…and this is a 
The real expulsions
Category: Creationism
Posted on: April 19, 2008 7:59 PM, by PZ Myers
A fair number of creationists must be leaving a certain propaganda movie and getting on to the internet to find targets of their ire, because I'm getting a little surge in hate mail — mostly short, petty whines and accusations. For any who find this site in addition to my email address, I have two suggestions for you:
Look up the actual stories of the "expelled". It seems their martyrdom has been grossly exaggerated.
Then compare those stories with more serious case of religious persecution against those who favor evolution.
Creationists, much as I'd love to smack down every one of your silly arguments, I can't possibly do it one by one. Hang around, ask questions in the comments, and take your turn: we'll eventually get around to dismantling your ludicrous claims.
Comments
Oh, oh. PZ just said, "Bring it on!"
Posted by: Zeno | April 19, 2008 8:03 PM
I bet there'll hardly be any comments in this thread. *shifts eyes*
Posted by: Ted D | April 19, 2008 8:07 PM
LOL, Ted. You're just trying to incite a swarming mob of creationist antics, aren't you?
Posted by: Dave C | April 19, 2008 8:10 PM
This'll be fun.
/grab popcorn
Posted by: syntyche | April 19, 2008 8:11 PM
Maybe we can lure them here with the tales of us eating babies, and our wanton sexploits.
Posted by: Mercurious | April 19, 2008 8:18 PM
As long as they're here praying for PZ's conversion from atheism (although they'll spell it "athiesm") and the salvation of his soul (and ours!), they won't be doing any actual mischief anywhere else. Or perhaps instead they'll be ignoring the Biblical injunction "judge not, lest ye be judged" and condemning PZ to hell for his lack of faith. That's fun, too. No doubt there'll be some collateral condemnation from the sanctimonious shrapnel. Incoming!
Posted by: Zeno | April 19, 2008 8:19 PM
Right.
Who's first?
Posted by: Matt | April 19, 2008 8:21 PM
Oh man, this is gonna be good. I may pull an all-nighter to watch this in realtime :) (puts a bucket of coffee on to help stave off sleep).
Posted by: AllanW | April 19, 2008 8:24 PM
This was inevitable, wasn't it?
Lots of these people never heard of you until last night, now they think they know everything about you. I'm sure you're the devil to them.
I think you should post some of your more ludicrous responses, and I bet it won't be easy for you to pick, say, a top 5.
Posted by: MikeM | April 19, 2008 8:25 PM
Margaret Cho did a great bit in her "Assassin" routine about gaining the ire of the Right. She said her mail went something like this: "GODDAMN FAGGOT DYKE GOOK COMMIE FAGGOT DYKE. YOU SUCK. JESUS SAVES!"
Sound familiar PZ?
Posted by: MAJeff, OM | April 19, 2008 8:29 PM
I like your "take a number" approach, PZ. There must have been a lot of people going to see 'Expelled," as it opened at #8.
http://www.boxofficemojo.com/daily/chart/?sortdate=2008-04-18&p=.htm
Posted by: Brian K. | April 19, 2008 8:37 PM
The movie's every bit as terrible as advertised.
Of course, these are the same fools that are convinced by a Kent Hovind video...so what do you expect intellectually.
Posted by: Derik N | April 19, 2008 8:37 PM
Derik is right. I totally agree.
Posted by: Zeno | April 19, 2008 8:42 PM
I actually paid to watch another movie, then snuck into this one after mine was over.
Yeah, I know I know, but I couldn't bring myself to actually spend money supporting/watching this garbage.
Posted by: Derik N | April 19, 2008 8:44 PM
Planet Killer........come out to playyyyyeeeeeyyyyyaaaaaaaayyyyyyyy!!!
Posted by: room101 | April 19, 2008 8:47 PM
Zeno said... atheism (although they'll spell it "athiesm")
You are implying that "i before e except after c" is only a THEORY instead of a LAW. Help me Jebus.
Posted by: Bifrost | April 19, 2008 8:49 PM
Bring on the comic sans!!!
I don't suspect the sheep that are bused to the movies to be bathed in the inanity and droning of Ben Stein will be very interesting.
Does the 3 comment rule still hold?
Posted by: Steve_C | April 19, 2008 8:53 PM
Actually, Bifrost, I think it's worse than that: "i before e" is a social construct, nothing more than a convention. But not to worry: this problem will go away. When our current generation of msg txtrs grow up, vowels will be vestigial or vanished.
Posted by: Zeno | April 19, 2008 8:56 PM
Oh, you are *so* going to Hell because of that, Derik.
Posted by: tacitus | April 19, 2008 8:56 PM
Blake Stacey's blog has a good essay on scientists being persecuted and even killed by creationists. Unlike the made up cases in Expelled, these are people getting fired, beaten up, and threatened for real by religious bigots. Well worth the read.
One such horror story out of 12 is below. Really, what kind of animal beats up on a female college professor for teaching evolution.
http://www.sunclipse.org/?p=626
Posted by: raven | April 19, 2008 8:58 PM
I don't know where this movie is even playing. They don't seem to have a link to it on Fandango and that even lists the drive in theaters in my neck of the woods.
Posted by: flame821 | April 19, 2008 9:02 PM
I only have one question Dr. Myers. Has anyone every actually observed spieces to species evolution. In other words have we ever watched one kind of animal like a dog become another kind of animal like a cat. This is only an example I just want to be clear that I do not mean cross breeding between dogs or cats but actually new species. If so I would love to know when and where this happened, and where I might be able to see the evidence, so that I might look at that information.
Posted by: James Briggs | April 19, 2008 9:04 PM
. Has anyone every actually observed spieces to species evolution.
sure, it's quite easy, all you have to do is move the "i" after the "c".
Posted by: Ichthyic | April 19, 2008 9:06 PM
I'll let my more knowledgeable pharyngulites deal with the yutz @22.
However Zoologix has an interesting article up about rapid reptile evolution (please disregard the poking-fun-at pictures below the fold) Italian lizards
Posted by: flame821 | April 19, 2008 9:08 PM
Sorry for the typo my friend. However it doesn't change my question.
Posted by: James Briggs | April 19, 2008 9:08 PM
Posted by: Stanton | April 19, 2008 9:10 PM
James, are you truly serious?
Do you honestly believe that evolution is the metamorphosing of one distinct species into another? Do you not understand what evolution is and how it works?
Posted by: flame821 | April 19, 2008 9:11 PM
Riddle me this, O compatriots in reason! What are the conditions under which you would find it reasonable to infer that creature was indeed the creation of a God? That is, what are the general features that indicate design? Are they not complexity, utility, and organization? Do we not find these in nature? Why then, companions, are we not justified in making the inference to design? Do not spare me your thoughts. Pray tell me.
Posted by: William Paley | April 19, 2008 9:11 PM
Yikes.
That's... wow. Impressive juxtaposition. And, sigh, it's hard to smack down every last argument. I mean, yeah, the arguments themselves are stupid, but there's so many of them and it's hard to logically counter the completely illogical.
If the person reading this would like to make an argument for creationism or ID, please please please do us all a favor and go here first to see if your argument's on the list:
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/list.html
Posted by: Falyne | April 19, 2008 9:12 PM
James Briggs, it is difficult to observe this because there is not an agreed on definition of "species". If you say that a species is a population that can only breed with itself because of gamete(Egg and sperm) incompatibility then yes this has been observed. Look at the wikipedia article about "hybrid species" It has been observed that animals like mules,domestic horses, wild horses(including weird pygmie horses of mongolia and indonesia) and Zebras can sometimes reporoduce and create offspring that can reproduce only with hybrids like themselves, not either of their parent's species.
The biggest barrier to observing evolution in action is that diverse speciation take a long time to happen. Many intermediate generations need to be born and reproduce in order to be selected into different forms.
So the question is: is a Zebra the same as a horse?
Posted by: Amplexus | April 19, 2008 9:12 PM
@ James Briggs.
I'm not the authority on this, but I think the answer to your question is no. And the reason for this is simple. We have been around as a species for, maybe 100K years. We have had writing for only the last 7000-ish years. Evolution is a slow process--to slow for anyone one person to see a radical dog-to-cat change, let alone even a civilization.
Of course, there is plenty of fossil evidence of just this kind of change. And we see evolution all the time. Just look at the flu virus. Different every year.
(And just to preempt here: the distinction drawn by ID fans between micro and macro evolution is a false dichotomy. They differ in degree only. There's not some magical chasm between them--as Behe would like us to believe.)
Posted by: Joshua Arnold | April 19, 2008 9:13 PM
James Briggs #22:
Of course it has. You guys just call it "microevolution", thinking that it's a gotcha. Things take time. By the way, acting smug about that cat evolving into a dog argument is going to get you reamed. It's what we like to call a "tired canard". Dogs may change into something else over TIME, so may cats, but no one is directing cats to turn into dogs or vice versa. Quack quack, yawn.
Posted by: Mena | April 19, 2008 9:14 PM
@James Briggs
Why do you actually expect that an extant species evolves into an other extant species?
Posted by: Christian | April 19, 2008 9:15 PM
James - yes, it has been observed.
Posted by: JJ | April 19, 2008 9:17 PM
Ummm. Mr. Briggs.
You are obviously not well versed in the science of evolution.
You should pick up a book on evolution by Dawkins or Gould, there's a lot of them out there.
Or just get the basic by looking up speciation on wiki or talkorigins.
Then come back if anything has confused you.
And a quick answer to your question is, YES speciation has been witnessed in the wild, but not as you misunderstand it.
Posted by: Steve_C | April 19, 2008 9:18 PM
Flame 821,
I will begin by admiting that I am not a Scienctist. I have take science classes but have not degrees. I am merely an individual who seeks answers.
When I say Evolution I am not refering to the microevolution that comes from a species changing to better suit its environment. I only meant what I would consider Macroevolution which would need to be distinct species to distinct species for Darwinism to be true. The original Single celled organism could not always remain a single celled organism. If I am wrong please educate me to what is right.
Thank you
James Briggs
Posted by: James Briggs | April 19, 2008 9:19 PM
Riddle me this, O compatriots in reason! What are the conditions under which you would find it reasonable to infer that creature was indeed the creation of a God?
what are you, a fucking comic strip villain?
anywho, let me answer your question with another question:
How does an anthropologist go about determining whether a particular artifact is man-made?
If you spend a little time figuring out what the answer is that question, your original question will also be answered.
Now, when you have that figured out, come back and tell us how we can determine how a deity of your choice actually acts in the world, and then pick a random organism, and we can get started hypothesizing whether said deity did or did not have a hand in its "creation".
simple.
Posted by: Ichthyic | April 19, 2008 9:20 PM
And then there's also the problem that if you witness the change you'll run into this.
Posted by: Christian | April 19, 2008 9:23 PM
Paley.
An organism that is genetically impossible to have evolved from any current life form or share an ancestry with a previous life form.
Like a human with wings, and perhaps a nice halo around it's head.
Posted by: Steve_C | April 19, 2008 9:24 PM
James:
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC214.html
William:
There is no proof against the universe being designed. There *can* be no proof against it. You are fully justified in believing that the world was created last Thursday if you so wish. Now, we all have memories of last Wednesday, but those could have been implanted by an omnipotent creator, now couldn't they?
ANYTHING could indicate design. That's the fundamental reason it's not within the boundaries of science. Science can *only* deal with the natural world; it's part of the definition. So, while many many scientists hold personal religious beliefs, no actual scientific hypothesis can depend on the supernatural or divine. ESPECIALLY not when we have valid, workable models with tons of evidence to support them that point to a materialistic solution.
Posted by: Falyne | April 19, 2008 9:24 PM
More for James:
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB901.html
Posted by: Falyne | April 19, 2008 9:26 PM
Because I *know* it's coming soon, and I'm going for food, here's "irreducible complexity":
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB200.html
Posted by: Falyne | April 19, 2008 9:29 PM
To James Briggs, re #36, where you said: "I only meant what I would consider Macroevolution which would need to be distinct species to distinct species for Darwinism to be true."
James, macro is nothing but a whole lot of micro. It takes time. It can be seen, after the fact, in the fossil record. Properly understood, it's like a time-lapse movie, but with a lot of missing frames.
Posted by: PatrickHenry | April 19, 2008 9:31 PM
In other words have we ever watched one kind of animal like a dog become another kind of animal like a cat.
well, I've seen a cat-dog; does that count?
http://www.retrojunk.com/img/art-images/cat_dog.jpg
Posted by: Ichthyic | April 19, 2008 9:32 PM
James Briggs said:
James, take some time to read these:
29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: The Scientific Case for Common Descent
Observed Instances of Speciation
In fact, take a good look around the Talk Origins site. :)
Posted by: Damian | April 19, 2008 9:32 PM
James Briggs, I thought of another example of evolution that has been observed. It's not as dramatic as my "Zorse" , "Hebra" and "donkey" example.
Some fungi and bacteria are one celled and are found in environment "A". Lets say that environment "A" is slightly acidic and rather moist. the fungi/bacteria in environment "A" reproduce by each cell dividing itself asexually.
The same species of cells are found in enviroment "B" but "B" isin't as acidic and drier. The cells in environment B only survive if they cluster together and share moisture.
If the conditions are right the cells in the "colony" will specialize. The ones on the outside will be selected to be more resistant to water loss or UV light. The ones on the inside might specialize in making sure that a beneficial acidity is maintained in the colony or some other homeostatic condition.
That can be observed in a laboratory. Over time these colonies will increase in specialization to the point that the cells will take on different forms, maybe even start to diverge genetically but share the same environment.
Posted by: Amplexus | April 19, 2008 9:32 PM
I would like to draw attention once again to the irony that my complaint about my own experience of being expelled from Uncommon Descent is still posted in that part of the Expelled web site. :)
Posted by: James McGrath | April 19, 2008 9:33 PM
Rapid species to species changes have been observed. There are many, a long list.
Two familiar ones. YOUR DOG. Dogs are descended from wolves and fairly recently. Some dogs look a lot like wolves. Some don't. Does a chuhuahua or pekinese look like a wolf?
Corn. Corn was derived from teosinte and almost within historical time frames. We've even been able to trace the mutations that change teosinte into corn. An ear of corn and the seed stalk of teosinte don't resemble each other very closely.
Tasmanian facial tumor. A dramatic evolutionary jump from a tumor to a transmissable disease that happened a few decades ago. Some call this the creation of a new phylum.
I don't believe you are interested in learning. Your question is a creationist fallacy that was answered a century ago. Just a trolling creo.
Posted by: raven | April 19, 2008 9:34 PM
well, I've seen a cat-dog; does that count?
Nothing, however, compares to the glory of the Jackalope. Wall Drug Forever! (god I hope to never end up in that part of SD again).
Posted by: MAJeff, OM | April 19, 2008 9:36 PM
James, I think the primary problem is that damned fish to man poster. There is NOT a straight line from a one cell organism in primordial ooze to us via the way the poster shows.
It is a tree with many branches, many dead branches. Some species survived, adapted, evolved and reproduced, most did not.
The 'dogs evolving to cats' question you posed is very much like the 'if humans came from apes, why are there still apes' comment we hear quite often.
We didn't come 'from' apes, we share a common ancestor with them, they are our cousins not our grandparents. Many of our other cousins didn't survive because they couldn't adapt or evolve quickly enough, we sometimes find their fossilized bones and that, along with Dr. Myers evo-devo studies, is how we learn their history and pieces of our own.
Please, if you are TRULY interested in learning about the basic concepts of evolution go to talk origins and follow the links that Falyne has provided. They can explain things much better than I can.
Posted by: flame821 | April 19, 2008 9:37 PM
James@22
Others have addressed the concept of species and the saltational requirement of your question, so I'll travel a different route.
Why do we need to directly observe one species giving birth to another to have knowledge that it happened? Is the evidence from the fossil record, homologous traits, molecular evidence such as shared ERVs, shared 'broken' genes, and so many others, not enough for us to conclude common descent?
If that is the case - that we require direct observation in all things - then many sciences, and those nice people on CSI, are in deep shit.
Posted by: Gary Bohn | April 19, 2008 9:39 PM
Well...baby is in bed and the wife is away. Looks like I've found my entertainment for the evening.
Thanks Fundy Claus...just what I wanted!
Posted by: swill | April 19, 2008 9:39 PM
James Briggs: Ring species provide examples of gradual transition from one species to another before our very eyes. Read the full article for details, but briefly, population A interbreeds with population B, which interbreeds with population C, which interbreeds with population D, but populations A and D, althought they may overlap geographically, cannot interbreed and are legitimately considered separate species.
Speciation over time is simply this same process write large.
Posted by: Gregory Kusnick | April 19, 2008 9:40 PM
Mr. Briggs,
No. Noöne has ever seen a dog change into a cat or vice versa. Nor would we expect them to. In fact, such a (well-documented) conversion would be solid proof that something is very very wrong with the way we understand the world. You might even call it a miracle.
But we have seen dogs speciate, for instance. I dare you to bread a Chihuahua with a Great Dane.
It might be enlightening to look at Australia too. There we've seen marsupials change to fill ever niche that are otherwise filled with mammals on the other continents.
The Tasmanian tiger or wolf (&c &c) are not in any way closely related to felines or canines, but they have evolved to pursue similar lifestyles and as a result they've come to look (a bit) like their mammalian namesakes. It's an example of convergent evolution in that these diverse species have ended up with similar 'designs' - this in turn tells us that these shared aspects of their appearance must be near-optimal for their ways of life.
On the other hand - canines and felines are obviously different but fill similar niches (both are obligate carnivores for instance). Thus we can learn a lot about what aspects of their anatomy are important to their shared way of life by finding their shared traits.
Posted by: Sili | April 19, 2008 9:40 PM
Rapid species to species changes have been observed. There are many, a long list.
based on his original post, I don't think the responses he's been getting will answer his question.
Think in terms of baraminology.
He's asking if a cat has been observed to evolve into a dog, and because of the utter BS he has been fed previous to coming here, is thinking that it's a necessary precondition for the theory of evolution to be applicable.
He's confused about how life itself works, at a most basic level.
those that respond to him have to address the idea that barminology is false to begin with; there are no "kinds".
then you have to explain the general idea of common ancestry.
seriously, this boy needs a basic biology course, and the best thing you can do for him is simply to tell him to read a good biology text, and spend some time at TalkOrigins or, perhaps better still for basic understanding, here:
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/
Posted by: Ichthyic | April 19, 2008 9:41 PM
A 'species' is often defined as a group of organisms that can interbreed. As such the formation of a barrier to interbreeding, such as chromosomal alterations, can lead to seperate populations - that will, in turn diverge due to genetic drift. This is quite common amongst isolated mouse populations - such as those on islands. Heres a link if you are really interested in scientific evidence.
http://tinyurl.com/6zjuda
Alternatively, if you're not ....... http://tinyurl.com/5u6nn9
Posted by: Sigmund | April 19, 2008 9:41 PM
Hold back, Glorious Atheist Cabal for the Propagation of Immorality! So many wasted electrons for the first trolling nitwit! Save some for the rest of the herd of totally non-evolving scrapie-lesioned sheep.
Posted by: dkew | April 19, 2008 9:42 PM
@ Christian #38
That's exactly the point. Short of a "soul" the idea of species is totally subjective. When does a horse's children stop being "horses"? Well it doesn't matter unless your a taxonomist
Posted by: Amplexus | April 19, 2008 9:44 PM
William Paley,
Can we not also infer design in the designer? Does it not also display complexity, utility, organisation?
So that leaves us with...
Nature had a designer.
The designer had a meta designer.
The meta designer had a meta meta designer.
The meta meta designer had a meta meta meta designer.
The meta meta meta designer had a meta meta meta meta designer.
The meta meta meta meta designer had a meta meta meta meta meta designer.
The meta meta meta meta meta designer had a meta meta meta meta meta meta designer.
Etcetera etcetera.
Posted by: amk | April 19, 2008 9:46 PM
James Briggs:
The dog to cat/cat to dog analogy is a common misunderstanding of evolution. These two species along with humans have a common ancestor, a mammal.
Posted by: Corey Schlueter | April 19, 2008 9:47 PM
@ 49 -
I agree with you partially. Wall Drug was depressing to say the least, but I had to do a lot in the name of the infamous UChicago Scav Hunt (including ride a Jackalope). But I would revisit the Black Hills and Badlands in a heartbeat.
Posted by: Nerdette | April 19, 2008 9:47 PM
Save some for the rest of the herd of totally non-evolving scrapie-lesioned sheep.
well said.
don't fill up on appetizers.
Posted by: Ichthyic | April 19, 2008 9:49 PM
"Expelled" gets a negative review from the Waco Tribune. Do you happen to know this "P.Z. Meyers" they mention?
Posted by: Reginald Selkirk | April 19, 2008 9:50 PM
Actually, if things had an intelligent designer, I would expect the world to look much more like IKEA.
Simple, clean lines. No excessive and useless garnishing, no junk DNA; just clean and sparse with no left over, useless (vestigial) parts (like the appendix) ...
Posted by: flame821 | April 19, 2008 9:50 PM
Re: dog-cats. We have those in Danish actually.
It's only because 'female' and 'dog' sound alike, though - /hun/ and /hunʔ/ respectively. But it does mean that in Danish a female cat is a 'hunkat'.
Posted by: Sili | April 19, 2008 9:53 PM
Raven@48
Just to waylay the typical creationist response that the artificial selection of dogs by humans has not produced a new species of dog in all the years we have been intelligently designing them, the selection process we use, just as in nature, is not designed to produce novel features but to restrict the variance in a specific breed. Only occasionally will a mutation produce something of interest to a breeder (munchkin cats), or will a breeder attempt to produce something new, and even then changes are small and targeted.
The vast majority of dog breeding (and cat breeding) is designed to limit change, not produce it.
Posted by: Gary Bohn | April 19, 2008 9:54 PM
What's "bitch" in danish?
Posted by: Amplexus | April 19, 2008 9:55 PM
Please PZ do take some care for your self and your families security. If that news article about you was released here in redneck of the woods, Oregon and you lived here - you would be in the crosshairs.
Having said that, I'll now retire to my corner, lick my chops, sharpen my claws and purrrrrr over the feast to come.
Posted by: Patricia C. | April 19, 2008 9:56 PM
The meta meta meta meta meta designer had a meta meta meta meta meta meta designer.
And from there, it's turtles all the way down.
Posted by: harmfulguy | April 19, 2008 9:56 PM
In the beginning, God said "Let there be turtles!"
And it was good.
"I like turtles"
Posted by: Amplexus | April 19, 2008 9:59 PM
James,
Look at the work of Loren Rieseberg on hybridization in sunflower species. He and his collaborators have been able to recreate the hybrids that form new species in the lab.
This is truly speciation in action and is documented genotypically and phenotypically.
Posted by: michael fugate | April 19, 2008 10:00 PM
Damn! I'd kill for a good Danish right about now. I think a cheese Danish and a nice cup of tea, and then wait for the inevitable onslaught as that clown-car of a movie lets out.
Posted by: Dan | April 19, 2008 10:01 PM
I have enjoyed watching the parade of silliness on the part of the "friends of Ben" episodes that have played out on the net,however, I seriously have no more left brain cells left to dole out either rational thought or even civil tongue to these people anymore.
I will take any further enjoyment of this simply in following the events that may appear in the courts over the theft of copyright and simply ignore the rantings of those that,having viewed the film, feel they are now qualified to make statements out of ignorance.
To those that feel they will ever be able to remove the foundations and structure of the theory of evolution I can only say... Molon Labe.
Posted by: sidelined | April 19, 2008 10:05 PM
Paley:
"What are the conditions under which you would find it reasonable to infer that creature was indeed the creation of a God?"
Perhaps if you explain how exactly God creates, and how exactly his methods of creation differ from well-known, well-described mechanisms of biological evolution, we might know what to look for. Until then, we don't really have enough to go on.
"That is, what are the general features that indicate design? Are they not complexity, utility, and organization?"
Well if they are, then I'm afraid the "god" hasn't done anything to distinguish himself from plain-old naturalistic, mutation+selection, which most certainly does generate these features.
Here is one you can answer for me:
If I can have complexity, utility, and organization without "God", what bloody use is he?
Posted by: JRQ | April 19, 2008 10:06 PM
James Briggs asked: "Has anyone every actually observed spieces to species evolution. ...I would love to know when and where this happened, and where I might be able to see the evidence, so that I might look at that information.
This may help you, James: Please read http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/news/2007/ZZ/47_meet_padian39s_critters_5_3_2007.asp - the transcript of Dr. Padian's testimony and his slideshow provide answers you may be able to understand. Please let us know what you think after you have looked at this material.
Posted by: Paul Burnett | April 19, 2008 10:07 PM
Expelled, refreshingly, does not focus on the question of whether it is neo-Darwinism or ID that accurately describes the origin of the species. It's about the intolerance, bigotry, arrogance, and ignorance on display by the likes of Messrs. Myers and Dawkins.
There was an unfortunate period (and a brief one) in the history of religion where religion and philosophy were at odds with science and philosophies rooted in empiricism, and religion arguably played the part of the bully (owing mostly to the influence of heretical sects). We have entered a new unfortunate period where religion and science are again at odds, and, not surprisingly, the heretical sects are still doing the persecuting.
The message of Expelled is that dogmatic atheism poisons good science, and its truncated understanding of human nature and human possibility is dangerous. We have seen historically what happens when scientific materialism triumphs over a belief in the soul. It leads to great tenderness and love for humanity. And as Walker Percy has noted, tenderness leads to the gas chambers.
So good luck with that, gents.
Posted by: Loudon is a Fool | April 19, 2008 10:07 PM
To this day I am still amazed that individuals can sit at a computer and type such uninformed drivel as James. Do Christians (TM) have some sort of theistic firewall* that prevents them from actually accessing the myriad of information available on the WWW that would educate them and just possibly bring them into the 21st century?
*Of course I know that people like James are born with an inbuilt theistic firewall kindly provided by their 'Intelligent Designer'.
Posted by: Psycho Atheist | April 19, 2008 10:09 PM
#75 must be a hoax, right? But, it does remind me of how even Kepler, who had really wacky views about religion, still had to, perhaps anachronistically, divorce those views from his calculations. Science is best done independently of religious conviction, whatever the motivation for doing the science may be.
Posted by: cff | April 19, 2008 10:16 PM
Posted by: Sili | April 19, 2008 10:18 PM
#75 needs to try harder to troll. You can't get serious responses by going that far off the deep end.
Posted by: iwdw | April 19, 2008 10:19 PM
@ Loudon is a Fool:
1. There is no such thing as "dogmatic" atheism. Atheists have no dogma. Atheists think the dogma of religion is incorrect, but this is hardly dogma itself.
2. "It's about the intolerance, bigotry, arrogance, and ignorance on display by the likes of Messrs. Myers and Dawkins." -Intolerance, bigotry, arrogance, and ignorance are four words I would use to describe religious fanatics, not Dawkins or Myers.
If you consider science's rejection of ridiculous ideas to be intolerance, you need to remember that science is not operated as a democracy. Good ideas survive, and bad ones (intelligent design) are dismissed. With good reason.
Posted by: Corey | April 19, 2008 10:20 PM
In the beginning, God said "Let there be turtles!"
And it was good.
"I like turtles"
actually, looking around he more likely said he likes beetles.
Posted by: Ichthyic | April 19, 2008 10:24 PM
actually, looking around he more likely said he likes beetles.
I was thinking bacteria.
Posted by: MAJeff, OM | April 19, 2008 10:25 PM
There was an unfortunate period (and a brief one)
yeah, right, tell it to the people trying to get the legislatures in Florida, Kansas, Ohio, and Texas (among others) to actually change the definition of science itself so that "astrology" would be considered science too.
can you morons do anything but project?
Posted by: Ichthyic | April 19, 2008 10:26 PM
#81 "actually, looking around he more likely said he likes beetles"
or nematodes - lots and lots of nematodes...
Posted by: Kia D | April 19, 2008 10:27 PM
Thanks for the link to sunclipse.org; hopefully that info will be incorporated into the expelledexposed.com WWW site as well.
What a long and sobering list.
Posted by: john abbott | April 19, 2008 10:27 PM
James Briggs wrote:
No, "we" haven't, because none of us live for hundreds of thousands of years.That doesn't mean it doesn't happen, though, does it?
No one alive to day saw the Battle of Gettysburg or the War of Independence. Does that mean they never happened?
Are you claiming that if we ourselves do not observe something directly, it does not exist?
I do not expect an answer, by the way.
Posted by: Ian H Spedding FCD | April 19, 2008 10:27 PM
The message of Expelled is that dogmatic atheism poisons good science
no, it isn't.
you at least have to start off with what the movie purports to represent if you wish to be taken at all seriously.
there is NOTHING in the movie that shows atheism working against good science.
not a goddamn thing.
Posted by: Ichthyic | April 19, 2008 10:29 PM
"I only have one question Dr. Myers. Has anyone every actually observed spieces to species evolution."
They are so desperate for evidence when it comes to evolution, so unconcerned about evidence when it comes to "God".
Posted by: CalGeorge | April 19, 2008 10:31 PM