Marxist. To quote a classic comic film, "Communism is just a Red herring."
I am aware of the politics of Dawkins, Gould, etc. while living off the U.S. taxpayer dole and teat his entire paltry, meaningless, and non-productive career.
So Dawkins, who holds the Charles Simonyi Chair of the Public Understanding of Science at Oxford University in England is living off the U.S. taxpayer dole?
So is Gould, who doesn't qualify for the word "living" in any sense and hasn't done for FIVE years? And who knew that Harvard was a public university?
Posted by: Stanton | February 20, 2008 12:27 AM
Ichthyic, it's like I said earlier: Intelligent Design is such a lost cause that not even Hollywood magic can save it.
Certainly, if Intelligent Design's final and greatest defenders turn out to be a dimwitted deadpan like Ben Stein, and a rabid, hatefully incoherent twit like Keith Eaton, I'm surprised that Creationists have not returned to the drawing board to see what new hocus crapus they can re-spin Creationism as ten years ago already.
Posted by: Ichthyic | February 20, 2008 12:30 AM
And who knew that Harvard was a public university?
Keith did.
http://video.aol.com/partner/hulu/the-simpsons-stone-cutters-song/9BPs104xhPVvz8MDy-yCeofa2Lp7Qzvp
Posted by: Ichthyic | February 20, 2008 12:33 AM
I'm surprised that Creationists have not returned to the drawing board to see what new hocus crapus they can re-spin Creationism as ten years ago already.
if they were that smart, we'd be in trouble.
still, I'm sure they are. It will just take time, like the formation of ID after "creation science" did.
It takes time to make up good BS if your smart, or the same amount of time to make up lame BS if you're these guys.
Posted by: Stanton | February 20, 2008 1:02 AM
Well, I suppose you're right, Ichthyic.
At the very least, it will be good for a morbid little chuckle to see how much rope they're going to hang themselves with.
Posted by: The Healer | February 20, 2008 1:15 PM
I believe the primary theme of the film is to demonstrate the consequences scientists and scholars face when they postulate theories contrary to conventional wisdom. The daring few in history who navigated these waters have paid a predictable price. Some were mocked, ridiculed, and humiliated. Others were ostracized or imprisoned. Questioning the "great minds of our day" is not for the faint of heart, and many posts here bear witness to this. I do find it mildly ironic that a blog intended to discredit the merits of the film have actually buttressed one of its central tenets.
Posted by: Kseniya | February 20, 2008 1:46 PM
"Man does not attain the status of Galileo merely because he is persecuted; he must also be right." ~SJG
Posted by: Stanton | February 20, 2008 2:13 PM
So, then, why did they have to lie to the people they interviewed, and why do they have to make false statements?
Posted by: Nullifidian | February 20, 2008 3:50 PM
I believe the primary theme of the film is to demonstrate the consequences scientists and scholars face when they postulate theories contrary to conventional wisdom. The daring few in history who navigated these waters have paid a predictable price. Some were mocked, ridiculed, and humiliated. Others were ostracized or imprisoned.
And others were utter kooks whose 'theories' merely amounted to ossified prejudices or insane ramblings.
Questioning the "great minds of our day" is not for the faint of heart, and many posts here bear witness to this.
Good!
If it were easy to overturn an established scientific consensus every day of the week, then the cycling through new ideas like a hyperactive gerbil on cocaine would ensure that no scientists ever got anything useful done.
I do find it mildly ironic that a blog intended to discredit the merits of the film have actually buttressed one of its central tenets.
Why is that ironic? It seems perfectly consistent to me. People have been dismissive of IDiots. That's perfectly clear. The reason people are dismissive is that ID has no merit.
Posted by: Steve_C | February 20, 2008 4:10 PM
Hey Healer,
Why didn't they bother to challeng the theory of gravity? If they truly wanted to be daring.
Posted by: The Healer | February 20, 2008 4:15 PM
'So, then, why did they have to lie to the people they interviewed, and why do they have to make false statements?'
I cannot speak to the specific methods of the filmmakers as I don't know what they actually did, but I will say that it is doubtful the interviewees would have been that candid had they known the intended purpose of the resulting material. Conducting an interview under false pretenses is a very effective tactic at eliciting the intended response. While it may be disingenuous, it's hardly something unique to this film. Whether the filmmakers lied to their subjects about why they were being interviewed or not, the opinions expressed are no less valid.
Posted by: Ichthyic | February 20, 2008 4:24 PM
I believe the primary theme of the film is to demonstrate the consequences scientists and scholars face when they postulate theories contrary to conventional wisdom.
then you understand nothing of what happens when new hypotheses are introduced in science.
for one thing, it happens all the time. for another, IT'S ENCOURAGED WITHIN THE SCIENTIFIC COMMUNITY.
what you appear to be completely ignorant of is that this film does not intend to demonstrate the process of what happens to new hypotheses within the scientific community, what it intends is to show what happens to unsupported mindless drivel, and then paint that as being "victimized".
as a comparison, since you claim the title "healer"...
If I came into a medical office, and proclaimed I could cure all ills simply by hitting all your patients over the head with a baseball bat, would you think my idea deserves "equal time"?
get it now?
Posted by: Glen Davidson | February 20, 2008 4:26 PM
Yeah, they were crowing that they caught Dawkins saying that science, and particularly evolution, are antithetical to Christianity. Something he's been stating from his pulpit every chance he could.
See, the thing is that these people are busily lying all over the place, they're abominably ignorant, and they presuppose that scientists are hiding something. The fact is, however, that there has been no revelation coming out of the blogs and promotional materials, since what you see is pretty much what you get with PZ and Dawkins.
Not that getting a real revelation would absolve the lying a-holes of their Xian commitments to honesty. My point at present is that it was their own ignorance and intellectual dishonesty that even suggested to them that they would need to be liars for Jesus, rather than, oh I don't know, reading what these people actually wrote. They're pathetic in nearly every way.
Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/2kxyc7
Posted by: Ichthyic | February 20, 2008 4:39 PM
they presuppose that scientists are hiding something
well, that's the idea they are trying to sell, anyway. Whether they believe it or not.
I'm sure a part of this is the producers of the film relying on the idea of "conspiracies sell" to raise funding.
just ask Oliver Stone.
:p
Posted by: The Healer | February 20, 2008 4:39 PM
'Hey Healer,
Why didn't they bother to challeng the theory of gravity? If they truly wanted to be daring'
I don't know, but blind allegiance to any theory is foolish at best. Gravity is a scientific theory, not incontrovertible fact. So too is Darwinism. Gravity is demonstrably provable, but that doesn't make it fact. I could postulate that gravity is not an omnipotent presence and scientific "law", but merely a by-product of a greater universal force. In the absence of, or modification of said force, the laws of gravity would no longer be applicable therefore rendering the theory of gravity suspect or entirely invalid. If anyone were to suggest such a theory, they would be ridiculed and mocked as an idiot. Based on some of the posts I have read, that would be a perfectly reasonable and welcome response by the "scientific community".
Posted by: Ichthyic | February 20, 2008 4:42 PM
I don't know, but blind allegiance to any theory is foolish at best
good thing that only exists amongst religious apologists then, right?
sure doesn't happen in any scientific community I've ever been involved with.
Gravity is demonstrably provable, but that doesn't make it fact.
LOL
Ok, you're an idiot, i get it now.
Posted by: Ichthyic | February 20, 2008 4:51 PM
here let me fix your statement for you:
Gravity is readily observable, which makes it a fact.
Explaining how it works is gravitational theory.
Evolution is readily observable, which makes it fact.
The theory of evolution is a collection of tested and sustained (after many tens of thousands of individual experiments) hypotheses that attempt to explain this observed fact.
religion is based on imaginary and completely unobservable dogma; maintained only by forced transmission (certainly not by testing observable phenomena).
I doubt you will get this, as you are likely hopelessly confused about what constitutes a scientific hypothesis to begin with, but maybe somebody else lurking about with more brains will.
Posted by: Nullifidian | February 20, 2008 5:14 PM
I could postulate that gravity is not an omnipotent presence and scientific "law", but merely a by-product of a greater universal force. In the absence of, or modification of said force, the laws of gravity would no longer be applicable therefore rendering the theory of gravity suspect or entirely invalid. If anyone were to suggest such a theory, they would be ridiculed and mocked as an idiot.
Actually, what you have there is not a theory, it's vapourous speculation. There is, however, a theory which proposes that what we experience as gravitation is an effect of another 'force', spacetime curvature. It's called the general theory of relativity. If you want to argue against it, you probably will be treated like an idiot if you demonstrate that you don't know what it is you're talking about, although you'll get points for novelty at sci.physics.relativity, since they mostly see people arguing against the special theory.
That is all anyone has been doing here. The producers of Expelled and Ben Stein have demonstrated themselves to be laughably ignorant of even the basics of the theory which they are critiquing, and so they are naturally treated with disdain until they decide to be honest about what it is they don't know.
Based on some of the posts I have read, that would be a perfectly reasonable and welcome response by the "scientific community".
The scientific community is under no obligations to be nice to people who step on its turf and proceed to urinate on the lawn. The scientific community is very skeptical, as any presenter at a symposium or conference will know, and that's a good value to have. It keeps one grounded in what we do know and what we do not, and prevents flights of fancy from going too far. It's not always perfect (e.g. evolutionary psychology, string theory, etc.), but there's a correction eventually.
Posted by: The Healer | February 20, 2008 5:37 PM
Thank you for proving my point Ichthyic. Your attitude and the tactics you have resorted to are precisly what the filmmakers were attempting to expose. I can only hope for their sake that they had an opportunity to interview you (or someone like you) for the film. You would have provided all the fodder they needed. Thanks for making it so easy. :)
Posted by: Ichthyic | February 20, 2008 5:41 PM
Thank you for proving my point Ichthyic. Your attitude and the tactics you have resorted to are precisly what the filmmakers were attempting to expose.
thankyou for proving my point that you wouldn't get what I was telling you. Can i piss on your lawn now?
I'll be sure to find a doctor's office somewhere where I can expound on my fantastic theory of baseball-batism.
congratulations on your continued lack of reading comprehension skills. You do indeed make it so easy.
Posted by: MAJeff | February 20, 2008 5:42 PM
shorter "The Healer": I may be wrong about absolutely everything, but you're a meanie.
Posted by: Keith Eaton | February 20, 2008 5:43 PM
I take it that the weevils claim is that only public institutions apply for and receive public grants for scientific research purposes, the writing of books, papers, holding of conferences,etc. and that the purchase of Mr. Dawkin's books by public libraries whether associated with higher education or municipal convenience, that his many publically sponsored speaking engagements are somehow sheltered from the expenditure of public funding.
Such shallow thinking is unfortunately the warp and woof of the historical and instant cerebral capacities of the particularly narrow and shriveled intellects that constitute the evolutionary community of true believers.
All of those interviewed for Expelled of the PZM ilk can of course continue to proclaim their Miranda rights, forced interrogation, coerced confessions, and such other practices as they choose to borrow from the O.J. vocabulary, but the facts are what they are and I suspect they will be quite illuminating to the public at large.
The Expelled essay merely rehearses the historical facts that Darwins theory was coopted by philosophical, socioeconomic, and political thinkers resulting in allied theories and practices whose harmful and destructive effects are undeniable by the rational mind.
Understanding that it would require a logarithmic expansion of the weevil reading spectrum to comprehend certain elements of reality I nevertheless suggest the enlightenment you could experience by a consideration of Intellectual Morons, From Dawn to Decadence, Telling the Truth About History, and After Virtue...for a beginning... would be well, illuminating.
I'm sure we can all applaud PZM's philosophical dedication to his ideal of philosophical and political optimism. Ahem!!
"As far as optimistic theories go, has this bozo ever read the Communist Manifesto? Communism is an incredibly optimistic idea -- human beings are perfectable, societies are working towards an inevitable workers' utopia, etc. It's highly non-Darwinian, unlike capitalism, which is very Darwinian. It's like they don't even think their own arguments through" -------Not to the degreee of Karl Marx apparently.
Unlike Obama Myers, when I quote Johnson I find an attribution to be an intellectual necessity.
"Nothing has so exposed men of learning to contempt and ridicule as their ignorance of things which are known to all but themselves. Those who have been taught to consider the institutions of the schools as giving the last perfection to human abilities are surprised to see men wrinkled with study, yet wanting to be instructed in the minute circumstances of propriety, or the necessary form of daily transaction; and quickly shake off their reverence for modes of education which they find to produce no ability above the rest of mankind."
Johnson: Rambler #137 (July 9, 1751)
We do applaud Ben and his team for furthering the above most needed efforts.
Posted by: Ichthyic | February 20, 2008 5:53 PM
shorter "The Healer": I may be wrong about absolutely everything, but you're a meanie.
of course. It was a self-fulfilling prophecy on the part of "the healer" to begin with. shocker.
even shorter me:
Fuck these idiots with a bumpy stick.
I'm convinced it simply isn't worth the time any more to give their idiocy an ear.
I wasted over a minute trying to explain to it what the difference was between observed fact and theories constructed to explain observed facts.
I figured it would be an exercise only of value to some imagined lurkers.
a prophecy that came to fulfillment as rapidly as I expected it would.
;)
I'm guessing nullifidian wasted almost 5 minutes with a more thorough explanation that was of course completely ignored.
I wonder if "the healer" will ever grasp why I hate it so?
I'm guessing not.
Posted by: Ichthyic | February 20, 2008 5:58 PM
I take it that the weevils claim is that only public institutions apply for and receive public grants for scientific research purposes, the writing of books, papers, holding of conferences,etc. and that the purchase of Mr. Dawkin's books by public libraries whether associated with higher education or municipal convenience, that his many publically sponsored speaking engagements are somehow sheltered from the expenditure of public funding.
yes, Keith, tell us again how UK researchers Dawkins and Gould relied on US taxpayer dollars to fund their research and publications again.
please do; and make sure to move your goalposts ever further backwards as you explain.
Obama Myers
LOL
you're such a moron it's making my day, Keith.
please, continue!
unlike "the healer", you're such a fantastic moron you're actually funny.
OTOH, we haven't seen a good disemvowelment around these parts in a while...
Posted by: Ichthyic | February 20, 2008 6:02 PM
hey, Keith:
Nothing has so exposed men of learning to contempt and ridicule as their ignorance of things which are known to all but themselves.
if you were actually learned, I would advise you to apply that to yourself.
no point though, is there?
Posted by: Bronze Dog | February 20, 2008 6:05 PM
So then, why are the Expelled crew so hesitant to provide this illumination to the public by releasing the unedited, uncensored interview.
If you weren't so occupied with wussing out, Keith, you'd know that we're only exposing the character of IDers as continual liars by pointing it out when they lie. We aren't the least bit afraid of the facts getting out. The Expelled crew is.
And yet, these people were more than willing to burn the Origin of Species or send scientists studying evolution to the gulags or the firing squad.
And, of course, it's completely irrelevant. What you're talking about, Keith, is like calling Newton a horrible person because some people could use his theory to accurately hurl ballistic shells. The consequences of evil people who are "inspired" by facts doesn't undermine whether or not they're facts. Of course, you conveniently leave out all the good life-saving advances that came from evolution.
Oh, and it's not Darwin's theory anymore. We've moved on since those days. Why the Darwin fetish? Do you deliberately mention Darwin in order to distract people with utter irrelevancies?
How does lying and devotion to irrelevance further education?
So, Keith, are you going to push for the unedited Myers interview to get exposure, or are you once again going to wuss out?
Posted by: Ichthyic | February 20, 2008 6:12 PM
So, Keith, are you going to push for the unedited Myers interview to get exposure, or are you once again going to wuss out?
I can see it now:
Keith's eyes, having read this last sentence, will blink once... slowly... and then his brain will go on as if it had never received information from the eyes.
in short, his brain will completely ignore this and you will never receive a cogent response to it.
keep trying, though, it's educational.
we really are dealing with people living in a constant state of denial and projection.
Posted by: Rey Fox | February 20, 2008 6:14 PM
"Your attitude and the tactics you have resorted to are precisly what the filmmakers were attempting to expose."
You mean his slightly gruff tone? His use of the word "idiot"?
My GOD, you people are crybabies. Or possibly masochists. "Oh, ridicule me HARDER Mr. Darwinist, HUMILIATE me, I've been NAUGHTY! Are we getting this all on tape? Cuz that REALLY makes me hot..."
Ah, but never mind all that. Did I just read that our esteemed host is a RED?! *gasp* *faint*
Posted by: Ichthyic | February 20, 2008 6:20 PM
My GOD, you people are crybabies. Or possibly masochists. "Oh, ridicule me HARDER Mr. Darwinist, HUMILIATE me, I've been NAUGHTY! Are we getting this all on tape? Cuz that REALLY makes me hot..."
oh, now that reminds me of a certain fictional story about Ann Coulter.
should I?
of course:
http://ifuckedanncoulterintheasshard.blogspot.com/
I'm sure that will give our visitors the vapors.
Ah, but never mind all that. Did I just read that our esteemed host is a RED?! *gasp* *faint*
*sniff* too bad McCarthyism isn't popular any more.
I think i could've gotten a reward for reporting him!
Now if Keith could show us how PZ is a terrorist... a call to Homeland Security might result in some reward, yes?
Keith?
help us out here.
Posted by: negentropyeater | February 20, 2008 6:39 PM
Wow, Ichtyic, thx for the link. This is really great writing, also taking a look at George Bush's Diary...
"The Republican Party is the party of minding other people's business. People sometimes mistake this as trying to 'legislate morality.' We are not trying to legislate morality; we just want to make what we view as immorality illegal. Can't folks see the difference? Peep through a few windows on the campaign trail; listen to some private phone calls. Show folks what you stand for!"
Smashing !
Posted by: Glen Davidson | February 20, 2008 6:41 PM
By the way, Eaton's moronic nonsense is just another cross-post from the "Expelled" blog, which makes sense if you scan that mass of bullshit.
I never read his shit straight any more, since he's merely a blithering idiot. The following is what he wrote back when he still pretended to know something about science:
He identifies some of the most important selection pressures there as "totally unpredictable" and that thus evolution is based on "random events and by definition cannot predict anything with particularity." Showing what a fuckup he is, plus why he's merely into vile diatribes rather than his many lies about being a scientist that he used to spout.
Of course I answered the screeching moron, but that's not important now.
What does matter is that he's just spamming this forum, since he's cross-posting without indicating that he is. The same, or nearly the same, remarks are at comment #233 on the most recent blogpost, meaning that he apparently values such drivel so much that he'll scatter around.
I'd guess that he's jealous that Ben Stein is rapidly becoming the biggest celebrity ass around, and he's going to try to prove that he can be a grand old ass just like his scientifically-illiterate hero.
Btw, I wouldn't have responded even obliquely as I did here to the egregious troll if others had not already done so (it's a no-fault observation, I'm simply saying that I'd have ignored him). He's too damn ignorant for me to respond to him much more than I already have.
Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/2kxyc7
Posted by: windy | February 20, 2008 6:53 PM
It has been a week of such shocking revelations, I don't know if I can take any more!
-Dawkins caught arguing against religion!
-PZ is in the Expelled movie!
-PZ's tactics include ridicule and strong language!
-The full title of Origin has the word 'RACES' in it!!!
Posted by: Ichthyic | February 20, 2008 6:55 PM
he's merely a blithering idiot*
*in case it wasn't obvious?
;)
Posted by: Keith Eaton | February 20, 2008 7:12 PM
I wish to apologize to anyone offended by the screed from Glen. I have been mopping up his butt on several posts for a few weeks and he goes berserk quite frequently.
He is quite the intellectual as you can see by the cursing, name calling, and other techniques reminisent of the Aristotelian methods....LOL!
Or you might gather that he is a 4th rate scholar stuck in some non-descript cellar washing test tubes for grad students.
In some dozens of posts he has never once even approached refutation of my logical presentations by other than irrational ad hominem attacks and loud screeching noises.
He's one of theose weak little failed psuudo-intellectuals for whom the various e-forums permit them a release of their hostilities against the world, God, and anything else they can blame their meaniningless little failed lives on.
Sorry Glen, but your just not up to the task of rational debate.
And the only thing more random than most so called selective pressures that occurs to me is the frequency of your psychotic outbursts and the inner workings of your truly disturbed mind.
You surely must understand by now that I hold you in derision, ridicule, and pity.
Posted by: MAJeff | February 20, 2008 7:16 PM
Shorter Keith Eaton: "I may be wrong about absolutely everything, but Glen's a meanie."
Posted by: Bronze Dog | February 20, 2008 7:22 PM
So, no substance from Keith. All he does is use Humpty Dumpty to change the definition of "ad hominem" so that he can conveniently ignore the points that have been made.
That, and I still don't see him calling for Expelled to release the unedited interview footage. Still afraid of that leaking out?
Posted by: Glen Davidson | February 20, 2008 7:24 PM
Ooh, the fuckhead proves once again that he lies without compunction or conscience. He hasn't even responded to me in months, but essentially he lies like JAD does, transparently and quite possibly obsessively.
Plus, what MAJeff said.
Fuck yourself, Keith, I'm not going to deal with your anti-Christ hatred any further on this thread (not a promise, certainly my intention).
Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/2kxyc7
Posted by: Ichthyic | February 20, 2008 7:27 PM
I wish to apologize to anyone offended by the screed from Glen.
ROFLMAO!
goddamnit, Glen, why are you so fucking offensive all the fucking time??
Posted by: Ichthyic | February 20, 2008 7:29 PM
...my logical presentations ...
damnit, now I'm pissed, Keith just made me spit out an entire mouthful of my favorite coffee.
I'm sending you a request for reimbursement, retard.
Posted by: Ichthyic | February 20, 2008 7:41 PM
You surely must understand by now that I hold you in derision, ridicule, and pity.
no-no, what you are perceiving is how others feel about you, and then being that you are only able to communicate via projection, you then project that perception outwards.
acceptance is the first step on the road to recovery, there, Keith.
Posted by: Glen Davidson | February 20, 2008 7:45 PM
Well, I have to admit that I started it. On the Expelled blog I referred to evidence, and I made sense. This is deeply offensive to people like Keith, whose primary religious taboo is against evidence and sense.
I'd apologize for such offenses, but you know, I'm just plain too evil and mean to apologize for offending Keith with reason, and for truthfully describing his actions.
Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/2kxyc7
Posted by: The Healer | February 20, 2008 7:55 PM
'I'm guessing nullifidian wasted almost 5 minutes with a more thorough explanation that was of course completely ignored.
I wonder if "the healer" will ever grasp why I hate it so?
I'm guessing not.'
The observations of you and nullifidian were not lost on me, nor were they ignored. It's simply not worth engaging in scientific debate as that was not my purpose for posting to begin with. I hope for your sake that you will recognize the condescending attitudes of you and your contemporaries is what got you into this mess to begin with. The more effective you are at dismissing detractors as idiots and demonstrating that the people questioning you are intellectual inferiors, the more you feel it validates your position. That is precisely the attitude that the filmmakers wanted to expose, and was the only point I was trying to make.
The fervor at which you defend your scientific ideology is reminiscent of debates I've had with religious zealots. You are so blinded by your doctrine and so assured of your methodologies that the mere notion that ONE scientific theory (let alone the entire ethos) might possibly be in question is so utterly incompressible to you that you demonize and attack anyone who would even suggest it.
I will freely admit I have no business swimming in the illuminati pool with you; I simply have a pension for bullshit masquerading as intellect. I will leave as quietly as I came, but you need not make excuses for the statements made by the Darwinian prophets you dare not question. If they cannot defend what they said, perhaps they will need to evolve.
Posted by: MAJeff | February 20, 2008 8:01 PM
I will freely admit I have no business swimming in the illuminati pool with you
Again, the levels of idiocy are amazing. It's all conspiracy. It can't have anything to do with the fact that the Healer is simply wrong. No, it's a conspiracy keeping his nonsense from being recognized....
blah blah blah blah
Posted by: Glen Davidson | February 20, 2008 8:01 PM
Given such an inane substitution of "pension" for "penchant," I only too readily believe that you have a penchant "for bullshit masquerading as intellect."
The only trouble is, we can see through your lack of intellect to your bullshit very easily.
But thanks for the laugh at your expense. I've always found you IDiots to be entirely self-sacrificing in that respect, as you attempt to sound smart and instead sound, well, like you do.
Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/2kxyc7
Posted by: Ichthyic | February 20, 2008 8:01 PM
On the Expelled blog I referred to evidence, and I made sense. This is deeply offensive to people like Keith, whose primary religious taboo is against evidence and sense.
yes, because their religious leaders tell them that evidence is only there to confuse and mislead the righteous.
fossils were planted by Satan, after all.
:p
indeed, Keith is right in thinking that there is little point in regarding him with anything more than derision and ridicule and pity.
it just came out bass-ackwards in his last post (denial and projection tend to force such constructions).
tell you what, though, I can only really feel pity for those like Nisbet who think people like Keith are "reachable" if only they could find the "right frame" for the information.
there is no hope for them, only for the generations that follow, hence the huge resistance to things like adopting the word "evolution" into the Florida state educational standards. They can see the end, and they know it.
every time they mention the "waterloo" of evolutionary theory, I see a projection of their own subconsciously realized fears.
Posted by: Ichthyic | February 20, 2008 8:05 PM
The observations of you and nullifidian were not lost on me, nor were they ignored
they might not have been lost on you (highly doubtful), but in fact they were ignored in your response.
I simply have a pension for bullshit masquerading as intellect.
gee, guess what?
so do we.
*sniff* *sniff*
and I smell something right powerful coming off of you.
Posted by: Ichthyic | February 20, 2008 8:08 PM
I hope for your sake that you will recognize the condescending attitudes of you and your contemporaries is what got you into this mess to begin with.
and i hope for YOUR sake that you begin to recognize that it was the attitudes of armchair scientists like yourself that caused the inevitable response from scientists.
if I come and piss on your lawn every day, at first you might try to explain to me why you don't like it, and why it's not appropriate.
after the 100th time, you're likely to respond by calling me an idiot and telling me to get the fuck off your lawn, eh?
now get off our lawn, you fucking idiot.
Posted by: Ichthyic | February 20, 2008 8:11 PM
I will leave as quietly as I came, but you need not make excuses for the statements made by the Darwinian prophets you dare not question.
?
*looks around*
anybody here know any "Darwinian prophets"?
anyone?
Bueller?
Beuller?
*here's a hint for ya, "healer": look up "projection" sometime.
Posted by: MAJeff | February 20, 2008 8:12 PM
I hope for your sake that you will recognize the condescending attitudes of you and your contemporaries is what got you into this mess to begin with.
Let's see. Scientists going about their work, investigating and producing knowledge. Then religionists keep trying to shove unscientific nonsense into those scientists' faces...and when scientists get fed up and say, "Stop with the bullshit already!" it's all their own fault because they're not nice enough to the bullshitters.
Posted by: windy | February 20, 2008 8:15 PM
Then it's a good thing that we scientists CAN defend what we say about the science, you fucking moron. What we say about pretentious gits and arsewipes like you in our spare time is just a bonus.
Posted by: Ichthyic | February 20, 2008 8:17 PM
I will freely admit I have no business swimming in the illuminati pool with you
now, if they would only practice what they preach.
shorter:
learn when to STFU.
Seriously, you don't HAVE to make yourself look like an idiot by pontificating on things you haven't the slightest clue about.
nobody is forcing your hand.
really.
Posted by: Stanton | February 20, 2008 8:30 PM
Actually, Ichthyic, if you replace "have a pension for" with "tend to mistake bullshit for," he makes a little more sense.
Honestly, if Healer and Keith are Expelled's defense against Professor Myers, the movie has already crashed and burned before it's taken off.
I mean, Keith is an incoherent psychopath who uses Jesus Christ as a reason to hate people, and Healer is a slimy, hypocritical moron who is physically incapable of realizing that lying to an interviewee in order "to get a candid response" is still lying, and that the Bible strictly prohibits lying when it mentions "Thou shalt not bear false witness," and mentions that there is no excuse to break this commandment (that doing it in God's name makes it even worse, in fact).
Posted by: Ichthyic | February 20, 2008 8:39 PM
the movie has already crashed and burned before it's taken off.
when you have to bribe large portions of your intended audience to even come and see your film, I think even the makers realize the failure this thing was going to be.
frankly, I doubt they even care.
of course, most people like Keith will just be happy to see us having to waste time cleaning up after the mess it will cause, just like we have to waste time cleaning up after Ken Hamm, or Kent Hovind, or any of the myriad other prevaricating morons out there.
Posted by: Sonny | February 20, 2008 9:28 PM
Correct me if I'm wrong. And I very well maybe. Didnt' Darwin on his death bed say something about believing in ID, and not renounce, but take back some of his studies, findings, or what ever you want to call them?
Posted by: Ichthyic | February 20, 2008 9:30 PM
Correct me if I'm wrong.
consider yourself corrected, and the point irrelevant in any case.
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CG/CG001.html
Posted by: MAJeff | February 20, 2008 9:31 PM
Correct me if I'm wrong. And I very well maybe. Didnt' Darwin on his death bed say something about believing in ID, and not renounce, but take back some of his studies, findings, or what ever you want to call them?
You're wrong. no such thing took place, but creationists love to spread that lie.
Posted by: Sonny | February 20, 2008 9:36 PM
Valid point.
Another pure question that is all.
Has anyone ever read this book...
"true science agrees with the bible"
I am thinking about getting it, but not sure it'll be worth my time....
Thanks
Posted by: Ichthyic | February 20, 2008 9:37 PM
they love to spread that lie, even though it wouldn't matter one whit as to the veracity and efficacy of evolutionary theory, even if Darwin was a baby eating, psychopathic murderer.
they can't seem to get it through their heads that science is not religion, has no prophets, and nobody is sacred.
not surprising, given that their only means of communication is through projection.
not saying that Sonny is one, but it needs to be said in general, given the commonality of this particular myth.
Posted by: Sonny | February 20, 2008 9:39 PM
and what about this thing....
http://www.answersincreation.org/argument/E611_creation_science.htm
It seems that the guy is now second guessing himself?
Posted by: Ichthyic | February 20, 2008 9:40 PM
"true science agrees with the bible"
have you ever heard of the "no true Scottsman" fallacy?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman
to answer your question, just based on the title alone, I'd be a bit put off by it.
but then, never judge a book by its cover, right?
Posted by: Ichthyic | February 20, 2008 9:41 PM
... you can safely assume that anything printed in AIG is going to be misinformation at best, and outright lies at worst.
go check out the talk origins archives if you want to spend some limited time on the issue.
Posted by: Sonny | February 20, 2008 9:43 PM
Correct you are. You can never judge a book by it's cover.
At the same time, I generally question all books. Information is information. But how are we supposed to test all things?
And if science is an ever increasing thing. Are we going to be thought of as "dumb" in only a matter of years?
Same goes for the Bible. How are we supposed to "test" it, using scientific methods? I've heard the Bible and history go hand and hand....
Posted by: Owlmirror | February 20, 2008 9:45 PM
The term "intelligent design" to refer specifically to the teleological argument was not coined until the late 1980s, so he could not have said that he "believed in ID". Perhaps you mean "believing in God". Well, no, he didn't say that on his deathbed, either.
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/04/the_death_of_darwin.php
Posted by: MAJeff | February 20, 2008 9:45 PM
I've heard the Bible and history go hand and hand...
The person who said that was, well, wrong.
Posted by: sonny | February 20, 2008 9:48 PM
I laugh at the phrase ID. People seems like they are too afraid to say Creation anymore.
I merely said that, as a phun.
Posted by: Ichthyic | February 20, 2008 9:48 PM
And if science is an ever increasing thing. Are we going to be thought of as "dumb" in only a matter of years?
nobody thinks Newton was dumb, but relativity has relegated aspects of his mechanics to the dustbin of history.
we embrace with positive attitude the idea that things are constantly being challenged and changing.
the theory of evolution itself has "evolved" far beyond the ideas Darwin put forth in his original work.
We stand on the shoulders of those that came before us.
Posted by: thalarctos | February 20, 2008 9:48 PM
Before this thread, I never would have thought that Ichthyic could put me in mind of JAD...
Ichy, I like your version better, though.
Posted by: Ichthyic | February 20, 2008 9:51 PM
or, you could grab the original from Aristotle:
Posted by: Ichthyic | February 20, 2008 9:53 PM
er, crap, I meant Newton.
why did I say Aristotle?
*shakes head*
going for coffee now.
Posted by: Sonny | February 20, 2008 9:59 PM
I thank you for your time Ichthyic.
I have to admit.
I am a believer in the risen Lord Jesus Christ.
I know next to nothing about science.
Next to nothing about Biblical history.
I can barely remember the sermon from last sunday.
What I do know, is what's happened in my life since deciding to follow Christ. His teachings have shaped my life, and allowed me to experience Love, Joy and Peace, amongst other things, on a level in which I could never of fathomed.
The only proof that I have that God is real, is what's been done in my life. And the lives of others I have been blessed to be around.
It's safe to say that on all levels, people have implemented their own agenda and taken the name of Evolution, Christianity, Muslim etc, and drug it through the mud. It is truly a shame to human kind.
I did not come on here to argue only to ask questions.
Thank you for your time.
Posted by: Stanton | February 20, 2008 10:00 PM
Maybe it's your subconscious subtly trying to tell you that you have a craving for Greek food?
Posted by: Owlmirror | February 20, 2008 10:01 PM
I'm not sure what you are asking. "Science" is increasing, but even there, science is the aggregate knowledge acquired by the the human race. No individual human knows all of science. So I suppose that in a way, we are all dumber than what we have in general learned.
The Bible makes several types of statements:
Some are generally true - the basic geography of the middle east is laid out, and some parts have been confirmed by archeology. We know, for example, that the area where the garden of Eden is vaguely alleged to have been was once part of the Fertile Crescent. We know that Egypt was and is a real place, and that the kings were called Pharaohs, and the the Nile river was important to the people of Egypt.
But the bible also makes lots of untestable claims: Were the ancient Israelites ever really slaves in Egypt? We've deciphered lots of hieroglyphs, and little has been found in confirmation. Did the Egyptian ever suffer 10 plagues? Not so far as can be found. And so on.
The Bible also makes statements which could not have been tested at the time it was written, but which are testable by modern science - and which have been shown to be false. The bible claims that the earth is around 6000 years old, and that there was a global flood. Geologists examined the earth for signs of the flood, and found evidence of lots of floods at different periods of time, but no signs of a global one. And of course, multiple dating methods put the current age of the Earth at around 4.5 billion years old, which shows the bible's claim to have been false.
Posted by: Stanton | February 20, 2008 10:04 PM
So then, why do you need more proof, Sonny?
Go out, and follow the advice that the Book of Ecclesiastics gave, and live life, which is the reason why we put on this Earth to begin with. It wouldn't hurt to buy some books, too, like, say, Ray Troll's Cruisin' The Fossil Highway, or Fossil Fishes by John Maisey, either.
Posted by: Sonny | February 20, 2008 10:07 PM
I don't recall ever saying I needed more proof, but I will look into those books.
Thanks.
Posted by: Ichthyic | February 20, 2008 10:08 PM
I did not come on here to argue only to ask questions.
...and stand on your soapbox?
feel free to ask questions. many of us have tons of information relevant to questions one might have of any theory within biology, or other branches of science.
also feel just as free NOT to pontificate on the origins or maintenance of your religious beliefs.
thanks.
if you are looking for those more interested in seeing how science and faith do not conflict, I think you might be a bit more happy spending time here:
http://www.pandasthumb.org/
another area full of informative folks, but a bit more tolerant of the religious (PvM is in fact, a Christian).
good luck.
Posted by: Sonny | February 20, 2008 10:12 PM
no soapbox.
Just found the website from the Movie Expelled's website.
And I do apologize for pontificating my beliefs, on this website. Didn't mean to offend you.
Posted by: Owlmirror | February 20, 2008 10:19 PM
And no one here will stand in your way in continuing on that path, for as long as you wish.
However, I would suggest that you keep in mind that "Love, Joy and Peace" are emotions which are part of the general human condition. And while your own experiences of those emotions may be powerful and vivid to you, they are just as powerful and vivid to all humans, past and present, regardless of whether they believed in Jesus or Yahweh or Allah or Zeus or Thor or Vishnu or no gods at all.
Posted by: Steven | February 20, 2008 10:26 PM
Ok ...... I see one slight but possibly relevant mistake with the comparison made by PZ Myers concerning how Charles Darwin was much more of a gentleman than Christians of his day. I will just state here, that it just might be possible that actual recorded history may be of no importance to a scientist when they choose of their own free will to make a false comparison intended to mislead others into thinking that christians are, were, and always will be "inferior" to their own intellect.
First of all, you need a refresher course on the Atlantic Slave Trade. One person you should research fully is John Henry Newton. You might even ask yourself this question "Why did the State of Georgia abolish slavery for the first two decades of its existence?"
I can sort of see Ben Stein's point ..... PZ Myers is attacking people of faith in an attempt to ridicule them, while at the same time, spouting off nonsense about how Charles Darwin was somehow less of a racist than christians of his day. Your talking garbage. A racist is a racist. More christians have put forth an effort to stop racism than any scientist. That is a fact you might have a bit of trouble swallowing my dear good sir.
Posted by: Ichthyic | February 20, 2008 10:27 PM
And I do apologize for pontificating my beliefs, on this website. Didn't mean to offend you.
not offensive, just tiresome. which i would add you yourself shouldn't take necessary offense at.
like i said, a cursory glance suggests you might like spending time at the 'thumb more.
you'll get the same kinds of insights into evolutionary theory (for the most part), and there won't be quite as negative a reaction towards your religious beliefs, if that's important to you.
Posted by: Ichthyic | February 20, 2008 10:30 PM
will just state here, that it just might be possible that actual recorded history may be of no importance to a scientist when they choose of their own free will to make a false comparison intended to mislead others into thinking that christians are, were, and always will be "inferior" to their own intellect.
have you ever heard the term:
strawman?
here, read up and then reconsider what you just wrote:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man
Posted by: MAJeff | February 20, 2008 10:32 PM
A racist is a racist.
Abe Lincoln was a racist.
What a miserable excuse for a human he must have been.
Posted by: Sonny | February 20, 2008 10:33 PM
yeah I'll check it out man. thanks.
one final question, before my stomach explodes for lack of no dinner...
if we evolved from chromizones, molecules. etc...
where did they come from?
didn't this whole thing have to start from somewhere?
and I will understand if you dont' want to answer my question.
Again thanks for your time. Your responses wasn't what I was expecting.
Posted by: Tyler DiPietro | February 20, 2008 10:34 PM
"More christians have put forth an effort to stop racism than any scientist."
The converse is also true: more Christians put in an effort to preserve slavery than any scientist. This probably due to the vastly larger numbers of Christians in comparison scientists.
Posted by: Tyler DiPietro | February 20, 2008 10:39 PM
"didn't this whole thing have to start from somewhere?"
Yes, but it has nothing to do with the theory of evolution. Evolutionary theory, unlike Christianity, isn't intended to be a comprehensive cosmology or cosmogeny. It is simply an explanatory framework for how populations of biological organisms change over time. Where elementary particles, chemical elements, etc. initiated is irrelevant to the basic picture of evolution.
Posted by: Ichthyic | February 20, 2008 10:39 PM
didn't this whole thing have to start from somewhere?
you're into the field of abiogenesis now:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origin_of_life
just to be clear how this differs from (and is also similar to) the theory of how things evolved afterwards.
typically, evolutionary biologists are more concerned about how things change within populations, not how the first reproducing organism arose to begin with.
That said, as scientists we certainly don't presume other than natural causes, and there are enough theories out there being evaluated as we speak; see the wiki article i linked to for several examples.
Posted by: Sonny | February 20, 2008 10:44 PM
but where did the "water vapor" come from?
and what about the earth itself?
Evolunists, (only a question, not an attack) only believe in studying the evolving of life on earth? Correct?
Posted by: Ichthyic | February 20, 2008 10:48 PM
Evolunists, (only a question, not an attack) only believe in studying the evolving of life on earth? Correct?
to some extent, we have to understand chemistry, physics, geology, and even a little astronomy in order to understand what the constraints and properties inherent in the systems are.
so, yes, we are primarily interested in studying life, but in order to do so, we have to know quite a bit about other fields as well.
I took enough chemistry to minor in it as an undergrad, for example.
oh, and I don't know any evolutionary biologists that refer to themselves as "evolutionists" either.
it's a theory, not a worldview, in spite of what you might have been told.
Posted by: Sonny | February 20, 2008 10:52 PM
Theory. Gotcha.
So in your studies, cause they seem a lot more wide then mine, how did earth beging? And the "molecules" (or however they are referred to) begin?
Cause the question I always come to when thinking about "evolution" is, it had to all begin somewhere?
True, yes?
Posted by: Owlmirror | February 20, 2008 10:54 PM
Also, in the USA (at least so far as I know), it is only Christians who wish to return to slavery, with themselves as the slaveowners, of course.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christianity_and_Slavery#Christian_advocacy_of_slavery
Posted by: Steven | February 20, 2008 11:01 PM
"More christians have put forth an effort to stop racism than any scientist."
The converse is also true: more Christians put in an effort to preserve slavery than any scientist. This probably due to the vastly larger numbers of Christians in comparison scientists.
Your statements are incorrect. This is yet another urban legend such as "christians were responsible for the flat earth theory" (even though the bible said it was round). So called scientists believed the earth was flat.
I would say that more scientists have encouraged euthanasia than any christian. I would also say that "big science" is also responsible for the Holocaust. "Now hold on ".... you might say ..... "the racial ideologies of the third reich were based on a misinterpretation of the Darwin theory yadda yadda yadda .........."
I have heard them all my friend. I can now pose this question "If it was a misinterpretation, where did the misinterpretation take place?, Was Charles Darwin ONLY talking about animals? Don't you think he was also INCLUDING human beings in his Origin of the Species?"
Of course he was. And of course it is wrong to euthanize those whom are deemed "inferior" by the pre-dominant "species" or "race".
I do not see christians advocating mercy killings, or aborting a live baby 30 days after it has been born (Peter Singer and others). I do not see christians debating on when a human being is actually a person.
I see "big science" as Ben Stein calls it, doing just that.
I believe science is a great tool used to explain how our environment "works". It should never be used to indoctrinate one professor's ideology of how things work. When evidence contradicts scientific research, it should not be stifled or dismissed. It should be discussed.
Posted by: Sonny | February 20, 2008 11:01 PM
owlmirror,
I think your wikipedia reference, is another gross example of how people have taken the "bible" and twisted their own agendas into it.
It's pathetic at best.
But couldn't one say, that we are slaves to something? There is something that controls us all? Our motives, our actions, our beliefs?
Posted by: Ichthyic | February 20, 2008 11:04 PM
So in your studies, cause they seem a lot more wide then mine, how did earth beging? And the "molecules" (or however they are referred to) begin?
earth? as an accretion of dust particles, minerals, and gases, same as any other body within the solar system (including the sun).
again, a basic google search on "origin of earth" will likely turn up the latest work.
did you happen to catch the fairly recent series: The Universe, that was shown on the history channel?
if not, you might like to take a gander at that for a fun and basic review of what we currently know and have hypothesized.
http://www.history.com/minisite.do?content_type=mini_home&mini_id=54036
there are also a lot of excellent books on the subject out there, and of course you might want to try websites of those whose field is more directly relevant:
http://research.amnh.org/~tyson/
by "molecules" I assume you mean self-replicating molecules?
if so, I again suggest you check out the references in the wiki on abiogenesis.
Posted by: Ichthyic | February 20, 2008 11:07 PM
There is something that controls us all? Our motives, our actions, our beliefs?
I take it you have abandoned the idea of free will?
you can change your mind about rather important issues at a moment's notice, can you not?
you could stop believing in a deity right now, and I promise no retaliation, nor change in the way the world around you functions in the most basic sense.
that said, what evidence do you have that supports the idea you have no free will?
Posted by: Owlmirror | February 20, 2008 11:10 PM
No. I would say: The Third Reich didn't misinterpret "the Darwin theory", as you phrase it, because they didn't use it. At all.
Hitler preferred more classical models of racial superiority:
Posted by: Ichthyic | February 20, 2008 11:12 PM
. "Now hold on ".... you might say ..... "the racial ideologies of the third reich were based on a misinterpretation of the Darwin theory yadda yadda yadda .........."
actually, they were based on the writings of Martin Luther, and had nothing whatsoever to do with Darwin, or any of his writings.
did you ever actually READ Mein Kampf?
suggest you do so before you say "I've heard them all".
when (if) you do, you will find no references to Darwin, or to the theory of evolution.
go figure.
so tired of you Kennedy (James) wannabes trying to pretend you know something about history.
morons, the lot of ya.
Posted by: Sonny | February 20, 2008 11:13 PM
No I think we have a free will.
We are all free to do whatever we want.
Yes we have the choice to change at any given notice.
But it seems as we "un" progress as a civilization, we are "generally" becoming more dependent on things. A dependence that soon, if not stopped, becomes a type of slave owner if you will.
I have no evidence that supports the Idea of no free will. But I do have evidence at what our "world" is turning into.
Ever been to wal-mart. LOL.
Posted by: Kseniya | February 20, 2008 11:14 PM
Really? Incorrect? So... you're saying that it was scientists, not Christians, who fought wars to preserve slavery? You're saying there are many more scientists than there are Christians?
How interesting!
Oh. And "big science" caused the Holocaust. LMAO. Never heard that one before.
(Wow. Has this guy swallowed the Kool-Aid or what?)
Heh. I doubt that. Yet you suppose that this rancid tripe you're serving up here on on your splintered and rotting platter is in ANY sense new?
Posted by: MAJeff | February 20, 2008 11:15 PM
What is it about the Right-Wing mind that sees conspiracies everywhere? I mean the John Birchers and McCarthy complaining about a government full of commies--even up to President Eisenhower himself--who have moved more recently into Jewish conspiracy theories. There are the freaks (like Gerry) pushing ZOG as foretold in the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, leading to UN black helicopters taking over everything. There's always the Illuminati and Freemasons running things behind the scenes. And now we've got Big Science.
Steven, take your pills. It is all in your head.