Pharyngula

Nasty, despicable...

I say we mount a campaign to get all their science advisors fired from their academic posts!

Uh, wait...

let me get back to you on this one

Posted by: wazza | April 4, 2008 12:17 AM

On a related note, here's a pretty good account of Expelled, as far as I can tell:

Ben Stein Watch, Expelled Edition I went to a screening of Ben Stein's new movie this evening. My favorite bit, unsurprisingly, was when the film quoted Pamela Winnick thusly:

If you give any credence at all to Intelligent Design, you are just finished as a journalist.

Not at the New York Times you're not, clearly.

Winnick is presented in the film for all the world as a diligent journalist - a Jewish journalist, no less - who just happened to mention Intelligent Design, en passant, in one of her columns, and ended up getting fired.

Omitted from the film: any indication that Winnick is the author of "A Jealous God: Science's Crusade Against Religion," published in 2005 by Thomas Nelson. Or that in her journalism for the newspaper from which she was fired she talked of Darwin's influence on eugenics and Hitler, and "the serious people --scientists included -- who continue to challenge his theories".

I'm not going to even attempt a fisking of the film as a whole; I'll leave that to others more qualified than myself. I will note, however, that most of the "movie clips" at this site are not in the cut that I saw (which I believe is the final cut). Those clips actually engage the subject of evolution, which is something the film really doesn't do, weirdly enough. The closest that the film comes is to attack science on the grounds that scientists don't know what the origins of life are, which is a bit weird since scientists happily admit that they don't know what the origins of life are, and in any case the origins of life aren't part of Darwin's (or anybody's) theory of evolution.

In general, the film (to a godless audience of New Yorker media types, at least) seemed to fall somewhere between the pathetic and the self-defeating. (Stein literally segues, at one point, from ridiculing the "directed panspermia" hypothesis to saying that science outright refutes any directed explanation for the origins of life. You can have it one way, but you can't have it both ways.)

But there's a large chunk of the film which is downright offensive, too - when Stein talks at length about the Holocaust and blames it directly on Darwin, who is called "a necessary condition" for National Socialism. And then, just to make matters worse, Stein extends that theme to include abortion rights in general, and Planned Parenthood in particular: he's basically saying that all pro-choicers are Nazis. Ugh.

PZ Myers calls this "the simple falsehood at the heart of Expelled", and his short blog entry should be required reading for anybody who sees the film. Because once you realize how stupid the Nazi bits are, everything else in the film just kind of falls apart.

Even without that insight, however, and even without knowing the details of the lies that the film propagates, Stein manages such a spectacular own goal at the end that only the most committed creationist is likely to come out of the theater having any sympathy for him. He sets up an interview with Richard Dawkins, and then leaves Dawkins sweating it out in the studio, tapping his fingers on the table, until he Stein in with a fake and smarmy "sorry for keeping you waiting". In voiceover, he tells us he's going to "confront" Dawkins. And what form does this confrontation take? A grilling on the subject of which gods Dawkins - author of "The God Delusion"- might believe in. Does he believe in Hindu gods? In the Jewish god? In Allah?

Dawkins can hardly believe this line of questioning; all he can do is just giggle, eventually. The proud atheist reiterates over and over again that, yes, he's an atheist, and no, he doesn't believe in any god. And Stein just keeps on popping the same question. It's downright weird.

But the episode does help reveal what I think is the real message of the film, which of course is aimed much more at the Bible Belt than it is the secular blogosphere. The film sets up Dawkins, Myers and other atheists against the likes of Eugenie Scott, of the National Center for Science Education, who sees less of a conflict between science and Christianity. And weirdly the film comes down on the side of the atheists in this debate: Darwinism does lead to atheism, we're told over and over again, by atheists and believers alike.

At this point it's worth remembering that atheists are America's least trusted group - if you want to stir up an irrational response directed against any group of people, one of the best ways of doing that, in America, is to label them atheists. Indeed, as I said two years ago,

Everybody defines himself at least in part in opposition to someone or something else, and "atheist" seems to have become a catch-all term for whatever that something else might be.

If you set out to make a propaganda flick on any subject, then, painting your opponents as atheists would be a pretty good idea. In this case, it's laughably easy, since so many of Stein's opponents happily embrace the label.

Stein's confrontation of Dawkins, then, wasn't designed to embarrass Dawkins: it was designed to create an association in the public's mind between Darwinists and atheists - an association which has the power to sway minds when it comes to those crucial school-board elections and whatnot. "Science" is a positive term, still, in America; "atheist" is very much a negative term. And while Expelled naturally can't do a very good job of persuading its viewers that Darwinism is unscientific, it can do a good job of persuading them that it's atheistic. It's cheap, and underhanded, and pretty bloody effective.

www.portfolio.com/views/blogs/market-movers/2008/04/03/ben-stein-watch-expelled-edition

It's true, they're targeting the non-educated segment of our society, and demonizing the "atheists" (btw, PZ, no doubt that is a reason why atheists have countered the film the most, though it's not smart of the more intelligent theists to just let the demonizing alone).

Not really much of a threat, apparently, just shearing the same poor sheep.

Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/2kxyc7

Posted by: Glen Davidson | April 4, 2008 12:19 AM

#3

He sets up an interview with Richard Dawkins, and then leaves Dawkins sweating it out in the studio, tapping his fingers on the table, until he Stein in with a fake and smarmy "sorry for keeping you waiting".

At the podcast on skepticality.com Michael Shermer said he went through the same thing - at around 10 in the morning, Stein just left the interview and hung out in his car for a while, then came back. What an ass!

Oh, and attention Floridians and other concerned parties: the Judiciary Committee meeting on the "academic freedom" anti-evolution bill is slated for the morning of April 8. Based on past votes and sponsorship, it's 2-1 in the bill's favor on the 11-member committee. Let 'em know how you feel!

Posted by: J | April 4, 2008 12:30 AM

With all this hubbub, curiosity is getting the better of me, I kind of want to see it now, but I don't want to give these people any money.

Posted by: angrynight | April 4, 2008 12:42 AM

"Darwinism does lead to atheism"!

Woohoo!

Teach the non-controversy!

Posted by: CalGeorge | April 4, 2008 12:45 AM

angrynight: that's been dealt with. Buy a ticket for another movie, then slip into the theatre where they're playing expelled.

But really, just read a review. In my experience, watching these things just makes your brain melt.

Posted by: wazza | April 4, 2008 12:48 AM

Presumably the interview tactic of time-wasting is intended to irritate the interviewee, work them up into a frustrated disposition towards Stein, and so make them appear unsympathetically short or cross when the interview resumes.
Sounds like a suitably underhanded tactic for cdesign proponentsists. Sounds also like it essentially failed.
Dawkins really is far too nice :)

Posted by: Kell | April 4, 2008 12:53 AM

I would love to hop over to Eugene and buy you a beer and perhaps even to debate the relative merits of astrophysics vs biology! Sadly, I have to work all weekend in PDX...

Posted by: Jorg | April 4, 2008 1:07 AM

Big Windfall for PZ! Read all about it!
http://rawstory.com/news/2008/Pig_Book_2008_tracks_Congressional_pork_0403.html

Posted by: Jim | April 4, 2008 1:15 AM

PY, they can't help it. Lying is second nature to them. After all, the whole Christianity thing is based on lies.
It probably kinda rubs off after a while...

Posted by: Chris | April 4, 2008 3:04 AM

Seems to me that they are being a tad over-optimistic. Ken McKnight over at Stranger Fruit says that the host told the audience that they were planning on opening at 1,000 theaters around the country and that they hoped to sell 2 million tickets on opening weekend.
OK so far... so doing the math... They have to sell 2,000 tickets per theater spread over a two to three day period (anyone know how many days are included in an opening weekend?). Ken says the theater he was in was packed at approx 100 people (anyone know average theater seating capacities?) That works out to 7 to 10 full house seatings per day!

Most theaters I have gone to only have 3 to 4 seatings per day.

They would have to pack em into theaters that seat 200 to 250 (or more) to reach their goal.

I may not have done the math right (3AM) but it doesn't look like they are going to reach their goal.

-DU-

Posted by: David Utidjian | April 4, 2008 3:45 AM

Where's WOOT? I haven't seen a good booby today.

Posted by: Brian English | April 4, 2008 4:37 AM

Wow. It's so ridiculous it's almost not even funny any more, just pathetic.

Posted by: Carlie | April 4, 2008 7:02 AM

I'm with Carlie, they've lied so often and so consistently it's gone beyond the ridiculous into the frankly tedious.

Stein et al: You made a bad propaganda movie that is being treated as such and are desperately trying to stem the flow of bad publicity by silencing critics.

It's not working and it's exposing you for the flagrantly dishonest hypocrites that you are.

Posted by: Lilly de Lure | April 4, 2008 7:32 AM

Expelled is the Christer equivalent of a horse's head on the pillow.

Yeah, but the head is made of plastic and has a stick poking out the back; they left it in the wrong house and now a bunch of smarter kids have a toy to play with. Johnny Dangerously had more effective mobsters.

Posted by: Ranson | April 4, 2008 8:06 AM

Johnny Dangerously had more effective mobsters.

On one level I agree with you. But at the same time I don't want to trivialize these vicious toads. They are dangerous and Expelled is just one weapon in their armory.

Posted by: Lee Brimmicombe-Wood | April 4, 2008 8:28 AM

But at the same time I don't want to trivialize these vicious toads. They are dangerous and Expelled is just one weapon in their armory.

In general, I agree that the anti-science crowd is incredibly dangerous. However, just because a group is dangerous as a whole doesn't mean that every single tactic or weapon is effective. In this case, I think it's been repeatedly shown that Expelled, at least, has been a debacle. The incompetence here is laughable.

I've got one friend online that happens to be of a strong fundamentalist background (though he's actually rational enough to listen to and discuss other ideas), and he cracked up at the PZ expulsion. And, where they give us opportunity to use it, laughter, ridicule, and trivialization are excellent weapons against bad ideas. Expelled is the best opportunity we've had for a while to say, "Really? You actually believe that?" We should take it and run with it, because the ridicule can make other people see the silliness, too, and that makes the rest of their weapons less effective.

Posted by: Ranson | April 4, 2008 9:09 AM

Ridicule is definitely the way to go!

Posted by: SharonC | April 4, 2008 9:36 AM

I like PZ's previous approach of "Newtonism" -- we should all start attacking "Newtonism" and all of the evils that it produces. I think people would obviously get the satire and hopefully realize the parallels to the "Darwinism" issues.

Or maybe they'd just get confused. Most people aren't terribly smart.

Posted by: Aaron | April 4, 2008 9:44 AM

Darwinism does lead to atheism

I've never really thought so, actually. One can easily justify "Darwinism" and theism. If environment controls biology, some noncorporeal omniscient omnipotent being could be controlling the environment in such a way to generate whatever effects it desired, right? At least hypothetically.

I feel like I'm one of the few atheists who feels no requirement for evolution to be true to be an atheist. Evolution could be shattered quite handily and I would have no inkling to believe ID.

Why? Well, ID is a probabilistic hypothesis, without having any of the ACTUAL probabilities on hand and analyzing everything post-hoc. Maybe some find this persuasive, but I cannot.

Note that I apply the same to extraterrestrially originating life, and thus lack any belief in the existence of aliens.

Posted by: CrypticLife | April 4, 2008 11:57 AM

As their future projects appear to include an 8 hour (egad!) television miniseries on ID as well as a 'sanctity of life' movie, I can only hope that the train wreck that is 'Expelled' *jazz hands* will bankrupt them and preempt any further drivel of this ilk.

On a happier note: A Eugene meet-up this weekend? If you are attending the Evo-Devo conference, or just in the area, drop me an email: phillips(at)uoneuro(dot)uoregon(dot)edu and let's see if we can put something together.

Posted by: DanioPhD | April 4, 2008 12:25 PM

One can easily justify "Darwinism" and theism.

I agree with your comment on its face, and also agree that one does not need for evolution to be true for one to be an atheist. The evidence is in the scores of theists who agree with naturalistic evolution, and the many atheists who know relatively little about evolution.

However, the ToE and other scientific theories make the hypothesis of god unnecessary. No one can prove a negative, so yes god might exist, but only in the weakest Deistic sense without any other attributes. Once we start adding attributes to god, it becomes fairly easy to disprove.

Many people manage to compartmentalize their beliefs, NOMA-style, so that science and religion can coexist in peace. Science keeps compressing and squeezing that compartment of faith but somehow it remains intact. How anyone manages two epistemologies at once is beyond me, and seems intellectually dishonest.

If the methods of science, skepticism and empiricism, are applied to religious belief, it disappears like a fart in the wind. If people are universally scientific in their beliefs, using science 'all the way down,' then science can and should lead to atheism, because Deism is a null hypothesis and indistinguishable from no god.

I'm not saying that CrypticLife disagrees, merely that I can easily understand the original sentiment of CalGeorge that Darwinism does lead to atheism.

Posted by: ennui | April 4, 2008 12:57 PM

Lee @18,

I would agree with all that you say if you make the distinction between "Christers" and Christians in general.

Some of my best friends are Christians.

Posted by: Ferrous Patella | April 4, 2008 1:20 PM

I would agree with all that you say if you make the distinction between "Christers" and Christians in general.

Where do you draw the line? Do you say this stops with the crew who made Expelled? Or with the bible-thumpers who preach loudly against evolution? Or with the lumpen Godly who don't care to think much about this but who unquestioningly accept lies about science? Or shall we draw the line at the Christians who know better but stand aside and fail to speak out?

The responsibility for this ripples outward. Some folk may be less culpable than others but at the same time they share some of the blame.

Some of my best friends are Christians.

I don't know your best friends from Adam. But if they are in one of the categories I listed above, I'd gently suggest to you that they are part of the problem.

Posted by: Lee Brimmicombe-Wood | April 4, 2008 2:22 PM

Lee, given the handle of the person who posed that question, I'm wondering if this might be an attempt at parody? It's SO hard to tell :)

Posted by: DanioPhD | April 4, 2008 2:26 PM

ennui said:
"No one can prove a negative, so yes god might exist"

I have heard this time and again, but it's simply not the case, and repeating it only supplies theists with ammunition.
The fact of the matter is that many negatives (even universal negatives can be proven. For example, it is universally true that there are no round triangles. Similarly, there are no married bachelors.
As it pertains to the god question, we can see that suffering exists in the world. By definition, god is omniscient, omnipotent, and omnibenevolent. Therefore, god cannot exist. See, since suffering exists, it must be the case that either god is unaware of said suffering (hence not omniscient), is powerless to stop the suffering he does know about (hence not omnipotent), or or knows about suffering, has the power to stop it, but doesn't (hence not omnibenevolent). Now, perhaps you'll say that he's doesn't possess these properties in an unlimited quantity, merely an extraordinarily huge quantity. If so, you're not talking about god. Any such being is not worthy of worship. Fear maybe, but not worship.
Moreover, the very properties of god are logically contradictory in the same way that me describing Tom as a married bachelor is logically contradictory. God cannot be simultaneously omnipotent and omniscient. If he were omnipotent he could make himself forget things, but that would negate his omniscience. If he were omnipotent, he could think of things beyond his power. Etc.
Certain universal negatives can be proven, and the non-existence of god is one of them, despite theist protestations to the contrary.

Posted by: Nyar | April 4, 2008 2:40 PM

Wazza #22,

I don't have an objection to their goal... I just don't see that they are going to be capable of it. I am going to be interested in how they spin it.

I also signed up with one of those RSVP thingies for a showing in Maryland somewhere. It was the closest location to me (I am in northern New Jersey). I also got a cancellation email (but no CC listing in the header). Lemme see...

Thank you for your interest in the screening of Expelled on 4/1.
However, due to unavoidable changes in the Producers schedules, I regret to inform you that this screening has been canceled.
Sara D. MacNeil
Motive Entertainment

It would not have been worth a trip to Maryland. I didn't think to see if they had merely changed the schedule to an earlier time. I might have made the trip if I had known there was going to be an ealrier showing.

If and when asked, I would have told them I am the Physics Lab Director at Ramapo College of New Jersey. When asked about my church affiliation I would have told them that I do not have a church affiliation. I would have told them I have come here to learn about the "science" of ID not the religion and how it relates to academics in colleges and universities. All true.

-DU-

Posted by: David Utidjian | April 4, 2008 2:50 PM

Nyar @ №51:

Your examples that reference round triangles and unmarried bachelors are not empirical propositions, they are tautologies. They do not apply to the god hypothesis.

Your arbitrary attribution to god the qualities of omniscience, omnibenevolence, etc., do not apply to my example of Deism. God does not have to be defined as more than an originator.

Either you did not understand my comment, or you simply stopped reading when you found that one sentence. I humbly suggest that you read the whole comment, and stop making a muppet of yourself.

Posted by: ennui | April 4, 2008 3:07 PM

Danio is correct, a certain amount of...um...irony was intended in my post, especially in my parting shot.

Irony. Is that like goldy and silvery only duller?

Posted by: Lee Brimmicombe-Wood | April 4, 2008 3:37 PM

The IGERT meeting in Eugene this weekend looks totally cool...lots of fantastic evo-devo research:

(http://evodevo.uoregon.edu/symposium-schedule.html)

Wish I could go, but alas!

:-(

Posted by: Barn Owl | April 4, 2008 4:13 PM

ennui said: "Your examples that reference round triangles and unmarried bachelors are not empirical propositions, they are tautologies. They do not apply to the god hypothesis."

They do in the way I demonstrated. Being married and being a bachelor are mutually exclusive. Being omnipotent and being omniscient are mutually exclusive. Also, I demonstrated that god cannot exist in a non-tautological fashion in my example of suffering.

Ennui continued: "Your arbitrary attribution to god the qualities of omniscience, omnibenevolence, etc., do not apply to my example of Deism. God does not have to be defined as more than an originator."

The god of deism is not God. He's an architect. He's not worthy of worship, and not the source of revelation. You're sidestepping.

Ennui finished: "Either you did not understand my comment, or you simply stopped reading when you found that one sentence. I humbly suggest that you read the whole comment, and stop making a muppet of yourself."

Was this a note to yourself?

Posted by: Nyar | April 4, 2008 4:38 PM

Creation science must be taken seriously!

Posted by: J | April 4, 2008 5:26 PM

I want to try to put us back on track by reviewing some comments. I think you'll find that we do not substantially disagree:

Expelled has as its thesis that Darwinism->atheism->Nazism.

#3 Glen D posted a movie review that noted this theme, that "Darwinism does lead to atheism."

#9 CalGeorge said: "Darwinism does lead to atheism! Woohoo! Teach the non-controversy!"

#39 CrypticLife said: "One can easily justify 'Darwinism' and theism."

#43 ennui said: (emphasis added)

However, the ToE and other scientific theories make the hypothesis of god unnecessary. No one can prove a negative, so yes god might exist, but only in the weakest Deistic sense without any other attributes. Once we start adding attributes to god, it becomes fairly easy to disprove.
Many people manage to compartmentalize their beliefs, NOMA-style, so that science and religion can coexist in peace. Science keeps compressing and squeezing that compartment of faith but somehow it remains intact. How anyone manages two epistemologies at once is beyond me, and seems intellectually dishonest.
If the methods of science, skepticism and empiricism, are applied to religious belief, it disappears like a fart in the wind. If people are universally scientific in their beliefs, using science 'all the way down,' then science can and should lead to atheism, because Deism is a null hypothesis and indistinguishable from no god.
I'm not saying that CrypticLife disagrees, merely that I can easily understand the original sentiment of CalGeorge that Darwinism does lead to atheism.

#51 Nyar said:

ennui said:
"No one can prove a negative, so yes god might exist"
I have heard this time and again, but it's simply not the case, and repeating it only supplies theists with ammunition.
The fact of the matter is that many negatives (even universal negatives can be proven. For example, it is universally true that there are no round triangles. Similarly, there are no married bachelors.

Notice the lower-case 'g.' The only time I used a capital 'G' was at the beginning of a sentence. I do not disagree with the general formulation of The Problem of Evil (or suffering). I was making the point that even deism leads to atheism if empiricism and skepticism are applied to the god hypothesis. You took me out of context, set up a straw man using tautologies, and threadjacked the comments. I do not think that I am giving any ammunition to the creos, they can sidestep the problem of suffering simply by giving additional attributes to God (i.e. Divine Plan).

And St. Anselm's Ontological Argument is not the only definition of God, Nyar.

The question being discussed was: Does "Darwinism" lead to atheism? Discuss.

Posted by: ennui | April 4, 2008 5:56 PM

Cross-post from Talkorigins (things are going through slowly now), which I think responds reasonably well to ennui's challenge for discussion (as well as hitting at Expelled once more):

Dull, dishonest, boilerplate:

www.sbcbaptistpress.org/BPnews.asp?ID=27761

Then this:

Mathis said the "biggest part" of the debate over evolution isn't about science but rather about a worldview.

"If you acknowledge this idea that design can be detected scientifically in the universe, then you open up the door to saying, 'Maybe this atheistic view isn't true,' [and] the entire worldview of people who are atheists crashes down around them," Mathis said. "This is a foundational concept for people who believe this way. So they defend it with incredible vigor."

What, you mean that being open and skeptical means that atheism isn't absolute truth?

The news for you, Mathis, is that any honest scientist or atheist would acknowledge in a heartbeat that atheism could be wrong (Dawkins says as much). Of course, it's ignorant twaddle to say that being able to detect design leads to such a conclusion (try to learn some logic, Mark), rather it's the fact that at birth we are thrown into a world that we don't know, and that we must be open to all possibilities.

Openness, however, does not imply accepting all ideas as equal, rather we find those with evidence behind them to be the more likely ones. That's why evolution is considered to be science and the basis for other judgments (including judicial judgment), and ID, which in principle could be detected in life but has yielded no positive results, is considered not to be a sensible basis for judgment.

It never matters how many times we explain these things to the ignorant Mathis, he never learns, and instead tells the same lies over and over again. The thing is that he thinks that atheism/evolution (the two are not the same, but he claims they are, so I'll treat them together at this time) is an absolutist position like his own, believed without sufficient evidence. So, he stupidly tries to point out that evolution/atheism could be wrong, as if that is a problem for those who understand science and positions on god as contingent views.

His argument is the usual blinkered creationist junk, that both his religion and evolution (I'm separating atheism and science once again) are open to question, hence they're equal. Well, no, they aren't, ineducable ignoramus Mathis, for we place the same "belief" in evolution as you place in physics each time you step on an airplane, we consider it to be the most reliable position to take thus far. The only difference is that we're consistent with all of the sciences, hence we hold to the best conclusions in biology and in physics.

You, Mathis, by contrast, want to diminish the value of science in the area of life and to force unwarranted conclusions to be treated equally to warranted conclusion. That is nothing less than persecution of science, and this persecution is the implicit goal of "Expelled".

Glen Davidson
http://tinyurl.com/2kxyc7

Posted by: Glen Davidson | April 4, 2008 6:31 PM

Just heard this on my local public radio station:

http://marketplace.publicradio.org/display/web/2008/04/04/expelled_movie/

It's not critical at all of the movie's content. Very irritating!

Posted by: Don Smith, FCD | April 4, 2008 7:37 PM

"Acceptance of evolution does not necessarily lead to atheism; witness the many religious people who accept evolution."

Science throws the stories of the Bible into extreme doubt. Bible accounts of how people and animals came to be do not work anymore. Period.

So, they can't have it both ways. Look what happens when a scientist tries to have it both ways - you get Francis Collins getting hmself into tangles trying to insert god back into the mix. It doesn't work. When your average joe does it, it probably reflect unwillingness to reliquish either that cozy relationship with Mr. Invisible or what joe is being told by the Science section of the morning paper. Unable to reconcile these points of view, people stop thinking. If they were to keep on thinking, they would likely be forced towards atheism. But they don't want that - that's bad! So they stop thinking and manage to live with an illogical mash-up of religion and evolution inside their heads.

Posted by: CalGeorge | April 4, 2008 7:54 PM

Ben Stein:

Darwin caused the Holocaus