…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.
Comments
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: deviljelly | February 13, 2008 12:04 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: Brownian, OM | February 13, 2008 12:05 PM
How can people be so utterly ignorant??
Posted by: Daldianus | February 13, 2008 12:11 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 12:12 PM
...aha, it's back now; I wonder if there were any edits? I didn't get to see the original.
Posted by: Geoffrey Alexander | February 13, 2008 12:13 PM
I now know why I don't like cabbage. Because I'm a Darwinian racist.
Posted by: MAJeff | February 13, 2008 12:14 PM
If evolution is a "gloomy" theory, why is always the IDers who come off like whiny emo kids?
Posted by: H. Humbert | 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 12:16 PM
Still 404 error for me.
Posted by: Jit | February 13, 2008 12:18 PM
PZ, this post seems to be missing an icon.
Bob
Posted by: Bob O'H | February 13, 2008 12:19 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: Raynfala | 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: Glen Davidson | February 13, 2008 12:20 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: AL | February 13, 2008 12:23 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: barron | 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: Glen Davidson | February 13, 2008 12:27 PM
Condensed version: "If it feels good, believe it!"
Even more condensed version: "BAAAAAAAWWWWWW!!!"
Posted by: Rey Fox | February 13, 2008 12:28 PM
Guess I'll just go to work and hang out with my thoughtless, amoral (or is it immoral?) pessimistic friends.
Posted by: David Denning | 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: Penny | February 13, 2008 12:30 PM
Sorry, not in The Bill of Rights, try The Declaration of Independance
Posted by: SteveM | 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: Penny | February 13, 2008 12:31 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: Nick | 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: Rick | 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: MAJeff | 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: gg | February 13, 2008 12:33 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: croor | February 13, 2008 12:35 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: Vic | 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: Glen Davidson | February 13, 2008 12:36 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: Geoff | 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: Molly, NYC | February 13, 2008 12:37 PM
Sounds to me like someone should make a film of rebuttal
Posted by: Dale | February 13, 2008 12:37 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: gg | February 13, 2008 12:38 PM
Every time I see the 'No Intelligence Allowed' banner, I think of the irony.
Posted by: Geral | February 13, 2008 12:39 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: Glen Davidson | February 13, 2008 12:44 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: Olaf Davis | February 13, 2008 12:45 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: MAJeff | 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: Bob L | February 13, 2008 12:48 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: Dan | 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: Hank Fox | February 13, 2008 12:49 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 12:51 PM
Oops, that was supposed to be, "They aren't just stupid, they're also sinister."
Glen
Posted by: Glen Davidson | February 13, 2008 12:53 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: Chris | February 13, 2008 12:54 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: Siamang | February 13, 2008 12:59 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: Joe | February 13, 2008 1:00 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: kmarissa | 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: Glen Davidson | February 13, 2008 1:01 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: Holbach | February 13, 2008 1:02 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: June | February 13, 2008 1:03 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: Dawn | February 13, 2008 1:05 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: Brownian, OM | 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: Rey Fox | February 13, 2008 1:10 PM
To your last sentence, PZ, I can only reply with a quotation from Ambrose Bierce's The Devil's Dictionary:
Posted by: G Felis | 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: Peter Ashby | February 13, 2008 1:15 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: Leukocyte | 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: Rey Fox | February 13, 2008 1:17 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: Tom | February 13, 2008 1:20 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: kmarissa | 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: Rey Fox | February 13, 2008 1:21 PM
PZ: That icon for blogging on pseudo-scientific, um, matters, absolutely made my day.
Posted by: Scott Hatfield, OM | February 13, 2008 1:21 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 1:23 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: Paul | February 13, 2008 1:27 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: MAJeff | February 13, 2008 1:30 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: Kcanadensis | February 13, 2008 1:31 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: Paul | February 13, 2008 1:32 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: gg | February 13, 2008 1:34 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: JC | 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: Paul | February 13, 2008 1:35 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: Lana | February 13, 2008 1:36 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: Patrick Quigley | February 13, 2008 1:40 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: Sili | February 13, 2008 1:42 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: windy | 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 f