…and this is a 
I am spared!
Category: Creationism
Posted on: April 22, 2008 3:57 PM, by PZ Myers
A while back, I pulled down a pdf of something called the "Leader's Guide" from the Expelled website. I was agog. It's flat-out fundamentalist Christian creationism, through and through — quote-mines, sermon suggestions, etc., etc., etc. I was thinking that here's another nail in the coffin for the next time this garbage comes to trial, and that I should dig through it and pull out the tired old creationist quotes from it.
Now I don't have to: Troy Britain has put together a two-part dissection. Take a look, and be amazed. Henry Morris would be so proud.
Comments
It is amazing how low creationists will stoop. I have a site that debunks the claims of christian apologists as well as IDers and creationists:
http://www.godriddance.com
Peace!
Posted by: Ryan | April 22, 2008 4:00 PM
There's also a side-by-side up at rationalwiki: http://rationalwiki.com/wiki/Expelled:Leader%27s_Guide
Posted by: MyaR | April 22, 2008 4:05 PM
I second mya. The one at rationalwiki is nice.
Posted by: PalMD | April 22, 2008 4:24 PM
The section on ctenophores and the alleged conspiracy of the Smithsonian secretary to hide "the truth" about evolution is a nice salve after the initial nausea of having to acknowledge the reality that Expelled really is as stupid as I feared yet again. But I guess this reality makes me feel a little less insane than usual by comparison, so there is a happy thought for the day!
Posted by: LARA | April 22, 2008 4:26 PM
Damn, I just cannot get through that insane drivel without choking up with uncontrolable anger! There just has to be a more effective way to counter these moronic retards; but with what ouside of reason which absolutely has no effect on them? Maybe we should start using the methods that the Korn Pone is espousing, namely, violent, suggestive assaults that garner our attention because all else fails. We just have to get even more nastier in our rational condemnation of this insane and dangerous slime.
Posted by: Holbach | April 22, 2008 4:35 PM
When I went to one of those "private" screenings, in the Q&A session after the movie they outright said that the getexpelled site was for the "people of faith".
That's at least one surprise for me with this movie, they're being really obvious about the connection with religion, I thought they'd put a little more effort into putting a firewall up between the parts where they talk about God, and the parts where they talk about the science.
Posted by: Nomad | April 22, 2008 4:39 PM
I saw Expelled this afternoon. It was a great film. I think that your views will become a fairy tale in years to come, as you knit yourself a Darwinian sweater for your old age.
God bless.
Posted by: Stushie | April 22, 2008 4:41 PM
I'm troubled that there may be young people who might be taken in by this nonsense. My own teenager believes nothing anyone says (especially me) but he might be an aberration.
Posted by: Lana | April 22, 2008 4:48 PM
Stushie @ 7 Of course you think that shit pile movie is a great film, because your religious demented cesspool brain cannot reason it to be otherwise. There is no chance of your deeming a movie on science or any other rational film as worthwhile, as your reason has been horribly compromised by the insane crap that infests your sorry brain. Even cartoons are above your level, you maroon!
Posted by: Holbach | April 22, 2008 4:50 PM
Stushie, here have a cookie.
Now run along.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | April 22, 2008 4:53 PM
Stushie @ 7 Follow up. At least we will have a nice warm Darwinian sweater to keep us warm in our old age. All you will have is an imaginary shroud to perpetuate your insane nonsense in a cold dead brain.
Posted by: Holbach | April 22, 2008 4:55 PM
Posted by: N.B. | April 22, 2008 4:59 PM
"It was a great film."
Yeah. Clearly.
Mindless zombies.
Posted by: Alex | April 22, 2008 5:02 PM
hooray for the folks who posted teh side-by-side at rational wiki.
Upon reading it I came to this part:
Furthermore, genomes contain masses of nonsensical "junk" DNA that has little or no functionality. Why a designer would include large amounts of gibberish in its handiwork is anyone's guess.
We also observe that any computer programmer that hasn't already been fired liberally salts their code with comments explaining what the various subroutines do and what the variable are for.
One RationalWikian's challenge to ID has always been: Show me the comments in the DNA before you claim someone (or thing) wrote it.
I have an easy answer for that. I think someone needs to update this part of the wiki. Here is my answer.
Comments in code have no functionality except for people reading the code. If I am a russian programmer and I comment my code, that doesnt mean an american programmer can read my comments.
How do you know the "Junk" DNA aren't the comments?
Now before you all go medeival on my ass, check out my blog. I'm not a creationist troll. I just think that if we are going to give ammo to the creationists to further misunderstand evolution, we should be prepared for the responses.
Posted by: techskeptic | April 22, 2008 5:04 PM
They are actually suggesting that this stuff be used in classrooms:
... presumably after the teachers are immunized from educational malpractice by "academic freedom" laws, such as Florida's proposal that all "germane current facts, data, and peer-reviewed research specific to the topic of chemical and biological evolution" are permitted.
Posted by: John Pieret | April 22, 2008 5:06 PM
I carefully packed my brain, irony meter, and other sensitive or easily damaged parts in layers of cotton wool and bubble wrap, and then visited Stushie's blog (@7).
Sigh... from the 16th April post, "Atheists - The Real War Mongering Killers in the World":
The cotton wool caught fire, the bubble wrap melted, and now there's another mess on the floor I should clean up.
Posted by: blf | April 22, 2008 5:07 PM
Posted by: Reginald Selkirk | April 22, 2008 5:08 PM
techskeptic: There's a school of thought that opinionates you should not read the comments when trying to understand computer code. The reasoning is (this is from memory so I've probably got it a bit muddled, and it's very probably mixed up with my experiences) that the comments probably do not reflect the reality. Code changes, and so do comments, but comments have a nasty tendency to change (evolve?) at a different rate and for different reasons. Hence, even if the comments started out being somewhat useful or accurate (ha ha!) they can, rather too easily, wind up being anything but.
What has this to do with evolution or biology? Fecked if I know.
Posted by: blf | April 22, 2008 5:18 PM
techskeptic @ 14 Checked out your site; some good stuff there, especially the Zero Balancing crap! Good freaking grief, is there no end to this insane nonsense? Of course, what the practitioners have not mentioned of ZB is the base of all this energy flow, the spirit who causes all!
Anyway, it is entertaining , non the less insane drivel at that!
Posted by: Holbach | April 22, 2008 5:19 PM
I think that your views don't need the "years to come" to become fairy tale, as they meet those criteria right now, and have for the entirety of their existence. And I'd be overjoyed to have a Darwinian sweater knitted for me - but why wait for that to happen when I can get it to enjoy in my young age?
http://www.cafepress.com/buy/progressive/-/pd_30292831?CMP=PF-CA-Shopping-30292831-PlatypusFaction.23
Posted by: brokenSoldier | April 22, 2008 5:28 PM
That's because, unlike a commentary in Russian, the sequencing in Junk DNA does not suggest that it is a commentary of some sort. Furthermore, Junk DNA, and functional DNA do not behave similarly to computer programming code, in that, a comment in code can not be spliced into a program, or even a different program in order to augment or change that particular program's function, nor can a comment be spontaneously transformed into a program, itself. Junk DNA can do this, like when a fish off the coast of Argentina had a start codon spliced in front of a sequence of non-coding DNA to form a gene for an "antifreeze" glycoprotein (protein with sugar molecules in its structure).
Also, Code commentary is not used to separate or "cushion" programs in the way Junk DNA does for genes.
Posted by: Stanton | April 22, 2008 5:30 PM
The funniest thing about the whole movie is there truly *is* a connection between Hitler and Darwinism...
Unfortunately for Stein, the distant connection is when Darwinism is horribly misunderstood and misapplied, things such as eugenics and racism can be a result.
For the producers it must be a bitter mouthful to swallow. Their premise only emboldens the need for Evolutionary understanding in our public schools, not the exclusion or dilution of it.
Posted by: ExoditeTyr | April 22, 2008 5:40 PM
This sort of thing is actually a good development. In the Dover litigation, the lawyers had to do a lot of digging to establish the religious motivation behind the actions of the school board. But the more these people come out of the closet and reveal their true intentions, the easier it will be to defeat them when the next case comes along.
Posted by: PatrickHenry | April 22, 2008 5:42 PM
That Leader's Guide was both new and original. *rolls eyes* I'm still waiting for new 'evidence' they have for ID.
Posted by: Geral | April 22, 2008 5:44 PM
Which programmers are these? I'd like to meet them.
I can see why some people like to compare DNA to code; I've worked on several projects that grew "organically" (translation: deadlines and funding constraints precluded an actual design phase) and were chock full of dead or deprecated code, jerry-rigged functionality, redundant subroutines, and comments that bore absolutely no relation to the code that followed.
Posted by: John Bode | April 22, 2008 5:46 PM
Shorter response to Stushie:
Wrong.
Posted by: Brownian, OM | April 22, 2008 5:48 PM
Awesome work by Troy Britain. Very nice.
I agree with Stanton #21. The "code comments x junk dna" analogy is flawed. Junk DNA is more like a method or function in the code that is not being used by the program any longer. The function itself is still valid code; just nothing in the program calls it. If you were to copy that function and place it into another application that then calls the function it would still work (if not the way you'd expect).
However, the analogy that DNA is like computer code is flawed to begin with. An idea that I'm still trying to figure out. Being a software engineer, I personally liked that analogy. :(
#7 Stushie -
Why is it that insults and thinly veiled threats from Creo's typically end with "God bless"? I already know I'm blessed Stushie. I heard it the first time when I was a kid in church. Why do you feel the need to constantly reaffirm your beliefs? Is there a little voice in the back of your head that keeps whispering "No, this can't be right."? Oh, no wait. That's not reason; it's just the devil trying to shake your faith.
Posted by: ThirdMonkey | April 22, 2008 5:55 PM
We need a new word, something beyond atheist, we need a word that encompasses opposition to all dogmatic ideologies, because fanatical communism is every bit as stupid and brain killing as any religion. We know there's no substantive difference between Stalin's communism and any religion you care to name, both are fanatical fundamentalist approaches that lacked a rational foundation, but the god-botherers are incapable of seeing that. I've never met a sane atheist who'd believe that Stalin or Mao's approaches where right, and I'm tired of morons trying to conflate them with us. Hitler is even worse since he was very much a Christian by any measure, and only the true scotsman argument says otherwise. Atheism doesn't lead to genocide, but neither is it a shield against the evils mankind is capable of.
Posted by: Venger | April 22, 2008 5:57 PM
Posted by: Stanton | April 22, 2008 6:09 PM
How far is it from, "atheists are evil," to "it's ok to exile, torture, and kill atheists?"
Hitler names himself a Christian in Mein Kampf, and fits in quite well with nigh on a thousand years (my knowledge of pre-Crusade anti-Semitism is a bit shaky, although I suspect a little homework would drag it all the way back to Rome), so there's little question to the untruth of that claim. Stalin wanted people to worship the state, not God, and I'd be inclined to blame his evils on megalomania more than atheism.
Stushie is a bigot, and deserves to be denounced as such. Loudly, and preferably in public. Although I'd lay off the swearing in public (Great Darwin's Scrotum, I do love swearing, but there's a time and a place, after all).
Posted by: Jeph | April 22, 2008 6:11 PM
How far is it from, "atheists are evil," to "it's ok to exile, torture, and kill atheists?"
Hitler names himself a Christian in Mein Kampf, and fits in quite well with nigh on a thousand years of European anti-Semitism (my knowledge of pre-Crusade anti-Semitism is a bit shaky, although I suspect a little homework would drag it all the way back to Rome), so there's little question to the untruth of that claim. Stalin wanted people to worship the state, not God, and I'd be inclined to blame his evils on megalomania more than atheism.
Stushie is a bigot, and deserves to be denounced as such. Loudly, and preferably in public. Although I'd lay off the swearing in public (Great Darwin's Scrotum, I do love swearing, but there's a time and a place, after all).
Posted by: Jeph | April 22, 2008 6:12 PM
Great Darwin's Nutsack, I inadvertently double posted!
(I told you I liked to swear)
Posted by: Jeph | April 22, 2008 6:14 PM
"Tens of millions of Americans, who neither know nor understand the actual arguments for or even against evolution, march in the army of the night with their Bibles held high. And they are a strong and frightening force, impervious to, and immunized against, the feeble lance of mere reason."
Isaac Asimove, 1984
Posted by: Benjamin Franklin | April 22, 2008 6:17 PM
"as you knit yourself a Darwinian sweater for your old age."
What does that even mean?
Posted by: Rey Fox | April 22, 2008 6:18 PM
Drat - thats Asimov, of course!
*must. use. preview.*
Posted by: Benjamin Franklin | April 22, 2008 6:18 PM
Stalin was a funny kinda atheist. I recently saw a programme about the Kremlin where his old bodyguard was interviewed.
He showed the producers a small chapel where he insisted Stalin had worshipped every day throughout the war.
Of course, I fully expect him to be lying. It's just funny how a Stalin apologist feels the need to insist that the man who murdered about 100M people was a true christian(tm).
Posted by: Sili | April 22, 2008 6:26 PM
Perhaps it's more appropriate to knit Darwinian mittens that evolve into a sweater.
Posted by: Alex | April 22, 2008 6:27 PM
PZ, add a link to the RationalWiki one. I think you'll love it.
Posted by: Ames | April 22, 2008 6:28 PM
I wonder how Stalin prayed? "Blood and Souls for my Lord Arioch?"
Hmm. . . that's a thought for the next witnessing to which I find myself subjected.
Posted by: Jeph | April 22, 2008 6:28 PM
1st graffiti message: "Darwin made me an atheist"
2nd graffiti message: "If I provide the yarn, will he make me one too?"
Posted by: DanioPhD | April 22, 2008 6:29 PM
My man Isaac Asimov!
Posted by: Holbach | April 22, 2008 6:30 PM
I'm wondering why you are all aggressively defensive? Are you trying to hide something or run away from the truth? I thought that you were into debating points and making this a dialogue, but it seems that you are all trying to preach to me about your atheism.
I'm amazed that the term 'bigot' is being applied to me. That's usually code for "I don't like what you are saying, so I'm going to label you, and therefore everyone will know that your views are not relevant." Why not just sew a yellow cross to the back of my clothes, so that you can kick me about cyberspace?
If you want to find out what kind of Christian I am, then look at my video on Youtube and listen to my song "Blindness".
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uz6whQRXyzk
I should warn you, my singing will never get me on American idol, unless it's in the funny bits.
I take pot shots against inhumanity, whether it's atheistic or religious. I will seriously read and listen to your life statements without resorting to cussing you out.
And as for the blessings, that's just a part of who I am.
May God bless the desires of your heart and make all your plans succeed...especially during the Finals.
Posted by: stushie | April 22, 2008 6:30 PM
You know what would be sweet, a raffle in which the grand prize was dinner and two tickets to see Expelled with PZ Myers as your guest. Proceeds would go to NCSE. Or how about a C.A.S.H. screening of Expelled with special guest PZ Myers?
Tickets would be purchased for a movie running at the same time, or if we were feeling particularly generous... (Ben Stein has to eat!) the Expelled movie.
Posted by: eric | April 22, 2008 6:32 PM
Listen up, Stushie -- I'm only going to say this once.
Claiming (incorrectly in at least one case) that people with whom you disagree about the presence or absence of God (or Allah, or Dr. Zaius, or whomever) are as inherently immoral as some of the most notorious killers in recent history is a hostile act, period. I have never attempted to paint all Christians with the Hitler brush, nor even a majority of them.
But that's just what you did to me.
Yes, people are awful to one another. It's not something any sane person likes. But to paint everyone with that brush (and that's how you come across when you link names like those to anything people believe) is an act of hostility.
And an act of bigotry.
Posted by: Jeph | April 22, 2008 6:36 PM
"I thought that you were into debating points and making this a dialogue"
Sheesh, you guys are so predictable. Start with an inflammatory statement (our "views" are fairy tales), then whine about how we're not having an Algonquin Round Table with you.
"Why not just sew a yellow cross to the back of my clothes, so that you can kick me about cyberspace?"
So very touchy.
"May God bless the desires of your heart and make all your plans succeed...especially during the Finals."
As long as the Lakers lose, I'm happy.
Posted by: Rey Fox | April 22, 2008 6:37 PM
PS I forgot to mention that with reference to cartoons, I actually create my own political cartoon blog. You can see the latest Obama/McCain/Clinton efforts at www.stushietoon.blogspot.com
Posted by: Stushie | April 22, 2008 6:43 PM
"as you knit yourself a Darwinian sweater for your old age."
What does that even mean?
I'll buy my sweaters, but I wouldn't mind carving a walking stick like Chuckie's.
Posted by: QrazyQat | April 22, 2008 6:43 PM
Posted by: rpenner | April 22, 2008 6:51 PM
Holy freaking crap! You are worse than we imagined! "Hide something"? Like what, our detestation of rampant insanity? I assure you we will never hide that, and freely express it openly and loudly! "Run away from the truth"? Are you totally insane to what truth is? Religion is not the truth, but a pile of insane beliefs formed from humans superstitions since we were able to think, many of us irrationally at that. "I don't like what you are saying, so I'm going to label you". Of course we don't like what you are saying because it is insane crap and we have to label you as insane. Can it be ever as simple as that? And your crap website is a nonsensical farce, not only because you have a crappy voice but your content is ludricous and can only appeal to the like insane of your persuasion! How the hell did you manage to infect our site with your deranged crap? It may have been open house, but there should have been a caveat of "intelligence only". Good freaking grief, are we to waste our time expunging your insane drivel every time your deranged brain purports to have a meaningful and sensible dialogue with your betters!
Posted by: Holbach | April 22, 2008 6:51 PM
"Sheesh, you guys are so predictable. Start with an inflammatory statement (our "views" are fairy tales), then whine about how we're not having an Algonquin Round Table with you."
Well said Rey.
Then they usually follow with some ad hominem challenge. Inflame, complain, then follow with false claims of victory or false challenges. Typical.
Why not Allah Stushie? Word has that deity ranking pretty high as well. Delusional idiot.
Posted by: Alex | April 22, 2008 7:04 PM
The old cougar opens one eye.... purrrrrrr...
Posted by: Patricia C. | April 22, 2008 7:10 PM
I recently read "Voyage of the Beagle", a fascinating read. In more than one passage in the book, Darwin speaks of his belief in God, attending church services, etc... In researching his life further, namely after publishing "On the Origin of Species", I haven't seen any statement of his that he renounced this belief. My thought is Darwin, like many folks after Calvinism and the "enlightenment" (and, for that matter, even today), may have believed God's power and intelligence to be so omnipotent, that it would be impossible for ordinary people to comprehend in the slightest, and that deeper and deeper scientific discovery merely peeled back the most paper-thin outer surface of His design. Furthermore, that these revolutionary theories offered PROOF of God's existence and not the other way around. This fits in well with the thinking of Deists of the period and their "God is the clockmaker" philosophy; that His creation, once brought forth and to life, runs on by itself, not necessarily with His daily direct involvement.
Posted by: mike | April 22, 2008 7:11 PM
Furthermore, how can you do such a thing, especially when the Bible specifically admonishes that those who pray to God in public places, as well as advertise that they are doing so are hypocrites, AND that the Bible states that those who claim to know the Light, and hate their fellow man, are liars?
Posted by: Stanton | April 22, 2008 7:17 PM
When you say, "millions of people were slaughtered by atheism," it's no different from from saying they were slaughtered by Judaism, or Christianity, or Voodoo.
Sure, people have been murdered by Christians, and Jews, and Houngans, but that isn't grounds to denounce the whole group.
In fact, a certain brand of political Christianity did get a lot of Jews killed (and every Cathar, and a few toothless old women with pointy hats) and exiled over a long period of time, culminating in the Holocaust -- but every Christian need not share in that moral failing.
Some Christians do seem to be trying to, though -- see the thread on "I get email."
Posted by: Jeph | April 22, 2008 7:18 PM
No intelligence is right! Check out the news at one of the Expelled sites - http://www.getexpelled.com/news.php. They must post every review automatically. Most of the reviews are negative and they still post them. Their website sure wasn't intelligently designed.
Posted by: fatherdaddy | April 22, 2008 7:19 PM
God who?
This is just me ranting, but I get so annoyed when I see or hear the term god used so as-matter-of-factly. Puhleaze. The name, the classification of deity, are all manufactured! What would cause anyone in this day and age to assume the reality of such an atrocious, mysterious idea without any data?! More than that though, everything we do know for a fact points to the conclusion that a deity is at the very least, not needed. I'll go one further and say it's just not there.
I'm referring to Stanton's post at #54. No offense Stanton. It's very common. But this god thing is not real and it just seems a little presumptive when it's referred to as an actual item of fact.
Posted by: Alex | April 22, 2008 7:30 PM
#55 correction - refers to #53, not #54.
Posted by: Alex | April 22, 2008 7:32 PM
An interesting question, because if junk DNA were comments, that would mean the Designer is not omniscient.
Whatever. I'll start with the observation that the amount of junk varies a lot, sometimes even between closely related species. Someone please link to the Onion Test. Next, I'll try to draw some attention to what the junk is. Over half of your genome (in total!) consists of retrovirus corpses in various stages of decay. Most of the rest consists of short sequences that are repeated lots and lots of times, with the exact number of repeats in each place varying between individuals (that's used in paternity tests). Same genes, different comments? Then there are pseudogenes: genes that have accumulated so many mutations that they don't work anymore, which doesn't matter because we don't need those genes anymore. What for would an intelligent designer comment code out? The phenomenon that this works in the other direction, too, has been mentioned -- the icefishes have acquired a start codon and a stop codon in the middle of nowhere, and the protein that the resulting gene codes for happens to be eminently useful. If you take a comment and take the brackets or whatever away, should you ever be left with code?
(I could probably go on for hours, but I'm tired and will now go to bed at long last.)
That would mean "god-destroyer". Which would imply that there is at least one god that can be destroyed.
What about "rationalist" or "metaphysical naturalist" or something like that?
No. Stalin wanted the people to worship him.
Posted by: David Marjanović, OM | April 22, 2008 7:47 PM
As long as the Lakers lose, I'm happy.
you must not be happy, then.
:p
2:1 says they make it at least through the first round, even odds on the second.
Posted by: Ichthyic | April 22, 2008 7:52 PM
David Marjanović, OM said:
I could probably go on for hours...
We know.
I for one, enjoy it when you do.
Posted by: sdej | April 22, 2008 7:55 PM
Hi Alex. "Delusional idiot"
Were you referring to me, or is that your usual end of comment signature?
God laughs. (Psalm 2)
```>>``>>`~J``>
Posted by: stushie | April 22, 2008 8:04 PM
Mike #52 wrote:
Darwin's views did change as he got older, and I think he eventually identified himself as "agnostic." "Science has nothing to do with Christ, except insofar as the habit of scientific research makes a man cautious in admitting evidence. For myself, I do not believe that there ever has been any revelation. As for a future life, every man must judge for himself between conflicting vague probabilities."
I don't think Darwin felt this way -- he understood the conflict between a benevolent God and natural evolution, and wrote on it.
It is one thing for theists to claim that the amazing discoveries of science allows them to appreciate how truly wonderful God is. They already believe in God for reasons that are not scientific. But it is quite another thing to claim that the Big Bang or evolution somehow "prove" or confirm that God exists -- not as an argument towards God as a conclusion, but just by revealing an amazing universe. That seems to imply that, for them, different discoveries would have counted against God's existence -- but fortunately the results were positive, and God is still supported. Whew!
I don't think they really mean that.
Posted by: Sastra | April 22, 2008 8:19 PM
#60
Were you referring to me - Yep
or is that your usual end of comment signature? - Nope
God laughs. (Psalm 2) - Ooooh. Ahhhh. Wow. That's - compelling.
```>>``>>`~J``> - was this your moment of orgasm? Better wash that keyboard.
Posted by: Alex | April 22, 2008 8:29 PM
Mike at #52, I would encourage you to check out the Autobiography of Charles Darwin, which goes into some detail as to Darwin's religious views.
I found it online at this website, starting at page 304.
Whatever else, it does look like Charles Darwin put a lot of thought into what he believed -- he did seem to have an awareness of how fallible human beings could be towards ideas, especially ones presented from early in life.
Posted by: Rebecca Harbison | April 22, 2008 8:32 PM
Stushie? Do yourself a simple favor and go read the RationalWiki response: HERE!
Until then, I think it best you are ignored for the shit-sucking, worthless, little troll you truly are.
Posted by: Dan | April 22, 2008 8:40 PM
There is a concise summary (with references) of Darwin's religious views on Wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Darwin's_views_on_religion
Not, of course, that they matter particularly. Nobody should accept -- or reject -- a science theory because of the personal beliefs of one of its discoverers.
Posted by: Sastra | April 22, 2008 8:54 PM
Dave @ #57
"What for would an intelligent designer comment code out?"
I have to confess I find myself commenting out code for testing purposes, which I may later forget to completely remove. Though I guess one could argue that I am not an intelligent designer...
Posted by: mlw | April 22, 2008 8:56 PM
I have a radical new theory (new to me) about whats up with the Expelled movie, especially in light of the revelation that the video of "Dicky D" and the Monster Machine was also by the team from Expelled. Perhaps they are actually on our side, got funding secretly from from someone like Charles Simonyi, or Bill Gates, or Trey Parker, et al, and were tasked with putting together the worst pro Intelligent Design film possible. The idea would be to expose the weakness of the ID side with a sort of parody film that was just good enough to get the soft minded Christian right to swallow and endorse it, but to most any other people, it would highlight the weakness of their argument. What makes me think so is that the Dicky "D" video was so outrageously cool and funny, the buffoonery was so over-the-top, that it backfired. Most of us evilutionists loved it. Apparently, the whole movie has backfired on them also, but not if it was never meant to succeed. Its almost excessively bad. And Ben Stein, he's the guy you get to be the boring establishment stooge. It seems that they were intentionally picking every false argument made against Darwinian Natural Selection, packaged them up in a nice shiny lump of shit, and tossed it out their for us all to smell. In some circles it stuck. This is sort of my reverse conspiracy theory.
Posted by: chuckgoecke | April 22, 2008 9:02 PM
Someone above said: "If I am a russian programmer and I comment my code, that doesnt mean an american programmer can read my comments."
... And not to nitpick, but think about this. No one programs in Cyrillic script. Most programming languages are basically uber-simplified English (if {} then {}, for and while loops etc), using Latin characters. Why on earth would a Russian programmer program in Latin characters and then switch to Cyrillic characters for the comments?... That sounds exhausting.
So basically, I'm willing to bet Russian programmers comment in English.
Though I'm sure there are exceptions.
Posted by: Spinoza | April 22, 2008 9:11 PM
"ignored for the shit-sucking, worthless, little troll you truly are."
Now now, let's not go overboard. This isn't Salt we're talking about here.
Posted by: Rey Fox | April 22, 2008 9:23 PM
"programmer program in Latin characters and then switch to Cyrillic characters for the comments?"
Exhausting? ... writing in his native tongue? I don't think you have thought this one through? :)
Posted by: ShemAndShaun | April 22, 2008 9:24 PM
Posted by: Stanton | April 22, 2008 9:24 PM
#28 --
"We know there's no substantive difference between Stalin's communism and any religion you care to name, both are fanatical fundamentalist approaches that lacked a rational foundation, but the god-botherers are incapable of seeing that."
Well put. In fact, Stalin intentionally endorsed and encouraged the "cult of Lenin" (which Lenin himself always tried to prevent while alive). For more about how Lenin became a quasi-religious figure in Stalin's USSR, see: http://www.soviethistory.org/index.php?action=L2&SubjectID=1924death&Year=1924
He also (as other posters have pointed out) created a "Cult of Stalin" (see that wonderful work of socialist realism, Roses for Stalin). This cult of personality survives even today, with over a quarter of Russians saying that they would definitely or probably vote for Stalin if he were alive and running for president today (poll taking in 2006).
In addition to using quasi-religious cults of personality, Stalin understood the unifying, dogmatic effects of religion and re-instated the Russian Orthodox Church (under the control of the NKVD, of course) during the second world war to arouse nationalism and patriotism.
@36 -- Stalin's religious views were actually quite interesting -- contradictory and confusing, probably sometimes sincere and sometimes an intent to manipulate (like most religious beliefs). You can read about them on wikipedia here
I suppose none of this has anything to do with creationism, but I found it somewhat interesting, and hopefully someone else will.
Posted by: Etha Williams | April 22, 2008 9:27 PM
I am the one who started out the "junk DNA = Gods comments that we cant read". I just put it out there becuase I thought the rational wiki was weak in this spot.
Saying that DNA is computer code is a shitty way to describe what DNA does, what it is comprised of and how it works including how copies of itself get made. Perhaps a better analogy is needed.
I was just trying to point out that we should be ponting out that this analogy is a bad one. I just pointed out that at rational wiki they were asking to see the comments, and I was just proposing that a creationist could simply say they are tere, we just don't know how to read them.
David and others, thanks for hammering out many of the reasons why the DNA=computer code is stupid.
Posted by: techskeptic | April 22, 2008 9:32 PM
#57 David Marjanović, OM --
Great post on junk DNA. I think that too often, proponents of evolutionary biology point out junk DNA as evidence against ID (why would a designer put a bunch of worthless code in our DNA) and while this is true to an extent, I think the much more salient point is that junk DNA is in fact further evidence FOR evolutionary theory -- the presence of decaying HERV retrotransposons, pseudogenes, conserved "junk" sequences, LINEs, etc all point towards evolution, not simply away from ID.
Junk DNA is actually much more than simply worthless "junk" in our genome. Its name does it a great disservice...
Posted by: Etha Williams | April 22, 2008 9:36 PM
"I just pointed out that at rational wiki they were asking to see the comments, and I was just proposing that a creationist could simply say they are tere, we just don't know how to read them."
See, and this is the problem with creationist (il)logic. It assumes the conclusion (that the comments are there) and then tries to find "evidence" for it by looking at it from every angle. When that fails, they say, "Well, we just don't know *how* to read it. But it's there, really." Maybe that's ok in theology, but in science...not so much.
Also, we are rapidly learning how to "read" junk DNA -- finding highly conserved sequences, pseudogenes, LINEs, retrotransposons, etc. So even this non-argument that we "just don't know how to read the comments" holds no water....
I might try to edit the rationalwiki article to include some of this info. The evolutionary importance of junk DNA is often severely underappreciated..../beats dead horse
Posted by: Etha Williams | April 22, 2008 9:42 PM
@34 and 47, re: Darwinian sweater meaning --
I *think* they were referring to PZ's comment in Expelled about hoping that religion would become a past-time, like knitting, for people. It's a horrifically mangled metaphor/allusion, though.
Posted by: Etha Williams | April 22, 2008 9:53 PM
Dan,I appreciate your neanderthal argumentative style. The colorful words that you use really bolster your thoughts. I guess that evolution for you has become a process of enlightenment in how many cuss words you can employ to hide the superficiality of your ability to sustain a dialogue.
It's far easier to get angry and shout down those with differing views than to actually talk about our differences. Reminds me of the beer halls in 1930s Berlin.
Alex, nice try, but not quite SNL or JSDS material.
Posted by: stushie | April 22, 2008 9:57 PM
Is Stushie honestly not a poe?
Posted by: Nibien | April 22, 2008 10:02 PM
Stushie @42 --
If you are indeed trying to recognize the bigotry, hypocrisy, and foibles of people of all philosophical and religious persuasions, I urge you to take a look at some of the dubious morality and outright lying that helped make Expelled the "great film" you thought it was.
Start at http://www.expelledexposed.com/index.php/background and http://www.expelledexposed.com/index.php/the-truth Of especial interest is the true story about the "expulsion" of Richard Sternberg (the Expelled version is permeated by distortions of the truth and outright lies) and the fact that Premise lied to people like Dawkins and PZ about both the title and the ideological content of the movie.
If you read the facts presented in these links and still believe that Expelled is a "great movie", please explain to me why, because I really don't see how you could continue to believe that unless you have already made your mind up to support one ideologically based opinion regardless of the actual facts of the matter -- and that is what I would call bigotry.
Posted by: Etha Williams | April 22, 2008 10:03 PM
Oh can I say it please?
Godwin's law.
Not surprising that someone who just saw that tripe would pull out that complete nonsense.
*golf clap
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | April 22, 2008 10:05 PM
Re: my #80 --
For some reason my link to the facts on how the interviews with Dawkins, PZ, et al were obtained did not show up properly in the formatted comment. This seems like a recurrent bug. Anyway, here is the URL, stushie:
http://www.expelledexposed.com/index.php/background/interview-tactics
Posted by: Etha Williams | April 22, 2008 10:06 PM