…and this is a 
It's a propaganda film!
Category: Creationism
Posted on: March 8, 2008 9:36 AM, by PZ Myers
It's quite clear what the purpose of Ben Stein's Expelled movie is — notice what they've been doing with it. They've been shopping it around at screenings that are filtered to keep knowledgeable people out; they're planning to pay students to attend; they're relying on the Big Lie to promote the movie; and of course, they had to misrepresent themselves to get interviews.
But now they've really done it: they are going to give Florida legislators, sponsored by a representative who has filed one of those bogus "academic freedom" bills, a special, private screening of the movie. None of the critics know what is in it, so this amounts to presenting a slick, prepackaged collection of lies to legislators while denying anyone any opportunity to rebut. Ben Stein should be ashamed of himself; can you think of any similar plan to generate public and political action against a group by spreading blatant lies that they were conspiring to commit horrible acts? Protocols of the Elders of Zion, anyone?
If the producers of Expelled are so confident that they can make a strong case of conspiracy against scientists, then before they start showing this to uninformed politicians, they ought to screen it before scientists and historians and philosophers of science, who will be able to judge it on its merits. Let's see them show it to a group picked by NCSE, for instance, who would then be able to fairly argue against it. As it is, the cowards of Expelled are doing their best to keep critics in the dark about its content.
There's another revelation in this sordid Florida affair. Who else is sponsoring this screening of the movie? An organization called the Challenger Learning Center of Tallahassee. The place looks wonderful on the web: it's a hands-on science museum with children's programs, an IMAX theater, a planetarium, etc., with a focus on engineering and aerospace, and it's an arm of Florida State University and Florida A&M. Here's their mission statement:
The Center is the K-12 outreach facility of the Florida A&M University - Florida State University College of Engineering and uses aerospace as a theme to foster long-term interest in math, science and technology; create positive learning experiences; and motivate students to pursue careers in these fields.
Sounds nice…but Mike O'Risal dug deeper. After all, why is an overtly pro-physical science organization like this assisting in an attack on the life sciences? It seems that none of the staff at the Challenger Center actually has any kind of degree in the sciences — the head of the planetarium has a P.E. degree, which brings to mind that common public school tactic of letting the football coach teach the science classes. These are people who are grossly unqualified to assess the merits of the movie, and at the very least they have allowed venal interests to override their mission of providing quality science education to the public.
Mike has a collection of email addresses associated with this debacle, including people at FSU, who are going to get tarred with this mess. Write to them! Let them know that an institution that is supposed to represent the university and is supposed to encourage more citizens to get a science education is being misused to do the opposite.
I've sent off email. One compromise I've suggested: if the screening goes ahead, they should insist that a group of university faculty be allowed to attend, and that those faculty should then be given equal time in a hearing with those same legislators to discuss any misrepresentations in the movie. They have to understand that Expelled is being used as a dishonest propaganda tool to foist a mislabeled "academic freedom" bill on them, one which will attempt to dictate the allowed views of university faculty on politics and evolution.
Comments
In their efforts to "educate the educators", the publicists for Expelled sent out this week an e-mail containing a rave review of the movie. (There haven't been too many of those, have there?) It treats as a major revelation the statement by Dawkins by nothing ultimately prevents intelligence from creating new life (as humanity might be doing some day). Shocking! That's one of the stupidest claims. One of the diciest: that the views of evolutionists are presented "unedited." I really don't believe that. [Link]
Posted by: Zeno | March 8, 2008 9:45 AM
Damn! Here's the actual link. [Link]
(Twice now I've created circular links while talking about Expelled. God must be angry with me!)
Posted by: Zeno | March 8, 2008 9:47 AM
Just to be clear on this, people like Larry Abele and Joe Travis don't deserve any blame for this. I'm sure they weren't aware that Challenger was up to this sort of thing and I'm just about as sure they'll be opposed to it when they do find out.
I'm a Florida State alumnus, and I'm personally appalled that Challenger -- which is essentially a Florida State University/Florida A&M cooperative effort facility -- would pull this stunt. I think the universities themselves are going to have a big problem with this, as well they should. I hope that whomever is responsible for making the decision to show Stein's hit-piece gets sacked.
Posted by: Mike O'Risal | March 8, 2008 9:57 AM
First it was lawyers who tried to adjudicate science education...now we have P.E. coaches. It's like being forced to watch Lee Strobel having sex in a hockey stadium.
Posted by: danley | March 8, 2008 10:06 AM
My emails are off. Please let these educators know that the world is watching. Get to emailing and include your city/state.
Posted by: GBruno | March 8, 2008 10:11 AM
PZ Myers continues, and Ben Stein CLEARLY demonstrates HIS IGNORANCE.
Posted by: Mark Witt | March 8, 2008 10:18 AM
Yep, Mark, that Ben Stein is incredibly ignorant and does a really good job at demonstrating it. It's a good thing that there are people like PZ around continuing to point it out.
Posted by: Mike O'Risal | March 8, 2008 10:21 AM
Knowing Florida, odds are that what you have is collusion by the Expelled crew and the legislators. By giving the legislators a special screening with all opposing views carefully prevented from being presented they give the legislators 'cover' for announcing how they were "convinced" by the film that there must be "balancing" views in the schools.
The reality is different. What you probably have is a 'love-in' of anti-evolution/pro-creationist legislators and the Expelled crew giving each other a platform to bash evolution and do precisely what they meant to do in the first place. Only with a thin covering veneer of having 'investigated' the issue.
Posted by: Benjamin Franz | March 8, 2008 10:24 AM
Strangely enough there's some fake bittorrent links going around pretending to contain this movie.
Can't be that long until someone grabs it to make a copy and dump it on the net. I mean, i'm told there are sane Christians that would be glad if these jokers were exposed.
Posted by: Dutch Delight | March 8, 2008 10:25 AM
Atheists better start praying (just in case He's there) because that's the only chance they got.
PZ shouldn't worry, he'll be at the top of the pack after this movie. Dawkins is going down hard! He is AWFUL in it. He completely gives away the store - says life may have been designed and that we may be able to detect that it has been designed! (where have I heard that before?)
Please try and squash everyone and everything associated with this movie, it will reinforce the very point that the movie is trying to make.
Posted by: Me | March 8, 2008 10:34 AM
Just checked out Mark Witt's "blog."
WTF?
Posted by: craig | March 8, 2008 10:38 AM
Pray to which "He" again? Don't want to be wasting my time worshipping Zeus and his resurrected sun, sorry, son, when it's supposed to be Neptune.
Posted by: Dutch Delight | March 8, 2008 10:39 AM
All pseudosciences do the same thing: bypass the scientific system of review to go directly to the public, because the "experts" can't be trusted. Science has become too embroiled in politics, so it's up to the average person to use their common sense and reign in the ideologues and eccentrics who are out of touch with reality.
This is a major red flag indicator on pseudoscience. It's terribly flattering to the average person. You don't have to know that much to know that academics are wrong. You can do it with a high school education. Heck, a small child can see the problems.
After all, all our beliefs are "faith" -- you believe the sun will rise tomorrow, don't you? Faith. It levels out that crap about accumulated education, experience, and demonstration, and makes us all equal. Folks like that.
Posted by: Sastra | March 8, 2008 10:40 AM
So, uh, "Me," how do you feel about the fact that Ben Stein thinks Jesus Christ was a liar and not the son of God at all but just another guy like everybody else? You were aware that Stein is an unbaptized Jew and doesn't think that the New Testament are God's word, correct?
Not that this has anything to do with Expelled, which is (supposedly) about evolutionary theories, not about religion. It's funny, though, how so many Creation-nits keep making it into a war between religion and irreligion. Your violence fantasies are particularly endearing, but very much in keeping with Stein's idiocy.
Posted by: Mike O'Risal | March 8, 2008 10:41 AM
Pray to which "He" again? Don't want to be wasting my time worshipping Zeus and his resurrected sun, sorry, son, when it's supposed to be Neptune.
Only Bacchus shall receive my prayers. A bit too many last night, though. But still, even with all that lovely wine messing with my perceptions and killing of my liver and brain, I couldn't make myself as stupid as the EXPELLED *jazz hands* fans that show up with their creocrushes on Stein.
Oy, they hurt my head more than the wine. Save me Bacchus!
Posted by: MAJeff, OM | March 8, 2008 10:43 AM
PZ, Thank you for keeping us informed of the tactics behind this farce of a documentary. I live in the heart of the Bible Belt and keep track of the deceptions involved in the film's marketing and content. I hope to disseminate them en masse to the locals. Your continued contributions will be of immense value.
Posted by: CR Stamey | March 8, 2008 10:45 AM
"It's funny, though, how so many Creation-nits keep making it into a war between religion and irreligion."
And I'm sure they're thanking Dawkins, PZ, Dennet, Provine, Wilson and all the rest for agreeing with them.
Posted by: Me | March 8, 2008 10:49 AM
Me #10 wrote:
How does that "give away the store" or anything else? OF COURSE life "may" have been designed, and OF COURSE we "may" be able to detect it. Nobody has argued otherwise except the materialist scientists in your head (probably the same straw-constructed atheists who insist that there is no possibility that any form of anything called God could in theory exist.)
The point is that we have NOT seen any necessity to conclude this from a scientific point of view. Any statement Dawkins makes to the effect that "of course I could be wrong" is simply how scientists must and always work. Science demands that you consider the possibility of being wrong -- and come up with a test that would demonstrate that.
So okay, Me. What would conclusively falsify Intelligent Design. You say it's a theory, set up a hypothetical. COULD you be wrong, and evolution happened? COULD you be wrong, and God does NOT exist and never has existed? Now -- tell us all what would or could happen that would force you to conclude both statements are correct, and you've been wrong the whole time.
Give us the test for God. Otherwise, admit you're a dogmatist who can't make an error, or find out that they have, by any method or evidence whatsoever.
Posted by: Sastra | March 8, 2008 10:50 AM
Heathen!
It's Fuflun, not Bacchus, prepare to suffer for your insolence!
Posted by: Dutch Delight | March 8, 2008 10:50 AM
Speaking of Ben Stein...
Late last summer, I caught Stein on a financial talking-heads show waxing poetic about how the subprime crisis had been overblown, and how Citigroup, Merrill-Lynch, etc.. were extremely undervalued. Jump in with both feet, Stein said. These were investment bargains!
At the time, Citigroup was trading around $47 per share. Merrill-Lynch was trading at about $75/share.
As of the close of business yesterday, Citigroup was $20.91. Merrill-Lynch closed at $45.19.
I can only hope that lots of obnoxious religious fundamentalists out there consider Stein's financial expertise to be on par with his expertise in the biological sciences. If so, they'll soon be bankrupting themselves out of existence.
Posted by: caerbannog | March 8, 2008 10:50 AM
How interesting!
I followed a link left by Glen Davidson on here the other day. It is to a site that has reviewed the Expelled movie (praising it, unfortunately). Nick Matzke turned up and left a message, and there were the usual ignoramuses spewing up all over the comments section.
I have just taken another look at it and Caroline Crocker and Casey Luskin have both now left messages on the site.
This is the message from Crocker:
This is Luskin's message:
Release the hounds!
Posted by: Damian | March 8, 2008 10:51 AM
Ouch, this is hitting close to home (literally, I live less than a mile from the Challenger Learning Center). I never knew that the museum was in any way associated with the university and I suppose the links must be tenuous and tortuous to keep any of the biology department from noticing this. I'm still surprised that the museum would make this kind of a decision, but I will definitely e-mail some folks and bring it to the attention of local biologists and professors.
As I mentioned to Mike I was just feeling pretty good about Tallahassee after Darwin Day last month and attending a liberal-packed Roy Zimmerman concert just last night. And then this sort of thing comes along.
And boy, our legislators don't need any help being misinformed.
P.S. "Me", with these craven tactics I'm just SURE that the Expelled folks have the truth on their side.
Posted by: Diego | March 8, 2008 10:51 AM
Canned post listing the creo victims. The truth is out there and it is ugly. The creos are far ahead on body counts while claiming persecution. Two on the list were beaten up. No one has been killed. Yet. SOP, they lie a lot.
The Expelled Liars have totally ignored the ugly truth of just who is persecuting who.
If anyone has more info add it. Also feel free to borrow or steal the list.
I thought I'd post all the firings of professors and state officials for teaching or accepting evolution.
2 professors fired, Bitterman (SW CC Iowa) and Bolyanatz (Wheaton)
1 persecuted unmercifully Richard Colling (Olivet)
1 attempted firing Murphy (Fuller Theological by Phillip Johnson IDist)
1 successful death threats, assaults harrasment Gwen Pearson (UT Permian)
1 assault, fired from department head Paul Mirecki (U. of Kansas)
1 state official fired Chris Comer (Texas)
Death Threats Eric Pianka UT Austin and the Texas Academy of Science engineered by a hostile, bizarre IDist named Bill Dembski
Death Threats Michael Korn, fugitive from justice, towards the UC Boulder biology department and miscellaneous evolutionary biologists.
Up to 9 with little effort. Probably there are more. I turned up a new one with a simple internet search. Haven't even gotten to the secondary science school teachers.
And the Liars of Expelled have the nerve to scream persecution. On body counts the creos are way ahead.
Posted by: raven | March 8, 2008 10:53 AM
I believe Ben Stein and his ilk should hereto be referred to as Neo-Lysenkoites.
Perhaps someone should send Ben Stein a link to this little history lesson, and the parallel will drive the point home.
Although this may be giving Stein and Co too much credit, as Lysenko was actually a trained scientist.
Posted by: Andrew | March 8, 2008 11:01 AM
It's Fuflun, not Bacchus, prepare to suffer for your insolence!
Oh noes, I'm gonna have to drink Merlot!
Posted by: MAJeff, OM | March 8, 2008 11:02 AM
I pity you ignorant fools. The only truth is that which can be found in the Church of the Traveling Clam.
Posted by: Dan | March 8, 2008 11:05 AM
I'm convinced, the church of the travelling clam it is.
There are weekly festivities right?
Posted by: Dutch Delight | March 8, 2008 11:12 AM
It'll be funny when all the late night comedians and Jon Stewart make fun of Ben Stein and the movie.
What a joke this will turn into. I'm not too worried.
Look at "Me"... he's a joke too.
Posted by: Steve_C | March 8, 2008 11:16 AM
I'm pissed that I get a gmail ad for this movie everytime I open an e-mail with the word "science" in it.
Posted by: DrBadger | March 8, 2008 11:21 AM
hey, travelling clam sounds good. Is it like Catholicism, where you get to eat of his flesh? 'Cause I loves me some clam chowder!
Hey, we can even mix in some Christianity. Some of the Soylent Jesus wafers. Clam chowder needs crackers!
Posted by: craig | March 8, 2008 11:24 AM
"How does that "give away the store" or anything else? OF COURSE life "may" have been designed, and OF COURSE we "may" be able to detect it."
Is that not the research program of ID? If that is science, then what makes ID religion instead of science?
"The point is that we have NOT seen any necessity to conclude this from a scientific point of view."
"...necessity to conclude..." That's an interesting phrase. There are always untested alternative hypotheses to explain any set of data, ad infinitum. As such, one could always claim it is never a necessity to conclude some particular conclusion. This comes in very handy if one has a strong aversion to that conclusion.
"Any statement Dawkins makes to the effect that "of course I could be wrong" is simply how scientists must and always work."
But that is not the context in which he makes his statements. He proposes this as an explanation for the beginning of life on earth.
Not to worry though, Richard will have plenty of time to come up with a spin to explain how he didn't really say what he said ... of course the tape may prove him wrong ...
Posted by: Me | March 8, 2008 11:25 AM
hey, travelling clam sounds good. Is it like Catholicism, where you get to eat of his flesh? 'Cause I loves me some clam chowder!
Hey, we can even mix in some Christianity. Some of the Soylent Jesus wafers. Clam chowder needs crackers!
And tobasco, must have tobasco (the blood...but a bloody mary works pretty well for that too)
Posted by: MAJeff, OM | March 8, 2008 11:26 AM
Our trolling creationist says that Dawkins suggests life on earth began by design. Does Me really believe that Dawkins thinks that? If so, Me is a fool. Dawkins has given ample evidence in books, interviews, and speeches that he believes nothing of the sort, even if he is willing to entertain the notion that it's not categorically impossible; but it would take a lot of evidence, which might in theory be detected, to bring him around. Go dig up some evidence, Me. Try to find one scrap of evidence over at the Discovery Institute, which ought to be a clearing house for that sort of stuff. Except for the petty carping, however, all is silence.
As long as we're feeding the troll, folks, pass along some of that tasty chowder from the church of the traveling clam, the latest incarnation of infallibly revealed religion. Try to avoid the sectarian carnage between the crouton faction versus the onion cracker faction.
Posted by: Zeno | March 8, 2008 11:43 AM
What research have Intelligent Design proponents done to further the study of Intelligent Design "theory"?
And as for Intelligent Design "theory" being religious in nature, let's let Phillip Johnson, Father of Intelligent Design, fill you in, ne?
So, then, if Intelligent Design "theory" is not religious in nature, then why is its creator saying that theology is of far greater importance than any actual science?
Posted by: Stanton | March 8, 2008 11:48 AM
Also, Zeno, have you ever tried geoduck?
Posted by: Stanton | March 8, 2008 11:50 AM
Are we talkin New England Clam Chowder?
Because that's the only chowder I eat.
Posted by: Steve_C | March 8, 2008 11:51 AM
Look, dear "Me", why would Dawkins need to talk himself out of anything (besides poor editing)?
There is no clear consensus on the origin of life at this point, there are some good ideas that look promising and need some more testing though, whats wrong with giving a likely process and adding that you could be wrong?
Is your view of scientists really so warped that you think it's special when one says that he could be shown wrong when the evidence is presented?
Posted by: Dutch Delight | March 8, 2008 11:53 AM
You've seen the film--now read the fliers;
Learn how these deceptive liars
Aren't heroic do-or-die-ers,
Rather, simple truth deniers
Preaching to religious choirs.
If a college somehow hires
Someone who, in truth, aspires
To pull the plug or cut the wires
Of science, and to fan the fires
Of ignorance his god desires,
The sooner such a man retires
Or is replaced, like worn-out tires,
The better. Such a move inspires!
(The end. No matter who inquires.
Oh, and happy birthday, PZ Myers.)
Posted by: Cuttlefish, OM | March 8, 2008 11:53 AM
Are we talkin New England Clam Chowder?
Because that's the only chowder I eat.
It's the only kind there is.
Posted by: MAJeff, OM | March 8, 2008 11:53 AM
Tell that to New Yorkers. They have an abomination they call chowder and it has tomatoes in it.
Posted by: Steve_C | March 8, 2008 11:55 AM
Me #31 wrote:
The problem with ID isn't that it involves God or the supernatural. It's that it has no research program, makes no testable claims, provides no model, and posits no mechanism. There is no way to rule out "something is the way it is because someone wanted it that way."
Intelligent Design is cut out by the Principle of Parsimony, in that it fails to explain anything by being capable of explaining everything. Those few times when it has tried to get explicit and avoid God of the Gap assertions, it manages to fall into the same category as the paranormal -- it fails direct tests, so "maybe current science can't show it but it exists anyway" gets invoked. Occam's razor doesn't care what you like or don't like.
ID is a combination of non-science and failed science. If we find an evolutionary pathway which explains something we once thought was "irreducibly complex," instead of being falsified the light is simply shifted to another area of ignorance and the "theory" remains unaffected. That is not good.
Posted by: Sastra | March 8, 2008 11:56 AM
Zeno,
In his book Dawkins favors the notion that the improbability of life occuring by the chance combination of chemicals is made probable by the many places throughout the universe where life might could form. Unfortunately his simple numbers (pulled from who knows where) ignore what we can already surmise about number of possible places where life could form. My only guess is that since he published his book, he has been given such information, and now thinks that life on earth being designed is the best (or one of the best) explanations.
Posted by: Me | March 8, 2008 12:01 PM
I grew up in NY and I deny that anything with tomatoes in it deserves the name chowder.
Posted by: spurge | March 8, 2008 12:01 PM
"My only guess is that since he published his book, he has been given such information, and now thinks that life on earth being designed is the best (or one of the best) explanations."
Your guess?
You are a joke.
Posted by: spurge | March 8, 2008 12:03 PM
What exactly can we "already surmise about number of possible places where life could form" ?
Posted by: Dutch Delight | March 8, 2008 12:06 PM
My only guess is that since he published his book, he has been given such information, and now thinks that life on earth being designed is the best (or one of the best) explanations.
No one is allowed to blame this on weed. Weed simply does not have the power to make one this batshit crazy.
Posted by: MAJeff, OM | March 8, 2008 12:08 PM
The artist currently known as "Me" said: "Please try and squash everyone and everything associated with this movie, it will reinforce the very point that the movie is trying to make."
We're not trying to "squash" (by which you seem to mean forcibly censor) anything, we're criticizing and mocking. They're not the same thing, contrary to the frequent assertions of creationists like yourself. Whiners.
Posted by: MPW | March 8, 2008 12:09 PM
Cuttlefish, one hopes your creativity never expires or retires.
Posted by: RamblinDude | March 8, 2008 12:10 PM
@Dutch Delight: That there are lots of them and to think that Earth is the only one is the height of arrogance?
Posted by: Loki | March 8, 2008 12:10 PM
Unfortunately his simple numbers (pulled from who knows where) ignore what we can already surmise about number of possible places where life could form.
Care to inform us as to what "we can already surmise about number of possible places where life could form"?
Posted by: RamblinDude | March 8, 2008 12:17 PM
"There is no way to rule out 'something is the way it is because someone wanted it that way.'"
Sure there is, demonstrate that it can be made through natural processes.
Look Sastra, suppose that the only claim of ID is this:
"Intellegent causes exist (for example, humans). It may be possible to determine when some things are caused by an intelligence, as opposed to being caused by naturalistic processes with no intelligence involved."
If that is the only claim of ID, then is ID a science program or not?
Posted by: Me | March 8, 2008 12:17 PM
It's the producers of "Expelled" who are consistently trying to limit its exposure and audience and the resulting criticism.
Critics of the movie are trying to tear down those curtains.
Posted by: craig | March 8, 2008 12:19 PM
Me #42 wrote:
I think this is unlikely, since cosmologists have been on a roll recently finding planets in other solar systems. They have also been discovering life deep undersea in areas where they did not previously think it could exist.
It is more likely that you're misunderstanding a point Dawkins is making to the effect that even IF the first form of life started through an intelligent agent, that would still not change or effect the Theory of Evolution as a whole, since abiogenesis is not usually included in the 'reproduction -->variation --> selection' algorithm. Although some biologists disagree on whether abiogenesis is included in evolution (PZ, for one), that's a rather standard point, and hardly some sort of amazing admission or reversal.
Posted by: Sastra | March 8, 2008 12:19 PM
cuttlefish #38 wrote:
REALLY?
Well, cuttlefish's sense of timing is always impeccable, so I will add "Happy Birthday" also then!
Posted by: Sastra | March 8, 2008 12:21 PM
I'm suspecting Ben and his team of experts have problems understanding what Dawkins means when he says that an advanced civilization could produce and design life. At one of his talks in Lynchburg (i think) there was a "christian college" student that had the same problem.
I guess they have trouble understanding why Dawkins thinks it's possible for there to be aliens that have so much power and technology they would be like gods to us. The difference being, that aliens aren't supernatural, in other words, they are not at odds with our current understanding of the universe. The supernatural is.
At any rate, conscious design is not really what biologists are finding. But thats old news. That and the FACT that despite all Ben's talk of freedom, they are keeping the actual movie hidden away from the general public, it's contributors and it's critics while making grandiose claims about their findings towards their cheerleaders. Until they stop being so scared of the ebil outside world, there's really nothing to talk about besides the clear lack of moral fiber amongst the producers, sponsors and marketers of this movie. I'd love to talk about content, but there isn't any yet, so this will have to do.
Posted by: Dutch Delight | March 8, 2008 12:24 PM
"What exactly can we "already surmise about number of possible places where life could form" ?"
Dutch, If you really want to know, and you really have an open mind about it, you'll look it up for yourself and educate yourself. Only then will you be able to get anything out of it.
Posted by: Me | March 8, 2008 12:25 PM
Craig says 'Just checked out Mark Witt's "blog." WTF?'
Mark's blog purports to be the pages of the Intelligent Design Institute of Theory. Consider the initials of the institute.
Me asks 'what makes ID religion and instead of science?'
One quick answer is that IDers have never said what findings they would accept as a refutation of ID. That is also the reason why it is incorrect to refer to the notions of ID as being a theory. A theory must make predictions which, if found to be false, would invalidate the theory.
Posted by: Richard Simons | March 8, 2008 12:27 PM
Dutch didn't write that, I did. And your answer is revealing--you don't know. Apparently you don't realize that the universe is an awfully big place, either.
Posted by: RamblinDude | March 8, 2008 12:29 PM
Ugh. As I write, my salivary glands are working overtime to lubricate my mouth and throat in case I can't keep the vomit down. "Ugh" is all I can manage.
And me will have plenty of time to wave to Dawkins as he passes the 7th circle (blasphemers) on his way to the 8th (liars).
Posted by: Brownian, OM | March 8, 2008 12:29 PM
@55-
Sorta; my source of info is way ahead of me in terms of time zones. It is PZed's birthday... in Australia, at least. PZed himself will have to wait another half day or so.
but it fit the rhyme...
Posted by: Cuttlefish | March 8, 2008 12:33 PM
There is no way to rule out 'something is the way it is because someone wanted it that way.'
Me #51 wrote:
How do you then rule out "(S)someone wanted the natural processes to work that way?"
Remember, you are not contrasting "Nature" with "Human Artifice." You are contrasting (1.) Nature Without Intention with (2.) Nature With Intention Behind It, and looking to see where "life" fits in.
Give clear examples of things in each category, (1) and (2).
Yes, it would be. For example, we could be comparing a rock with unknown marks on it against known examples of human carvings -- and then known examples of natural weathering -- to figure out if it's likely to be a spear head, or just a rock which broke in a way that makes it look like a spear head.
The problem with applying ID outside of "intelligent (human) causes" comes in finding the "known examples of nature which was created by an intelligence" and the "known examples of nature which was not created by an intelligence."
Again, show me what parts of the universe we can all agree that God had nothing to do with.
Posted by: Sastra | March 8, 2008 12:39 PM
"Dutch didn't write that, I did."
No RamblinDude, Dutch did write that. You wrote:
"Care to inform us as to what "we can already surmise about number of possible places where life could form"?"
See comment #45.
Posted by: Me | March 8, 2008 12:40 PM
Well, hush my mouth...
Posted by: RamblinDude | March 8, 2008 12:44 PM
I wish all you cretin evos would get a grip and just take it up the nose with a little class.
I mean even after you see the movie and the public worldwide unleashes hordes of rabid bats into your labs you'll still get to have sex with lab animals, smoke crack, keep your swastika tatoos,eat guppies, engage in group sex at your conferences, and keep your VW pop top with the grafetti and bug netting.
This post has more turds in it than first sewage clarifier outside Baltimore.
Ben will likely be nominated next year for the best documentary in the last decade while the evos wallow in their excrement and PZ Myers has to be put on suicide watch.
Pz got paid, no bitching. He even finally had enough cash at one time to get a new pair of painters pants for his next superconference in Fargo.
Posted by: Keith Eaton | March 8, 2008 12:44 PM
Hey folks, the party just now started. Keith is here. But going by his last sentence, he does not understand that evolutionist live in the lap of luxury. I wish the creationists would get together and get their stories straight.
Posted by: Janine | March 8, 2008 12:50 PM
Me, I quoted that sentence from your post, i wanted to know your opinion on the likelyhood of life, even intelligent life like ourselves existing elsewhere.
Nobody is saying there's evidence for such life yet, we're just not finding anything that indicates it's impossible. Given that our own evolution on this planet was influenced by occasional mass extinctions due to relatively unpredictable events as meteor impacts it's also perfectly possible to postulate that other civilizations could have a headstart on us of a few million years. So, here we are, alien beings who would look like gods to us, could create and design life.
Now comes the hard part, actually showing that this is what happened. If you or the ID PR team does this, you can expect a call from Sweden. Now, go to a lab and get to it.
Posted by: Dutch Delight | March 8, 2008 12:50 PM
Can I just have the crack? I'm getting too old for group sex (I just don't have the energy any more), and there's always someone I don't want touching me....
Posted by: MAJeff, OM | March 8, 2008 12:52 PM
I can't tell if post 65 is supposed to be satire or not.
Posted by: Loki | March 8, 2008 12:52 PM
Hehehe... Keith is crazy.
Posted by: Dan | March 8, 2008 12:55 PM
Is it just me, or do other people also get the impression that Keith Eaton's comments are getting more graphic and violent? I have no training in the area, but it looks to me as though he is rapidly going off the rails.
Posted by: Richard Simons | March 8, 2008 12:56 PM
Hm. I've always classified Keith Eaton as a Creationist troll, but I admit I'm starting to have my doubts, too. He could be an atheist troll.
Posted by: Sastra | March 8, 2008 1:02 PM
If #65 was indeed satire, then "painters pants" were taken in vain. It is abominable to thus execrate the evolutionist's equivalent of sacred vestments (also known as "temple garments").
Posted by: Zeno | March 8, 2008 1:02 PM
Keith is just a troll.
Ignore it and the rants should get quite entertaining.
Posted by: spurge | March 8, 2008 1:03 PM
Keith:
Awesome parody.
Mr Me:
No, Me, that would not make ID a science program...I disagree a bit with Sastra there, though he and I mean the same thing, I think.
I don't think there's a rational scientist who would disagree with your hypothetical "ID claim." But the claim, as written, is NOT ID's claim, and it has no explanatory or predictive power beyond "maybe we can figure out that some things are designed." Of course we can. We do it all the time with human products. The problem is that the claim is silent on HOW we can detect design.
Think about it, friend. How would you detect design and a designer in any other circumstance? You'd compare it against knowns, no? We know silicon-and-plastic PCs are usually found in nature, and we further know that humans DO manufacture them, and we further know how they manufacture them, and we further know that Russian PCs tend to have some very distinctive characteristics, all adding up to a high likelihood of being able to detect the fact of design and identity of the designer of a Russian-made PC.
Yet ID offers none of this. No positive detection methods. IDists are quite certain of the fact of design and the identity of the Designer, yet they offer no means to identify said Designer's fingerprints or said Designer itself, and offer no explanation as to mechanism. Their entire "program" consists of negative evidence and false duality, of pointing at things biologists can't yet explain (often erroneously) and declaring: "You don't know and you can't possibly ever know because only the Designer could do it!" And then we go on to figure it out anyway... Without positive evidence, for ID to have any hope, it has to assert that the simple fact of design itself is somehow special and inherently detectable.
At the Dover trial, Behe claimed that mutations introduced by a designer could not inherently be identified as designed. But he then claimed that a test of ID would be to place a bacterial species lacking a flagellum into a laboratory setting under selective pressure for mobility and see if it evolved a flagellum or equally complex mobility system over a long period of time. Now, of course there are issues with what Behe would accept as "long enough time" and "equally complex," but the problem is more fundamental than this. Under the ID detection method of "it looks designed to me," there is nothing that prevents Behe from declaring after some mobility system is evolved that it was in itself designed. Indeed, there is no reason he shouldn't make this claim! Why would a Designer's work in a lab experiment be any different from a Designer's work in any other setting? No real scientist would accept this test as a means of distinguishing design and non-design for precisely this reason.
Can't you see why? It's because there's no actual way under the current utter lack of an ID "model" to distinguish "it evolved gradually with selective pressure and other known evolutionary mechanisms acting on random mutation" from "it was gradually designed with a Designer exerting selective pressure on random mutations and introducing nonrandom mutations." Behe himself states you can't look "under the hood" to detect design.
Sorry for the appearance of mean-spiritedness this may cause (though you gotta admit, your cheerful ignorance is trying everyone's patience here) but I couldn't resist:
"Once a boy named Mr. Me bemoaned a great regret
'I've floundered in the misty sea
But can't abide its mystery
I wound up sad you bet.'"
Posted by: rrt | March 8, 2008 1:03 PM
For Me to come to the conclusion that Dawkins now supports Intelligent Design "theory," despite the fact that Dawkins has taken it to task over its total inability to explain ANYTHING in a scientific manner, or the fact that Dawkins has also bemoaned the fact that Intelligent Design proponents have demonstrated a total lack of drive, desire or even ability to make even the most rudimentary positive contribution to Science, it is quite obvious that Me is so open-minded that Me's brain bodily fell out of Me's cranium, and mistook the squishy thud of the brain impacting with the concrete for an epiphany.
Posted by: Stanton | March 8, 2008 1:03 PM