…and this is a 
They're doing it again. There's a new movie being released, The Voyage That Shook the World, that you can tell from the tagline — "One man, one voyage, one book ignited a controversy that still rages today" — is creationist trash (hint: there is no scientific controversy anymore on this matter). Look a little further, and you'll find it's produce by Creation Ministries International, which tells you right there what their agenda is: to tell lies for Jesus.
Here's where the parallel to Expelled lies…in the lies. They got several Darwin experts (Peter Bowler, Sandra Herbert, and Janet Browne) to appear in the "documentary" by concealing their motives. And then they admit to cherry-picking the interviews to put together their story.
You know, if they actually had an honest message, if they could be trusted to present the opinions of the experts accurately, they wouldn't need to deceive to get people to contribute to their projects. As it is, all we can trust them on is their ability to mangle the facts. Doesn't this tell you something about the credibility of the creationist movement?
At least they didn't hire Ben Stein as a frontman.
Humanities & Social Science
Comments
Posted by: Rrr | June 28, 2009 2:35 PM
I wouldn't be surprised if they hired Stein to do some movie PR for them.... Scary.
Posted by: tsig | June 28, 2009 2:37 PM
It's sure a long way from "The Ten Commandments" to "Expelled".
All downhill.
Posted by: Holbach
|
June 28, 2009 2:45 PM
Sponsored by Ray Comfort and the fruit that shook the world.
Posted by: Sili
|
June 28, 2009 2:46 PM
How's that saw?
The definition of insanity is doing the same thing again and again, expecting a different result.
Pity you're not in it - perhaps you can give Bowler, Herbert and Browne* tips on getting thrown out of the cinema.
* Look, Ma! No Oxford comma!
Posted by: Tibby | June 28, 2009 2:47 PM
It seems to me like they are taking it one step further and using re-enactments for a bulk of the film.
Because of that this could turn out to be the best comedy of the year...inadvertently.
Posted by: Tibby | June 28, 2009 2:49 PM
It seems to me like they are taking it one step further and using re-enactments for a bulk of the film.
Because of that this could turn out to be the best comedy of the year...inadvertently.
Posted by: James F | June 28, 2009 2:50 PM
But are there any Nazis?
Posted by: Lynna | June 28, 2009 2:51 PM
This is a minor point, but I've seen it crop up over and over in religiously-motivated films. Note the boy in the white shirt and white stockings on the website, and in the trailer. The white clothes are spotless. Ditto for images of men on the ship -- all the white shirts, including collars and cuffs are spotless. Fingernails are clean too.
Reminds me of Greg Laden's comments about missionaries in Africa, how the evangelical missionaries live within the "blender zone" where they have enough electricity to keep themselves clean as an example to the natives.
Some weirdness is going on here at all levels. They mangle the history, and even distort the conditions that would prevail if one actually lived on a ship, and/or spent time outdoors. As a frequent traveler in the "wilderness" of the western U.S.A., I know you can't spend days in the wild without your clothes and skin showing the effects.
Posted by: Jason Thibeault
|
June 28, 2009 2:57 PM
That's small consolation for having to endure yet another salvo from the creationists' effluence cannons. At least with Stein, his voice puts you to sleep so you barely notice all the crap being slung your way.
Posted by: AdamK | June 28, 2009 3:05 PM
Baby Jesus loves you when you lie. It makes his blood-red eyes twinkle and his fangs shine white in his scaly smile.
Posted by: Naked Bunny with a Whip
|
June 28, 2009 3:11 PM
Do people like this even realize that their incessant need to lie shows that they themselves don't believe what they're saying? Through their distortion, they are implicitly admitting that they are fully aware that their worldview is not supported by reality.
Posted by: SciencePundit
|
June 28, 2009 3:13 PM
That trailer was sneaky. If you didn't know any better, you might not be able to guess the agenda at least until about 2 minutes in.
I also love that it's Con Dios productions ("With g0d"). That should pretty much give away the agenda.
Posted by: Beige | June 28, 2009 3:15 PM
They're getting crazier every minute.
"What counts is whether that has been fairly done in terms of the way that “cherry” is used and presented, not whether it suits the ideology of any particular interviewee."
So what really matters to them is if they can find bits they can take out of context and use to push their own agenda. They even admit it, and yet they have legions of crazy lemmings to follow them. I really don't understand.
Posted by: Becky | June 28, 2009 3:16 PM
The must miss movie this year
Posted by: Br | June 28, 2009 3:16 PM
I guess someone will have to be expelled again from the premier and then, a few months later, storm a phone conference and prank at them
Posted by: Pascalle
|
June 28, 2009 3:21 PM
Isn't there anything you can do when they interview you and than edit it so heavily that it's completely out of context?
Can't they be sued?
Or is this a case of "hey.. you forgot about the fine print buddy hahahahaha".
Posted by: Dahan | June 28, 2009 3:26 PM
Well, I now know where my psycho-religious relatives will be getting their latest fuel for their continued attempts to deny reality. Joy...
Posted by: a_ray_in_dilbert_space
|
June 28, 2009 3:38 PM
The really sad thing is that I don't even think they know they're lying. Their revealed truth says evolution must be a lie, so anything they can discover that suggests that must be true--don't you see?
It's kind of like some dim students who have obtained a cheat sheet of answers for the test--but it's for the wrong test. It's not surprising that they produce gibberish working backward from the wrong answers.
Posted by: arrakis
|
June 28, 2009 3:40 PM
I work at a major book chain and whenever I am asked if we carry "Expelled" I tell them "no."
Almost all of those times have been on Sunday afternoons. *sigh*
Posted by: Dutchgirl | June 28, 2009 3:50 PM
The thing to do as a scientist asked to contribute is to say yes but with the caveat that they must sign a contract that the interviewer must show the entire question and answer without editing. That makes it nearly impossible for them to do what they want to do.
Posted by: howard hershey | June 28, 2009 3:51 PM
I have very low expectations but will not pre-judge. At least they did cite some actual "pro-evolution" sites (like the National Academy of Sciences booklet) for anyone "interested" in both sides. That, in itself, is rare.
They *could* have also pointed out that some important Darwin books are free on-line. But didn't.
http://www.literature.org/authors/darwin-charles/the-voyage-of-the-beagle/
http://www.literature.org/authors/darwin-charles/the-origin-of-species/
http://www.literature.org/authors/darwin-charles/the-descent-of-man/
Posted by: Christopher | June 28, 2009 3:55 PM
How can quote mining of this magnitude not be considered a form of slander/libel? Oh yeah, probably for the same reason homeopathy can be touted as medicine and astrology as moral guidance. The offenders have large numbers and are very sensitive to hurt feelings. If there were a God, he would surely smite these people for mining his word with slanderous/libelous intent.
Posted by: littlejohn | June 28, 2009 4:00 PM
I'm sure they would have hired Stein if his last movie hadn't been such an enormous bomb at the box office. I assume they're giving his DVD's away as coasters by now.
Also, no surprise they didn't interview you again. Look how well that turned out.
I assume Expelled was a money-loser, so this nonsense is bound to stop eventually.
Posted by: Xenithrys | June 28, 2009 4:05 PM
Ha! Their image gallery photos of the "ship" (presumably intended to be the Beagle) clearly show a brig (2 masts). The Beagle was ship rigged (3 masts).
IDiots!
Posted by: James Sweet | June 28, 2009 4:09 PM
Well, both sides do it. You remember that atheist "documentary" that just came out recently where they told prominent Creationists they were being interviewed for a Christian video, and then cobbled together their interviews to make them appear foolish and that there was no controversy about evolution...
Oh wait -- that didn't actually happen. Nevermind.
Posted by: Loc | June 28, 2009 4:19 PM
I'm trying to take a positive spin, so bare with me. This could be construed as evidence that the movement has moved into its final throws. Notice the opening dates across the country are all at churches, bat-shit crazy ones at that (if there are differences). I'm reading this as they've given up on the general public, and are trying to maintain the current oblivious congregants.
OK, maybe too optimistic.
Posted by: Crudely Wrott | June 28, 2009 4:23 PM
Another convulsive gyration for Jesus? Why is this sort of thing reminding me of death throes?
A clever lie, if found out, is only found by few. When a lie is obvious to many, even among the faithful, can it still be called "clever"? How 'bout "convincing under strict interpretations"? "Persuasive to the persuaded"?
Repetition, the last refuge of the factless. Saddle up boys and girls, here we go again.
Posted by: 'Tis Himself
|
June 28, 2009 4:28 PM
Becky #14
Wins the thread.
Posted by: Janine, OMnivore | June 28, 2009 4:28 PM
In the US, this is where the movie is playing.
* Sunday June 28, 2009, 5:00pm, First Baptist Church of Miami AZ, 3654 Gordon St, Miami 85539. (AZ)
* Monday June 29, 2009, 6:30pm, Foot of the Cross Ministry, First Baptist Church of Ruidoso 2816 Sudderth Dr, Ruidoso 88345. (NM)
* Tuesday June 30, 2009, 6:30pm, Faith Bible Church, 9600 Central SE, Albuquerque 87123. (NM)
* Sunday July 5, 2009, 6:30pm, Riverbend Baptist Church, 474 Lakewood Dr, Gadsden 35901. (AL)
* Sunday July 12, 2009, 6:30pm, Sewell Mill Baptist Church, 2550 Sewell Mill Rd, Marietta 30062. (GA)
* Sunday July 19, 2009, 10:15am, Twin Cities Bible Church, 2555 Hazelwood St, Maplewood 55109. (MN)
* Sunday July 19, 2009, 6:00pm, Grace Community Bible Church, Country Joe’s 22222 Dodd Blvd, Lakeville 55044. (MN)
* Wednesday August 5, 2009, 6:30pm, Mt. Zion Baptist Church, 1036 North Main Street, Jasper 30143. (GA)
* Saturday August 15, 2009, 1:00pm, Lord of Life Lutheran Church, 3250 Mt. Zion Rd, Stockbridge 30281. (GA)
* Sunday August 16, 2009, 7:00pm, Rock Bridge Baptist Church, 1012 Rockbridge Rd, Norcross 30093. (GA)
* Thursday August 27, 2009, 6:30pm, The Dallas Theater, 208 Main Street, Dallas 30132. (GA)
* Saturday September 12, 2009, 7:00pm, Ferguson Ave Baptist Church, 10032 Ferguson Ave, Savanna 31406. (GA)
* Sunday September 27, 2009, 7:00pm, Hope Church, 11893 John F. Kennedy Rd, Dubuque 52001. (IA)
* Thursday October 29, 2009, 7:00pm, Creation Study Group, 105 River St, Greenville 29602. (SC)
Hardly wide spread distribution.
Posted by: MikeTheInfidel | June 28, 2009 4:29 PM
Notice how, in their bit about cherry-picking, they said “one interviewee said” rather than give us a name so we could confirm the claim. They could well have gone on to say “However, the narrative they are forming is not representative of true history” or some such thing… but since we don’t know who “one interviewee” is, we’ll never be able to fact-check.
Typical.
Posted by: Dust
|
June 28, 2009 4:31 PM
I can't wait for the scenes of Darwin riding the dinosaurs on the Galapapoes Islands!
Sweet!
/snark
Posted by: Crudely Wrott | June 28, 2009 4:31 PM
Whoa! Look at all those churches. Must be at least 1% of 1% of them all!
*thanks, Janine*
Posted by: Mystyk | June 28, 2009 4:31 PM
I am now convinced that we need to get together a few of the lawyers who peruse these pages to put together a standardized disclaimer agreement that can be used by scientists/historians/philosophers/etc. any time they want to be interviewed from a potentially shady group. If the producers don't agree, they don't get the interview, and it gets reported to a sort of "science watch" organization to track when they so decline. It should allow for legal repercussions if it is found that the motives listed pre-interview do not reasonably match the claims of the final product, or that the interview material is used inappropriately.
Of course, this would be a considerable challenge, but if it was taken seriously and then encouraged throughout academia, it would make the cost of deception that much higher and provide unambiguous proof of their actions.
Posted by: Roland Branconnier | June 28, 2009 4:38 PM
The Voyage That Shook the World: Creationists preaching to the choir (pun intended). Do they really believe (pun intended redux) that reasoned, rational, thinking people will be fooled by this obvious Trojan Horse job!
Posted by: Janine, OMnivore | June 28, 2009 4:39 PM
You denizens of OZ best not get too superior. Get a look at this, two of CMI’s most in-demand speakers have arrived in America. One of the speakers is responsible for this book.
Posted by: ThirtyFiveUp | June 28, 2009 4:43 PM
Oh, those pesky homonyms.
Actually, good comment.
Posted by: Janine, OMnivore | June 28, 2009 4:45 PM
It seems that in Australia, they are showing this movie in movie theaters.
Posted by: Tom Rooney
|
June 28, 2009 4:54 PM
Creation Ministries International--these guys are promoting a theology so incoherent that I suspect they end up creating more atheists than Pharyngula ever will.
Posted by: Ed Darrell | June 28, 2009 4:56 PM
Yet.
Posted by: Ed Darrell | June 28, 2009 5:01 PM
Oh, thanks! I had thought it meant "confidence man," you know, as in "con man."
Posted by: Loc | June 28, 2009 5:03 PM
Thanks ThirtyFiveUp. I should take PZ's advice and review a little more carefully before submitting.
Posted by: Glen Davidson | June 28, 2009 5:06 PM
If Maher hadn't done something similar I'd feel a bit more righteous about complaining. Well, as it is, I was opposed to his tactics as well (and said so), thus I am free to call it what it is, BS.
Dembski still being an ass on UD about the BBC portraying him poorly without telling him. What a moron, as if the BBC would depict ID and liars like him as anything but scam artists. If he believed otherwise, he's just an idiot.
It's always interesting that they have to lie to make a movie purporting to "tell the truth." As if they don't give away the lies before the movie is even ready to be seen.
Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/mxaa3p
Posted by: bobxxxx | June 28, 2009 5:11 PM
From creation.com/the-voyage-darwin-film-defended: We were and are under an obligation to speak the truth, but not to provide exhaustive information where it was not sought. The Bible says of Jesus that “no deceit was in his mouth” (1 Peter 2:22), yet he withheld information from those who were not ready to receive it, including the Pharisees (Matt. 21:23–27) and even his own disciples (John 16:12).
Here they admit they're compulsive liars, but it's OK because Jeebus would have done the same thing.
Creationists are scum.
Posted by: Brasilly | June 28, 2009 5:30 PM
News from South Africa:
The Brazilian national soccer team LOVE JESUS!
And Jesus loves them back!
Brazil 3 – 2 U.S.A.
Brazil are Champions of the Confederations
Praise the Lord!
Posted by: davem | June 28, 2009 5:32 PM
Looking at the list of places they're showing it in the UK - most are in the South East (and mostly baptist churches). Every showing is on a different day. It looks like there's one chappie who has a copy, and he's driving arond the south east to hand deliver it. I don't think it's going to be a block buster, somehow.
Posted by: KZT | June 28, 2009 5:33 PM
#26 hit on something I was wondering about too- this seems more like reinforcement propaganda than an PR attempt to win converts.
They should have made a movie about Raptor Jesus. I'd have gone to see that :(
Posted by: Brian | June 28, 2009 5:35 PM
It's time for another spin of the wheel, folks! What will it land on this time? The green zero, or the green double-zero?
I'd like to buy a vowel please: AAAAAAAAAAAAAAA.
Posted by: Felix | June 28, 2009 5:41 PM
bobxxxx @ #43,
exactly what information do they think withholding was prudent to protect those 'not ready for it' in this case?
'Scuse me Mrs. Scientist, please don't ask us what we intend to produce using your interview, because you're just not ready to know that we're going to deny reality, it would blow your mind so we're going to protect you'.
'Scuse me Mr. Pastor. we can't let your congregation know how much we lied to bring you our new movie, because they think that we as Christians wouldn't do such a thing. Realizing that we, like all our creationist colleagues arounfd the world, are compulsive liars as well would hurt them greatly. So please maintain the impression that our mutual worldview is fully in accordance with common decency. 'Twouldn't be good if our image of upholding Biblical Morality - the version that prefers people not read all of the Holy Book - was tainted. We both want to keep the donations flowing, don't we'.
Posted by: Bridget McKinney | June 28, 2009 5:42 PM
@bobxxxx #43
I think that's the sort of thing that I find most depressing about Creationists.
It's as if they have no notion in their heads other than their own particular interpretation of the Bible, and they think that the end always justifies whatever means they choose to disseminate their ideas.
I'd totally understand if people were honest in saying that they believe the Bible and left it at that. I'd find it peculiar. I'd think they were missing out on a lot. I'd probably still think they were wrong about a lot of things. But I would understand. Sort of.
But, no! They have to bring science into it and lie in the name of their religion. They cherry-pick and quotemine and misrepresent and obfuscate and tell bald-faced lies to show that they have scientific evidence for their beliefs. Which they don't.
And they undermine the authority of principled and highly educated men and women who could teach people the truth. They cast aspersions on the scientific method and glorify this idea of blind faith as a virtue, which it isn't. Even the Bible tells us not to have BLIND faith. To ask questions. To discover. To think.
It's despicable how creationist leaders lie and manipulate people who TRUST them to tell the truth. No end ever justifies those means.
Posted by: davem | June 28, 2009 5:42 PM
It gets better: as I go to http://www.thevoyage.tv/sessions.aspx, it tells me I am in Australia. Not only evolution fail, but computing fail.
@44: It's a very creditable result for the US. After 200 years, they have finally discovered real football, and joined the rest of the world... :0)
Posted by: MadScientist | June 28, 2009 5:45 PM
Huh. Isn't that typical? "Religion seeks truth" they say - they lie when they say it and they're happy to lie about many other things.
What annoys me is that although these productions may be flops, they are building up a video collection to show kids in their sunday school. Big evil athesists want to spread the word of satan. Biologists insisting on the 'truth' when all they have is a controversial hypothesis.
Posted by: XD | June 28, 2009 5:53 PM
Quelle surprise...
h††p://blogs.discovermagazine.com/intersection/The_Voyage_That_Shook_the_World_a_box_office_success.php
Posted by: David Marjanović, OM | June 28, 2009 6:02 PM
Wow, a valuable contribution from bobxxxx... and what a valuable contribution it is!
Doesn't that sound fishy?
I thought it does. So I decided to look it up and read the rest of Matt 21. Jesus immediately, starting in 21:28, goes on to tell the Pharisees not one, but two parables that contain the information he didn't directly tell them, and the end of the chapter makes clear that the Pharisees understood them both.
They quote-mine the very (alleged) words of Jesus!!! Check it out.
And in 16:13 he promises them "the Spirit of truth" which "will guide you into all truth" – "all", mind you. I think that's a reference to Pentecost.
They don't seem to know the very concept of "context". They seem to honestly believe that the Bible is a collection of one-liners like the Pharyngula Quote File or something.
TSIB.
Posted by: XD | June 28, 2009 6:11 PM
Yes, but I'm sure they believe that Jesus will forgive them.Posted by: Tequila Mockingbird | June 28, 2009 6:31 PM
Ben Stein is too busy doing adverts for Comcast (a big-ass US cable teevee concern). I'm sure they're paying him much more.
Posted by: Lynna | June 28, 2009 6:31 PM
Re all the comments above about quote mining: They must quote mine (even their own holy books) to keep their carapace of religious belief intact. One crack and the whole thing starts to come apart. This makes me wonder how much they edit their own thoughts, memories, family histories, and so forth.
My Mormon friends are really big on scrap-booking, so big in fact that crafts stores here specialize in scrap-booking supplies (more crafts stores than saloons, which is weird for a western town). I have yet to see a scrapbook that didn't create cardboard characters, all white bread and sugar, out of real people. The scrapbooks, and the family histories, would be a lot more useful if they didn't turn a blind eye to character flaws, errors in judgement, etc. It's acceptable to include innocuous stories of mild failures, sort of like situation comedies suitable for family viewing, but the hard stuff that actually differentiates an individual as an individual -- no, that's all left out, or referred to in a "God's will" or "lessons learned" format.
Quote mining is endemic to the culture. They do it to themselves and see it as good.
Officially, the "milk before meat" approach is used to convert non-believers. This is mandated quote-mining meant to to reassure the prey before they are sucked into the trap. My Baptist preacher (childhood era) did the same thing. Bible stories were edited for our own good.
Posted by: gdhnz | June 28, 2009 6:33 PM
@#50 davem
I wouldn't talk about computing fail when you decided to add the comma to the end of the link. :)
Posted by: XD | June 28, 2009 6:39 PM
Creating their own reality. Reminds me of Conservapædia.Posted by: Midnight Rambler | June 28, 2009 6:40 PM
Janine @ 35:
Holy cow, that Alien Intrusion book looks hilarious. It took a bit to figure out what his take was, but one of the Amazon reviews summed it up:
1) If evolution is true, life must in all probability exist elsewhere in the universe.
2) Evolution is wrong (also notes that aliens promote evolutionary messages - not sure where this comes from).
3) Interstellar travel is impossible anyway.
4) Earth is superspecial so life can't exist on other planets anyway.
5) Although many alien encounters have been debunked, enough haven't that UFO experiences must be real in some way.
6) So-called "aliens" are therefore actually demons.
Incidentally, the person who posted this review called it "very persuasive", they weren't making fun of it.
Posted by: Victor
|
June 28, 2009 6:41 PM
The Creationist school of thought it just amazing. It's brought me from thinking of Christians as a bit misguided to being downright charlatans, frauds, and lying snake oil salesmen. You cannot be merely a bit misinformed to be a creationist, you have to be a creep.
Posted by: 'Tis Himself
|
June 28, 2009 6:56 PM
davem #50
Considering that the Cambridge Rules, which more or less instituted what became Association Football (more properly known as soccer) were developed in 1848, soccer is less than 200 years old.
BTW, perhaps you could answer one question I've always had about soccer. Why do the players run up and down the field for an hour and a half, then for an additional half hour? Why don't they go straight to the penalty kicks which always determine the outcome of soccer games?
Posted by: Hypatia's Daughter | June 28, 2009 6:58 PM
#49, Bridget, you have succinctly stated the key reason I hate these guys so much. They breed suspicion and disrespect for the scientific method & for scientists.
There are 2 reasons why:
1) They love all the fruits of science, its cures and comforts, and don't want to reject them. They do not want to be considered scientifically ignorant; they just want the one branch that most contradicts their religious beliefs to be discredited.
2) In the US, the Constitution and the laws that fall from it are the biggest barrier to getting #1. BUT people vote on who makes the laws. If they persuade the average man in the street that only bad laws and corrupt, atheist evolutionist scientists are standing in the way of the Truth about how life began, all people have to do is vote in good politicians - the school trustees who select the textbooks; the state reps who set educational guidelines; the federal reps who vote to fund science programs. Change those politicians and Creationism will win.
It is a primarily political battle in the US, because, as they see it, only politics can overturn the Constitutional barriers.
Posted by: Nominal Egg | June 28, 2009 7:03 PM
Wow. You really don't know what you're talking about, do you? Are you this ignorant about every sport, or just soccer?Posted by: Number8Dave | June 28, 2009 7:07 PM
Loc (#26): "I'm reading this as they've given up on the general public, and are trying to maintain the current oblivious congregants."
You're partly right. CMI have long had a strategy of sidestepping overt confrontation with the mainstream, and instead developing a grass-roots creationist movement by making links with church groups and feeding them creationist material - which is then distributed under the radar. Their CEO Carl Wieland set all this out nearly 13 years ago - see http://creation.com/linking-and-feeding
They haven't given up though, they just have a different way of doing things, and they've been very effecttive. CMI split from Answers in Genesis very acrimoniously a few years ago; Ken Ham got most of their business in the US, but they are the biggest creationist organisation in Australia and New Zealand, and must be close to that in South Africa and Canada. This movie is no doubt part of their efforts to raise their profile, particularly in the US, and to claw back some of the creationist dollar from Ham.
Posted by: Tim H | June 28, 2009 7:18 PM
From what little I've seen of soccer, they don't. They walk 2/3 of the time, because only a friggin' marathoner could run that long. They desperately need change-on-the-fly.
Posted by: sidelined | June 28, 2009 7:25 PM
Off topic somewhat but,concerning one Ben Stein, a poll at his Expelled website asks the question "Are Darwin's theories outdated?"
Presently the percentages are Yes 71%
No 25%
Maybe 4%
Please PZ? Can we loose the hounds?
Posted by: littlejohn | June 28, 2009 7:30 PM
loc: I'm a sport; I'll bare with you. But you'll have to bear with me while I get these clothes off. If you can bear it.
Posted by: naturalist | June 28, 2009 7:36 PM
@35... Those two Aussie creationist wackos (no disrespect intended to all the other sane and rational neighbors in that incredible "downunder" continent )sound like they stayed in the baking sun of the Outback without H2O(or beer)for too long.
Posted by: littlejohn | June 28, 2009 7:36 PM
Specifically, Ben Stein's poll can be found here:
http://www.expelledthemovie.com/
The question is whether Darwin's theory is outdated. Well, yes, to some extent it is, since Darwin knew nothing of genes, DNA, etc. But obviously, the answer they want is yes.
So I voted No. I hope you all do the same.
Posted by: naturalist | June 28, 2009 7:43 PM
Thanks for the poll info,littlejohn. Reality was up above 25% when I voted. Lets overwhelm them.
Posted by: sidelined | June 28, 2009 7:57 PM
My thanks littlejohn for supplying the link I was so callous as to forget. May the road rise to meet you. {unless you have been consuming alcohol of course}
Posted by: Steven Dunlap | June 28, 2009 8:05 PM
On the question of quote mining and "creative editing," it's a dirty trick, but, like the crunchy frog chocolate, not illegal. As for slander or libel, the injured party has to prove damage to him/herself. This means that if the scientist or historian argues that the information as presented is laughably, idiotically, clearly wrong and that no one of that person's friends, peers or employers would take it seriously then - poof - the case falls apart: no damage.
For you SciFi geeks out there I recall a Babylon 5 episode (maybe written by Harlan Ellison?) which showed the anatomy of a "creative editing" hatchet job. Nicely done. Does anyone remember the title of the episode or can confirm whether Ellison wrote it? IMDB is no help.
Also, @ Xenithrys #24
A bit of sailing ship trivia: sorry but a brig does have two masts. It's defined as a ship with one square rigged mast and one fore-and-aft rigged mast. You can see a picture here it's the second one from left, first row.
Posted by: CW | June 28, 2009 8:16 PM
The only way to exceed a theologian, be a righteous sport fan. (Only trumped by the righteous patriotic sport fan.)"Go Brazil"
Posted by: Nominal Egg | June 28, 2009 8:24 PM
And your reading comprehension rivals that of a creationist.Hypocrite.Posted by: raven | June 28, 2009 8:29 PM
That is a very common fundie belief. UFO's are real and piloted by demons from hell. It is decades old, dating to the dawn of UFO sightings.
They collect these wingnut beliefs and spread them endlessly.
1. Abducted children are taken by satanists and used in rituals that end up killing them. They have bombarded the FBI for decades with this one. The FBI hasn't yet found a single satanist much less a dead kid.
2. Obama is a Kenyan, Moslem terrorist except when he is a commie.
3. We all know the rest of them, angels and demons roam the world in uncountable numbers, the earth is 6,000 years old, Bush is not a moron, abstinence only sex ed works and on and on.
Fundies are lunatic fringers. The USA, being a world power, does everything large. We just have a huge lunatic fringe. This would all be amusing in a sad way if they weren't trying to drag our society down to their bronze age superstition level.
Posted by: Scott Hatfield, OM | June 28, 2009 8:33 PM
You know, can someone explain to me why academics keep getting 'taken' by this? I mean, I'm just a high school teacher, but if ANYONE approached me with the intent of filming me talking about anything related to my job, not just evolution, I would want to know who is making the film and what their game is. It baffles me that this happens again and again.
Posted by: Malo | June 28, 2009 8:35 PM
On topic again, this type of 'construsion' worries me - there is a vast legend of mongrels out there who feed on this type of brain dung.
Faith is a cop-out. If the only way you can accept an assertion is by faith, then you are conceding that it can’t be taken on its own merits.
Posted by: No BS | June 28, 2009 8:53 PM
The mimetic qualities of this "film" to a real documentary remind of evolution.
Posted by: 386sx | June 28, 2009 9:04 PM
You know, can someone explain to me why academics keep getting 'taken' by this?
Can't really think of an explanation. Good place to put Jesus in there, right? Big ol' explanation gap.
Posted by: SmartLX | June 28, 2009 9:11 PM
There's a fairly obvious ploy CMI may try later this year. When Hollywood's own Darwin biopic 'Creation' comes out, they will have an opportunity to divert moviegoers to their film by trickery, or at least kick up a stink at cinemas to get some publicity. I don't think either strategy would work very well, but they may decide both are worth a try.
Posted by: SmartLX | June 28, 2009 9:13 PM
There's a fairly obvious ploy CMI may try later this year. When Hollywood's own Darwin biopic 'Creation' comes out, they will have an opportunity to divert moviegoers to their film by trickery, or at least kick up a stink at cinemas to get some publicity. I don't think either strategy would work very well, but they may decide both are worth a try.
Posted by: SmartLX | June 28, 2009 9:16 PM
Crap, sorry for the dupe.
Posted by: Michael Kingsford Gray | June 28, 2009 9:24 PM
Break out the ol' Tardis, cos the bit-o-crap was shown briefly in May!
If I had a time-machine, I could think of a few better ways to employ it.
Posted by: Owlmirror | June 28, 2009 9:46 PM
Darwin got heredity 100% wrong, and it's kind of sad because with a little thought and formal writing-up of some experimentation with pea-plants he could have gotten it at least partly right. But "descent with modification" is not outdated at all.
There really needs to be a choice that says "This is a bogus question, and the one asking it needs to be slapped with a haddock."
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
June 28, 2009 9:47 PM
Re: Harlan Ellison and B5 (from Wiki)
Ellison served as creative consultant to the science fiction TV series The Twilight Zone (1980s version) and Babylon 5. As a member of the Screen Actors Guild (SAG), he has voiceover credits for shows including The Pirates of Dark Water, Mother Goose and Grimm, Space Cases, Phantom 2040, and Babylon 5, as well as making an onscreen appearance in the Babylon 5 episode "The Face of the Enemy".
Posted by: Jadehawk, OM
|
June 28, 2009 9:52 PM
let me guess 'Tis: you've only ever watched things like the World Cup finals. Here's a hint: most soccer matches don't even go into overtime, nevermind penalty kicks. they end at 90 minutes (give or take five minutes stoppage time).
Posted by: Dutchdoc
|
June 28, 2009 9:55 PM
The trailer starts with the title
"One man dared to question the origin of life"
Of LIFE?
I think he called the book "The origin of SPECIES (etc).." for a reason.
The question of "Life, The Universe and Everything" is a different one altogether. Even though we know the answer to THAT one too, plus we already have various movies about it as well.
Posted by: Stardrake
|
June 28, 2009 10:19 PM
Stephen Dunlap @72:
The episode in question is "The Illusion Of Truth", the eighth episode in the fourth season of B5. It was written by J. Michael Straczynski, just like all the fourth season episodes.
(The only episode that Harlan got an actual writing credit for was the fifth season episode "A View From The Gallery", which he shared the story credit for with JMS.)
Posted by: Otto | June 28, 2009 10:24 PM
#69, Littlejohn,
Darwin's theory is not in the least dated, it is as valid as it ever was. However, it is now supported by an amazing amount of research showing us the history of evolution and in great detail how it does work.
Posted by: JohnnieCanuck
|
June 28, 2009 10:34 PM
Anyone else having trouble with the poll at expelledthemovie.com? I tried it with the latest versions of Safari and Firefox. The poll results are already visible and the buttons are inactive.
Posted by: hje | June 28, 2009 11:06 PM
Time for a new book: "Lies (And the Lying Liars Who Tell Them): A Fair and Balanced Look at the Religious Right."
BTW I highly recommend the comic "The Gospel of Supply Side Jesus" in Al Franken's book.
Posted by: Felix | June 28, 2009 11:09 PM
Scott,
As far as I know, the thing they did when producing Expelled was that they did tell Dawkins and the others what they were producing and for what purpose. Only they lied about everything important. They had already registered the web address for Expelled under that name, and they had not registered any web address to the title of 'Crossroad' or 'Crossroads', which was the title they told Dawkins.
Posted by: littlejohn | June 28, 2009 11:10 PM
Otto:
I certainly wasn't criticising Darwin's theory; it was as complete as it could be in Darwin's time.
Darwin, however, was understandably wrong about the age of the earth, and that sort of thing. He relied on Lord Kelvin.
I only meant that additional information had built on it, not significantly changed it. Kind of like Einstein's improvements on Newton.
And to the rest of you who've noticed, the Stein poll no longer seems to be responding.
I'm betting someone there didn't like the way it was heading. Cowards.
Cheers, John
Posted by: machintelligence
|
June 28, 2009 11:21 PM
Steven Dunlap #72: I think you misinterpreted what Xenithrys #24 was saying. He complained that the Beagle (which was ship rigged = 3 masts) was represented in the movie as a brig. It was undoubtedly not the only thing they got wrong!
Posted by: Owlmirror | June 28, 2009 11:33 PM
It could have been more complete. Mendel published at around the same time; I recall reading that his paper was found among Darwin's possessions, but unread (the pages were uncut).
Darwin, working on his own, could have gotten at least the concept of digital traits rather than his wrong ideas about blended heredity. And Darwin also espoused a sort of Lamarckian inheritance, which was also wrong.
Huh? No, that's not it at all.
The exact age of the Earth was not known, but Darwin, educated in geology, was fairly sure that it was very old, as were many other geologists. As Josh might say it, even without radiometric dating, examining outcrops shows a lot of very complex deposition, erosion, uplift, and other geological changes going on.
Different estimates of the age of the Earth were made. Lord Kelvin made his based on the thermodynamic cooling rate of the Earth, and got a value of a couple hundred million years. This estimate was proven wrong in his lifetime by the discovery of radioactivity (heat generated by radioactive decay would of course change the cooling rate).
Darwin did not allow Lord Kelvin's estimate to discourage him, although I don't think he lived long enough to learn about radioactivity.
I think it's old, and the server hosting it may no longer be responding.
Posted by: Joe
|
June 28, 2009 11:40 PM
Their reviews don't help them either.
' “One of the best-produced documentaries ever made”
- Dr Ted Baehr, Movieguide'
Which sounds strange until you look into and see that Movieguide is a xtian organization that rates movies based on their 'biblical morality' and that he's not a PHd, but a JD. So even their 'critics' are on board with their message. But who would guess that christians would try and create an economy that is entirely separate from reality, with its own music, reviewers, and movies?
Posted by: Southern Comfort | June 28, 2009 11:54 PM
You know the REALLY sad part about this entire thing is that I was hoping that a good movie about Charles Darwin would be produced by a reputable company this year or sometime soon.
The cinematography in "Voyage" reminds me a lot of the movie
"Master and Commander" starring Russell Crow which I loved---esp. the part about the ship's naturalist. It makes me so sick to think that the creationists beat everyone else to it and put their own spin on it.
** please read my Answers to Ray Comfort and Creationists blog by clicking my name.
Posted by: Owlmirror | June 29, 2009 12:01 AM
And PZ.
And there was a dummy webpage set up that had "Crossroads" on it, with some additional innocuous-sounding movies in addition to Crossroads. I vaguely remember seeing it when the whole thing went down. But as you say, this was after "expelledthemovie" had been registered.
Ah, here we are:
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/im_gonna_be_a_movie_star.php
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/09/international_man_of_mystery.php
It was "Rampant Films" that had the "Crossroads" dummy stuff.
ExpelledExcreted! was actually produced by Premise Media.Posted by: Felix | June 29, 2009 12:29 AM
Owlmirror,
thanks for providing the rest of the info. Scott, you see there is no protection against someone who is willing to erect multiple levels of deception to mask a malicious intent (even in the name of a false but subjectively benign ideology). It's an interesting phenomenon - no matter how beautiful, true, righteous and good an ideology may seem to the person espousing it, if the ideology is objectively false (i.e. irresponsive to reality), it will morally warp its holder to either regard conscious deceptiveness as negligible or to inability to recognize a moral issue at all. As an article stated about the Reagan administration for example, paraphrasing, 'they told complete ad hoc fabrications as truth without blinking, because they had lost the capability to understand the very concept of truth'. Many creationists aren't even dishonest - their recognition of reality has become so twisted that their moral sensitivity has become impervious to any realization of decency, non-command morals or mercy/justice.
Posted by: Dan B. | June 29, 2009 12:44 AM
For Stephen Dunlap (post #72):
Harlan was a creative consultant and friend of the creator/producer of Babylon 5, Joseph Michael Straczynski (JMS). JMS wrote the episode you are referring to, "The Illusion of Truth."
Posted by: Loc | June 29, 2009 12:47 AM
littlejohn,
If I weren't getting married soon, I'd take you up on your offer. Judging by your name, it wouldn't be too painful ;)
Posted by: MJ | June 29, 2009 12:49 AM
@76, 92
Similar story: a friend of a friend of mine (namely, David Albert, philosopher of physics at Columbia) was tricked into being in the movie "What the bleep do we know?" (if you haven't seen it, you ought to... stoned). They told him the movie was named something else, and was about something else, and filmed 4 hours of interview with him. He said that the interviewers would say something crazy, then he'd paraphrase the crazy and tell them why it was wrong. But they used just the parts where he was paraphrazing the crazy, to make it seem like he agreed with them. After the movie came out, and he found out what happened, he took the matter to Columbia's legal team, but apparently he'd signed away all his rights. So the moral is: don't trust what filmmakers say they're doing, and always have a lawyer look over your contract.
Posted by: Dan B. | June 29, 2009 12:52 AM
For Stephen Dunlap (post #72):
Harlan was a creative consultant and friend of the creator/producer of Babylon 5, Joseph Michael Straczynski (JMS). JMS wrote the episode you are referring to, "The Illusion of Truth."
Posted by: Steve M | June 29, 2009 12:59 AM
Here's a listing of scheduled screenings... all in "fundie" churches
• Sunday June 28, 2009, 5:00pm, First Baptist Church of Miami AZ, 3654 Gordon St, Miami 85539. (AZ)
• Monday June 29, 2009, 6:30pm, Foot of the Cross Ministry, First Baptist Church of Ruidoso 2816 Sudderth Dr, Ruidoso 88345. (NM)
• Tuesday June 30, 2009, 6:30pm, Faith Bible Church, 9600 Central SE, Albuquerque 87123. (NM)
• Sunday July 5, 2009, 6:30pm, Riverbend Baptist Church, 474 Lakewood Dr, Gadsden 35901. (AL)
• Sunday July 12, 2009, 6:30pm, Sewell Mill Baptist Church, 2550 Sewell Mill Rd, Marietta 30062. (GA)
• Sunday July 19, 2009, 10:15am, Twin Cities Bible Church, 2555 Hazelwood St, Maplewood 55109. (MN)
• Sunday July 19, 2009, 6:00pm, Grace Community Bible Church, Country Joe’s 22222 Dodd Blvd, Lakeville 55044. (MN)
• Wednesday August 5, 2009, 6:30pm, Mt. Zion Baptist Church, 1036 North Main Street, Jasper 30143. (GA)
• Saturday August 15, 2009, 1:00pm, Lord of Life Lutheran Church, 3250 Mt. Zion Rd, Stockbridge 30281. (GA)
• Sunday August 16, 2009, 7:00pm, Rock Bridge Baptist Church, 1012 Rockbridge Rd, Norcross 30093. (GA)
• Thursday August 27, 2009, 6:30pm, The Dallas Theater, 208 Main Street, Dallas 30132. (GA)
• Saturday September 12, 2009, 7:00pm, Ferguson Ave
Posted by: Janine, OMnivore | June 29, 2009 1:07 AM
Déjà vu.
Posted by: God the Holy Sprite | June 29, 2009 1:09 AM
It's CMI: They don't. Never have, never will.
Posted by: efrique | June 29, 2009 1:50 AM
Janine (#37)
- looking at my state, *very* few locations (ten in all of NSW??), some tiny places (Laurieton: 2000, Avoca Beach: 4000), no locations in Sydney-Newcastle-Wollongong at all, and most locations only have one or two screenings.
Maybe they could only find ten creationist cinema-owners in the whole state... or at least ten people gullible enough to fall for whatever fibs CMI decided they could tell for Jesus this time.
Posted by: efrique | June 29, 2009 1:51 AM
Janine (#37)
- looking at my state, *very* few locations (ten in all of NSW??), some tiny places (Laurieton: 2000, Avoca Beach: 4000), no locations in Sydney or Newcastle or Wollongong at all, and most locations only have one or two screenings.
Maybe they could only find ten creationist cinema-owners in the whole state... or at least ten people gullible enough to fall for whatever fibs CMI decided they could tell for Jesus this time.
Posted by: JM | June 29, 2009 3:01 AM
"Considering that the Cambridge Rules, which more or less instituted what became Association Football (more properly known as soccer) were developed in 1848, soccer is less than 200 years old."
Indeed - and this occurred only a few years before the rules for Australian Rules Football were codified, in 1859.
JM
Posted by: Marc Abian | June 29, 2009 3:56 AM
You accidentally wrote "always" instead of "very rarely".
Posted by: Matt P | June 29, 2009 4:01 AM
Lucky thing creationists don't actually learn from documentaries so much as they derive pleasure from pretty images and bad jokes.
Posted by: Rorschach | June 29, 2009 4:24 AM
Janine @ 105,
Indeed !
On multiple levels LOL
Yeah,but noone outside Oz cares about that,thank dog.
*Counting days to the Ashes*
Posted by: Kitty | June 29, 2009 4:38 AM
Oh me too! Can't watch it as it's on Sky but Radio will do - just love the commentary, even when it rains!
Got a test in Cardiff for the first time - won't be there though - too expensive and most tickets corporate bollocks by the looks of it.
Posted by: Rorschach | June 29, 2009 4:49 AM
Kitty,
if you google cricket internet live or somesuch you might be surprised...:-)
Will be on the net live one way or another.
Posted by: Kitty | June 29, 2009 5:15 AM
Rorschach
Thanks for that. I'll still have to listen on radio though - I won't be near a computer for most of the time in the summer. But it's no loss as I really do love the radio commentary on BBC.
I do miss the old codgers though. I'll never forget that wonderful moment "The batsman's Holding, the bowler's Willy" and of course the priceless "One ball left" after an unfortunate hit in the box.
Posted by: Nominal Egg | June 29, 2009 5:27 AM
The first baseball game was played in the US in 1846.I always thought soccer was waaay older than baseball. Seriously.
Posted by: Rorschach | June 29, 2009 5:27 AM
ROFLMAO
Well,Cricket is a relatively recent addition to my fav sports,having lived in Germany for most of my life,where it is pretty much unknown,but I love it and wish I could have played it myself when I was younger !
Posted by: Kitty | June 29, 2009 5:59 AM
I had a dad who was cricket mad. Went to my first test match aged 2 - one of my first memories the sound of leather on willow.
Went to an all girls school where we played cricket too - I was a mean spin bowler!
Try listening to the BBC commentary if you can - though the old codgers are gone there's still some pretty eccentric stuff!
Posted by: Josh
|
June 29, 2009 6:33 AM
Yes, I think that looks very similar to the way that Josh would probably say it...
Posted by: Phodopus
|
June 29, 2009 6:44 AM
Slightly more On topic,
With another project succeeding to lure in experts to participate in a propagada piece, I wonder, would it make sense to have some kind of central organization (or internet forum) of experts in various fields of interest to creationists (Evolution etc, Cosmology, Geology, Archaeology etc) people can turn to who are asked to participate in any such project to get help finding out if it is a serious endeavour or not. In this way, information about shady projects such as crossroads/expelled would propagate more efficiently...
Posted by: Tom | June 29, 2009 6:52 AM
The first baseball game was played in the US in 1846.
I always thought soccer was waaay older than baseball. Seriously.
Depends how you look at it. Some variation of football has been played since the Middle Ages, over the centuries it's turned from an inter-village punchup into an organised game but it has roots much older than baseball. The modern rules are comparatively recent though.
Getting back on topic, I'm glad this pile of filth won't be showing anywhere near me. Could people being interviewed put a clause in their contracts so they record the interview as well or get a copy of the full un-edited footage? That way there's an original to compare to the quote-mined version.
Posted by: Ragout Legume | June 29, 2009 8:31 AM
#95 (Owlmirror) Only a little OT--actually,
Lord Kelvin's bogus value for the age of the
Earth would not have been affected much by the
addition of some radioactive heating. It was
convection of the various molten core layers
which he was failing to take into account.
Posted by: David Utidjian | June 29, 2009 9:00 AM
The one I am waiting for is Creation due out in September 2009. Written by the same team that did "master and Commander (great movie) and stars Paul Bettany as Darwin. I saw a trailer on TV last week. No idea when it will release in the US.
-DU-
Posted by: Abdul Alhazred
|
June 29, 2009 9:19 AM
I think movies such as this one and Expelled are not failed attempts to win people over from the other side.
They are intended to bolster the faith of the faithful and help them keep their minds closed.
Posted by: Phodopus
|
June 29, 2009 9:21 AM
That sounds promising. I suppose the relationship between the Doctor and the Captain in "Master and Commander" were already modeled somewhat after Fitzroy and Darwin, at least there were quite a few striking similarities. I liked it!
Posted by: Pat | June 29, 2009 9:30 AM
Well, HMS Beagle was originally built as a brig, with two fully-rigged masts, but was later (before Capt. Fitzroy) converted to a barque with the addition of a fore-and-aft rigged mizzen mast. She was also classified as a brig-sloop.
Sailing ship terminology is almost as confusing as theology.
Posted by: Pat | June 29, 2009 9:33 AM
Well, HMS Beagle was originally built as a brig, with two fully-rigged masts, but was later (before Capt. Fitzroy) converted to a barque with the addition of a fore-and-aft rigged mizzen mast. She was also classified as a brig-sloop.
Sailing ship terminology is almost as confusing as theology.
Posted by: Matt Penfold | June 29, 2009 9:33 AM
Except sailing ships really do exist.
Posted by: Pat | June 29, 2009 9:36 AM
Well, HMS Beagle was originally built as a brig, with two fully-rigged masts, but was later (before Capt. Fitzroy) converted to a barque with the addition of a fore-and-aft rigged mizzen mast. She was also classified as a brig-sloop.
Sailing ship terminology is almost as confusing as theology.
Posted by: KI | June 29, 2009 9:37 AM
I've been picking cherries all morning, now I'm going to make a pie. "North Star" variety, a small tree with intensely dark fruit, which are almost sweet enough to eat out-of-hand.
Posted by: Mu | June 29, 2009 9:43 AM
Wow, that thing is playing down the street from me (literally) tomorrow night. And I'll be busy washing my hair :(.
Posted by: Raging Bee | June 29, 2009 10:23 AM
Acording to Comment #29, the overwhelming majority of venues for this film are churches. This leads me to believe that the movie's main purpose is not to convince any fence-sitters, but to solidify support frm the "base" and harden their resistance to criticism or new ideas. They're preaching to the choir because a) no one else is listening, and b) they may well be in danger of losing their choir.
Posted by: Paul Flocken | June 29, 2009 10:55 AM
No, but there are commies.
http://creation.com/darwin-trotsky-connection
Posted by: Reynold | June 29, 2009 11:19 AM
Those bloody sods at Creation Ministries International (ah hell. Any creationist, really) keep at hand and use some of their favourite tactics: Poisoning the Well and Appealling to Consequences of a Belief
Case in point.
Posted by: Quidam
|
June 29, 2009 11:23 AM
.Posted by: Xenithrys | June 28, 2009 4:05 PM
Ha! Their image gallery photos of the "ship" (presumably intended to be the Beagle) clearly show a brig (2 masts). The Beagle was ship rigged (3 masts).
IDiots!
interesting, the silhouette on their site banner is clearly of the Beagle, however the film uses a two masted brig with a fore and aft sail on the mainmast.
I bet that means they stole the image they used on the site banner. I'll have to take a look and see where they stole it from :)
Posted by: Ouchimoo | June 29, 2009 11:27 AM
I'm going to write a nice little email to all my friends at MNA. Let's see if we can't set up a meal and reel at the time and place of say: • Sunday July 19, 2009, 10:15am, Twin Cities Bible Church, 2555 Hazelwood St, Maplewood 55109.
I wonder if they are willing to expel any more atheists.
Posted by: raven | June 29, 2009 11:30 AM
The creos may be preaching to their choir as part of a program of nonstop brainwashing and thought control.
But really, when your operating manual is Orwell's 1984, are your beliefs likely to have anything to do with reality?
Making believing outright and foolish lies a litmus test for faith works both ways and is likely to backfire on them. It is also bad theology. There is nothing in the bible about evolution and nothing that says you have to believe the earth is 6,000 years old.
No matter how much brain washing they do, how many evolutionary biologists they demonize (all of them), fire (some), beat up (some), or kill (one in Australia), reality is what it is.
They are and will lose their best and brightest, mostly young people. There is some data that this is already happening. Between 1-2 million people leave xianity every year. It is also splitting the evangelicals and pentacostals, some have given up creationism. It is a waste of time, a distraction from the purpose of xianity (salvation), and ultimately a loser like Geocentrism.
Posted by: Sleeper | June 29, 2009 11:36 AM
Apparently Rounders has been played since Tudor times. So Baseball is itself quite old.
Posted by: Pierce R. Butler | June 29, 2009 12:07 PM
Phodopus @ # 125: I suppose the relationship between the Doctor and the Captain in "Master and Commander" were already modeled somewhat after Fitzroy and Darwin ...
That movie was based on two novels out of a series of twenty by Patrick O'Brian, the characters in which bear very little resemblance to Fitzroy and the passenger who made him famous (unless, of course, Darwin was actually a top surgeon and fearless secret agent for British intelligence).
Of course, the characters in the movie bore little resemblance to their originals, particularly Dr. Maturin. As I left the theater, the thought running through my head was, "It could've been worse, it could've been much worse..."
Posted by: Ktesibios | June 29, 2009 12:41 PM
A lesson which those working in the biological sciences (or perhaps any field of science) might want to learn:
Never agree to be interviewed for film, radio or TV without doing a professional background check on the interviewer and production company. If it turns up associations with any Christopathic organization, don't take the gig.
BTW, sailing ship terminology:
Brig: 2 masts, both square-rigged
Brigantine (or hermaphrodite brig): 2 masts, foremast square-rigged, mainmast fore-and aft
Bark: 3 masts, foremast and mainmast square-rigged, mizzenmast fore-and-aft
Barkentine: 3 masts, foremast square-rigged, main and mizzen masts fore-and-aft.
Posted by: tyaddow | June 29, 2009 1:45 PM
From the 'review':
Riiight- it's not a propaganda piece, it just shows how Darwin was a deluded fool and that all of modern biology is a cover-up of the real evidence for a young earth. AND there's no nudity. Sounds like "one of the best documentaries ever made" alright.
Posted by: Qwerty | June 29, 2009 2:15 PM
The two churches in Minnesota are actually the same church as the Lakewood Church is an off-shoot of the Maplewood church. From their www.tcbc.us website:
"The Holy Scriptures
We teach that the Word of God is an objective, propositional revelation, verbally inspired in every word, absolutely inerrant in the original documents, infallible, and God-breathed. We teach the literal, grammatical-historical interpretation of Scripture which affirms the belief that the opening chapters of Genesis present creation in six literal days. "
Yes, "six literal days" about sums up their view towards creationism versus evolution. You could present a movie that examines evolution and the age of the earth that was totally accurate in regards to the position of the majority of today's scientists, but would the attendees of this church buy it? I doubt it.
Posted by: Phodopus
|
June 29, 2009 2:28 PM
@ Pierce R. Butler #139
"That movie was based on two novels out of a series of twenty by Patrick O'Brian, the characters in which bear very little resemblance to Fitzroy and the passenger who made him famous (unless, of course, Darwin was actually a top surgeon and fearless secret agent for British intelligence)."
Oh well, secret agent - probably not :) But reading the Voyage of the Beagle I would say fearless, definitely.
Posted by: Quidam
|
June 29, 2009 3:40 PM
Oh that rascal Charles, discounting it so thoroughly!
Posted by: anon | June 29, 2009 4:53 PM
The Christian Post has discovered that disease is caused by Intelligent Evil. Surely this will spark a revolution in medical research.
Posted by: Scott Hatfield, OM | June 29, 2009 5:07 PM
Felix @ #99 wrote:
Scott, you see there is no protection against someone who is willing to erect multiple levels of deception to mask a malicious intent (even in the name of a false but subjectively benign ideology).
Sorry, but that's not true. There is protection. You can insist at the time you are interviewed to receive written assurances that you retain the right to review the use of your image to ensure that your views are presented in context. Dawkins, given the way he has been misrepresented by previous creationist 'documentarians', would have been well-advised to ask for such.
That right is not necessarily waived if you don't take that step, either. Frances Collins got 'played' by televangelist D. James Kennedy a few years back when the latter's outfit made a 'documentary' blaming the Holocaust on Darwin. Collins, when apprised of how his image was being used, dispatched attorneys and Kennedy's group was forced at the last minute to cut the footage of Collins. How is that Collins can find the cajones to sic the bloodhounds, and others can't? Again, I'm not satisfied with the explanation that 'so-and-so misled us'. We have to be smart enough to ask, in writing, for certain guarantees up-front.
Posted by: raven | June 29, 2009 5:10 PM
OT but related:
We are watching evolution in action. The swine flu is a newly evolved human pathogen. We have a good idea of its evolutionary history by sequencing it and 800 other flu viruses.
It was predicted that sooner or later Tamiflu resistance would evolve. It was already resistant to 2 older drugs, amantadine/rimantadine, most likely due to past use of those. We are now down to 1 drug, Relenza, in the same class as Tamiflu.
Those dumb creationists will have to do some dancing here. They are about to be scared, probably sickened, and possibly killed by a newly evolved virus that is continually evolving as we watch.
Not that they won't do it. "Flu viruses aren't evolving, they are adapting"
"It is microevolution, macroevolution is impossible"
"No one has ever seen a crocoflu or seen the flu virus turn into a dog."
Without evolution and evolutionary biology, medicine and agriculture would be crippled. Cthulhu, who wants their Dark Ages world anyway?
Posted by: littlejohn | June 29, 2009 5:25 PM
Loc,
I wish you well with your upcoming nuptials.
For the record, my screen name is extremely ironic. As any Robin Hood fan should recognize.
Cheers, John
Posted by: Agi Hammerthief
|
June 29, 2009 5:38 PM
amazing that people still give these kind of interviews, without nailing down in a contract what the materials can be used for - with special emphasis on not allowing distortion by quote mines.
Posted by: Phodopus
|
June 29, 2009 5:38 PM
@raven #147
Isn't it part of the beauty of science that it is there, nurturing, curing and providing relief regardless of personal convictions, to those who spit in its face, denounce it and long to corrupt it at every opportunity? In so many ways, science is more forgiving than any 'benevolent God' ever was.
Posted by: Phodopus
|
June 29, 2009 5:44 PM
@Quidam #144
We really don't get enough of Mr D himself here, always a great read...
Posted by: wasd | June 29, 2009 5:47 PM
From http://www.thevoyage.tv/sessions.aspx
In the US (AZ, NM, AL, MN, GA, IA, SC), Canada and the UK the movie will apparently only be shown in churches and religious centers. In Australia the movie appears set to be shown in real Cinemas though.
I am sorry to say that in South Africa the movie will be shown in schools, including during something called a “morning student meeting”, which does smell like it involves students and might even be somewhat compulsory. A map of the South African screenings shows they are mostly in the north-east. Isn`t that the somewhat racist white boer country?
http://creation.com/exciting-news-the-singapore-premiere-of-the-darwin-film
“CMI’s long awaited Darwin Film The Voyage That Shook The World will be screened in high definition on Saturday 30 May 2009 at St Andrew’s Cathedral, 11 St Andrew’s Road. There will be four screening sessions throughout the day at 11.00am, 2.00pm, 4.30pm and 7.00pm. This is a great opportunity to bring friends, family, pastors and youth groups to combat the pro-Darwin saturation that is already occurring this year. Tickets prices as follows: ”
Posted by: Phodopus
|
June 29, 2009 6:03 PM
This is a great opportunity to bring friends, family, pastors and youth groups to combat the pro-Darwin saturation that is already occurring this year
All hands to battle stations, release the antipastors!
Posted by: David Marjanović, OM | June 29, 2009 6:43 PM
Which already doesn't follow. I give the book 0.6 Tc as a first estimate.
Just for the record, it doesn't work with IE8 either, neither in compatibility mode nor otherwise.
"Madness".
THIS! IS! PHARYNGULAAAAA!!!
Posted by: raven | June 29, 2009 6:44 PM
Yes, it is pathetic and ironic what science has done for humankind and how some ugly religious fanatics seek to destroy it.
SARS was another newly and rapidly evolving disease. That one almost got into the human population with disastrous effects, mortality of 10-20%. Some of those who stopped that pandemic caught SARS and died. According to the cultists, evolution is impossible and they are now being in hell.
Posted by: 'Tis Himself
|
June 29, 2009 7:21 PM
Ktesibios #140
There's also topsail schooners.
Posted by: a_ray_in_dilbert_space
|
June 29, 2009 8:10 PM
Raven says, "SARS was another newly and rapidly evolving disease. That one almost got into the human population with disastrous effects, mortality of 10-20%."
Of course, when you talk to the great unwashed about that one, they claim it was all a conspiracy to make people panic and ask why they should listen to scientists whey they are always wrong. They completely ignore all of the tireless activity of scientists trying to save their sorry, flabby, white asses. I really can't wait for the frigging rapture.
Posted by: Silver Fox | June 29, 2009 8:24 PM
"They didn't get Ben Stein as a front man."
Why would anyone bother with Ben when they have someone like Peter Bowler?
Posted by: Nominal Egg | June 29, 2009 8:28 PM
North-east South Africa? Has it been westernized?Now I'm dizzy.
Posted by: Wowbagger, OM | June 29, 2009 8:34 PM
Silver 'Show me the way to Liu-Hai wrote:
Hmm, possibly because an odious scumbag like Ben Stein will happily shill for cash while Bowler had to be tricked into taking part.
That someone as intellectually dishonest and brimming with moral cowardice as you are can't see that the latter is somewhat less than decent, Silver Fox, isn't coming as that much of a shock to me - or anyone else here.
I guess you're one of those Christians who's found a loophole for that whole 'bearing false witness' clause.
Posted by: Smoggy Batzrubble | June 29, 2009 8:53 PM
Dear Brother Foxy,
I thought you were right when you said "they have someone like Peter Bowler", but when I mentioned it to Jesus, he replied, "To be completely accurate, Silver Fox should have said,they HAD someone like Peter Bowler." Then our Lord burst out laughing.
At first I didn't get it, then I realized that what he meant was that our fellow documentary makers for Jesus had HAD Peter Bowler in the Biblical sense.
"Are you saying, Lord, that they had sex with him?"
'Only figuratively, Smoggy," replied Jesus. "What I'm saying is that they caught poor honest and trusting Peter Bowler, and they metaphorically butt-fucked him in the best Christian manner, dishonestly and entirely against his own will."
"But, Jesus,." I gasped. "Isn't that...sort of like...rape?"
'Like intellectual rape, Smoggy? It most certainly is. My followers perverted everything Mr Bowler said, for some stupid theory that we three in the Trinity knew was nonsense when we told Moses to write it down. Our reasoning was that when you're dealing with illiterate goat herders, you have to make things simple.'
"You mean it isn't true, Jesus?"
"Never is, never was," said Jesus. "But in the defense of bronze age people, they had an excuse for being so ignorant. Fucked if I know what excuse a creationist has."
"You sure give me plenty to think about, Jesus," I said.
"Well thank My Father for that,' said Jesus. "Most of my followers seem to have flushed their God-given thinking mechanisms down the crapper."
Posted by: Patricia, OM
|
June 29, 2009 8:54 PM
Wowbagger - See, there's where you furriners get all confused. When you and I lie or make up bullshit and call it gold, we go to hell. When Silver Fox does it he's having a revelation.
I would recommend that he take up two Copperheads and a Water Moccasin, then call us in the morning.
Posted by: Kseniya | June 29, 2009 9:31 PM
This thread should be called "That twitch in my left lower eyelid is back again, redux."
Posted by: Patricia, OM
|
June 29, 2009 9:39 PM
Brother Smoggy - Allow me in the most disobedient female way to teach & correct you. I scoff at 1 Timothy 2:11-12.
How dare you show disrespect for the Lords loins!
Then I beheld, and lo a likeness as the appearance of fire: from the appearance of His loins downward, fire; and from His loins even upward, as the appearance of brightness, as the colour of amber Ezekiel 8:2
Now you sit up straight young man, and the next time you feel bold enough to mention such anal activities involving the holy loins you clearly mention amber coloured fire.
If you don't, the lord will cause your father to eat you.
Posted by: OurDeadSelves | June 29, 2009 10:07 PM
Anyone else having trouble with the poll at expelledthemovie.com? I tried it with the latest versions of Safari and Firefox. The poll results are already visible and the buttons are inactive.
Just for the record, it doesn't work with IE8 either, neither in compatibility mode nor otherwise.
I managed to squeeze in a vote last night-- I'm using the current version of Firefox.
... Oh noes! Maybe I broke the poll!
Posted by: Nominal Egg | June 29, 2009 10:11 PM
I'm beginning to suspect that poll may not be completely honest. Or scientific.Posted by: Smoggy Batzrubble | June 29, 2009 10:16 PM
Dear Sister Patricia,
You misunderstood me, for I would never mock God's divine and eternally burning Holy meatstick. I simply quoted Jesus, who explained to me that what the makers of the Voyage the Shook The World had done was to "metaphorically butt-fucked [Mr Bowler] in the best Christian manner". I think his point was that while Christians are notorious for dishonestly shafting people who have better arguments than them, I'm not sure Christ himself is quite so sexually aggressive. He's a rather gentle lad, who got scapegoated in the most appalling way by his Father. Having myself been crucified by Brother Padraic for minor infractions, I have great sympathy for our Lord Jesus Christ as a victim of parental abuse.
Yours in Christian Confusion
Smoggy
PS Both Floyd Rubber and I find your female disobedience to be a very...um...interesting aspect of your character. As we are both trained in the casting out of demons, we wondered whether you would like us to lay hands on you and free you from the 'Demon of Female Disobedience and Online Shopping." Our fee is reasonable, and you may pay in kind.
Posted by: Steven Dunlap | June 29, 2009 10:18 PM
Thank you to all who answered my questions and corrected my sailing mistake (sailing terminology is as confusing as theology).
Posted by: Denis Loubet | June 29, 2009 10:25 PM
Obviously, all the lightning and thunder at the end of the trailer is supposed to be god getting mad. There's the depth of their theology, classic thunder-god crap.
Ugh.
Posted by: Patricia, OM
|
June 29, 2009 10:40 PM
Dear Brother Smoggy,
It is quite obvious that you are no True Christian. You not only have no respect for the sacred amber fire of our lords loins, but to even hint that you would lay hands on ME the property of my father, brothers and husband is beyond belief.
Any Good Christian would know that the Secret Gospel of Mark 10:34,35 discusses plainly the love of Jesus for a naked youth. Clearly you and Brother Rubber need to spend more time bent over the gospels than each other.
Aghast on the fainting couch,
Sister Patricia
Posted by: Smoggy Batzrubble | June 29, 2009 10:54 PM
Dear Sister Patricia,
I will pray for you and your woman's troubles. From personal experience, I can recommend forcing as many passages of scripture as possible up the offending area as it has a marvelously congesting effect.
Please be assured that Floyd and I certainly won't lay hands on you if your father, brothers and husband are already doing so. I'm a great believer in property rights.
Yours in Biblical nudity,
S. Batzrubble
Posted by: genesgalore | June 29, 2009 11:17 PM
help, help, help. i need a lawyer willing to sue for an intelligently design spine, foot and gall bladder among other sundry appparatuses.
Posted by: Patricia, OM
|
June 29, 2009 11:48 PM
Dear Brother Smoggy,
You and Brother Rubbers repentance may have saved your sinful selves from the fury of the amber fired loins, but not the holy familial cannibalism.
Therefore the fathers shall eat the sons in the midst of thee, and sons shall eat their fathers; and I will execute judgments in thee, and the whole remnant of thee will I scatter to all the winds. Ezekiel 5:10
This works for me, because I intend to take a nice long bubble bath while you are being digested.
Yours in the Amber Light,
Sister Patricia
Posted by: Patricia, OM
|
June 29, 2009 11:58 PM
Good night sweethearts!
Posted by: Janine, OMnivore | June 30, 2009 12:09 AM
There's the depth of their theology, classic thunder-god crap.
Gasp! Do you mean...Gene Simmons!
Damn but he is an asshole!
Posted by: Smoggy Batzrubble | June 30, 2009 12:24 AM
Dear Sister Patricia,
Thank you for your kind message. Unfortunately you are behind the eight-ball as usual. Floyd Rubber cooked and ate most of his family some years ago, I have no brothers, and my father was executed as a serial killer.
Might I recommend putting powdered ram semen in your bath. It does wonders for tired, dry and aging skin.
Posted by: Janine, OMnivore | June 30, 2009 12:38 AM
Oh, Smoggy. Did you not end up in prison because of import dried ram semen? Are you risking your probation?
Posted by: Smoggy Batzrubble | June 30, 2009 12:46 AM
No Jamnivore,
I ended up in prison for importing an unknown white powder. I now color all my powdered ram semen yellow. Floyd Rubber, who helps me color the powder, has suggested a wonderful brand name for it: "YELLOW SNOW"
What do you think?
Posted by: Silver Fox | June 30, 2009 12:51 AM
"Hmm, possibly because an odious scumbag like Ben Stein will happily shill for cash while Bowler had to be tricked into taking part."
Hmm, let's see if I got this right:
Peter Bowler - authority on the history of evolution; Professor Queens University, Belfast; Fellow Amer. Asso. for the Adv. of Science; and Fellow of the British Society.
Janet Browne - Wrote the 2 Vols. biography of Darwin; Graduate of Trinity College and Ph.D. Imperial College, London; Professor of science history Harvard University
Sandra Herbert - Professor Emeritus Harvard; Ph.D. Brandeis University; Darwin Scholar; Fellow Am. Asso. for the Adv. of Science.
What you're telling me is that these three dumdum were conned into lending their support for the project by a couple of creationist wingnuts.
Posted by: Janine, OMnivore | June 30, 2009 12:51 AM
Watch out where the huskies go
And don't you eat that yellow snow
Posted by: Rorschach | June 30, 2009 12:57 AM
Well,it worked with Dawkins.
And "creationist wingnuts",as we all know, don't do many things well, but lying and distorting and misrepresenting, they excel in.
Posted by: Janine, OMnivore | June 30, 2009 1:01 AM
What you're telling me is that these three dumdum were conned into lending their support for the project by a couple of creationist wingnuts.
It would not be the first time. But just one thing silly old goat, it is not support, it is being filmed for a documentary. Even when you hector, you cannot get it right.
Posted by: Jadehawk, OM
|
June 30, 2009 1:04 AM
see SF, there's your christian mentality showing through. of course YOU'd be used to people lying right-left-and-center, since Christians excel at bullshitting (after all, Lying for Jesus(TM) is a virtue to them). Scientists on the other hand are more used to honesty that comes with dealing with the scientific method which by its very design forces a certain level of honesty (by exposing frauds efficiently). Thus, they might have been too trustworthy. That'll teach them a lesson, to trust a Christian like that.
Posted by: Jadehawk, OM
|
June 30, 2009 1:06 AM
trusting, not trustworthy (thought I'm certain they're that, too). oopsie :-p
Posted by: Wowbagger, OM | June 30, 2009 1:10 AM
Silver 'Cthulhu f'thagan' Fox wrote:
Good grief; does your stupidity know no bounds? Why don't you try reading the paragraphs at the top of each post before you weigh in with your inane comments? If you had you'd probably look less stupid than you currently do - though only marginally so.
Here is paragraph 2 of PZ's post, complete with links:
Is there some part of 'admit to cherry-picking the interviews' that you don't understand, Silver Fox? Just in case you don't, I'll spell it out for you: They confessed to doing what I said they did.
Sheesh.
Posted by: Silver Fox | June 30, 2009 1:29 AM
Started some work on the theory of knowledge that reflects current thinking in cognitive science. It takes into account the paradigms of David Chalmers and Jackson. It actually runs parallel to the formulations that I have presented in sketchy form here for the past two weeks on the forms of knowledge. You might find it interesting but, perhaps, a little disturbing.
Posted by: Janine, OMnivore | June 30, 2009 1:36 AM
That damned thing continues to bray. Will someone please put a muzzle on it.
Posted by: Wowbagger, OM | June 30, 2009 1:52 AM
Silver 'Paladine bless my blade' Fox wrote:
Do Chalmers and Jackson present nothing but a succession of unsupported assertions for their religious beliefs - assertions which, even if we did accept them, are equally valid for contrary, incompatible religious beliefs? If not, then the chances that what they have to say runs parallel with your drivel seems somewhat slim.
Unless it involved a good deal of a kind of insight and rigour that's been absent from everything else of yours I've ever read on this site, SF, the most likely response any of us are going to have to anything you have to write on the topic of thinking is far better described as 'laughably inane'.
It could only be 'disturbing' in the sense that we might be disturbed that an otherwise functioning adult human (if you even meet that criteria; I have my doubts sometime) could possibly be so ignorant and/or intellectually dishonest.
Posted by: Phodopus
|
June 30, 2009 4:45 AM
Concerning #186,
Does it even make semantic sense to say one is taking into account paradigms. Taking the usual meaning of paradigm as a theoretical framework within which theories/hypothesis are formulated, having the author claim that she or he is taking into account several paradigms does not forebode good things about the coherence of the resulting.... work.
Posted by: CW | June 30, 2009 1:22 PM
Really? Then what, pray tell, have I miscomprehended here?Whoosh!
Posted by: Patricia, OM
|
June 30, 2009 6:21 PM
Smoggy, You could same yourself the money of keeping a ram, and switch to goat. Silver Fox is free.
Posted by: Patricia, OM
|
June 30, 2009 6:28 PM
same yourself... damn blueberry fumes!
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
June 30, 2009 6:33 PM
Silver Fox, we don't give a shit what you do, as long as you leave us alone. Which you seem incapable of doing. And you wonder why we give you so much grief? Do yourself a favor and delete us from your bookmarks.
Posted by: Smoggy Batzrubble | June 30, 2009 6:36 PM
"Silver Fox is free"
Heh... you said it! Free to any deity that says bend over and spread 'em, thick boy!
Anyhow, I doubt Foxy's got any swimmers. His high pitched squealing has all the hallmarks of a heavenly castrato.
Posted by: Patricia, OM
|
June 30, 2009 6:38 PM
He's like the EverReady Bunnie of stoopid.
Posted by: Wowbagger, OM | June 30, 2009 7:31 PM
Silver Fox didn't come back to defend his latest excretion of vacuous bullshit? Colour me unsurprised.
Which means I guess it's time for a song:
♫Fox on the run; F-foxy, fox on the run...♫
Posted by: Olorin | June 30, 2009 9:53 PM
This time, PZ will have to travel to the Twin Cities to see the movie---and on a Sunday, yet.
• Sunday July 19, 2009, 10:15am, Twin Cities Bible Church, 2555 Hazelwood St, Maplewood 55109. (MN)
• Sunday July 19, 2009, 6:00pm, Grace Community Bible Church, Country Joe’s 22222 Dodd Blvd, Lakeville 55044. (MN)
(I live only 6 miles from the Lakeville church. Will the muck reach that far?)
Posted by: Olorin | July 1, 2009 12:01 AM
This time, PZ will have to travel to the Twin Cities to see the movie---and on a Sunday, yet.
• Sunday July 19, 2009, 10:15am, Twin Cities Bible Church, 2555 Hazelwood St, Maplewood 55109. (MN)
• Sunday July 19, 2009, 6:00pm, Grace Community Bible Church, Country Joe’s 22222 Dodd Blvd, Lakeville 55044. (MN)
(I live only 6 miles from the Lakeville church. Will the muck reach that far?)
Posted by: Micky Mollallegn | July 1, 2009 7:51 AM
This is directed at hard-core atheists on this blog, not fair-minded readers.
Dear hard-core atheist, since you are bent on rejecting explanations of who we are, and what it means to be human that credits the God of the Bible, why do you pretend to be searching for truth in Origins research? The Origins debate is controversial because it touches the core of what it means to be human. Clearly you are not interested in truth or finding out what being human is really all about. Indeed, you have designed a set of constructs (methodological naturalism in science) that rules out the God of the Bible in investigations of the origin of life and the universe. You think you are being clever while you tell yourself that there is no God, and deceive others into joining your dream world by spreading fears of a looming Theocracy if Evolution is dumped into the dustbin of history to secure your rule of intellectual tyranny and ignorance in society. You are blind fools. You are intellectual hypocrites who speak of openness, freedom of enquiry, and seeking the truth, yet you are utterly opposed to Jesus Christ who is Truth.
Well, I also have a dream. I have a dream that one day your stranglehold on academia and the media will be utterly demolished, and school children will learn about Science, Evolution, and Creation with freedom to think for themselves and make their own decisions.
Posted by: Olorin | July 1, 2009 11:54 AM
This time, PZ will have to travel to the Twin Cities to see the movie---and on a Sunday, yet.
• Sunday July 19, 2009, 10:15am, Twin Cities Bible Church, 2555 Hazelwood St, Maplewood 55109. (MN)
• Sunday July 19, 2009, 6:00pm, Grace Community Bible Church, Country Joe’s 22222 Dodd Blvd, Lakeville 55044. (MN)
(I live only 6 miles from the Lakeville church. Will the muck reach that far?)
Posted by: Margaret's Cat
|
July 1, 2009 1:15 PM
It's also being shown today in the big auditorium in the national lab where I work.
I'm so ashamed of my country sometimes.
Posted by: Owlmirror | July 1, 2009 2:18 PM
This is directed at the religious fanatic who wrote this.
Dear religious fanatic, since you reject reality in favor of centuries-old religious myth, why do you pretend to be searching for truth in anything at all?
The origins debate is controversial because religious fanatics like you demand that there be a controversy.
Clearly you are a liar and a hypocrite who bears false witness.
Indeed, you have no idea how science works or why it works, but would rather whine because the way that science works happens, simply as a side-effect, to rule out the religious dogma that you so fanatically adhere to. Of course, your hypocrisy is obvious, because you have no problem when science rules out the dogma of other religions. You simply want special treatment, because you are a hypocrite and a fanatic.
You think you are being clever while you tell yourself that there is a God, and you know exactly who and what he is and what he wants, and deceive others into joining your fanatical religion by spreading fear of a petty, spiteful, wrathful God if Evolution is not dumped into the dustbin of history, to secure your rule of theocratic tyranny and ignorance in society.
Matthew 5:22 - and whoever says, 'You fool,' shall be guilty enough to go into the fiery hell.
You are an intellectual hypocrite who rejects openness, freedom of inquiry, and seeking the truth, because you arrogantly claim to know exactly what truth is, and deny that knowledge to anyone who does not accept your mythology and religous dogma.
I have a dream that one day your religious myth will be classed as equal with that of all the religious myths that you reject as being simply silly, and school children will learn about Evolution as being an integral part of Science, and Creation as being the myth that it is.
Posted by: DaveL | July 1, 2009 2:50 PM
A telling juxtaposition. I myself came by my atheism explicitly as a result of being fair-minded. I simply stopped giving preferential treatment to certain claims about the universe. I quickly found that when religious claims are stripped of the exemptions they demand from requirements for evidence and logical rigor they cease to measure up.
One does not need to be bent on rejecting anything to be a hardcore atheist. I have no bias against believing the claims of your religion or any other. I have simply unseated your dogma from the position of privilege it claims in our society and judged it on its merits, finding it wanting.
How is that clear? From the fact we reject your dogma? Doesn't that presuppose that your dogma is true? How can presupposing the truth about a proposition be part of pursuing truth?
Methodological naturalism is just a fancy name for not making shit up. If we are to be consistent and fair-minded, then we must either admit all potential supernatural explanations equally, provided they are not logically incoherent, or else admit none. Since admitting a limitless number of equally unverifiable hypotheses gets us worse than nowhere, the only avenue that is both pragmatic and consistent is to allow none of them.
I didn't tell myself that; the universe did. The utter absence of any evidence for your God spoke volumes.
A nonsensical statement, since there is no risk of evolution being "dumped into the dustbin of history". There is, however, a significant risk of falling under a theocracy when religious dogma is allowed to dictate which conclusions scientists may or may not reach.
I am not at all opposed to Jesus Christ. If you could only produce this person, I'm sure we would get along fine.
We don't teach creationism in our public schools for one simple reason: it's bad pedagogy to lie to children. The only reason evolution seems to have a "stranglehold" on academia is that is most definitely has a lock on the evidence. The only two ways for evolution not to have a stranglehold on academia would be if either a huge orgy of evidence were to suddenly come forward for creationists' claims, or if organized religion suppressed the evidence for evolution by force.
Posted by: Dania
|
July 1, 2009 3:03 PM
Fine. But for that to happen, you need to have a scientific theory of creation to teach in the science class. You have nothing similar. What you have is a myth, not a scientific theory. Myths have no place in the science class. Got it?
Posted by: Smoggy Batzrubble | July 1, 2009 5:19 PM
Dear Brother/Sister Micky Mallellillollugn @ 199
Thank you in the name of our Lord and Savior for your stirring "I have a dream" post. You have descended upon Pharyngula like Martin Luther King descending upon Washington. As one of the Lord's anointed I prophesy in Christ's Holy Name that your clarion call for Biblical equality of the lowest common denominator will move tens of thousands to tears and derision. Personally, I found your words so stimulating I had to nip off for a quickie.
But do you think your dream of Biblical equality for children to 'learn about Science, Evolution, and Creation with freedom to think for themselves and make their own decisions' goes far enough? Don't you think it should be more Hard Core Biblical? We need to be more ambitious for hard core Christianity? Let me add a hard core paragraph to your post (I checked it with Jesus, and He said it reads well and if it was any more hard core we'd have to call it 'Biblical BDSM' or, even better, 'snuff Christianity') Anyway, here goes:
I HAVE a DREAM...that we will reintroduce Biblical morality whereupon adulterers will be stoned; religious courts will once more be able to torture, maim and execute heretics in the time-honored tradition of the faith; unbelievers and non-whites will be thrown into slavery; women will be unequal, uneducated and subjugated to the will of their husbands; scientists whose discoveries improve our lives will be hanged; modern medicine will be exposed as the ungodly evil it is; all non-Christian books will be burned; children will once more die in epidemics of curable diseases; the internet will have one domain name only—".god"; life expectancy will fall to a Biblically acceptable rate of around 35.2; there will no longer be electricity or modern conveniences; and we'll all praise God ten times a day for our nasty, brutish and short existences.
See, Mickey? You don't take the logical outcome of your dream far enough. You need to be really scriptural and fuck people's lives up as much as possible.
Yours in a Dream of a Biblical World
Smoggy Batzrubble
Posted by: Micky Mollallegn | July 2, 2009 8:45 AM
Owlmirror
I take that back. You are not 'fools' - I've no authority to call you that, though I commend the one who knows you enough to do so (Ps 13.1).
But I do believe you are blind.
Posted by: Micky Mollallegn | July 2, 2009 9:03 AM
Owlmirror
I take that back. You are not 'fools' - I've no authority to call you that, though I commend the one who knows you enough to do so (Ps 13.1).
But I do believe you are blind.
Posted by: Owlmirror | July 4, 2009 7:08 PM
This is what is called a "notpology" -- a fake apology. Your notpology is noted for its self-righteousness, dishonesty, and passive aggression.
And you don't seem to realize that the Psalms have different numbering systems -- although I know exactly which one you actually refer to, especially since I have seen it vomited forth by religious fanatics as ignorant, as snide, as ill-mannered and as ill-intentioned as yourself.
I can clearly see that you are a hypocrite and an ignorant self-serving liar, which clearly tells me all that I need to know about what you claim to see.