…and this is a 
SciAm on Expelled
Category: Creationism
Posted on: April 9, 2008 5:25 PM, by PZ Myers
First Fox News, now Scientific American gives Expelled both barrels. They dedicated a fair amount of space to ripping into the movie, and you might be wondering if it isn't giving the movie more publicity than it deserves, a question I'm getting asked a lot, too. Of course it is! The controversy is exactly what they want, since it will help put butts in seats. However, this is bad publicity, and what serves our ends is that people see the movie skeptically, and are made aware of the fundamental dishonesty of the makers. John Rennie notes this problem:
Rather, it seems a safe bet that the producers hope a whipping from us would be useful for publicity: further proof that any mention of ID outrages the close-minded establishment. (Picture Ben Stein as Jack Nicholson, shouting, "You can't handle the truth!") Knowing this, we could simply ignore the movie--which might also suit their purposes, come to think of it.
Unfortunately, Expelled is a movie not quite harmless enough to be ignored. Shrugging off most of the film's attacks--all recycled from previous pro-ID works--would be easy, but its heavy-handed linkage of modern biology to the Holocaust demands a response for the sake of simple human decency.
I agree — this is a movie that goes beyond stupidity to actual malice, and it shouldn't be ignored. SciAm does a great job in exposing the intellectual poverty behind this propaganda film.
Also, remember how Mark Mathis was mentioning that they allowed Michael Shermer to see the movie, as if he were expecting a thumbs-up from Shermer? His review is also online, and as I expected, it is not kind.
Comments
Exactly. They need gullible people to swallow their lies, and they're running into an ever-shrinking potential audience of the gullible.
Whether or not this particular movie nets them profit or not is hardly the issue. Whether or not it helps or hurts anti-evolutionism in the long run is the issue.
And it is increasingly likely that this will hurt anti-evolutionists in the long run, since it is such a cheap attack on science, misuse of the Holocaust to spread ignorance, and a generally crappy movie.
All of those involved in the movie had better be thinking about either repudiating this heap of garbage quickly, or having it drag on their careers for the foreseeable future.
Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/2kxyc7
Posted by: Glen Davidson | April 9, 2008 5:34 PM
What careers, Glen?
I thought Ben Stein was a d-list game show host?
Definitely not on a level with Jack Nicholson.
Posted by: wazza | April 9, 2008 5:42 PM
I'm wondering if any Boston-area readers have heard of a lecture taking place at the Harvard Science Center on Friday. It's titled "God and Science," and as far as I can tell, it's being sponsored by the Boston Church of Christ.
http://www.bostoncoc.org/index.php?option=com_thyme&calendar=1&category=0&d=6&m=4&y=2008&vcat=&Itemid=43&event=67&instance=2008-4-11
Both speakers are Harvard/MIT PhDs who are leaders in the church, and the kid who gave me the flyer said they'd be speaking chiefly on intelligent design.
It appears to be open to the public, so feel free to stop by.
More info:
http://vastpublicindifference.blogspot.com/
Posted by: CGDH | April 9, 2008 5:46 PM
What careers? The careers in the reality denying industry. There's big money coming up with completely nonsensical claims that will be paid for by Big Business or Big Religion. The Discovery Institute is the nexus of the two.
Posted by: freelunch | April 9, 2008 5:48 PM
Clear Eyes, the voice of the pixies on Fairly Odd Parents, and rambling on about nothing in American Spectator, is not much of a career, granted. But Stein could lose any of those bits of his life, save the rambling in American Spectator, if he becomes America's prime example of how whacked out one can become without (recent) drug use.
Kevin Miller and Mark Mathis probably need the work, and could lose opportunities to work even for the Xian apologists, if this movie gives evangelical and fundamentalist religion the black eye. OTOH, Ruloff apparently doesn't need the money, and probably feels like a holy martyr for being disliked by those more knowledgeable than himself.
But sure, I don't think that America will miss any of them if they become poison to all future projects.
I wonder, though, if Stein was hoping to become more than the pathetic Hollywood hanger-on that he was, with this film. Well, he has become more in some ways, much less in other ways.
Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/2kxyc7
Posted by: Glen Davidson | April 9, 2008 5:51 PM
Clear Eyes, the voice of the pixies on Fairly Odd Parents, and rambling on about nothing in American Spectator, is not much of a career, granted.
Don't forget his speechwriting efforts on behalf of the Nixon Administration.
talk about bad habits being hard to break.
Posted by: Ichthyic | April 9, 2008 6:16 PM
I get Scientific American and it was a thrill to read the
article blasting that crap movie. I wish SA would go more
into bashing other realms of nonsense, but this would be more than we could wish for! Hey, there's still time as we are going to need all the ammunition we can muster!
Posted by: Holbach | April 9, 2008 6:16 PM
One encouraging detail is how often the reviews stress how badly-made and boring the film is - those kinds of reviews don't usually put butts in the seats.
Posted by: Darby | April 9, 2008 6:17 PM
I've been listening to all these podcasts from the SciAm site in the last hour and they are terrific!
I am currently enjoying listening to the liar/IDiot Mathis's scrambled defense of his film, in his own words.
Posted by: Sonja | April 9, 2008 6:17 PM
It's the Hollocaust link that is the part which needs to be addressed:
1. Hitler was a Christian. All his life. He died as a Catholic Christian, in good standing with 'the Church'.
2. Germany was, and stil is, a Christian country. As a matter of fact, if you live in Germany, you have to request in writing IF you do NOT wish to have 10% of your salary to be automatically deducted and sent to the Vatican. Yes, some of my German friends did not know this - but have rectified this since. Austria, Hitler's homeland, is also a Christian country. Very, very Christian.
3. The Hollocaust was perpetuated by Christians. In a Christian country, with a Christian leader. Its primary victims were the Gypsies. Its secondary victims were the Jews. (Yes, the Gypsies were more despised by Hitler's Nazis than the Jews were - there just weren't nearly as many, and their extermination was more 'complete'.) Yet, there wre other victims - anyone who transgresses, or was seen to transgress, or 'needed punishing' - as an example, to keep the populace cowed (whole villages were sent to 'camps' like this).
Perhaps the Nazis did not behave in accordance with their Christian principals - I would not know. I am not a Christian myself, so it is difficult for me to even guess.
This fact needs to be repeated over and over, because I heard SO MANY Christians deny this - sometimes our of complete ignorance of the facts, sometimes because they refuse to accept the facts. They usually say 'He was too evil to be one of US, he must be one of YOU, you atheists! Plus, my preacher said Hitler was an atheist!'...or something along those lines.
More and more people claim Hitler was an Atheist....and NOTHING could be further from the truth! Hitler was a Christian!
Posted by: Xanthippa | April 9, 2008 6:23 PM
Did I read that correctly, that Fox News is panning this "film?" I would have guessed that Rupert Murdoch was one of the major investors. This might be one of the first bits of objective journalism they have ever stumbled onto. Let us hope it is a trend and not a one-off.
Posted by: Mike | April 9, 2008 6:29 PM
I wish SA would go more into bashing other realms of nonsense
yeah, I was a little disappointed in the choices Shermer made to defend the idea that there is "debate" within evolutionary biologists as to mechanism.
He used Lynn Margulis, for example, without bothering to mention she is an HIV denier, among other things.
Posted by: Ichthyic | April 9, 2008 6:31 PM
Crosspost from Pandasthumb:
Coral Ridge used the Argumentium ad Hitlerium first in their landmark Darwindidit From Darwin to Hitler and Expelled just cloned it. Apparently the Jews weren't too happy about the Blame Darwin lie. It will be interesting to see if they speak up this time around.
They should. The Expelled liars are just using an atrocity to further their own ends. Which is to bring about another and potentially much larger atrocity.
It also looks like they PZed/Dawkinsed Francis Collins.
Posted by: raven | April 9, 2008 6:40 PM
The Jews themselves don't buy the Darwindidit explanation. They should have an interest, seeing as how the Holocaust was one of a series of atrocities against them.
I checked on evolutionary biology in Israel. Quite a bit is done there with programs at Tel Aviv U., Ben Gurion, Hebrew-Jerusalem, and Haifa. Either these are nests of Darwinists planning the next Holocaust or just normal scientists doing normal science.
Evolutionary biology in Israel would make a nice blog post for anyone with access to Google and a few minutes.
Crosspost from Pandasthumb:
Oh gee, look what those evil Darwinists are doing at the University of Haifa. Trying to engineer crops that grow in high salinity soils. Must be just a time filler why they plot out the next Holocaust. Hmmm, where is Homeland Security and where in the hell is Haifa........Oh Oh, it is in Israel. Someone call the Mossad!!!
For any creos, that was a literary form called "sarcasm".
Posted by: raven | April 9, 2008 6:49 PM
That is true. Most mainstream historians, Jewish and Xian, blame the Holocaust on the combination of German culture and German Xianity. Read wikipedia, Martin Luther and so on.
And Hitler was a Catholic who babbled on about god and jesus just as much as an fundie homeschooled idiot. There are pages and pages of it.
Posted by: raven | April 9, 2008 6:55 PM
By the way, if you see an ad for the movie online, click on it. Repeatedly. Especially if it happens to be running on a website you like. Every click you make is money out of their pockets.
Posted by: Phoenix Woman | April 9, 2008 7:02 PM
By discussing this movie so much, are we helping them promote it?
Yes.
Are we putting more money in their pockets?
Yes.
But if that's their goal, they are welcome to it. Our goal is what they claim to support, but don't: open debate and the success of ideas based on merit, rather than whining or big budget PR campaigns.
Posted by: Bad | April 9, 2008 7:06 PM
Screw Expelled!
On April 18th, I think I'd rather see ZOMBIE STRIPPERS starring Jenna Jameson. I think it will have a much better basis in reality.
Posted by: Benjamin Franklin | April 9, 2008 7:16 PM
Re Ichthyic
I agree with Mr. Ichthyic about Prof. Margulis who in addition also hobnobs with Holocaust deniers. She, like scientists Linus Pauling, Brian Josephson, J. Allen Hynek, William Shockley, etc., has turned into a whackjob.
Re Xanthippa
The issue as to Hitlers' religious beliefs is not so simple and straightforward as Mr. Xanthippa describes. There is no question that Hitler used Christianity as a part of his portfolio of brainwashing techniques and in public, professed devout belief therein. However, there is evidence that his personal views were rather more contemptuous of religion in general and Christianity in particular, based on his private conversations with trusted aides and as reported by them. However, there is no doubt that centuries of antisemitism, starting with Martin Luther, prepared the groundwork for the Holocaust.
Posted by: SLC | April 9, 2008 7:16 PM
Re 12: About Lynn Margulis, I've read her book and I would be interested in a critique of symbiosis as a method of speciation. I'm not saying it is the *only* method or even one that happens a lot, but I would be surprised if symbiosis is never a cause of speciation e.g things like Wolbachia which is a parasite of the cytoplasm can cause cytoplasmic incomparability between populations, which could lead to speciation, and it can also induce parthenogenesis. And when the mitochondria was first incorporated into the cell I don't think there's anything wrong with saying that that could have lead to a speciation event, so I would be interested in what is wrong with that?
Posted by: Lisa | April 9, 2008 7:23 PM
Even if Lynn Margulis is a HIV denier etc. I don't see what that takes away from her other work? You don't have to be a nice person to have a good idea ;)
Posted by: Lisa | April 9, 2008 7:25 PM
Not really. After the war, Xians forged a lot of personal documents to make Hitler look like less of a Xian. A coverup.
Doesn't matter, without willing cooperation from millions of German Xians, he would have just been another loon sitting in a bar, babbling away, and waiting for the internet to be invented so he could reach an audience measured in the dozens.
Posted by: raven | April 9, 2008 7:29 PM
I don't see what that takes away from her other work? You don't have to be a nice person to have a good idea ;)
It doesn't at all take away from what came before. it does indeed impact the directions she has taken since.
very much like Michael Behe.
Posted by: Ichthyic | April 9, 2008 7:29 PM
Still, in my opinion there's nothing wrong with Shermer mentioning her earlier work! You could still debate her idea without the rest of it, her being X doesn't make Y wrong, and the two don't need to be mentioned together - especially if mentioning X automatically makes people think that Y must be wrong with no basis for that. Not at all condoning anything she may have said about HIV of course here, I just don't see anything wrong with the theory (which can be disassociated from the person!). If someone says to me 'Darwin was a racist' my response is well even if he was... yes it does reflect badly on him but not his theory.
Posted by: Lisa | April 9, 2008 7:35 PM
I'm not saying it is the *only* method or even one that happens a lot
If you read her book, then you should know that SHE does.
Lynn considers symbiosis to be a primary speciation mechanism.
However, we simply do NOT see that when we look at actual examples of speciation.
It happens, but it's relatively rare. Note that this is entirely distinct from the idea that a symbiotic event generated things like chloroplasts and mitochondria.
Lynn is of the position that one can essentially reject all other mechanisms of speciation (like selection, drift, etc.), in favor of symbiosis.
Is that a bit clearer?
It's become quite hard to defend her over the last 10 years or so; she simply rejects anything that contradicts her idea that symbiosis drives everything (which is why, btw, she became an HIV denier).
there was a good discussion with Lynn herself on Pharyngula about this some time back (maybe a year or so ago?).
sorry to say, she really has gone around the bend for the most part, even from what I saw there.
If I can find the link to the thread, I'll post it for you.
Posted by: Ichthyic | April 9, 2008 7:36 PM
ah, that wasn't hard, and it was indeed a little over a year ago:
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/03/lynn_margulis_blog_tour.php
read for yourself, and determine whether she is being rational or not.
I don't know if the actual live conversations were saved anywhere, but they were even more enlightening.
Posted by: Ichthyic | April 9, 2008 7:39 PM
Even if it is "bad" publicity, that's still better than no publicity for them.
They (the IDiots) are like children. They can't get much [if any] good attention, so they're making a big scene and throwing temper tantrums to get negative attention.
Unfortunately, I don't think ignoring them would do us any good, either...
Posted by: JimboB | April 9, 2008 7:43 PM
Still, in my opinion there's nothing wrong with Shermer mentioning her earlier work!
that wasn't why Shermer brought her up.
He brought her up as a representative of "current scientists" that "disagree" with much of the ToE, but haven't been "excommunicated" from science. (sorry for all the scare quotes).
It was a singularly bad example, as I think I have made clear.
Posted by: Ichthyic | April 9, 2008 7:44 PM
"Most mainstream historians, Jewish and Xian, blame the Holocaust on the combination of German culture and German Xianity."
Certainly the centuries-long tradition of Christian antisemitism Nazi has a crucial role. Populist economic-based antisemitism was also a longstanding rational for Jew-hatred. But like militant Islamism, there are both deeper roots and more recent influences. Western Europe, especially Germany, saw an exacerbation of antisemitism from the nineteenth century to the early twentieth century with increasingly racialized charges of political disloyalty and economic parasitism.
As an example of how things got worse, the Pan-German League originally allowed Jews to become members, which seems extraordinary in light of later German history.
Wilhelm Marr, a coiner of the term antisemitism - and an advocate of it - argued that the German people were engaged in an existential struggle against the Jews. Marr and other nineteenth and early twentieth century antisemites who helped drive German antisemitism to new levels of virulence often cited (bogus) economic grievances and gave these a racialist caste, suggesting that the problem could not be resolved through ordinary economic and political means since this was a war between races. The racialized antisemitic rhetoric predates Darwinism (e.g. Gobineau) but was refined by Ernst Haeckel and others.
Even if we were to humor the Expelled crew and blame eugenics solely on Darwinism (I don't) that still would fail to explain virulent antisemitism since, as Kevles notes, American eugenicists were generally opposed to the Nuremberg Laws. (However, Harry Laughlin helped establish immigration restrictions that kept Jews fleeing Europe out of the US.) Rather the Nazis referred to biology (especially the biology of parasitism within a social organicist model) as part of their "scientific" justification of antisemitism. (Galton likewise believed that Jews were a parasitic people, but it's very doubtful that the Nazi got their Jew=parasite from him.) The Nazis combined biologicized, economic, and "spiritual" rationales for antisemitism.
The other problem with the Expelled model is that something that is used to legitimize virtually anything (in the case of Darwinism: socialism, capitalism, male supremacy, feminism, warmongering, pacificism etc.) is logically determinative of nothing. Even at its origins it was compatible with Whiggish (Darwin) and socialist (Wallace) thought. The role of more specific movements like eugenics and "naturalized" racism/imperialism that at times employed Darwinian language and logic (however correctly or incorrectly, the fact is that they did) among other genres is a different matter. But while all of these are kinds of linkages there are difference between determining factors, influences, and rationales.
Incidentally, though a nominal Catholic Hitler followed a doctrine called Positive Christianity and was actually more sympathetic to Protestantism than to Catholicism (see the book The Holy Reich).
Posted by: Colugo | April 9, 2008 7:47 PM
Yeh I do know she does, seems to me she had a good idea then ran with it, and ran far too far :P which is why I made clear I didn't think it was the only method, since I don't agree with her on that! I see nothing wrong with debating it, even if the outcome of that has led to the conclusion: it can happen, but not often. Although, if this is no longer something anyone does discuss (other than her) then I agree its probably pointless of Shermer to bring it up then , although for that reason rather than her being a bit mad (if what you say is correct)! Although I suppose his main point is that she wasn't sacked for it, even if she is still discussing it when everyone else already has agreed on the conclusion.
Posted by: Lisa | April 9, 2008 7:48 PM
Thanks for the link, will have a read!
Posted by: Lisa | April 9, 2008 7:51 PM
I see nothing wrong with debating it
if you check out the thread I linked to, I think you would find nobody else has a problem debating it either.
it's just readily verifiable that her idea is simply not supported by the evidence.
(if what you say is correct)!
don't take my word for it; read the thread yourself, see her responses for yourself.
I don't think her "mad" so much as I think her capitulating to her own delusions.
It's someone I would listen to, but at the same time keep "at arms length", if you know what I mean.
The same would be said of one of Shermer's other examples, Joan Roughgarden.
her attacks on sexual selection theory are overly simplistic and smack of personal agenda.
I rather think Shermer could have chosen much better examples of debate within the scientific community.
heck, didn't PZ just post a great example from the evo-devo conference in Oregon?
there are thousands of excellent examples like that (or say, going back a few decades, to the debates between Gould and Dawkins), but they don't get nearly as much press, so don't get noticed by science writers like Sherman, I would guess.
Posted by: Ichthyic | April 9, 2008 7:56 PM
Although I suppose his main point is that she wasn't sacked for it
yes, that was indeed his main point, i just thought he could use far better examples than the ones he chose.
It is perhaps the case that he deliberately chose some of the more "out there" candidates, though, to further stress the idea that we don't toss people for even wacky ideas.
which brings us back to Behe, I suppose.
He's still at his Uni. Wonder why the creobots never bother to mention that?
so is Nelson, BTW (at Berkeley)
Posted by: Ichthyic | April 9, 2008 8:01 PM
Sorry, I shouldn't have said a problem with debating, really I should have said I have no problem with Shermer mentioning her, especially as she may be someone other people will know (although, perhaps for the wrong reasons nowadays, I hadn't heard about any of this!). I think we basically agree anyway though, I wouldn't say it was the best example to use either. It was more that I was curious if there was any reason for symbiosis not to cause speciation than anything else that I posted, although that was lazy really should do an article search myself ;)
Posted by: Lisa | April 9, 2008 8:12 PM
The two text reviews here are quite good, and Rennie's review actually gelled something I'd been thinking about for awhile on the Holocaust argument: the Armenian genocide. This was a genocide prior to the Nazis that didn't even have the veneer of eugenic/"Darwinian" ideas floating through it. And as I note, it's a pretty good example of how it was the mass organizational powers of the modern state, along with modern technologies and ideas on how to kill tons of people at once, that really seem to be what's "necessary" for modern genocide. Not any random political philosophy that justifies the use of power to kill. It's not like human beings have ever lacked for some rationale to justify that.
Posted by: Bad | April 9, 2008 8:16 PM
especially as she may be someone other people will know
yes, you might be right there.
I just wonder about the consequences of using those particular examples.
meh, it probably doesn't matter. anyone who would "make hay" of it probably hasn't a clue anyway.
Posted by: Ichthyic | April 9, 2008 8:19 PM
It was more that I was curious if there was any reason for symbiosis not to cause speciation than anything else that I posted
just to again be clear:
there isn't. It HAS been a documented mechanism of speciation.
it's just not the primary mechanism that Margulis would paint it as.
Moreover, in her analysis, she tends to deliberately ignore the obvious implications selection would have on the very system she proposes.
IOW, it appears she might be looking at the effects, instead of the causes.
Posted by: Ichthyic | April 9, 2008 8:23 PM
Hitler's Table-Talk is generally regarded as having rather low reliability: there's a confusing mess of different editions, and translations are not reliable. In a way, that's rather unfortunate, since it's also where one finds gems like this:
Offhand, I don't know if this quote is reliable (I've seen it given in German, too, FWIW). But there you have it: if Hitler hated Christianity, then he didn't believe in macroevolution either.
Posted by: Blake Stacey | April 9, 2008 8:33 PM
By this same logic, it's far better to eat rat poison than to starve to death.
Posted by: Stanton | April 9, 2008 8:42 PM
What's wrong with offering both viewpoints in the schools and allowing the students to make up their own minds. I haven't seen the film however, I have heard that is the goal. More importantly than what everyone thinks is the right or wrong viewpoint, is the option of allowing people to make up their own minds.
I think that students in high school should have the option of making up their own mind by being offered the different viewpoints.
Posted by: Jennifer | April 9, 2008 8:47 PM
So, the idea of actually teaching students what science is, before they deal with the question of what science is, hasn't occurred to you?
Should we teach Plato's theory of forms in science class, and let the students decide? Should we teach Ovid's Metamorphoses in science class along with evolution and let the students decide? Should we teach MOND and string theory to high school students along with "proven theories," and let them decide? What the hell do you think teaching science entails anyway, Jennifer, just throwing ideas out and having high school and younger students vote on them? How will they even be capable of deciding what is and isn't science, if you're simply aborting their education about what science is before they understand it?
Most of all, why should claims like ID which do not comport with science, but even attempt to subvert the standard rules of evidence used in science and in the judiciary, be taught in science class--especially when it would only be done because theocrats don't like the conclusions of science? Is science class supposed to be about students deciding whether they like science better, or religion better? Why do you think that students shouldn't have the benefit of finding out what science is, and then deciding whether or not they prefer science to religion, or even in addition to religion?
Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/2kxyc7
Posted by: Glen Davidson | April 9, 2008 8:57 PM
ROBOT ALERT!!! ROBOT ALERT!!!
1. It is blatantly illegal to sneak religion into kids science classes. Creationism/ID are cult religious beliefs.
2. There aren't two viewpoints. You lied!!! There are dozens of creation myths. Which religion are we sneaking in here? Moonies, Scientology, FSM, Hindu, Buddhist, Wiccan? Keeping religion in the home and church were it belongs protects everyone.
FWIW, the Expelled creos are spamming the internet. Jennifer is a robot. You will meet other robots in the next week. Robots never reply back because....they are just software.
2.
Posted by: raven | April 9, 2008 9:04 PM
What's wrong with offering both viewpoints in the schools and allowing the students to make up their own minds.
What church do you attend, Jennifer?
i want to visit to present my alternate pantheon so you and the rest of your particular church group can decide for themselves which god they should be worshiping.
frankly, I think this would be much more edutational than the obvious approach Glen has already delivered to you, and if you had a brain in your head, Glen wouldn't have had to bother with.
You obviously need help deciding which deities are best worshiped.
Can I pencil in a time?
Posted by: Ichthyic | April 9, 2008 9:08 PM
I read a really positive review of this scam, er, movie in American Spectator magazine. Nearly puked.
As a public service, I refuse to give the URL. You wanna read it, you're on your own.
Posted by: MikeM | April 9, 2008 9:12 PM
The problem, Jennifer, is that one viewpoint is supported by all the evidence, and the other doesn't explain or gain support from any of it. The viewpoints are not equal, and to represent them as such is to bear false witness.
The goal of the film is not to ask for the viewpoints to be presented equally; it is to tell lies about the viewpoint which is supported by all the evidence and explains everything we see in biology, and to paint that viewpoint as dangerous and despicable when it is not.
Posted by: wazza | April 9, 2008 9:15 PM
Bad: "it was the mass organizational powers of the modern state, along with modern technologies and ideas on how to kill tons of people at once, that really seem to be what's "necessary" for modern genocide."
That's correct from the logistical standpoint, including communications media (use of radio in Rwanda).
"Not any random political philosophy that justifies the use of power to kill. It's not like human beings have ever lacked for some rationale to justify that."
Right; a wide varieties of rationales and strategic objectives have had roles in modern genocides.
Hitler also says in Table Talk: "The monkeys, our ancestors of prehistoric times, are strictly vegetarian."
But, as was mentioned, the authenticity of Table Talk is in doubt.
The apparent contradiction of Hitler's statements against Christianity on the one hand and praise for Christianity on the other is resolved when it is realized that he is discussing two contrasting Christianities, "negative" and "positive." "Negative" Christianity fixates on Christ's death while "positive" Christianity focuses on his alleged message - namely, opposition to Jewish capitalism.
Nazi antipathy to Darwinism was due to its materialism and lack of teleology, not because it was macroevolutionary or referred to natural selection. There were a plurality of sometimes conflicting approaches within explicitly pro-Nazi biology: Haeckelian, anti-Haeckelian, holist, mechanist. Haeckel's Monist League was banned but an SS-affiliated Ernst Haeckel Society was formed. The Haeckelian race scientist Heberer, favored by Himmler, contributed to the still-new modern synthesis during the Nazi era, and Konrad Lorenz asserted that evolutionary biology supported Nazi volkish values.
Nazi ideologue Alfred Rosenberg, The Myth of the Twentieth Century, 1931:
"Humanity, the universal church, or the sovereign ego, divorced from the bonds of blood, are no longer absolute values for us. They are dubious, even moribund, dogmas ... which represent the ousting of nature in favour of abstractions. The emergence in the nineteenth century of Darwinism and positivism constituted the first powerful, though still wholly materialistic, protest against the lifeless and suffocating ideas which had come from Syria and Asia Minor and had brought about spiritual degeneracy."
Posted by: Colugo | April 9, 2008 9:16 PM
So according to Shermer (writing for Scientific American), only around 2 actual Pepperdine students showed up to listen to Ben Stein rant? Ben Stein had to hire extras to pretend to be students listening to him at Pepperdine?
ROFL!
How embarrassingly pathetic.
Posted by: Bubba Sixpack | April 9, 2008 9:17 PM
Jennifer - Literature is taught in English classes, History is taught in History classes, Science is taught in Science classes, and matters of faith are taught by parents or in Sunday School.
ID is NOT science. It is not based on observation, it makes no predictions, and it can not be tested. It is based on false assumptions, logical fallacies, and outright lies. ID has no legitimacy. ID is fake. It doesn't exist.
Adding ID to public schools is not an attempt to teach "critical thinking" or to provide "alternatives" but a blatant attempt to inject a creationist religious belief into Government funded schools in direct conflict with the Constitution of the United States of America.
As a non-Christian, non-creationist I would not want my children being taught those beliefs in a public school any more then a Christian would want the Muslim version of Genesis (which includes another type of "man" created from smokeless fire called the Djin) taught in their Sunday School as an "opposing viewpoint" so that the kids could decide for themselves.
Posted by: Bill | April 9, 2008 9:17 PM
More importantly than what everyone thinks is the right or wrong viewpoint, is the option of allowing people to make up their own minds.
Jennifer, reality is not subject to a popularity contest, and science is about facts, not "viewpoints." That you think this is about "viewpoints" means you've swallowed the whole creationist propaganda pitch hook, line and sinker. The goal of the ID camp, and this stupid movie, is to deceive the uneducated into thinking the evolution/creationism battle is simply a competition between opinions in which one side is suppressing the other. What it actually is, is a group of religious fundamentalists resenting the fact that scientific facts don't flatter their beliefs, and doubly resentful of the fact they cannot get away with simply dressing up their religious beliefs in a pseudoscientific cloak and having them taught as "alternative theories."
Letting students "make up their own minds" about evolutionary biology is no more sensible than letting them do so about gravity, or chemistry, or math, or history, or any other subject. There's a reason we don't teach Holocaust Denial in history class as an alternate "theory." There's a reason we don't let kids decide 2 + 2 does not have to equal 4 if they don't want it to.
Clearly, the whole point of education itself is something that eludes you.
Posted by: Martin | April 9, 2008 9:19 PM
I see that Expelled is mostly being shown far away from New York or L.A (according to Fandango, no closer to NYC than Seacaucus, NJ, and no closer to L.A. than Alhambra--one screen each).
Stein is likely concerned about getting work after this, because this film will have the same effect on his career (which hangs on his image as a man of some intelligence) as being caught with kiddie porn would have on Santa Claus's. So it's not being shown where people in the entertainment industry are likely to see it.
Posted by: Molly, NYC | April 9, 2008 9:25 PM
there were a plurality of sometimes conflicting approaches within explicitly pro-Nazi biology: Haeckelian, anti-Haeckelian, holist, mechanist....
there he goes again...
before you go on yet another tour de force of your theories of eugenics, might I remind you of the topic of the thread, Colugo?
Posted by: Ichthyic | April 9, 2008 9:33 PM
Yes, Ichthyic, the Expelled thesis of Darwinism-led-to-Auschwitz (as I today saw Ben Stein claim in a Christian TV channel interview) is crap. Happy?
I know what the thread topic is. I was commenting on other commenters.
Posted by: Colugo | April 9, 2008 9:38 PM
I've never heard this before. Is there evidence for it?
Posted by: Ian | April 9, 2008 9:49 PM
I know what the thread topic is. I was commenting on other commenters.
just cutting you off at the pass.
Happy?
yes, actually.
I apologize for the offense, but felt it needed to be done.
Posted by: Ichthyic | April 9, 2008 10:00 PM
@ #10
This applies only to people who were at some point members of a church. If you have never been baptized you don't need to show that you quit the church. Also the money (minus a handling fee for the govt.) goes to whatever church you list on your tax form, not just the catholic church.
The tax is clearly listed on salary statements and (if you file taxes) on the tax report. Not knowing about it requires ignoring lots of paperwork.
The amount is 8-9% (depends on the church) of your income tax, not your income.
Posted by: Michael | April 9, 2008 10:11 PM
There is a vast literature on this. And no doubt that a lot of Hitler's supposed anti-Xian quotes are forged lies by Xians trying to coverup. A lot of people and organizations have been trying to pass the blame along since WWII. Google Hitler forged documents christianity and get 250,000 hits. One source is below.
http://ffrf.org/fttoday/2002/nov02/carrier.php
Was Catholic Hitler "Anti-Christian"?
On the Trail of Bogus Quotes
By Richard C. Carrier
Posted by: raven | April 9, 2008 10:12 PM
François Genoud: "But it's just what Hitler would have said, isn't it?"
Matthew, Mark, Luke and John: "But it's just what Jesus would have said, isn't it?"
Posted by: MH | April 9, 2008 10:31 PM
Y'know, I went past Coral Ridge in January and I forgot to spit....
Posted by: Monado, FCD | April 9, 2008 11:10 PM
Just FYI - a VHS your library may have (mine here in Redneck of the Woods does)- Discovery Channel, Nazis: The Occult Conspiracy, ISBN 1-56331-743-5.
Having only a high school education I can't vouch for it's correctness, but I found it interesting. There is some ritual explained.
Posted by: Patricia C. | April 9, 2008 11:54 PM
I work at the Post Office and there are a lot of pro-Expelled mailers going through. I'm assuming that everyone on the AIG mailing list is getting one. The letters encourage people to promote the film and raise money to get people out to see the film. It appears they are putting out a bigger effort to promote this film than they did the Jesus snuff film a few years back.
Controversy sells. I imagine a decent opening night but viewership will die off tremendously by the next weekend.
Posted by: Doug | April 10, 2008 12:25 AM
http://christianworldviewnetwork.com/article.php/3322/Matt_Barber
Posted by: Mobius loops breakfast cereal | April 10, 2008 1:55 AM
Probably old news now, but it gave me a laugh:
http://www.cnsnews.com/news/viewstory.asp?Page=/Culture/archive/200804/CUL20080402a.html
I particularly like:
"Although the filmmakers noticed that Dawkins had arrived at the Minneapolis screening uninvited, they decided to let him in anyway after he signed in as "Clinton Dawkins," Mathis said."
and:
"At the screening that Dawkins entered, Myers also tried to enter but was spotted by an "Expelled" staffer."
If true (and I have my doubts) it implies that both Dawkins and PZ Myers were recognised, and PZ was considered the bigger threat.
For those wanting to see future screenings, apparently the trick to getting in is to sign up as "Clinton Dawkins".
Posted by: Katherine | April 10, 2008 2:22 AM
I think Colugo a deserves molly nomination, at the very least, for his work in this thread.
Impressive, that.
Posted by: Uriel | April 10, 2008 2:27 AM
I should think that Mel Gibson's "Passion of the Christ" proceeds might demonstrate that this audience is not so shrinking after all.
And I would not be so surprised if the self same audience falls in for "Expelled." After all, if the elongated torture of Jesus can be the subject of a world wide blockbuster, than Ben Sten's drone is not so inconsistent with a sleeper hit either.
I worry personally that like the shark in "Jaws", after the movie's initial bonanza, evolution will likewise suffer a similar effect from a people drunk on the terrorization, however fictional, of its subject matter.
We might easily point out the sophistry of the message amongst ourselves. But this will not undo the syphoning of strength the Creationists will draw from this, and the sad fact remains, their fight against reason in the classroom prevailing over fear will have the force of a newly revived, dimwitted frenzy that may extend its dying breath now by many years to come.
Posted by: Kevin Johnson | April 10, 2008 2:47 AM
""Although the filmmakers noticed that Dawkins had arrived at the Minneapolis screening uninvited, they decided to let him in anyway after he signed in as "Clinton Dawkins," Mathis said."...
If true (and I have my doubts) it implies that both Dawkins and PZ Myers were recognised, and PZ was considered the bigger threat.
For those wanting to see future screenings, apparently"
IIRC, Dawkins was prepared to sign in and had his passport with him but never actually was required to do so. The expelled producers learned about Dawkins full name from PZ and Dawkins web posts and spun the lie--of course if he did sign in they'd have his **signature** on file and could prove it. If they had it they'd be touting it on their website.
Posted by: Scote | April 10, 2008 3:10 AM
Thank you Uriel. Although I cannot claim expertise, I have long had an interest in the history of both scientific racism and totalitarianism.
Maybe someone else pointed it out, but there are several similarities between Expelled and Liberal Fascism. Among these: 1) politicized junk history intended for a popular audience, 2) so egregiously flawed that even some political allies reject its major claims, 3) Hitler, 4) converges on talking points used by some on the very far left.
This emphasis on how Darwinism is related to imperialism and racism sounds very familiar. It reminds me of the 90s science wars which were not fundie vs science like the 00s but pomo/critical theory vs science. And there was a handful of people, who happened to be on the left, insisting that natural selection was about justifying greed, war, patriarchy, capitalism, white supremacy etc. It was not just an attack on evolutionary psychology but a less common broader critique of natural selection - "Darwinism" - itself.
To play frame-meister for a second, I think Dawkins' quaint habit of calling evolutionary science "Darwinism" is a bit out of step. I used to think that those who complained about the terms Darwinism or neo-Darwinism to describe contemporary evolutionary biology were overzealous Gouldians, but now I think they were right.
Posted by: Colugo | April 10, 2008 3:14 AM
The only bad publicity is no publicity. The more people know about this movie, the more it helps the cause of "teach the controversy."
--
Furry cows moo and decompress.
Posted by: Wyrd | April 10, 2008 3:59 AM
PZ, your original Expelled post is on the 'Best of the Web' on the UK Guardian newspaper's 'Comment is free' page: http://tinyurl.com/lr9yk
Posted by: Peter Mc | April 10, 2008 4:31 AM
As someone who tried to ride that one out in the academic whirlwind, (and eventually found himself under the bus, whether thrown or not,) I have to say yes and no.
Yes, it seems familiar. But no, it is not just similar- it's a blatant and deliberate hijacking of all of all of the worst excesses PoMo and Crit Theory, even while rejecting the label itself: incoherent relativism, identity politics seizing the reins over simple reason, and an embracing of the preconceived over the observed.
Which is to say, for all the bleating objections individual IDists might might level against PoMo, its not just similar, its exactly the same. To paraphrase The Terminator- It's what they do. It's all they do.
And this is not only limited to IDists- its basically the meme a large part of the right wing is operating under at present. I can't listen to Limbaugh, Hannity, Coulter or (god help me) Levin, without marveling at how amazingly well they have learned the shallow lessons the people they claim to hate have provided: no matter how much violence you need to do to simple reality, if there's any way you can twist the facts into some convoluted balloon animal that pleases you- then you should be heralded for your supposed brilliance, rather than castigated for your obvious deceitfulness.
And the story of Behe's rise to semi-prominence makes this more than obvious. It's no wonder Steve Fuller finds himself a fellow traveler.
Posted by: uriel | April 10, 2008 4:37 AM
The irony of the situation is that even if the IDiots were correct and Hitler was trying to put into effect an aspect of evolutionary theory, that particular aspect, namely micro-evolution through artificial selection, is one that's fully accepted by almost all creationists - even Kent Hovind!
So whats the next logical step?
Start denying micro-evolution?
Posted by: Sigmund | April 10, 2008 5:13 AM
The Jews themselves don't buy the Darwindidit
explanation. They should have an interest,