Expelled open thread

EXPELLED! even by a server.

That must suck.

[Comment #2032, or whereabouts.]

it's so huge it's causing server problems on ScienceBlogs.

Teh power, we haz it.

SEE! The Thread That Ate Scienceblogs!

I am still concerned - PZ, are you prepared for the almost certain torrent of media requests once this EXPELLED excrescence actually premieres (followed, no doubt, by endless pimping on Fox News)? Ben Stein has already been on O'Reilly months in advance talking about it. What happens when old Billo issues one of his demands that you appear on his show for ritual castigation, and labeling as an "atheist pinhead"?

On the funny side, I don't know if you or your readers have seen this: OKTAPODI, which looks like it has uber-cute CG animated characters that leave all the frickin penguins and rabbits and other vertabrates in the dust!

A server-busting thread? I'm impressed.

The question now, PZ, is do you have the power to reset the numbering for this thread, starting at 2k?

Went to the OKTAPODI link. Uber cute indeed.
They seem to be hexapods, though. Not that it matters.

I'd say I wasn't so much "pleased" as "awed".

Am I prepared? I'm always prepared!

Of course, what I expect is that there will be a brief flurry of activity as the fanatics hit the theaters on opening day, and then...it will die. If Bill-O wants me, he'll have to work fast, since I expect that it will be on the pop-media radar for about a week.

Besides, I'd rather hear from Stewart or Colbert (not that I expect that, either.)

Wotta wimpy server.

Ugh, make it stop! I just saw a preview for Expelled on the History Channel for the first time (ironically--or fittingly?--during an episode of "the Universe," where the last person speaking before the commercial was Neil de Grasse Tyson!).

It's an old professor at the blackboard talking about evolution, and Stein, a student in the class, raises his hand to ask, "But how did life begin?" (Ding! Creationist canard!) The professor then looks extremely angry, jams his cane/pointing stick on the ground, and we cut to detention, where Stein is asked by another student in detention why he's there. "I asked I question." (Ding!) "Hmm, must've been some question."

Anyway, now it's back to talking about double-vortex storms on Venus. I guess I should be glad that they're obviously wasting their ad dollars if they're advertising during a solid science series. (That alliteration is purely accidental. :-p )

I feel bad that my silly statement is the penultimate statement.

I feel bad that my silly statement is the penultimate statement

No you don't, you can admit it.

Is it alright if I am feel bad yet also amused? At least Scott did not have the last word.

I agree, 2000 comments in a blog is way too much. It's hard to keep track of a few hundred let alone a couple of thousand comments. As far as FOX shunning "Expelled" in a review done by a very liberal movie critic who looked bad supporting Cat Stevens. It's like saying FOX endorses Hillary Clinton for president because Allan Colmes gave her a good review to vote for. Since most if not all liberals know FOX is right leaning but do showcase other opinions, they should know better that FOX would not shun something like "Expelled." And to try and use the liberal critic's review against conservatives is pretty weak.

Personally, I'd rather tell O'Reilly to just go pound sand up his back-end.

However, if by some freak of nature you do wind up on his show, make sure you wear a t-shirt saying "Falafel sex is not an abomination!"

Which thread was the one with over 2,000 comments? Link plz. :0

Since the constant loading of that thread was what was causing the problem...no.

Is there anything left to say about Expelled that hasn't already been said?

(Have I asked a question that hasn't already been asked?)

Is there anything left to say about Expelled that hasn't already been said?

Well, hopefully we'll be saying, "Expelled *jazz hands* was a flop."

So, I was just listening to NPR online, when I was hit with an advertisement for Expelled. It's now all over their website. I usually contribute to NPR during their pledge drives, but I wrote them a quick note saying I won't continue to do so, if they advertise that anti-science propaganda. I urge other NPR listeners to do likewise.

Could we ask Ben Stein, et al to shut their collective lie hole?

Oh, if PZ got on Colbert... I don't think there are words to describe how fabulous that would be.

FYI for those who aren't regular readers of ERV's blog (and why aren't you?!?) it appears that commenter Thomas S. Howard has identified the creator of the "Beware the Believers" video, one Mike Edmondson of Vancouver, originally suspected by ERV of being the creator of the Inner Life knockoff.

Interestingly, it appears Edmondson has been distancing himself from Expelled--his name has been removed from their sites, and he's also recently removed references to Premise and Expelled from his own networking site. If this is our guy, it looks like he may not only have talent, but class.

I feel proud to have played my small part in breaking the internet. If people who are wrong!!! hadn't turned up so frequently, that thread would have died long ago.

On a side note, is it worth sending a comment to Variety about their review of Expelled concerning these remarks, amongst others:

"There's an intelligent case to be made for intelligent design..."

"Stein does find some eloquent ID supporters in movement co-founder Stephen C. Meyer, Paris-based mathematician David Berlinski and Oxford professor Alister McGrath, who argue that scientists have become slaves to their own dogma, willingly misreading the evidence to support their claims. Pic is most compelling when it contrasts this level-headed reasoning with the vitriol of evolutionary biologist Richard Dawkins, whose brief screen time constitutes a thorny, fascinating study of atheism taken to hateful extremes."

In many ways, you are damned if you do and damned if you don't. Trying to put them straight about the "eloquent ID supporters", who also happen to professional liars, will probably only reinforce the reviewers suspicions about Big Science. It is clear from the review, however, that Justin Chang doesn't have the first idea about the Dishonesty Institutes tactics, nor about the fact that Dawkins and PZ were lied to about the movie, or that there is much more to the tenure denials than the film makes out.

To be fair, he does heavily criticize the movie. I'm just not sure that there was enough blood for my liking.

Welp, 2 things
#1 I just got my "A" t shirt in the mail( it's Navy and it brings out my eyes-or at least I think so!) and I ordered a 2XL- if you think you might be a bit snug in it, go larger-I work out and this just fits

#2 I almost puked at work yesterday, I saw a promo for Expelled on the History Channel around 830AM eastern. I just caught the tail end of it, so I don't know if they used the "Cell" video in the promo.

So we made it to 1859, after all! Cheers.

Over at UD, FtK writes of Expelled-

"In fact, this may be one of the most fair and balanced flicked(sic)ever made."

Well, in fact this movie is so full of distortions and lies, all I can say is "Ftk - get flicked!"

So much vitriol in this debate, and they're much better at hiding their side of it and pumping up our side. Is there a way we can publicly ask them: (a) explain how ID is falsifiable, (b) explain how ID is not ultimately a pack of logical fallacies, and (c) if you cannot, why should anyone care about it? That's the ultimate issue here, right? We can yell and scream and they can ramble about the holocaust all they want, but it's all besides the point. The point is ID isn't science, and even if it somehow was it's a terrible hypothesis. Thus, no one should care about it.

Just saw a commercial for expelled for the first time on TV.

I feel like going and hanging-out to smack people as they go inside...

@27: Do you think it's possible that Ftk is sarcastically making fun of the movie by comparing it to Fox News? Normally I'd think that because he's commenting at UD, he would be serious, but he could just be a troll.

Andrew writes in Post # 10 concerning the commercial for Expelled.

It's an old professor at the blackboard talking about evolution, and Stein, a student in the class, raises his hand to ask, "But how did life begin?" (Ding! Creationist canard!) The professor then looks extremely angry, jams his cane/pointing stick on the ground, and we cut to detention, where Stein is asked by another student in detention why he's there. "I asked I question." (Ding!) "Hmm, must've been some question."

I saw the same commercial exactly except that his answer to why he is there was " I made a movie." The student who asked said nothing further.
How many different versions do they have I wonder?

PZ and board--

First off, let me point out. This is my first post on this blog, and I very much have an opposing ideology than what most people who post on this website seem to embrace. Still, I am going to be polite and ask a question that I honestly do not understand. Perhaps you can answer...

At this website http://www.edge.org/q2006/q06_9.html Richard Dawkins argues that the modern understanding of biology makes the idea of personal responsibility moot. In fact, to quote him,

"But doesn't a truly scientific, mechanistic view of the nervous system make nonsense of the very idea of responsibility, whether diminished or not? Any crime, however heinous, is in principle to be blamed on antecedent conditions acting through the accused's physiology, heredity and environment....[M]ental constructs like blame and responsibility, indeed evil and good, are built into our brains by millennia of Darwinian evolution. Assigning blame and responsibility is an aspect of the useful fiction of intentional agents that we construct in our brains as a means of short-cutting a truer analysis of what is going on in the world in which we have to live."

Here is my question, which I have posted at the PT board but no one seems to want to address. The whole thrust of EXPELLED is shift the blame of the Holocaust from Hitler to Darwinism and the brute facts of nature. But isn't this what Richard Dawkins is doing as well? If modern physiology 'makes nonsense of the idea of responsibility,' then Hitler cannot be blamed, no? We can blame his genes. We can blame his upbringing. But we cannot blame him, because, as per Dawkins, he was essentially acting as a robot for his genes marching to the beat of evolution. We don't repremand broken computers. We don't repremand tigers for killing prey. Why would we repremand Hitler?

I'm sorry if one embraces Dawkins position--that we have no free will, and that we behave in accord to our genes working to propogate only--I can how Darwin ideas might lead to justification for at least someone like Hitler doing something like what Hitler did. One need say only this...1. Hitler was behaving exactly in accord with evolutionary principles. Just as a cheetah is a slave to its physiology to use its adaptations to outcompete rivals and propagate its genes, so Hitler was a slave to his physiology to use his adaptations (his mental capabilites, rallying skills, etc) to oust competing gene groups and promote the propogation of genes similar to his own. We don't blame the cheetah. We shouldn't blame Hitler. I can see how this would follow.2. We can't say that he was somehow 'wicked' in an absolute sense. Morality itself is a contingent adaptation, and if a Hitler-esque morality would have been a bit more lucky that is the morality we would have adopted.

Honestly, do you see where I am coming from? I am NOT arguing here that Darwin influenced Hitler any more than Martin Luther. That is not the point. I am saying that underneath Richard Dawkins interpretation, we can retrospectively justify, or at least excuse Hitler (remember, it was Dawkins who said that ANY CRIME, HOWEVER HEINOUS, cannot be blamed on the villain as if he had some personal choice in the matter and must be blamed instead on antecedent conditions). So I should blame Hitlers genes and parents, but not him. I can see how someone could adopt the imperative that since everything--including our morality, desires, ambitions, etc--is in principle an adaptation, how they could have no problem in deciding to kill millions if they at once see that it is more adaptive to do so.

I'm not attacking anyone. I'm just pointing out that everyone, including PZ, slaps Stein on the rist for absolving Hitler of personal blame and personal responsibility for personal decisions and personal wickedness. Dawkins seems to have already made that case, and has used Biology--evolution--to do it.

I know that this post will be bombarded with responses, so I'll say ahead of time that I'll only respond to PZ, if he gets time to write one.

#20 938MeV,

I see it - on the arts & culture page. I'm going to do the same. I already berated my local station and Marketplace for their softball piece on it, but now I'm really angry.

We should be working to boost Expelled Exposed's google placement: it's still on page 5. Now I assume that what we do in the comments here will be inefficacious because off the SciBlog "no follow" tag, but whenever anyone blogs about Expelled it seems to me that they should link the term to the E.E. site (as above).

@ person (#31): Well, I certainly can't speak for Dawkins (indeed, I'm really not familiar with his writings), but I will say that the vast majority of professional philosophers think there's absolutely no incompatibility between determinism and free will.

Freedom and moral responsibility depend only on the ability to do what you want, and we clearly have that ability. (This view is known as "compatibilism" or "soft determinism." There are certainly many who argue against it, but it is the most widely accepted position among those who teach or publish on the issue).

I know that this post will be bombarded with responses, so I'll say ahead of time that I'll only respond to PZ, if he gets time to write one.

Oh, how charitable of you!

@ person (follow-up): Well, I just read the Dawkins piece you linked to, and he's wrong. He's advocating the position known as "hard determinism," and while it's good for shock value, it is (in my considered and professional opinion) wrong. I would wager that most hard-core materialists (I certainly consider myself to be one) believe in holding people morally responsible for their actions (and there's nothing "unscientific" about this).

Of course, he's right that blood-thirsty retributivism is often unjustified, and he's right that the death-penalty falls in this category. I should also say that the anti-retributivism attitude he's adopting can also be justified by utilitarian ethics -- which is a quite stringent code of morality.

I like Carlo Rovelli's response much more. Now thats what I'm talking about!

Person: Your politeness is much appreciated, so I hope you'll understand that I mean to respond in kind, but I must also suggest that it's insulting to the rest of us here, and rather arrogant, to state up front that you'll ignore all commenters but PZ. I don't NEED responses to my comments, but can you see why that attitude might be a little off-putting?

To your comments: We're familiar with these claims. I suspect your interpretation of Dawkins' remarks is incorrect, but you're right about the basic fact that many of us, and I think Dawkins as well, reject the basic concept of free will...but usually only in a fundamental sense. We certainly have the illusion of free will.

Countless theists and conservatives seem especially upset with this notion. Conservatives seem obsessed with personal responsibility, and especially the ability to assign it when it is negative. Theists, or at least most Christians, need free will since it's integrated into their theology, with echoes of the aforementioned desire to "stick" people with negative personal responsibility, e.g., "you're going to hell because you're sinful and it's YOUR fault." These are of course generalizations.

To the best of my knowledge, few of those who argue for the absence of free will also argue for a responsibility-free social system. Free will or no, we punish "bad actors." If that's a function of the biological system in which we're enmeshed, so what? The system works pretty much the same way whether free will exists or not...the system itself serves as one of the factors that influence the decisions we make in either case.

We've got philosophers here who can do far better than I, so I'll leave it at that. But perhaps the more relevant question is: So what? If the chain you seem to be trying to draw from evolutionary, through lack of free will, to nasty human actions was indeed valid and we could indeed authoritatively say "evolution truly proves mass-murderers aren't responsible for their actions," so what? That wouldn't affect the validity of the theory. Indeed, to argue that point in any meaningful way you'd have to accept the theory's validity in the first place.

@ #31

I don't claim to know what Dawkins would say but I would say that *if* there is a cosmic bully boy (which I don't believe there is) then free will is kind of a moot point. Seems like it really really fucked up most of the world given that there is no clear set of instructions on how to get 'eternal' reward. Yeah you may have free will but if you can't use it without fear of 'eternal damnation' then what good is it?

If I choose to help an old lady at the grocery store or work in a soup kitchen isn't it all the more meaningful? No fear, no guilt just choosing to help.

I remember seeing throngs of religious nutters protesting the opening of "The DaVinci Code" when it came out. Granted there are many things going on in this country to get worked up over, but perhaps an old-fashioned protest, complete with hand-made signs, would be of some cathartic value. I live between Gary and Chicago if people want to organize something around here. Apologies if this has come up already.

This is the blurb for Expelled on Yahoo Movies:

Though Ben Stein may be best known as the droning teacher in FERRIS BUELLER'S DAY OFF or for hosting an eponymous game show, he displays his own intellectual prowess in this documentary. EXPELLED: NO INTELLIGENCE ALLOWED finds Stein investigating the snubbing of scientists and teachers who teach the theory of intelligent design. Stein, a former presidential speech writer, goes toe to toe with Darwin's biggest fans, including THE GOD DELUSION author Richard Dawkins, in an effort to expose the widespread prejudice against those who believe in God's role in creation.

emphasis added

Can it be any clearer? All science so far... HAR!

So I should blame Hitlers genes and parents, but not him. I can see how someone could adopt the imperative that since everything--including our morality, desires, ambitions, etc--is in principle an adaptation, how they could have no problem in deciding to kill millions if they at once see that it is more adaptive to do so.
But you can't blame Hitler's parents either... (and mostly, no one ever has)
If you want to check out a viewpoint of someone who is knowledgeable about science and has rejected free will, investigate some of Will Provine's writings. You seem to be making some simplistic assumptions. Even someone who does not believe in free will can believe in punishment and incarceration; after all society has a right to a) stop a person from doing harmful things and b) provide a deterrent effect. What giving up on free will implies is giving up on revenge-based punishment. And giving up on free will certainly does not imply that one must give up on moral standards altogether; as I said already, a society has a right to prevent or punish behaviour that is harmful.

#37 rrt: Theists, or at least most Christians, need free will since it's integrated into their theology

Which makes it all the sadder that it is also incompatible with their thelogy's requirement for an omniscient sky daddy.

I think a distinction might help here. Philosophers (and scientists too, I like to think) are fond of distinctions. It improves precision and resolves confusion.

rrt says: few of those who argue for the absence of free will also argue for a responsibility-free social system

There are potentially two distinct notions of "free will" that one might have in mind here. I take it rrt is implicitly making such a distinction, otherwise there might seem to be a contradiction in his suggestion. Here's the (potential) distinction:

Free will #1 = indeterminism, not being ruled by natural law.
Free will #2 = moral freedom, being morally responsible for your actions.

Now some people (so-called incompatibilists) argue that these are one and the same. Thus if we're determined then we can't have moral freedom; we're not responsible for our actions.

However, others argue that the two are perfectly compatible. Yes the physics performs the action, but that's OK, because I'm physical, so it's my action. I am that physics.

The point that's relevant for f.w.#2 is the general principle that "ought implies can," so it only makes sense to say I should have done something if in fact I could have done it.

But compatibilists argue that to say I "could" do something only means that I would have done it if I wanted to (even though I didn't want to. I'm morally responsible for my actions when I did something because I wanted to (and wasn't forced to do it by something external to me). To say that I could have done something else, is to say that if I had wanted to do something else, I would have done something else (all this fits perfectly with the truth of determinism).

This is all the freedom we could reasonably want. Indeed, it's all the freedom we can even make sense of.

If you try and look at society in evolutionary terms, I think it's easy to see the holocaust as an example of a failed evolutionary branch.

Like neanderthal man no longer exists, because homo sapiens was better adapted to it's environment, so does the thought of genocide as a profitable pathway in society. When once for thousands of years, tribes tried to kill each other and religions wipe each other out, now we have adapted our moral codes to the fact that this is not the best way for a large interactive global community to survive.

Hitler in his lunacy might have thought what he was doing was a neat idea: but he was selected AGAINST - he lost, and people now generally don't think jewish genocide is a good way of solving their worlds problems. Unlike the almost two-thousand years of history preceding the holocaust, in which many people including Luther, and many other elements of the various christian churches, thought that exterminating Jews would solve their problems. The idea has been selected against: Hitler lost because Darwinian Evolution selected for the ideas most likely to propogate the human race, and against those most likely to lead to it's downfall.

:)

Free will or not, if you've got someone who shows homocidal tendencies and genocidal beliefs, for crying out loud, don't give them control over the institutions of state!

#31 person (and everyone else for that matter): You might be interested in checking out the blog of Matt McCormick, Atheism: Proving the Negative. McCormick is a philosopher, and he has a whol section of posts on Morality and Atheism.

Reginald Selkirk (and I suppose this might have been rrt's point too) is right to say that even a hard determinist (who believes we're not morally responsible for our actions) can consistently advocate "punishment" for reasons other than retributivism (e.g., to protect and coerce).

However, I'd still insist that even the atheist physicalist should buy into morality (and hence moral responsibility). And there's really no problem in doing so: since the day of Plato we've known that the divine command theory of ethics is deeply unattractive. All the major theories of ethics (utilitarianism, Kantian ethics, virtue ethics) can perfectly well be adopted by someone who is a convinced atheistic materialistic determinist.

From that Matt McCormick blog:

"Suppose I tell you that "Screeds exist."

Then you ask some questions and it turns out that what I mean by "screed" is something that is bleen, croom, and weeq.

Then you ask some more questions about the terms bleen, croom, and weeq. It turns out that those terms mean, "reptile," "married," and "bachelor," respectively. So here's the disproof:

1. Suppose that X is a screed. Then it would follow that:

2. X is bachelor, and

3. X is a reptile.

4. Bachelors are unmarried, adult human males. So,

5. X is human (by 4) and X is not human (by 3)

Furthermore,

6. X is unmarried (by 4) and X is not married (by 3--reptiles can't be married.)

7. Contradictions are impossible. Nothing can both have a property and not have it.

8. Nothing contradictory can exist.

9. Therefore, screeds cannot exist.

We just proved a negative. What's the problem, exactly? Why is it that the urban myth that "you can't prove a negative" persists, and persists, and persists?"

I personally find this a very weak example. Thoughts?

Interestingly, it appears Edmondson has been distancing himself from Expelled--his name has been removed from their sites, and he's also recently removed references to Premise and Expelled from his own networking site. If this is our guy, it looks like he may not only have talent, but class.

I rather doubt that. If indeed he is the one that did the knock-off vid, then I suspect he is rapidly trying to hide that fact.

Since this is an open Expelled (don't forget your links to Expelled Exposed) thread, let me ask a question that's been bugging me for a little while now:

Many folks in the science community claim, "You can't prove a negative." What do you mean by that? It seems obviously false to me.

A few examples:

(a) CSI team proves that Jones wasn't killed by being stabbed in the heart (no hole in the chest, poison in the blood stream).

(b) Relativity theory proved that there is no ether.

(c) Someone or another proved that there is no spontaneous generation of life (you can see I'm not a historian of biology).

It seems to me we've got as many proofs of negatives as we have of positives. What are you guys (and by that I mean gals too) talking about?

Ichthyic, it seems a little unreasonable to think he'd believe that was possible. Removing his name from a few websites is a waste of time if that's his true motive.

#48 Kevin: I personally find this a very weak example. Thoughts?

Here are two thoughts for you:1) Go and discuss it on his blog.2) If you find it weak, you should explain why you find it weak; and perhaps take it the next step and explain whether you think there is a better example or whether the whole argument is kaput. An accusation of weakness expressed with shallowness doesn't get you anywhere.

@ Kevin (#48): Well, I don't see what all the convolutions are good for, because I still don't understand what's being claimed.

(b) Relativity theory proved that there is no ether.

I thought the Michelson-Morley experiment was credited with proving there is no ether. (?)

I have missed out on the 2k blog thread, at some point I would appreciate reading it. Perhaps it could be converted to a downloadable pdf at a later and less volitile date?

#54: It often so credited, but it's not actually true. The experiments were compatible with Lorentz's theory of objects contracting when moving through the ether (and were so interpreted at the time, if I recall correctly).

Reginald Selkirk, to begin with the word bachelor isn't limited to human males. That point seems petty but illustrates my next pretty well...I think proof that relies on the definitions of words are sort of weak.

I was interested in what other people thought, so I asked.

Person has been asking these same questions on Panda's Thumb, here, and has been thoroughly answered, so he is being dishonest to suggest otherwise. I suppose that he/she is polite enough, but it would be nice if Person would at least acknowledge that the questions have already been answered quite comprehensively.

For what it's worth, I will repeat what I said there, although I only partly answered the question:

"Person, you seem to be awfully confused. Science cannot be blamed for the facts of nature anymore than history can blamed for our understanding of past bloodshed. If something is true (in the loose, obviously unscientific sense of the word), then we are going to have to find ways of dealing with it.

Personally, I have no problem with what Dawkins said. We do not have a sufficient understanding of the origins of altruism or the workings of the brain, as yet, but it is true that it is now considered likely that free will is more illusory than real, and yes, there are ethical consequences. So what? Should we lie about it? If it is confirmed beyond reasonable doubt, it will likely have always been true, anyway.

Our understanding of this may cause us to reconsider how we deal with criminality, which is actually happening in much of western Europe as we speak. Many people now believe, and I happen to agree with them, that it is far better to concentrate on the cause of behavior, rather than simply punishing it once it has already happened. By the way, I am not suggesting that this is a direct consequence of the findings of brain science.

We will simply have to recognize that we are all inescapably tied to past events, and that we should attempt to understand how we can prevent bad outcomes by creating the right conditions so that they are minimized. Again, this is a scientific question and in the long run it will be positive for us to understand (and hopefully prevent) the conditions that create behavior that we find destructive. That is not to say that we will be able to prevent all heinous acts, but then, that will never be possible.

I happen to believe that morality is rooted in our evolutionary past, but even that doesn't fully explain the complex system that we see in modern western societies. Just because we cannot call upon a morality that is imbued by a creator, it does not mean that morality has to be relative. There are more secular accounts of objective morality than there are religious. You are going to have to show that they are all false, first and foremost, before you can argue that an absolute standard is necessary.

I couldn't care less if you don't think that I have a right to claim that what Hitler did was wrong. That changes nothing. It always seems to escape the person that makes this argument that morality has itself evolved. Not so long ago it was considered acceptable to murder other people, in certain circumstances. That is, thankfully, no longer the case.

What do you consider to be the purpose of moral philosophy, a system of laws, and best practice as far as raising children? These are all attempts to create an ethical society and they apply equally well to believers and non-believers alike. In any case, believers are in no better position than non-believers. Not unless you have an answer to the Eurythro dilemma*, that is?

*(Is what is good because it is part of God's nature, or is God's nature that way because it is good? The first interpretation suggests that morality is entirely arbitrary, and the second interpretation suggests that there is an independent standard of good)

Apart from the fact that a morality imbued by God is entirely arbitrary, how do you you objectively decide which of the accounts (various religions) to follow? And how do you objectively decide between the differing accounts of the same religion? Also, what do you do about the thousands of modern moral concerns that are not mentioned in a religious context?"

Nothing that I have said removes the responsibility from the individual, even if it can be argued that free will is mainly an illusion. All ethics must rest on personal responsibility, so we are going to have to find ways to deal with scientific findings.

Also, it is plainly ridiculous to blame a scientific theory for the actions of a mass murderer, with the implication being that, if we didn't believe it the pain would go away. But the fact that Ben Stein doesn't even bother to explore the reasons why genocidal maniacs do what they do, scientifically, is only part of the reason why we think that he is so dishonest. The other reason is that he rewrites history in his attempt to blame Darwin for Hitler, completely ignoring what are considered as the real influences on his behavior. Even if we are biological machines, we can still be influenced by what we absorb.

Sorry if this is all a mish-mash. :)

@ mothra: It's really not that hard to find, if you snoop a bit (I'm assuming that the occasional person discretely logging on isn't going to inconvenience the SciBlog whiners too much).

Ichthyic, it seems a little unreasonable to think he'd believe that was possible. Removing his name from a few websites is a waste of time if that's his true motive.

you attribute too much sense to these people. Look at how Mathis backpedaled over the PZ issue, and the inclusion of the vid itself.

these people are NOT that bright.

with an "average" person, I never even would suggest it, but with these morons?

it's actually probable.

#50: slight correction: science doesn't "prove" things, exactly (be they positives or negatives). We can't "prove" that there doesn't exist a currently undetectable ether with unknown properties, but in practice we have rejected its existence as an explanation.

Icthyic: Minor misunderstanding, I think. At present it's looking like Edmondson did the rap video, not the Inner Life knockoff. At least, he's denied the knockoff and there appear to be some other leads on the knockoff's animators.

Physicalist: Yeah, I think I agree with you. But I admit the gorier details of free-will philosophy make my head hurt...

Philly area pholks are in luck - at the April 19 Phact meeting, the subject will be creationism vs evolution, led by Andrew J. Petto. As it says in the latest newsletter:

"Dr. Petto will critique this film as part of his discussion so don't go dashing out to the movie beforehand as you might just prefer to save your money."

I think we all know which film that is. :-D

Icthyic: Minor misunderstanding, I think. At present it's looking like Edmondson did the rap video, not the Inner Life knockoff.

ah.

no worries.

@ windy (#61): That's exactly (part of) my point. If we're looking for Proof, we're not going to find it for positives or negatives if we're talking about empirical facts. But we can have excellent scientific evidence for negatives, just as we have excellent evidence for positives.

On the other hand, if we're talking about logical or mathematical proofs, I definitely can prove negatives. (E.g., there's no largest numeral, b/c it would have to be both even and odd.)

So what the heck are people talking about with this "you can't prove a negative" stuff?

(I really am interested in your answers, but it's 1:30a.m. here and I better get some sleep: gotta catch a flight tomorrow.)

In one of his works Richard Dawkins talks about the "discontinuous mind," and its problems in understanding evolution. Our brains tend to make sense of our environment by forming strict categories of things, separate from each other like black and white -- whereas nature is a continuum of shadings of gray into grayer.

Thus, people have problems with the idea of "species." When does one species abruptly turn into another? Or, as Daniel Dennett put it, could there have been a "first mammal," if every mammal has a mammal for its mother? "Species" is a real concept if used loosely, but falls apart when looked at closely.

I suspect that Dawkins would, like Dennett, see moral responsibility as similar to the concept of "species" -- useful and real enough to be useful, but not discrete and distinct, with a clear and obvious tiny little point to praise or blame disconnected from its background and environment. Moral responsibility is, instead, a concept which is "smeared" across animals with goals which can be analyzed in terms of other goals.

Just as there is a compatibilist position which rejects spooky, skyhook free will for "the free will worth having," there is a similar position on moral responsibility. Hitler was, of course, a product of his environment, his genes, his culture, and his psychology. But there is no separate Ghost in the Machine which stands above these things, outside the deterministic stream. He was not acted upon, he also acted. And bore "the responsibility worth having."

Thank you Physicalist- I'll go a-hunting later. .."here snark, snakr, here snark.' :)

On the serious side this film fiasco may be, 'based upon the media blitz and blogosphere activity, a 'cult- - - war' battle that is a must win. Before it is over, we will certainly find out how rational and responsible our countrymen are- even in the blue states. A state I will be in if EXPELLED has the mass appeal that it very well could.

Another item for the annals of unintentional truth-telling:

Though Ben Stein may be best known as the droning teacher in FERRIS BUELLER'S DAY OFF or for hosting an eponymous game show, he displays his own intellectual prowess in this documentary.

Yes, I'm afraid that his involvement in this documentary has given us all a truer picture of Stein's intellectual prowess.

While watching "The Universe" on the History Channel, guess what pops on during the commercial break? That's right, the first Expelled TV ad I've seen!

You can see it here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=588v3kYcqEA

Now the atheist, skeptical, and scientific communities have given this movie the derision it so properly deserves. However, most are too willing to dismiss this film's potential impact based upon it's quality, it's bigoted message, or the actions of its producers (e.g. lying to scientists about it's true content, the alleged copyright violations of Harvard's animated sequence, P. Z. Myers ironic expulsion from the Mall Of America screening, etc.). Personally, I think it's a mistake to write Expelled off as a box office flop just yet.

Here are my thoughts why:

1. While the movie might be a shoddily produced pile of agitprop, you have to remember that the film's target audience isn't cinematically sophisticated enough to care about "lord privy seal" editing (as Dawkins reported). As long as the audience hears what it wants (i.e. evolution results in genocide) they aren't going to care how it's packaged.

2. Other's have pointed out to me that Expelled is only going to be a draw a minority of conservative Christians who want to have their beliefs validated by the celebrity (if you want to call Stein that) with a largish budget "documentary." First of all, I don't think that the Religious Right is as small a group as many think. Polls indicate that over half of Americans believe in one form of Creationism or another. Also, let's not forget the fence-sitters, who might be swayed by a glitzy big-budget production.

3. Premise Media, the religious PR firm that is handling Expelled, are very good at what they do. They got millions of bible-beaters into the theaters to see "The Passion Of the Christ" and "The Lion, The Witch, and the Wardrobe." (Hell, it wouldn't surprise me if Stein was booked for Leno and/or Letterman by now.) It would be unwise to think they couldn't do it again.

4. Not only will Premise be bombarding the airwaves with ads, there will be plenty of accomplices willing to shill for this movie. O'Reilly, Scarborough, and Glen Beck certainly will. Hannity, Limbaugh, Savage, and other right-wing radio talk show hosts, both national and local, will be happy to help. Pastors, priests, and even some of the more right-wing rabbis will certainly sing this movie's praises as part of their services.

5. How many people outside of the atheist/skeptic blogosphere have heard about the "Crossroads" deceit? How many have heard about what happed to P.Z.? How many have heard about their copying of the Harvard video? I'll venture a guess: VIRTUALLY NO ONE! Nor would they really care if it did get out! After all these are the allegations of evil liberals and atheists out to destroy Christianity with their secularism and materialism; they must be lying and even if it was true they surely deserved it. (Think of it as the Christian version of Scientology's "Fair Game" policy.)

6. Many commentators have who have seen and reviewed the movie have noticed that there is no actual scientific defense of ID or an evidence-based attack on evolution in "Expelled." I beleive that is deliberate. Along with the repugnant "evolution/atheism equals Nazism/Stalinism" meme, the movie's argument is mainly that pro-ID scholars are being punished or censored for their beliefs. That argument is going to resonate on the sympathies of a lot of people, especially one where "freedom of speech" and "equality" are part of the national ideology.

Now, I more than willing to admit that I could be wrong on this. On the other hand, I won't be too surprised (and be very disappointed) when and if it makes waves...

...and neither should any of you.

Physicalist #65 wrote:

So what the heck are people talking about with this "you can't prove a negative" stuff?

Proof is for math -- or logic. While you can indeed "prove" that something defined with an internal contradiction in the definition can't exist (which is what Matt McCormick was getting at), in practice this statement is usually used on empirical claims. And what they usually mean by it is either "you can't prove a universal negative" or "you can't prove a negative if I refuse to set any parameters on what constitutes disproof."

Even if you manage to convince me there are no unicorns around today, you cannot "prove" to me that there are no unicorns somewhere in the universe. There may be. Nor can you prove to me that there are no unicorns in my refrigerator if I keep adding in attributes which make the unicorn unfalsifiable (it's invisible, it's untestable, etc.)

Who knows? Not you.

What's the point? Not much.

When someone is trying to score some farfetched idea credibility, this "can't prove a negative" crap tends to be dragged out. "Ok, Uri Geller was caught bending the spoon with his hands on tape, but you can't prove he ALWAYS does this." Or "How can you know there is no God if you haven't searched the entire universe, huh?"

I think that, like the "All Beliefs are Faith Beliefs" argument, "You Can't Prove a Negative" carries the recognizable whiff of Feeble Defense of Last Resort for a Otherwise Unsupported Claim.

Off topic, but check out CBS documentary on air now...The Lord's Boot Camp. It may not be on in your area, but...

Not sure what I am getting my self into, but I have created a blogswarm site for the release of Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed on April 18.

April 18 Anti-Expelled Blogswarm

This blogswarm promotes trashing the makers of the movie Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed and their anti-science agenda on the first day of the movie's release, April 18, 2008.

If you plan on writing a blog post on April 18th that is critical of the dishonest tactics of the people who made this movie, or a post appreciative of the trashing it has received in the blogosphere and elsewhere, then leave a comment below, giving your blog name. Return on Friday, April 18th to supply:

Your blog name
The title of your anti-Expelled post
The URL of your post

We will compile a list of participating blogs.

Zeno - in comment #18 - asks if anything is left to be asked about 'Expelled"....

I just want to ask if Stein says "Buhler" [note my spelling!] anywhere in the film.

I hope not!

(signed) marc buhler

New term to describe dreck like this: manufactroversy. Post at Panda's Thumb here.

1. A manufactured controversy that is motivated by profit or extreme ideology to intentionally create public confusion about an issue that is not in dispute.
2. Effort is often accompanied by imagined conspiracy theory and major marketing dollars involving fraud, deception and polemic rhetoric.

I think that sums up this Expelled and ID garbage very nicely.

I almost puked at work yesterday, I saw a promo for Expelled on the History Channel around 830AM eastern.

Expelled will fit right in with the marathon of UFO specials that the History Channel was showing the other day. That channel only shows anything that could seriously be called history if it involves smashing, killing, or blowing something up. This stuff reminds me to pick up Susan Jacoby's The Age of American Unreason.

http://www.susanjacoby.com/

Interestingly, it appears Edmondson has been distancing himself from Expelled--his name has been removed from their sites, and he's also recently removed references to Premise and Expelled from his own networking site. If this is our guy, it looks like he may not only have talent, but class.

Probably not. It is both a civil and criminal offense to violate the copyright act. Undoubtedly some rare thoughts have occurred to him. Like maybe he doesn't want to do jail time in the USA!

These Expelleds are acting guilty as hell. Harvard should sue them and spend a year or two on discovery. And, destroying evidence is obstruction of justice and lying under oath is perjury. Both are also criminal offenses.

This is nowhere near as good as what Cuttlefish does but for an extemporaneous effort, not bad

That thread's expelled
Our fun(die) is done
Ended at PZ 2031
Thru framing by Nisbet
That flibberty gibbet
Thru stories that changed
From fundies deranged
Dick to the Dawk - prevailed
Expelled - exposed and failed
I think that I shall never see
A thread as long as thee
CalGeorge, Kseniya & Glen D
MAJeff, Brownian & PZ
Hats to all of us from me
1 benjdm to 2030 Janine ID

Of course I *would* forget the proper phrase "hats off" in the penultimate line; must be the server's fault :)

Ok at the Expelled blog...there is an editor's note which reads that "Premise Media created the animation that illustrates cellular activity used in our film." This is a blatant lie....that is the XVIVO animation which they stole to use in their film. So my question is, by saying they "created the animation," do the producers of this film mean that they altered the appearance of the XVIVO work to make it look different?

Person #31: "I know that this post will be bombarded with responses, so I'll say ahead of time that I'll only respond to PZ, if he gets time to write one.

Wow, Person, if there was ever a case where you should be careful what you wish for...

Anyway (knowing you won't respond to me, because I'm not the tentacled one) the answer is that yes, personal responsibility is mitigated somewhat by the influence of neurology, body chemistry, conditioning and genetics. But the observable fact is that people DO make moral choices that diverge from their upbringing. The more complex a system is, the greater its chance of unpredictable, individual variability. But no doubt you were already told that on Panda's Thumb.

And even if variability does not manifest itself or you stretch determinism enough to wrap around variability, society itself has its protective mechanisms that are important to it, and to which most people agree. Unfair for the deterministically sociopathic, but waddya gonna do?

Sastra (#70)

Proof is for math -- or logic.

Thank you for posting this. I was going to write a reply to that question, but you did it more eloquently than I could.

It always bothers me when people come up with logical proofs or conundrums and try to apply them, in some metaphorical way, to science. If science were merely an exercise in logic we'd still be trying to solve Zeno's Paradox(es), and we wouldn't have any need for nifty toys like scanning electron microscopes.

Undoubtedly some rare thoughts have occurred to him. Like maybe he doesn't want to do jail time in the USA!

Grab a clue. It's extremely unlikely he would do ANY jail time in the USA. He's a Canadian citizen...you know, someone from another COUNTRY. Get your USA-centric/imperialistic head out of your ass.

It's also possible that the Expelled folks showed their video production guy only story-boards and he's only just now finding out where they came from.

By virtue or free will I do not comment on this non-issue.

That is I think I do.

Which again assumes that Edmondson IS the creator of the knockoff video. At present, the still somewhat spotty evidence suggests he's not, but rather is the creator of the "Beware the Believers" rap parody.

@person: you should at least consider the position that it is the doctrine of "Free Will" that actually annihilates any possibility of personal responsibility. While "Free Will" is nigh incoherent as a concept to begin with, the core implication always seems to be that we "could have" chose otherwise. But either who we are determined that choice, or it wasn't determined by us at all, and was just dumb luck: not really up to us at all.

Determinism is the only way FOR us to be responsible for our choices: that is the only way they can really be said to BE "our" choices: they have to be determined by the particular person that we are, not just randomly up for grabs.

"jetmags73: So my question is, by saying they "created the animation," do the producers of this film mean that they altered the appearance of the XVIVO work to make it look different?"

No. As far as we can tell, they hired a company to basically work up something similar. In fact, according to Jonathan Wells, their version is somehow "superior," supposedly correcting errors from the XVIVO video.

Of course, that's all as grossly misleading as the rest of their claims, but for what its worth, it does seem like they at some point contracted a new video, and the question is basically whether or not its wholly or only partially a derivative work of the XVIVO video.

JRD, it's possible for someone to do jail time in a different country, if their home country doesn't ask for extradition...

PZ, if you do get on Bill O'Reilly's show... can you bring us back a microwave a la Colbert?

"So what the heck are people talking about with this "you can't prove a negative" stuff?"

The most amusing part about this statement is that it's self-refuting. You say that "you can't prove a negative?" Oh, yeah? Well prove that one you just stated!

In any case, the other commenters are correct: usually this mistake is just because its really a shorthand for something else (i.e. empirical, rather than logical, matters).

So what the heck are people talking about with this "you can't prove a negative" stuff?

Depends on who is doing the talking, I guess. Contrary to what you wrote, I haven't heard it so much from scientists lately, but from theists as a response to the "new" atheists ("Science can't prove that God doesn't exist!")

All in all, it seems to be a poorly formulated argument against proof by induction (outside mathematics)

So what the heck are people talking about with this "you can't prove a negative" stuff?

If I may be so bold as to try to add to Sastra's excellent response to this question. It seems to me that this is usually not meant as a universal rule of logic, but as kind of shorthand for a particular kind of "proof". Specifically that you cannot disprove something that is by definition undetectable. You cannot disprove that the universe was created 5 minutes ago to apear to be billions of years old. You can't disprove the exitence of a teacup in orbit around Neptune (at least not yet).

JRD lying:

Grab a clue. It's extremely unlikely he would do ANY jail time in the USA. He's a Canadian citizen...you know, someone from another COUNTRY. Get your USA-centric/imperialistic head out of your ass.

Well that was stupid. A hallmark of a creo. Ever hear of extradiction treaties? There is one between Canada and the USA.

Canadians who commit crimes in the US and try to hide out in Canada are dumb. If the USA wants them and can show probable cause, the local cops pick them up and ship them down. It works the other way as well.

There are any number of Canadians doing jail time right this minute in US prisons and vice versa.

At the least Edmondson might be stuck in Canada forever. It doesn't take much these days to get on a Homeland Security do not cross list. Committing crimes in the USA and hiding out in Canada is a sure thing for that.

You aren't Edmondson by any chance? You sound a little bit frightened for some reason. Don't worry, there is free food and medical care in US prisons.

For a gleaming example of the ability of creationists and intelligent design proponents to willingly twist the outcome of any situation towards an interpretation that seemingly champions their side of the argument, you need only check out this lovely document published by the well-known Intelligent Design advocate, William A. Dembski:

http://www.designinference.com/documents/2005.11.Vise_Strategy.pdf

This document, not-so-cleverly titled "The Vise Document" in an allusion to the infamous "Wedge Document from the Discovery Institute, outlines a strategy for Intelligent Design advocates that supposedly shows them how to use certain questions and provocations to walk proponents of evolution into "an intellectually indefensible position," which Dembski (and many others like him) somehow thinks helps to validate intelligent design. (This blatantly ignores the structures of logic by assuming that if you can somehow reduce the apparent efficacy of the Theory of Evolution, it somehow vouches for the validity of their theory.)

Regardless of the fact that their - specious at best, and completely nonexistent at worst - refutation of the Theory of Evolution in this case is purely semantic, and is definitely NOT scientific. But the most astonishing thing about this document is that it contains a discussion held in front of a panel - a panel that is intelligent design-friendly, if not completely biased - between Dr. Stephen C. Meyer and Dr. Eugenie Scott.

What is so bewildering about 'The Vise Document' is that it props this discussion up as the perfect example of how to corner a proponent of evolution into either admitting their personal bias against intelligent design or, at the very least, making them look so intellectually vacant that the audience has no choice but to look upon ID favorably and see evolution as a farce.

But I challenge anyone to read the exchange between Scott, Meyer, and the panel and decide for yourself who you think came out looking more scientific and intellectually honest. I would venture to say that the only people who would side with Meyer and the panel are those who already strongly advocate creationism and/ or intelligent design.

So, if you have the time, check this document out and come back to comment on your thoughts. I'm really curious to see what everyone thinks.

It doesn't take much these days to get on a Homeland Security do not cross list.

What, even plagiarism??

Can you actually go to jail for it?

Cheezits: AFAIK yes, if you default on the fines levelled against you for copyright infringement

Just some general observations, as specific replies to each post would take far too long (remember that there are many of you and one of me!)...

The point of my argument, I believe, has been missed. Some people have suggested that moral responsibility must be interpreted in light of determinism. Others have said that with a system so complex as the brain, autonomy and variability may result so that we can hold wicked people accountable. Still others have suggested that because natural selection has preserved our morality--our desire to stop killing and bloodshed--that what's the problem? Hitler's morality lost out fair and square.

This all may be true, BUT it's not my point. I'm not asking what you believe but RATHER what you think about what Richard Dawkins believes. It is /Richard Dawkins/ who has said that biological determinsim has made the notion of moral responsibility moot. For those of you who advocate moral responsibility based on determinism, do you find Dawkins opinion wicked? After all, you seem to be saying that responsibility would still have to rest on Hitler, but Dawkins is saying that it doesn't, at least to the extent that responsibility for evil actions rests on a broken car or a hungry cheetah. Both are following, as per Dawkins, the imperatives of their hardwiring, and thus responsibility should go. Now, how am I or you supposed to apply this concept to Hitler? Is Dawkins saying that he was not at all wicked and if we just tampered a bit with his neural wiring all should be okay? Gene therapy to cure Down Syndrome and Megalomania is on the way. In that case, everyone on this board should either admit that 1. A down syndrome patient and a cheetah is just as wicked as Hitler OR 2. Dawkins has said and implied something truly evil because he is using BIOLOGY (not philosophy, not ethics) to absolve Hitler and everyone else of heinous crimes. This is much worse than what Mathis and company is doing. And it is happening in your own camp.

Same deal for emmergent properties and autonomy. It may be the case that the brain is so complex that free will is present as an emmergent quality. BUT that is not what Richard is saying. Dawkins is saying that it is all hardwired--and as such responsibility does not lie on the villain, but on the villains genes. Now, is 1. That proposition correct and 2. Is that proposition wicked if it is not? I'm not asking what you believe. Obviously you disagree with Mathis and Stein, and you may disagree with Dawkins. Both are excusing the Holocaust by using biology, albeit in slightly different ways. The point is that you will jump down Stein's throat because he is on the other side of this turf war, but nobody pays much mind to the implications of what Dawkins says because he is on the 'right' side, and so he is protected. No one here, as far as I can tell, thinks that he is right. But no one will come out and say what is obvious--his implications are just as poisonous as Stein's.

Again for the last bit. Someone mentioned that what's to worry about? Our morality won the evolutionary struggle. That's a rabbit hole you don't want to jump in. If Nazi Germany would have built the atomic bomb first then I guess, by your reasoning, we would think killing Jews are correct and that everyone should be trying to evolve towards the Übermensch. If morality is just an adaptation, and might makes right--that's right, whosever moral system helps them spread more genes--then you are left with all kinds of problems, most notably the inability to criticize Hitler /had/ Hitler won WWII.

Final thought. Let's say that I am of Richard Dawkins persuasion. I believe that I am hard-wired, that I am a vehicle for my genes, that my brain and everything it believes is an adaptation to get one up on the next guy. Let's also stipulate that I gain control of an army, slaughter billions except for a cluster of people with similar genes to mine, most of whom share my beliefs. Who among you could persuade me that I had done something morally offensive? After all, I simply used my adaptations (my brain) to oust the competition for resources and promote my genes. So does a cheetah. The cheetah is not wicked, so why should I be? And you can't say that morally I was wrong, because my new morality--which includes the fact that it is okay to kill millions--has proven adaptive for me and that's all morality's purpose ever was--an adaptation for survival.

Now, as a thought experiment, let's say that Hitler did all of the above. Wouldn't you agree that in this case belief in evolutionary theory would justify/excuse all of it? What leg would one stand on to rebuke such a dictator if one embraced Dawkins wicked beliefs?

Look, person, suppose that your conclusions were reasonable from Dawkins's position(s). What does that have to do with the soundness of evolutionary theory?

Or in other words, do you anti-evolutionists base all of your dishonesty on the idea that evolution has made dishonesty all right? Because it is very difficult for me to recognize any ideal Christian morality in the way you people twist logic, evidence, the truth, let alone the way you utilize the fallacy of arguing to the consequences rather than actually dealing with the evidence.

Since it the anti-evolutionists are the least moral acting in these debates, it would seem that anti-evolution is what erodes honesty, responsibility, and morality in general. I mean, that's what the evidence suggests, though I know you guys avoid evidence like the plague (another bit of dishonesty).

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

What, even plagiarism??

Can you actually go to jail for it?

There is a recent thread on Pandasthumb on this. The USA redid their copyright laws to discourage pirating of digital media. Which can be very profitable, software, movies and so on. Ever bought Microsoft XP in Asia? Pirated.

So copyright infringement is now both a civil and criminal offense. And yes, people can go to jail for it. Really, it is just theft of intellectual property and pays a lot more than knocking over a 7/11.

Edmondson should cop a plea and cut a deal with the prosecutors. They always start with the small fry and turn them to state's evidence. With any luck he may just be fined and never allowed across the border again.

Final thought. Let's say that I am of Richard Dawkins persuasion. I believe that I am hard-wired, that I am a vehicle for my genes, that my brain and everything it believes is an adaptation to get one up on the next guy.

Have you actually read any Dawkins? No, he doesn't believe that every behaviour is hard-wired (there's this little thing called learning, for example)

In the Selfish Gene, RD wrote "We, alone, can rebel against the tyranny of the selfish replicators"

(a statement that can be criticized but shows that RD is not such a genetic determinist as he is frequently painted)

Ok, that is perhaps irrelevant to the question: what if someone does hold such a strict determinist position you described?

After all, I simply used my adaptations (my brain) to oust the competition for resources and promote my genes. So does a cheetah.

But if (according to your premise) everything in your brain is an adaptation, the morality of your opponents is, too! So they are using a different strategy to survive, it's not that you are acting "in accordance to" evolution and they are acting "against" it.

person #32 wrote:

The whole thrust of EXPELLED is shift the blame of the Holocaust from Hitler to Darwinism and the brute facts of nature. But isn't this what Richard Dawkins is doing as well?

No. The analogy doesn't hold even if we grant that Dawkins' position really is that "we can't blame Hitler for what he did because he was only 'a robot for his genes marching to the beat of evolution.'"

Your statement that:
Hitler was behaving exactly in accord with evolutionary principles
can be interpreted two ways:

1.) The first way is to claim that Hitler came across Darwin's theory of evolution, saw that "the strong should kill the weak" is a law of nature, and was thereby inspired to act on it (not true, but that's a different argument.)

2.) The second interpretation is to explain that Hitler's behavior and motivations were the product of evolution and a mechanistic universe, and therefore he could not help doing what he did (not so, but that's a different argument.)

In the first case, Hitler reads about the principles of evolution, and makes a choice to follow them. If Darwin had never written his theory down, and Hitler had never read it, then the Holocaust would not have happened. Darwin and his invention called 'evolution' is therefore "to blame."

In the second case, Hitler is the product of evolution. If Darwin had never written his theory down, and Hitler had never read it, then the Holocaust could have happened anyway. Or not. Either way, the Ultimate Cause of human behavior is evolution, so evolution is the only thing "to blame" in a blameless universe.

I'm not going to get into refuting that second interpretation again -- others have done a fine job. I just wanted to point out that -- even if we granted your point on free will -- there is a significant difference between what EXpelled is doing, and what you think Dawkins is doing.

You're working two totally different ideas of what it means to "behave according to evolutionary principles." The movie is saying Hitler was using the ideas in evolution as his moral guide. Dawkins is (perhaps) saying that Hitler's morals were formed by the process of evolution.

They're not making the same point.

To #32 and the other lovely pharyngulites, may I take the liberty of inviting you to post over http://www.talkrational.org if you want to have a message board style discussion?

Blog threads are difficult formats to have coherent arguments in. I think PZ might even be a member, though I'm not sure. (PZ, the evolution forum at TR is where most of the rantsnraves evolution forum disappeared to.)

Dawkins has opined about all kinds of things outside of his area of expertise, from ape rights to investigating the psyche of Saddam Hussein. Some of Dawkins' social views are, in my opinion, naive, out of his depth, and even occasionally goofy. But who gives a damn? Dawkins' legacy is his body of contributions to evolutionary biology. (Some of these have inspired other fields - see David Deutsch.) There is disagreement about the value or in some cases the originality of these contributions, but they place Dawkins in the second tier of evolutionary theorists, along with SJ Gould, EO Wilson and the like. (The first tier would include figures like Trivers, McClintock, and D'Arcy Thompson.)

Person: As I understand the argument, you're saying that Dawkins is excusing the holocaust. From what I know of his philosophy, he believes in genetic and societal determinism to a certain extent. But does determinism really excuse your actions? If your actions are predetermined, then so is your being punished for those actions. And if you can escape punishment by pleading your case, despite having done despicable things, then you have free will and were responsible for your actions and must be punished.

Also, as regards hitler's morality... yes. If he had won, we would have regarded it as moral, if we'd survived. We would have been brought up to believe that, as you have been brought up to believe that atheists have no absolute moral code.

Anyway, kudos for the politeness. Also for not screeching at us that we're silencing all dissent (the screeching itself disproves it). But drawing a comparison between Dawkins' quite rarefied argument for moral determinism - note he describes free will as a useful fiction, with useful being the operative word - and Mathis et al's exceedingly insulting propaganda, which is basically trying to conflate our moral philosophy with that of someone diametrically opposed to us, is not cool. We try not to lie in these arguments, and we hope that some day the theists will hold to the same standards. For now, their record is spotty. But you, at least, seem to be holding to a high standard, and you're welcome back for more discussion. It's a welcome change from the normal "BUT WHY ARE THERE STILL PIGMYS AND DWARFS" stuff we get from your camp.

Person: sorry, in #101, I should have asked if you'd read any more Dawkins than that Edge piece, since you've obviously read that. But you seem also to have some vague idea that Dawkins = genes, and conclude that in the Edge essay he is talking about genetic determinism, when he's primarily talking about physical determinism in the nervous system (where a lot of other causes besides genetics are at work)

Furthermore, he is not saying that we should not try to stop bad behaviour, but that punishment as a retribution after the crimes is questionable.

Also, in the essay Dawkins is advocating going against our adapted sensibilities of assigning blame, contrary to your nutty inference that Dawkins is saying "do whatever is adaptive".

Finally, by rights you should condemn Christianity as strongly as Dawkins, because it compels us to forgive Hitler.

Re: #70

Personally I'm not too concerned about the possibility of Expelled doing well.

If it tanks, no one but the fundie crowd is going to even notice.

But success of any kind will expose the egregious lies, vacuous arguments, fundamental shoddiness, and frankly offensive premise to a wider audience.

Even some conservative christians who aren't already diehards in the creationist camp might get put off by the lies and dishonesty, which is what happened during the Dover trial.

In the long run, I think that would be a good thing.

And a degree of financial success for the movie could make the plagiarism action a little more lucrative.

Everyone: "person" is wholly uninterested in debate, all this particular moron wants to do is to wring an admission that "Expelled" is right, and the evil atheist/satanist Darwin did cause the Holocaust, and he wants us to admit that the evil atheist/satanist Dawkins agrees.

Furthermore, it's like what Professor Myers says that we should not commend a person for speaking in a normal tone of voice if all he is speaking is nonsensical bullshit.

I mean, come on, people: "person"'s argument boils down to "Yes, or no: Either Darwinism's highpriest, Dawkins, is saying that it was okay for Hitler to attempt genocide because the gist of Darwinism is that we're all nothing more than worthless, soulless meat robots, or Hitler was wrong to attempt genocide, and Darwinism is one of the most appalling tools of the Devil."

Why do we think that this sort of argument, even presented in a non-screeching manner, is worthy of debate?

JRD pointing out the arrogant stupidity of Raven wrote:

Grab a clue. It's extremely unlikely he would do ANY jail time in the USA. He's a Canadian citizen...you know, someone from another COUNTRY. Get your USA-centric/imperialistic head out of your ass.

To which, Raven further proving his naive, parochial US-centric idiocy replied:

Well that was stupid. A hallmark of a creo. Ever hear of extradiction treaties? There is one between Canada and the USA.

Ummm, pointing out your knee(hand)-jerk, jingoistic stupidity doesn't make one a "creo", fool. Your assumption concerning my beliefs is as far off the mark as it gets. Though your ignorance of the laws (or even existence) of other countries is not surprising. BTW, I believe the word you're looking for is "extradition"

Canadians who commit crimes in the US and try to hide out in Canada are dumb. If the USA wants them and can show probable cause, the local cops pick them up and ship them down. It works the other way as well.

Sheesh, you're a dumbass. You have no effing clue WTF you're talking about. The joint extradition policies are not all encompassing; it's been difficult to even extradite mass murders nevermind people involved in trivial issues regarding civil matters (e.g., it took many years to extradite Charles Ng and he wasn't even a Canadian citizen).

We don't just hand over our citizens (or refugees) to countries with Draconian, regressive justice systems like the US. BTW, even in the Ng case, Canadian law prevailed and was enforced has a condition of extradition.

At the least Edmondson might be stuck in Canada forever. It doesn't take much these days to get on a Homeland Security do not cross list.

Yeah, thanks for proving my point, idiot.

JRD:

Don't you have to drive criminals down Canada's only road in order to hand them over to the US?

http://www.southparkstudios.com/clips/104261/

Guys, cool it.

JRD, Raven, you're both getting a little heated. Raven's right that there are extradition treaties, JRD. And saying that someone will go to jail in the US for crimes committed in the US isn't jingoistic. The fact that she pointed out extradition is evidence that she is aware other countries exist. But she did go too far calling you a creo.

I mean, no one who's a regular here is THAT stupid.

Stanton: he/she did sound briefly sincere, until I looked at PT. But although 'person' is probably unreachable, it's sort of interesting to examine the popular misconception of "Hitler was just promoting his genes!"

person #98 wrote:

Is Dawkins saying that (Hitler) was not at all wicked and if we just tampered a bit with his neural wiring all should be okay?

Dawkins is saying that Hitler's choices were the result not only of his genes, but their interaction with their environment -- his health, his culture, his upbringing, his education, and his experiences. That's not really radical. Don't you think that, if we were to go back in time and "tamper" with Hitler's childhood, we would get a very different Hitler?

The genes we inherit don't simply unfold an existent personality. They react to their surroundings. And part of what influences them in different directions are the choices we make.

Let's say that I am of Richard Dawkins persuasion. I believe that I am hard-wired, that I am a vehicle for my genes, that my brain and everything it believes is an adaptation to get one up on the next guy.

Right here is one place I think you're making a serious mistake -- in what it means to get "one up on the next guy." One strategy which proved very, very useful for spreading our genes -- and which is now embedded as a strong tendency in the human animal -- was co-operation. Honesty. Fairness. Kindness. Love. Empathy.

If you want to get along with others, THAT'S what's "adaptive." That's how you gain respect with peers. Those are traits evolution selected for, which societies also select for, when people have to deal with each other. We are moral animals. The Nazis' problem wasn't a lack of morality. It was that their morals confined themselves to an irrationally defined "in-group." But a larger perspective -- a more informed one -- sees humanity itself as the in-group.

That's where I think the most significant error lies. You are taking the "bird's eye view" (I almost wrote 'God's eye,' but let's not complicate things) too far. You're actually observing a system completely from the outside, with total objectivity -- and then misapplying it to a view which is anything but objective, but inside the system itself.

Wouldn't you agree that in this case belief in evolutionary theory would justify/excuse all of it? What leg would one stand on to rebuke such a dictator if one embraced Dawkins wicked beliefs?

That we are moral is the result of how we adapted to survive. Evolution explains the existence of human morality itself. But HOW we are moral -- what rules and methods and system we choose to follow -- is neither explained nor dictated by broad biology. We are now in the area where we work with and use our natural tendencies -- the social area of "getting along with others." I would therefore say that such a dictator had specific problems in that particular area.

JRD, lighten up. Your "USA=imperialism" ranting is a tiresome characteristic of young lefty Canadians (I was one once myself).

So the guy doesn't know the ins and outs of extradition, and overstated the probability of Edmondson doing jail time in the US. Big deal. It seems likely to me that at the very least, US legal trouble would result in some difficulties entering the US in the future, and that alone (in my view) is worth worrying about... an animator might have many professional reasons for wanting to enter the US in the future.

Colugo,

Yes, South Park is great. I've watched every episode, but unlike the poster Raven, I don't rely on it and other cartoons as a source of knowledge. Though Raven's awareness of other countries does seem typical of many US citizens:

www.youtube.com/watch?v=seYUbVa7L7w

www.youtube.com/watch?v=BhTZ_tgMUdo

Leno's made a career out of guys like him.

JRD, why are you being such a hater?

Ok, perhaps I over-reacted a tad, but it does piss me off that someone thinks they can just grab a citizen out of another nation without nary a concern.....

Furthermore, he is not saying that we should not try to stop bad behaviour, but that punishment as a retribution after the crimes is questionable.

But what does "questionable" mean in this context? Surely not "immoral", as Dawkins is, at least implicitly, rejecting the whole notion of morality. Perhaps he means "ineffective", but that is an empirical question -- even if there is no "actual" free will, humans appear to react to reward and punishment, and punishment may serve as a deterrent to others. Dawkins doesn't provide any evidence that such is not the case (although it's a short piece).

In the end, though, the real problem is that it is absurd to write a piece about how we wrongly decide to treat lawbreakers as if free will exists. Surely if free will doesn't exist in some fashion, then we can't make any decisions about how we treat lawbreakers -- our actions are just as determined as those whom we are punishing. The very fact that Dawkins suggests we can decide what actions to take in addressing people who violate the law pretty much undermines his whole thesis. If we can choose to punish people or not, then lawbreakers can choose to violate the law or not; if violators' actions are determined, then so are our reactions to them. Dawkins' argument is simply not logically consistent.

Tulse: JINX!

JRD: it's cool, man. Just remember, if they catch him in the US, they don't need to snatch him from Canada, and it's up to Canada to ask for him back if they want him.

I just don't like to see Pharyngulites taking cheap shots at one another. The war is out there, man! The war's out there!

#118: Yes, Dawkins's thesis is a bit iffy, although that is not relevant to the argument with 'person'. However, I think the "responsibility" angle is a bit different than claiming that choice doesn't exist. Responsibility might seem like a necessary axiom, but once we accept that some people can have "diminished responsibility" the problems start to creep in.

"If we can choose to punish people or not, then lawbreakers can choose to violate the law or not; if violators' actions are determined, then so are our reactions to them. Dawkins' argument is simply not logically consistent."

You're just mixing up several different and incompatible understandings of the word "choose" here: the pretentious philosophical sort implied by the non-concept of "Free Will" and the normal, everyday, perfectly serviceable idea of choice, as in, I make this choice based on this that and the other thing, and so on. The fact that these decisions are ultimately determined by SOMETHING (and I'm at a loss as to how anyone thinks anything happens without being determined by something else) doesn't make them any less decisions, or any less our choice.

But even neglecting that, you're still not making sense, because of course Dawkins' article and arguments are themselves part of determining how we decide to react.

It is /Richard Dawkins/ who has said that biological determinsim has made the notion of moral responsibility moot.

No, it's not. In the passage you cite, Dawkins says,

"Isn't the murderer or the rapist just a machine with a defective component? Or a defective upbringing? Defective education? Defective genes?"

Note "upbringing" and "education". Dawkins is rejecting biological determinism in this very passage.

"person: It is /Richard Dawkins/ who has said that biological determinism has made the notion of moral responsibility moot. For those of you who advocate moral responsibility based on determinism, do you find Dawkins opinion wicked?"

You seem to not understand in what sense he means this. He doesn't mean that we don't or shouldn't do things to prevent evil and deter criminals. His point is that the idea of assigning moral responsibility doesn't really do anything useful. It doesn't tell us anything about how to prevent Hitlers, or how to deal with the Hitlers we already have. All it seems to do is make theologians feel better and sadists feel justified for going beyond any rational level of punishment.

None of what he's saying in any way "justifies" the Holocaust, or any of the other things you're alleging. You seem to basically be grabbing bits and pieces of what he's saying and trying to apply them to your own frame of reference, when Dawkins is using a completely different frame of reference.

(and I'm at a loss as to how anyone thinks anything happens without being determined by something else)

quantum mechanics, of course! (as far as we know) :) Although at the level of our nervous system things are probably pretty much determined, some quantum hopefuls notwithstanding.

(and I'm at a loss as to how anyone thinks anything happens without being determined by something else)

quantum mechanics, of course! (as far as we know) :)

Barring an interpretation such as many-worlds, of course.

Person said:

For those of you who advocate moral responsibility based on determinism, do you find Dawkins opinion wicked? After all, you seem to be saying that responsibility would still have to rest on Hitler, but Dawkins is saying that it doesn't, at least to the extent that responsibility for evil actions rests on a broken car or a hungry cheetah.

No, there are very few opinions that I find to be wicked. I am more concerned with actions, to be honest.

Besides, Dawkins is clearly speculating, as the science does not confirm his position, as yet, but there is nothing wrong with speculation, is there? Speculation is the lifeblood of science, by the way. But let's say that the science irrefutably (as near as you can get, anyway) confirmed Dawkins position, rather than 'sort of' supported it. There really isn't a great deal that we could do about it. Sometimes I don't like the fact that the sun disappears below the horizon at 4pm in the winter months. I'd like there to be a few more hours of daylight, if I'm honest. The universe doesn't care what I think, though. And this is where you keep going wrong.

Anyway, this is what Ben Stein and his cohorts are arguing:

"I was never a big fan of Darwinism because it played such a large part in the Nazis' Final Solution to their so-called "Jewish problem" and was so clearly instrumental in their rationalizing of the Holocaust. So I was primed to want to do a project on how Darwinism relates to fascism and to outline the flaws in Darwinism generally."

So, it has nothing to do with reality of the universe, which is what you seem to be arguing, and which is utterly irrelevant as even if there was strong evidence that Hitler had no choice in what he did, whaddya gonna do about it?

Ben Stein is arguing that it was Darwins theory that influenced Hitler to do what he did (the actual idea), not the evolutionary history of the human species, or the science related to the make up of the brain, and what we can infer from that.

That is something that can be checked with the very best scholarship concerning what is thought to have influenced Hitler. And guess what? No serious scholar believes that Darwins theory was a major influence on Hitler's decision to murder over six million innocent people. If anything, Christian antisemitism was a far greater influence, but that is not even mentioned in the film, once.

Therefore, Expelled is rightly considered to be a disgusting propaganda piece that is trivializing the death of millions of innocent people in an attempt to persuade those who don't know any better that there is something inherently evil about MET (Modern Evolutionary Theory), in the hope that it will have an affect on what gets taught in public schools.

You are making quite a spectacular category error.

I look at the "proving a negative" as more a cautionary statement of what science asserts. Science drives towards the simplest and most probable explanation, but just about every observation in it is couched as a variant of "our current understanding is that."

If you go down the road of attempting to disprove something ephemeral, eventually you reach the "but He could have made it so it looks billions of years old five thousand years ago." Science cannot say "God doesn't exist." All science can do is determine limits on what is most likely - putting a margin of error on the probably actions of a deity. It's more important to show that the dance of the supernatural eventually has no effect, and true or no shouldn't be factored into scientific inquiry.

It's up to the individual to determine whether or not a deity that exists but does nothing is any different from no deity at all.

Dawkins' legacy is his body of contributions to evolutionary biology. (Some of these have inspired other fields - see David Deutsch.)

I happened to click through some of Deutsch's older commentary at Edge. Deutsch is a good guy, but this thing written after 9/11 is quite painful, in hindsight:

One may argue about the precise role of religion in the terrorists' mindset, but Mr Blair and Mr Bush, both of them religious believers who purport to derive their moral stances from their religions, are certainly not part of the problem: on the contrary, they are leading the solution.

You're just mixing up several different and incompatible understandings of the word "choose" here: the pretentious philosophical sort implied by the non-concept of "Free Will" and the normal, everyday, perfectly serviceable idea of choice, as in, I make this choice based on this that and the other thing, and so on.

Not at all. First off, I'm not clear as to the distinction you're making -- "choice" makes no sense without some sort of notion of free will, regardless of how pretentiously it is conceptualized.

Second, the problem with Dawkins' argument is that it undercuts itself regardless of how one does conceptualize free will. Choice is either available to all (in which case lawbreakers do make a choice), or it isn't (in which case we have no more choice in how we treat lawbreakers than they do in breaking the law). You can try to describe choice in whatever way you want, but what it boils down to is either everyone has it or everyone doesn't.

The fact that these decisions are ultimately determined by SOMETHING (and I'm at a loss as to how anyone thinks anything happens without being determined by something else) doesn't make them any less decisions, or any less our choice.

If one is a dualist, one can believe that our decisions are not bound by physical processes, and thus are not determined. So dualism is traditionally the answer to how something happens without being (physically) determined by something else.

However, once one (quite appropriately) abandons dualism, it is hard to see how one can say that the flow of a river is determined by purely physical processes, but human behaviour isn't. If one is a thoroughgoing materialist, there simply isn't any room in the causal chain for "choice". So yes, the fact that these "decisions" are determined by physical processes does mean that they aren't our "choice", any more than clouds choose where to float, or trees choose how to grow. If there's no ghost in the machine, then all you've got is a machine.

To be clear, I think that's right -- we are essentially machines, just like every other physical object in the universe. But that does make accounting for the illusion of free will really hard to explain, and I don't think that anyone has provided a satisfactory solution.

No-one seems to have answered Antimatter Spork's question (#30)

Do you think it's possible that Ftk is sarcastically making fun of the movie by comparing it to Fox News? Normally I'd think that because he's commenting at UD, he would be serious, but he could just be a troll.

Ftk is a complete airhead who knows nothing about science. She thinks that Earth may be 6000 years old or possibly 4.5 billion years old, she is not sure, but the hydroplate theory is a winner (she does not understand it but she likes the guy who came up with the idea). Creationists are honest, trustworthy, knowledgeable people no matter what they do but atheists are evil. Check out her blog at reasonablekansans.blogspot.com

Deutsch himself is another example of how a brilliant scientist can have some pretty loopy ideas on politics. Deutsch developed the foundation quantum computation, as he was the first the establish a Turing-equivalent model of computation based on quantum principles. But Deutsch is associated with the blog Setting the World to Rights which, among other things, has been regularly engaged in AGW denialism and endorses Thomas Szaz's mental-illness denialist quackery (it is linked favorably in the sidebar as ostensible "error correction"). The posts aren't attributed to specific authors, but to my knowledge Deutsch has made no public effort to distance himself from this nonsense.

We all seem to be swarming around a cluster of vaguely related concepts here. I think that I am mostly to blame because I haven't expressed myself well enough. And what I am thinking could be wrong. But let's talk it through and see how I have misunderstood.

First, Dawkins never came out and said that Darwinsim excuses Hitler. Of course he doesn't. But the logical connection is less than two steps away, and once it is made, it is EXACTLY equivalent to what Stein and company are saying.

Step 1: I for one am not trying to reduce Dawkins argument to merely Hitler=genes=genetic puppet. Dawkins mentions environment as well as physiology being determining factors. But he does it in a way to suggest that it is all deterministic, stimulus-response type stuff. What I am saying is that if this is so, then Hitler acting the way he did is no different than a bacteria growing in culture and interacting with antibiotics. One has a complicated stimulus, biological processing, and an induced response. Of course this makes nonsense of the idea of moral responsibility, just like Hume says. We see the way a bacteria is, or the way Hitler is. We cannot get from the way they are to the way they should be. If everything is material stimulus-response, then it is as nonsensical to say Hitler was evil for killing as it is to say that someone with DownSyndrome is evil for being mentally retarded. That DOES shift the blame from Hitler to evolution and nature. But...

Step 2: Some interject that "You seem to not understand in what sense he means this. He doesn't mean that we don't or shouldn't do things to prevent evil and deter criminals."

That's a good point. Blaming Hitler might not make sense, but Stopping his actions would. We should do something to prevent evil. But who decided that? And who decided what was evil? Here is where Dawkins argument explodes. He says..."M]ental constructs like blame and responsibility, indeed evil and good, are built into our brains by millennia of Darwinian evolution."

So what we are calling 'bad' and 'evil'--the concepts that we use when setting a rationale for condemning Hitler's deterministic behavior and not the deterministic behavior of a Downs Syndrome patient--have no transcendent basis. They were created by evolution, just like fangs and claws, and could have been altered or lost by it, depending on the circumstance. At best all we can say about them is that they are a set of rules people found useful and decided to follow. But this very notion serves to defeat itself, like sawing off the tree branch you are sitting on. In my thought experiment, I made the following case: 'what if people agreed on a different set of moral rules--one that involved Darwinian principles and killing Jews--and found that these rules worked for them and made them happy and allowed them to outcompete and outpropogate their neighbors?' If this were the case, we could not say that these imaginary people were absolutely wicked or that we had a better morality because 1. The basis of their morality--people agreeing by convention on rules--is exactly the same as ours and 2. Their morality was a better adaptation, which is the prime criterion for establishing morality. Some claws are sharper than others, and so they dominate a population. Some moralities are more effective at propogating certain gene pools more, and so they survived to dominate the population.

If morality itself is an adaptive, changing, CONTINGENT biological character, then all one can describe is the story of what it IS or how it came to BE; one cannot say how it OUGHT to be, how Hitler's and Pol Pot's morality OUGHT to have looked, because that would require a transcendent moral code and the whole argument is that morality is not transcendent. It would make as much sense as me saying 'My dogs eyes SHOULD be red' or 'that birds talons OUGHT to be curved', as if there were some absolute reference point. All you can do, if you accept morality is a contingent adaptation, is say what it is. But you cannot say how it ought to be without defeating the argument. If some organisms don't particularly care about the survival of others with competing genes, and they seem to agree with this, all you can say is that their morality is different from yours, and that it is making them happy and suiting their ends. There is no right and wrong about it.

But I digress. Here is the summary...The key fact is that Dawkins has made an argument that moral responsibility, for 'any action, however heinous' (which includes the holocaust) is 'nonsense' (his words) because 1. People are machines that operate based on stimuli-response, just as everything else, and therefore ethical judgements between people and animals occupy the same epistemic class and are morally indistinguishable and 2. Any 'morality' that we might use to call something evil, which is our whole basis for trying to rewire the stimuli-response mechanism, is itself evolved and contingent. People with a different morality--lets say, one that involved killing Jews--is more justified or at least as much justified as ours as long as it serves the purpose of adaptation and survival of their genes.

This does excuse Hitler. The implications are obvious. He and his Nazi cohorts were playing the parts of dominoes falling, and their actions were perfectly in accord with the Darwinian imperative of promulgating ones genes.

If Darwinism erodes the basis for free choices, personal responsibility, and transcendent morality (ie murder is absolutely wrong regardless of the time or place), then of course it can excuse Hitler, whose actions can only be condemned by the factors Darwinism erodes. This is Dawkins argument, OR AT LEAST THE LOGICAL IMPLICATIONS OF THAT ARGUMENT, and if you get mad at Mathis and company who are making a similar type argument of shifting the blame from Hitler to Darwin, then you need to get mad at Dawkins just like you are getting mad at Stein.

(*I do know that Dawkins has said that a Darwinist state would be a facist state and thank heaven that we don't have to live in one. What he does not say is the basis he has for condemning a society, like Nazi Germany, that does live in one. The basis of morality is the same in both. The only difference one can make is not in the way things OUGHT to be but the way things COULD have been. Only difference is which survives better, which outcompetes the other. Imagine if Hitler had built the bomb first...)

OK, a lot of people seem to be getting the idea that Mr. Edmondson is responsible for the 3-D cell stuff in Expelled. All indications so far are that he is not. There is a decent circumstantial case for his being the creator of the "Beware the Believers" rap parody that appeared on YouTube. I feel a bit responsible for the misconception, since I'm the one who put forward the idea that he could be the "Dick to the Dawk to the Ph.D" guy. I DO NOT think he had anything to do with the plagiarized simulacrum of the XVIVO animation, because there is no good, or really, any, evidence that he was. Not even a really bad circumstantial case can be made. What is more is that he has himself said he was not involved. See ERV's blog for more:

Where is the World is Mike Edmondson?

So please: unless you actually have some decent evidence for it, stop conflating Mr. Edmondson with the as-yet-unknown plagiarizing entity, which may very well not be a single individual. Alright? Thanks.

As a final note, let me say that what I am doing has a logical connection with what Stein and Mathis are saying. Maybe Hitler wasn't influenced by Darwinism. That's not the point. A /future/ Hitler may read Dawkins writings and say,

'you know what, there is no transcendent morality, and since it would make me quite happy to propogate my genes, kill my competitors, and establish my morality, I think I will do this. This would be Darwinism in action, it is the law of nature. And if Darwinism is the only thing that established the idea of the status quo morality anyway, and the status quo morality is only being held up by convention since establishment, there is no transcendent reason why I can't supplant it. I will use Darwinism to oust that morality and instate my own, like species oust other species in the struggle for life. I'm following a Darwinian imperative, the law of the jungle, and it will make me happy to do so and unless someone has the strenght and might to stop me, no one is in a position to say I am wrong.'

That brand of Darwinism--the logically necessary one following Dawins observations--Would and Could be a NECESSARY AND SUFFICIENT factor for the rise of another Hitler. Incidentally, that is just what the kids who shot up Columbine bought into, at least according to this site...http://news.yahoo.com/s/usnw/20080411/pl_usnw/expelled__go_to_the_movie…

If this is the case, then at least a part of Expelled is right in noting the POTENTIALLY DANGEROUS consequences of embracing an acid Darwinism that is being proposed.

Thanks for the feedback people, I've got to run and catch a flight, so I can't respond right now. But gotta quickly try to set "person" straight:

Person: Your "what if" argument is thoroughly unconvincing, and also irrelevant. What if someone reads Martin Luther and decides that Jews are evil and should be eliminated? What if someone reads the Old Testament and gets the idea that Yahweh regularly tells people to go on mass killing sprees -- and then happens to hear some voices in his head telling him whom to kill?

What if someone accepts Mill's utilitarianism and believes that overall pleasure can be maximized by reducing the worlds population (with a grand killing spree)? What if someone believes that it's OK to kill people because they're just going to go to eternal heaven or hell anyway, so what does a few decades of life matter when we're talking about eternity.

The point is that all of these what if's are irrelevant -- and so is yours. It does not follow from Dawkins' hard determinism that one gets a green light to act immorally, nor does it follow that we can't prevent atrocities.

Hey,

Ya wanna see Expelled in the city of Chicago? Well you can't! Look it up on Moviefone, and you'll find there is not a single theatre in the city of Chicago showing this movie. Not even an inner-ring suburb.

Imagine...1100 theatres, and you can't get _one_ inside the biggest city in the midwest to show it. San Francisco has one (!!!! I don't get this); new york city has 0. I'm sorry, but if you're going to be a big-boy movie, you have to at least to pretend to play the major markets. I know some people won't be surprised, but this shows that they don't have the stones to risk any sort of failure or bad PR.

They're just as scared of my city as they are of PZ.

Oh, and "Person": If if you were right about the consequences of accepting determinism (and I emphasize again that you're not right), it still would be a fallacy of reasoning to infer that determinism is therefore false. All you could say is that you wished it weren't true. Consider the argument that people might all behave better around Christmas time if they actually believed in Santa.

Also, there are several religions (e.g. Calvinism) that accept determinism too, and I'm not sure I see how that's any different from what you impute to biological determinism. Consider this "what if": What if someone believes that it's predetermined who will go to heaven and who'll go to hell (as I say, Calvinists, and I think some others do accept this). Well, if someone decides he's not on the chosen list, then we've got the next Hitler.

Or, think about someone who thinks she's justified by faith, not works. She figures she's got faith, so she can do whatever she wants. So she starts killing people

'you know what, there is no transcendent morality, and since it would make me quite happy to propogate my genes, kill my competitors, and establish my morality, I think I will do this. This would be Darwinism in action, it is the law of nature. And if Darwinism is the only thing that established the idea of the status quo morality anyway, and the status quo morality is only being held up by convention since establishment, there is no transcendent reason why I can't supplant it. I will use Darwinism to oust that morality and instate my own, like species oust other species in the struggle for life. I'm following a Darwinian imperative, the law of the jungle, and it will make me happy to do so and unless someone has the strenght and might to stop me, no one is in a position to say I am wrong.'

Funny thing here, you have just described the actions of most tyrants and many monarchs through out history. And guess what guess what, they did it with no garbled idea of what Charles Darwin nor Richard Dawkins has to say. Human brutality is something we all have to deal with, it is part of who we are as a species.

But pointing at misrepresentations of writing as the blame or potential blame for brutal acts does nothing to solve them.

As a side note, Adolph Hitler did not reproduce. There is doubt he ever had sex. Guess he did not do his Darwinian job.

And an other side note, the idea of the law of the jungle, the strong surviving is the idea of Herbert Spencer. Strength does not necessarily mean survival. It is more about have a niche in an ecosystem and have a talent or talents that allows for survival there. In other word, please know what you are talking about. You have not shown that.

person said "A /future/ Hitler may read Dawkins writings and say "

Or they may not. Read it or say that. Until and if The Ghost Of Hitler Past From The Future does, you have no basis to claim that what Dawkins wrote is dangerous. And even in the unlikely event this happens, you're still a long way from proving, in the non-mathematical sense, that claim. You're of course perfectly free to claim it's "POTENTIALLY DANGEROUS", but then so is a butter knife, which has the additional advantage of being a rather more credible threat in the "wrong hands". I think the most likely danger it poses is that if someone printed it out, they might get a paper cut. But that's really more the hypothetical paper's fault.

A 'person" is a person, no matter how small-minded, folks.

This 'person' has also trolled the same rehashed "science sanctions immorality" bullshit at Panda's Thumb.

On man's opinion here, of the value = 0 type: he's a stupid fuckwit, softselling the same shit as every Xian jerk by beginning with an initial pretense of politeness.

Before responding to this obvious nonsense, could you notice that it serves no purpose save to inflate 'person's absurd sense of moral/intellectual vanity? Why feed it, when he (and it IS a man) has as much insight to offer us as Larry F.? Why feed it, when he states he will only enter into debate with PZ himself, then bites as soon as his manured chum hits the water?

It's your time, but listening to Abba on YouTube would provide deeper intellectual and moral stimulation.

It just occurred to me: The guy singing on the Machine video is a fake: Dawkins would have said: Give it to'em P-Zed, hit these *bleeps* with the chorus. (Not "PZ".) It's a fake!

I think that physicalist is right and wrong. What if someone actually accepts the ideology of fundamentalist Islam? Those ideas will logically lead to bad consequences. What if someone accepts Marxism? Well those will lead to bad consequences too. Neitche's uberman idea and the right to power is in the same boat. These are particular ideas that people HAVE bought into, and with wicked results.

The implications of Dawkins' Darwinism are in the same boat. Dawkins is arguing to remove the concept of moral responsibilty on the basis that we are biologically hard-wired. Sure, WE CAN ACT TO PREVENT PEOPLE FROM DOING WHAT WE BELIEVE IS EVIL, but what we cannot say is that OUR 'EVIL' IS THE REAL 'EVIL' and their version of evil is the 'FALSE EVIL' because evil and good and the moral apparatus that we make these judgment calls with IS A CONTINGENT PROPERTY OF BIOLOGICAL EVOLUTION. It is not necessary or transcendent...it was just a set of rules that people liked and worked in context. Well, if that all that morality is...and that is exactly what Darwinism, which seeks to account morality in terms of material function and evolutionary causation, says it is...then all moralities are on equal playing field and all you can say is that they are different adaptations, like different shapes of teeth or claws or hands. There is nothing more special or necessary or obligatory about my sense of right and wrong than my pinky toe. In this case choosing one morality over another is like choosing to chew on the left as opposed to the right. There is no outside absolute morality that can be used to decide between competing biologically-dervied contingent moralities, since Darwinism stipulates that 'all' morality is biologically-derived contingent morality.

If you don't think that someone can use this biological idea to say that his/her warped version of morality was on equal footing and equally justifiable as the common moral set (love your neighbor as yourself, etc), then I do not know what to say. I can see how someone could use Dawkins to say that nothing is transcendently wrong in killing millions, because, well Biology says that there is nothing to morality more than what survives survives. If a dictator's morality wins, then that's just the way things work and there is nothing 'wrong' with it, since, again, his morality has survived. At any rate, even if there were some transcendent morality (which Dawkins evolution erodes), one could excuse oneself by saying, 'hey, I had no choice in the matter. Polar bears eat their young. I killed Jews. Bacteria propogate. It's all the same.'

Maybe my logic is illusory, but I can see how this could lead one to justify evil actions.

For Sioux Laris:

Besides your nonobliging comment that I am a 'stupid fuckwit, softselling the same shit as every Xian jerk by beginning with an initial pretense of politeness' which combines in one breath a sweeping generalization of the Christian community and suggesting that my politeness is not genuine, I am curious about something. How is it that you gather I am a man? Was it something I said? Just curious about your method of knowing.

Listen, if I am irritating you, then I am sorry. I say it sincerely. If you wish me to go I shall leave. I'm sorry if all the commenters gave me logic that I didn't quite see or understand. I do say that I am not disingenuous when I say that I believe what I am saying is logical, so if it is not, the fault is with my intelligence or my ability to read. Sorry that I upset you and so many other people. I appreciate everyone's input.

#127,

First off, I'm not clear as to the distinction you're making -- "choice" makes no sense without some sort of notion of free will, regardless of how pretentiously it is conceptualized.

Sure it does; there are plenty of entities we describe as making "choices" and "decisions," without assuming that they possess free will. Computer programs, for instance, and nonliving organisms with simple or nonexistent nervous systems.

Second, the problem with Dawkins' argument is that it undercuts itself regardless of how one does conceptualize free will. Choice is either available to all (in which case lawbreakers do make a choice), or it isn't (in which case we have no more choice in how we treat lawbreakers than they do in breaking the law).

Bad already provided a straightforward resolution of that problem. Even if our treatment of lawbreakers is completely determined by prior factors, Dawkins' publishing his argument is one of those factors. You don't need the concept of "choice" to justify trying to change other people's behavior through reasoned argument; you can simply think of it as one technique for "reprogramming" them.

Humans may be machines, but they're social machines, and they modify their behavior based on that of their fellows. Showing people your essay on the morality of punishment is just as workable a method for altering their behavior as any other.

If one is a dualist, one can believe that our decisions are not bound by physical processes, and thus are not determined.

Except that the latter doesn't follow from the former. Our decisions would still be bound by something, unless they were random--and of course physical processes may involve randomness as well.

A non-physical soul would still be a machine driven by some mixture of necessity and chance; it would just be an ethereal machine.

To be clear, I think that's right -- we are essentially machines, just like every other physical object in the universe. But that does make accounting for the illusion of free will really hard to explain, and I don't think that anyone has provided a satisfactory solution.

I think there's been quite a satisfactory solution since Turing or so. As machines, we have no way to perfectly simulate our own behavior which is faster than simply acting it out. Therefore, our behavior must always, to some degree, come as a surprise to us, even if a wiser and faster-thinking being could have predicted it in advance.

We have the illusion of free will because the alternative--correctly predicting the outcome of every choice we make before we make it--is simply impossible.

person,

There is nothing more special or necessary or obligatory about my sense of right and wrong than my pinky toe. In this case choosing one morality over another is like choosing to chew on the left as opposed to the right. There is no outside absolute morality that can be used to decide between competing biologically-dervied contingent moralities, since Darwinism stipulates that 'all' morality is biologically-derived contingent morality.

Why do you continue to focus on "Darwinism"? Science in general gives us assorted possible explanations for the moral spectrum found in humans. Some of these explanations are evolutionary. Others are neurological. Others are sociological. All of them are essentially contingent; none of them lend support to the idea of an "outside absolute morality."

In fact, nothing in science could lend support to the idea of such a morality. Even if it could be proven without a shadow of a doubt that a Great Designer attempted to program our brains with a moral code which matches its own--so what? That wouldn't make the code "special" or "absolute;" it would just be the one which happens to belong to a particularly powerful and intelligent being. The Designer couldn't dictate moral truths any more than could a flying Stephen Hawking with laser vision.

And the Designer-given code obviously couldn't be "necessary" or "obligatory," since it's been cheerfully ignored by, e.g., tigers and Adolf Hitler, without their brains spontaneously combusting. (Unless you think, as Hitler did, that his moral code is the God-given one, in which case all of us anti-Hitler folks are ignoring it.)

You can't get an ought from an is; evolutionary theory's hardly special in that regard.

You might want to look up the Euthyphro dilemma, incidentally.

Anton Mates:
"...any more than could a flying Stephen Hawking with laser vision."

I might be tempted to go along with the moral pronouncements of the Flying Laser Hawking, just because he'd be so damn cool. Of course, that'd be a purely personal, umm, choice.

MORALITY from evolution:

Yes, morality wins if its proponents win the struggle. But this tends towards a Golden Rule morality. Consider: Hitler's morality is, from his view, the correct one. But to all others it is abhorrent, and even though they subscribe to many different moral views, because theirs are less repugnant, to each other, than that of Hitler, they will band together to defeat Hitler. Any morality which attempts to increase adaption by exhorting its followers to destroy all others will be destroyed as a matter of expediency, whereas any morality with promotes love and cooperation will be adaptive in the long run, merely because very few people are offended by it. This is why morality tends towards the Golden Rule with even the slightest modicum of organised society. In a state of nature, however, the Iron Rule (do unto others before they do unto you) is king. Once a group forms which cooperates to enact the Iron Rule on all others, they will tend towards the Golden Rule as a matter of social cohesion amongst themselves. When other groups form as a defence against this group, they will tend towards the Golden Rule between groups, to avoid being the target of preemptive genocide.

Funny thing. The "theater locator" on the expelled web site is completely broken. I tried
"zip code within 25 miles of 60150" and got two distant theaters (I think one of which is definitely more than 25 miles away). But "zip code within 50 miles of 60150" and the top entry is for zip code 60150 which didn't show up in the first case and there are several others that I know are definitely within 25 miles of the zip. Sadly, there are a couple theaters that I tend to frequent in this longer list. We tend to be frequent movie goers, though for various reasons we haven't been in the last two weeks, but I don't remember seeing promo posters for the movie so I'm just hoping that the inclusion in the list is "wishful thinking" on the part of Expelled.

Is it a coincidence, or evidence of intelligent design, that the X in the expelled logo resembles a flaming crucifix?

Bringing a server to its knees. The computational equivalent of drinking a pub dry :)

To backtrack a bit, Person (#32), you state that the Bible backs free will. However, if you read the Old Testament, you will find several places where "God hardens the hearts" of persons so they won't do the right thing - so that he can then punish them or tell other people to punish them. That explicitly states that the offenders were not acting of their own free will but being manipulated as puppets by God so that he could then unleash his hateful and draconian punishments. Am objective observer would call that sadistic-- like an evil parent who relishes giving the kids some leeway and then coming down on them like a ton of bricks.

Sioux Laris:

It's your time, but listening to Abba on YouTube would provide deeper intellectual and moral stimulation.

This one goes out to all the Dembski fans out there....

ABBA:

My my, at Waterloo Napoleon did surrender
Oh yeah, and I have met my destiny in quite a similar way
The history book on the shelf
Is always repeating itself

Waterloo - I was defeated, you won the war
Waterloo - promise to love you for ever more
Waterloo - couldn't escape if I wanted to
Waterloo - knowing my fate is to be with you
Waterloo - finally facing my Waterloo

My my, I tried to hold you back but you were stronger
Oh yeah, and now it seems my only chance is giving up the fight
And how could I ever refuse
I feel like I win when I lose

Waterloo - I was defeated, you won the war
Waterloo - promise to love you for ever more
Waterloo - couldn't escape if I wanted to
Waterloo - knowing my fate is to be with you

And how could I ever refuse
I feel like I win when I lose

Waterloo - I was defeated, you won the war
Waterloo - promise to love you for ever more
Waterloo - couldn't escape if I wanted to
Waterloo - knowing my fate is to be with you
Waterloo - finally facing my Waterloo

Dawkins would have said: Give it to'em P-Zed, hit these *bleeps* with the chorus. (Not "PZ".)

No kidding. He wouldn't be making "dollahs" either. :-D

I clicked on that video while it still only had about 200 views. Someone must have posted the link a very short time after the video was posted. How did they know about it?

#32, "person"

The quote from Dawkins is a question. First "But doesn't ... ?", and then a discussion which explains the content of the question.

Is this question meant as an assertion by Dawkins? - I believe it is rather merely something that Dawkins brings up as a point of discussion. Like intellectuals and scientists often do.

Where does the Bible *ever* say that we have free will?

Also, person, if you want to blame someone for saying that we don't have free will, why don't you call on B.F. Skinner?

And now I'll shut up, having wandered far from "Expelled" and responded to what is essentially trolling, since apparently you've asked this question elesewhere and been thoroughly answered. I don't think it's fair to ask what we think Dawkins was thinking.

Obligatory Expelled note: Evolution is no more to be blamed for evil dictators like Hitler than gravity is to be blamed for some guy throwing his children off an overpass to spite their mother.

Bringing a server to its knees. The computational equivalent of drinking a pub dry :)

Maybe the server should impose a limit on thread size.

Maybe Hitler wasn't influenced by Darwinism. That's not the point. A /future/ Hitler may read Dawkins writings and say, 'you know what, there is no transcendent morality, and since it would make me quite happy to propogate my genes, kill my competitors, and establish my
morality, I think I will do this.

So every time someone says "There is no transcendental morality", a dictator gets his moustache. Well guess what? There is no transcendental morality. OMG, I excused Hitler! Here's for Stalin, Mao and all the rest:

There is no transcendental morality.
There is no transcendental morality.
There is no transcendental morality.
There is no transcendental morality.
There is no transcendental morality.
There is no transcendental morality.

(Your adding Darwinism to the mix is just a red herring. You could similarly implicate relativity: what if there's a future dictator that reads this, and decides it would be fun to blow people to bits with atomic weapons?)

I get that you really really want there to be a transcendent morality, but that doesn't make it so. It's really an incoherent concept since if it comes from God, where does he get his morality, etc?

person #130 wrote:

If morality itself is an adaptive, changing, CONTINGENT biological character, then all one can describe is the story of what it IS or how it came to BE; one cannot say how it OUGHT to be, how Hitler's and Pol Pot's morality OUGHT to have looked, because that would require a transcendent moral code and the whole argument is that morality is not transcendent.

Ah, but it's precisely because it was formed through the contingencies of evolution, that morality is transcendent. Like free will and responsibility, it is "transcendent" in the only sense worth having.

One doesn't get 'ought' from an 'is' -- but you don't get it from an 'isn't' either. Human morality is specific to how humans evolved. A transcendent morality which is disconnected from a particular species is not somehow better or above, it's outside -- and therefore useless. A disconnected God judging humans by non-human standards would be in a situation then similar to your human judging the behavior of lions by human standards. God's standards could literally be "anything at all." And, as Anton Mates points out in #143, such a code would not suddenly become obligatory either. Fortunately. If we don't recognize it as our own, why would we care? Why ought we?

Where does an 'ought' come from? It comes from an 'if... then.' IF you want to get along with others, THEN you ought to do X. Does X work? That can be tested. In fact, per wazza in #145, it has been tested -- by evolution. Because of the systematic process of using what "works," the Golden Rule itself has been embedded into human nature, and every society, in one form or another. Treat similar things in a similar way: if the other person is "like you," then treat them as you would want to be treated -- IF you want to be fair. IF you want to get along with others.

Which others? Answering that question is where the real, important meaning of the concept of "transcendent morality" comes in. Not a morality that transcends the species, but a morality that transcends the parochial and insignificant differences within the species. An "outside absolute morality" is one that can be recognized and accepted by all reasonable people who are committed to fairness and agreed on the facts of the matter. It turns the outsider into an insider, and now includes everyone.

When the in-group is humanity itself, that's when morality transcends the individual, and the culture. You get your justification for saying the Nazis were wrong, and did not do what they should. You get your universal Ought from a common, intersubjective, inter-cultural "if... then." If you want to strive for what all people recognize as Good, then you will find your commonalities.

And if that can't be done -- if there are no commonalities when it comes to what humans think of as "good" -- then you've lost God, too.

Bottom line, if you look at where societies differ on morality, it's not because there are basic differences on the concepts of right and wrong, or fair and unfair, or good and evil. It's different views of the facts which frame the moral judgments.

Hitler was wrong because the Jews were NOT like an evil cancer on their society, an objective and dissimilar out-group. The facts were otherwise, and he and his pseudoscience was bucking against reality. He was wrong because they were part of his in-group.

If the Jews really had been the moral equivalent of the Orcs in Lord of the Rings -- well, then we'd have had a different situation.

JRD being stupid again:

We don't just hand over our citizens (or refugees) to countries with Draconian, regressive justice systems like the US.

Extradition from Canada to the United States

Extradition between Canada and the United States is governed by the 1976 treaty between the two nations.[14] This treaty has been amended by a supplementary treaty signed in 1988 and enacted in 1991, which replaced the typical "laundry list" of extraditable offenses common to older treaties with the more contemporary "dual criminality clause."[15] Now, an extraditable offense is defined as "an offense punishable by the laws of both Contracting Parties by imprisonment or other form of detention for a term exceeding one year or any greater punishment."[16]

Article 6 of the treaty is death penalty clause, stating that "when the offense for which extradition is requested is punishable by death under the laws of the requesting State and the laws of the requested State do not permit such punishment for that offense, extradition may be refused unless the requesting State provides such assurances as the requested State considers sufficient that the death penalty shall not be imposed, or, if imposed, shall not be executed."[17]

There is an extradition treaty between the USA and Canada. Just the law copied above. There are any number of Canadians in US jails and vice versa. Living in Canada, committing crimes in the USA and expecting sanctuary in Canada doesn't work. Neither country has any interest in letting criminals operate cross borders and get away with it.

Mass murders like Ng are hard extradite not because Canada likes mass murderers but because they don't have a death penalty and some US states do. Even Canadians won't let mass murderers wander around free. Or do they? Maybe I'm out of step with the latest in Canadian culture here.

Edmondson could be extradited if the US wants him and can show probable cause. Just the law and no amount of magical thinking is going to change that.

JRD hating America:

Get your USA-centric/imperialistic head out of your ass.

Hmmm, a Canadian who hates America and Americans. Probably not that uncommon. You do realize that PZ Myers and most of the people on this blog are Americans? So find a Canadian anti-American blog to rant and rave on and stay on your side of the border and freeze all winter. As long as you don't commit crimes extradictable to the USA, no one will force you to come here.

I realize I'm late to the party (and to "person"'s thread-hijack), but this has been stuck in my craw. As Stanton mentions in #108, person's comments are not what they purport to be. Yes, I recognize a question troll when I see one. But since this question apparently goes to one of the central tenets of "Expelled: plagiarism allowed", it caught my attention.

The writer makes an argument that sounds similar to the intelligence that's behind ID in the first place. S/he presents an argument that hints at a problem with a well-accepted line of thought - sometimes using an argument that has some legitimacy. For example, are there "holes" in our understanding of evolutionary mechanisms? Of course there are; that's why we have biologists.

But then the fallacy comes in: if the conventional understanding of something is less than 100% complete, then my fringe "theory" must be legitimate. Note the defining characteristic of this argument: some proof may be offered for the portion that casts fear, uncertainty, and doubt; but none is attached to the "alternative" proposal.

In this case, the legitimate question is posed: does it follow from Dawkins' (lightly quotemined) assertion that "Assigning blame and responsibility" may be "a means of short-cutting a truer analysis of what is going on in the world in which we have to live" that perhaps Corporal Hitler may not be single-handedly responsible for the Holocaust? I think that an argument can be made for that premise.

One man did not do this single-handedly. Many complicit forces were at work, of course: short-sighted Western policies following the first War, old-fashioned greed, power-hungry immoral and amoral henchmen, a pope with a blind eye, and a populace with limited access to information about their own government's actions. Was science involved? I've heard it argued that some commercial manufacturers of chemical toxins might share some blame, but my understanding is that the eminent biologists at the time had issues like polio and syphilis to hold their attention.

So back to the premise of of #32 - "The whole thrust of EXPELLED is shift the blame of the Holocaust from Hitler to Darwinism and the brute facts of nature. But isn't this what Richard Dawkins is doing as well?" The writer has taken a legitimate question and added non sequitur references to "Darwinism" for effect. More than just Hitler to blame for the Holocaust? Yes. Their far-fetched connection? No.

So, to plagiarize Dan Savage, ETMFA.

I realize I'm late to the party (and to "person"'s thread-hijack), but this has been stuck in my craw. As Stanton mentions in #108, person's comments are not what they purport to be. Yes, I recognize a question troll when I see one. But since this question apparently goes to one of the central tenets of "Expelled: plagiarism allowed", it caught my attention.

The writer makes an argument that sounds similar to the intelligence that's behind ID in the first place. S/he presents an argument that hints at a problem with a well-accepted line of thought - sometimes using an argument that has some legitimacy. For example, are there "holes" in our understanding of evolutionary mechanisms? Of course there are; that's why we have biologists.

But then the fallacy comes in: if the conventional understanding of something is less than 100% complete, then my fringe "theory" must be legitimate. Note the defining characteristic of this argument: some proof may be offered for the portion that casts fear, uncertainty, and doubt; but none is attached to the "alternative" proposal.

In this case, the legitimate question is posed: does it follow from Dawkins' (lightly quotemined) assertion that "Assigning blame and responsibility" may be "a means of short-cutting a truer analysis of what is going on in the world in which we have to live" that perhaps Corporal Hitler may not be single-handedly responsible for the Holocaust? I think that an argument can be made for that premise.

One man did not do this single-handedly. Many complicit forces were at work, of course: short-sighted Western policies following the first War, old-fashioned greed, power-hungry immoral and amoral henchmen, a pope with a blind eye, and a populace with limited access to information about their own government's actions. Was science involved? I've heard it argued that some commercial manufacturers of chemical toxins might share some blame, but my understanding is that the eminent biologists at the time had issues like polio and syphilis to hold their attention.

So back to the premise of of #32 - "The whole thrust of EXPELLED is shift the blame of the Holocaust from Hitler to Darwinism and the brute facts of nature. But isn't this what Richard Dawkins is doing as well?" The writer has taken a legitimate question and added non sequitur references to "Darwinism" for effect. More than just Hitler to blame for the Holocaust? Yes. Their far-fetched connection? No.

So, to plagiarize Dan Savage, ETMFA.

raven:
"Edmondson could be extradited if the US wants him and can show probable cause. Just the law and no amount of magical thinking is going to change that."

*sigh*

Didn't I just ask people nicely to stop doing that?

OK, look:

Edmondson != Plagiarist of Cell Video until proven otherwise.

Thus, he's unlikely to be extradited for anything, and it's not fair to the guy to speak as if he is, or to speak about him in the same context as someone like Ng.

raven:
"Edmondson could be extradited if the US wants him and can show probable cause. Just the law and no amount of magical thinking is going to change that."

*sigh*

Didn't I just ask people nicely to stop doing that?

OK, look:

Edmondson != Plagiarist of Cell Video until proven otherwise.

Thus, he's unlikely to be extradited for anything, and it's not fair to the guy to speak as if he is, or to speak about him in the same context as someone like Ng.

Sorry about the double post. The server just freaked out and gave me a 500 error, so I resubmitted.

Somebody just put Expelled posters up all over my campus at the College of Charleston. They show Ben Stein in shorts and a suit jacket looking like Angus Young of AC/DC in a lame attempt to appeal to students. Has this happened on anybody else's campus?
BTW, I definitely have defaced or torn down any of the posters - scouts honor.

TS Howard:

Edmondson != Plagiarist of Cell Video until proven otherwise.

Thus, he's unlikely to be extradited for anything, and it's not fair to the guy to speak as if he is, or to speak about him in the same context as someone like Ng.

1. Howard, you are wrong. This isn't plagiarism, it is copyright infringement. It is a serious crime these days due to revisions in the US law, the Millennium Digital copyright act. A lot of valuable property is digital. Think, Bill Gates and Microsoft for example. Gates is very rich not because he makes large material objects but because MS develops and sells software. Read the law, I reviewed a summary and even posted a source. It is both a civil and criminal offense. If Edmondson did it, he could be charged with a criminal offense. In fact he might be.

2. Edmondson is innocent until proven guilty. He has the right to remain silent and engage the services of an attorney. If he didn't do it, he is and will remain a free man. I don't know myself, that is what lawyers, cops, and judges are for. Neither do you. Or do you? Hmmm, well if you do, there are a few lawyers and maybe a prosecutor who would like to talk to you. Maybe there is a reward for information.

3. Where did I call Edmondson a mass murderer? I didn't, you are just being a troll. I also do not believe that copyright infringement is a death penalty offense. He will get free food and medical care in a US jail and they will even let him out when his time is served. Despite JRD, the Canadian bigot, the USA isn't (yet) a totalitarian state.

My last line should read "have NOT defaced or torn..."
I tried to make a joke and fucked it up

Raven: I think the point was, we should refrain from discussing E******* in this context for now, since it looks likely that E******* had nothing to do with the infringement. Read the thread at ERV.

Besides, I don't think the method of choice for the US government and entertainment lobbies is to demand extradition of copyright violators, but to pressure the other governments to take action.

Raven-tard,

I didn't claim there wasn't an extradition treaty (BTW, glad to see you finally learned to spell it correctly...there is hope), I stated it was NOT all encompassing. If you think (if that's possible) that someone would be extradited for a trivial civil matter, especially if that citizen faced punishment in great excess of what Canadian law would allow, you're even more clueless than I thought.

Living in Canada, committing crimes in the USA and expecting sanctuary in Canada doesn't work.

Nice try tard, but you have heard of the "Interwebs" haven't you? You do know someone can create works in one country and then send them anywhere? Why are you assuming the accused was IN the US when the alleged work was performed?
Also, about committing alleged crimes in the US and then seeking refuge in Canada....you have heard about the many thousands of conscientious freedom seekers that sought and obtained refuge in Canada during the Vietnam invasion, haven't you? (or was that not covered in a South Park episode?)

Once again leaving no doubt of his ignorance, Raven spewed,

Maybe I'm out of step with the latest in Canadian culture

No, that's not it; it's that you're just dumb. A condition I believe that in your case is permanent.

You do realize that PZ Myers and most of the people on this blog are Americans? So find a Canadian anti-American blog to rant and rave on

Ah yes, the unabashed flag waving, jingoism...were you humming the anthem and dreaming of more nations to invade when you wrote that?

...and stay on your side of the border and freeze all winter.

See, my assertion that the tard relies on South Park for his information is supported (BTW, if either Ric Mercer or Jay Leno approaches you for an interview, please comply...I wouldn't want others to miss the comedy).

Re #159 Sastra. That's deep stuff. Do you know of a fuller treatment of these ideas anywhere (by you or anyone else)?

A /future/ Hitler may read Dawkins

Frankly, I'd be more concerned about a future Hitler reading Mein Kampf.

It's also worth noting that Dawkins' piece in The Edge was just that: one of many answers to the question, "What is your dangerous idea?" and not necessarily an expression of a foundational belief. The writers who contributed to that series were offering outside-the-box, speculative views on a variety of topics.

That said, Person's concerns are valid, and have been addressed from multiple points of view. If the world hadn't fought back against Hitler (and those of his ilk), then I'd be worried.

As far as Dawkins' "dangerous idea" goes, I wonder how he feels about A Clockwork Orange?

Psychopharmacology has come a long way in a short time in offering effective solutions to certain chemical imbalances in our wetware, but there are many psychological issues that are still best addressed by reconfiguring the mind through experiential processes which are more akin to education than to engineering. Personally, I'm more inclined to let someone off the hook for anti-social behavior (for reasons similar to those proposed by Dawkins) than I am to let them off the hook for refusing to take steps to alter that behavior. I realize the point of view behind this inclination regresses to what Dawkins was getting at, but my world is a fuzzy, shaded world: for every behavior there's a continuum, along which every person lies, of how capable a person is of recognizing and addressing the positive and negative aspects of that behavior.

My own mental disorder compels me to try to compose and post ideas like this when I'm only half awake. I'm sure I'll regret it later. o_O

Raven burped,

I don't know myself, that is what lawyers, cops, and judges are for.

That's the first intelligent thing you've said about the matter so far. Maybe you are capable of learning.

But then, hope was lost once more when Raven blathered:

.... I also do not believe that copyright infringement is a death penalty offense. He will get free food and medical care in a US jail and they will even let him out when his time is served.

Fuck....you have the conditions of his jail sentence already planned out. BTW, were you ever stationed in Guantanamo Bay or Abu Ghraib?

Nick Gotts #171:

I was approaching ethics from the secular humanist perspective -- which sees morality as similar in some ways to science, in that we -- as a unified species -- start with reason and good will, search for what can gain the most consensus, test ideas by their consequences, and work towards improvement, not perfection. Build from the bottom-up, as opposed to top-down.

I'm trying to think of a particular work to recommend. Kurtz is good, but off the top of my head I think I'd suggest Richard Carrier's Sense and Goodness Without God. He's nothing if not thorough.

I am late to the game, but I just want to add a few remarks to the Physicalists' question about proving a negative. Basically, something that doesn't exist will not leave an "evidential wake". So instead of proving it with evidence you have to infer it from a lack of evidence.

This is along the lines of Sastra's unicorn example:

Prove there aren't any pink crows.

It's harder than it seems. Assuming we can all decide what crows and pink are, you have to find every crow in existence and verify that it isn't pink. That's not really a reasonable task, so you modify your statement to something like "only black and brown crows have ever been found".

Something like that.

Further, the examples you gave:

(a) CSI team proves that Jones wasn't killed by being stabbed in the heart (no hole in the chest, poison in the blood stream).

(b) Relativity theory proved that there is no ether.

(I'm disregarding C because I don't really know what you mean by it.)

In these examples, we (1)failed to find the evidence for the theories and (2) Found theories that worked better. In both cases, there are a very limited number of places to look so not finding it is is a bigger deal than say, not finding pink crows in Central Park would be. But essentially, in both cases you infer from the lack of evidence that a theory was incorrect.

Also, in the first case (the "not-stabbing") they proved it to be a not-anything-but-poison. That's not proving a negative, it's proving a positive and in doing so necessarily excluding all other causes. They were looking for evidence of anything that might cause death and found it. That's not really proving a negative, except incidentally.

Another way to put it is that statements like "There is no god" or "There are no pink crows" or "There is no ether" and "There is no stab wound" aren't theories: they are conclusions inferred from a lack of evidence. However, someone may yet find a pink crow, someone may develop a better theory of ether that turns out to work, and someone might yet find god, and perhaps even a needle thin stab wound will be found on the body. How likely we think it is that those things might happen has to do with the confidence we attach to the statements.

Therefore, statements inferred from a lack of evidence to the contrary are implicitly provisional, and there is a degree of confidence that we can attach to them based on factors like how thoroughly we have investigated it, how many places we must look, and perhaps how dire the consequences are of being wrong. Pink crows aren't terribly important. Side effects of new medications are. Thus we are more cautious/less confident with one than the other.

Anyway, that's how I've reasoned it out for myself. Hope I didn't confuse things further or repeat anyone else's point overmuch.

Raven: I generally appreciate and enjoy your frequent postings on Pharyngula. But in this specific case your defensive singlemindedness is getting annoying. Please go read the ERV post Mr. Howard and I have now pointed out several times each. Your points might be valid if Edmondson is "The Dude," but it's shaping up that he probably isn't. A few other animators look to be the ones who can claim that dubious honor.

Heh. This was actually the Random Quote I got when I loaded this page:

The most decisive refutation of Adler's claim that 'negative existential propositions cannot be proven' is the fact that the claim that 'negative existential propositions cannot be proven' is itself a negative existential proposition. If negative existential propositions cannot be proven, then that implies there are no proofs for negative existential propositions. But the claim that 'there are no proofs for negative existential propositions' is itself a negative existential proposition.

Jeffery Jay Lowder, "Is a Sound Proof of the Non-Existence of a God Even Possible?"

Someone upthread stated, A person's a person no matter how small [minded]. LoL Well stated. Persons' argument is essentialy 'reading is bad, you get bad ideas and do bad things.

And now, being one of those Immoral Athiests (TM), I'm taking a long bike ride- training and raising money for a charitable organization, a choice made with and due to my limited delusery free will. Soft-determanism and hard reality- Love it!!

Person: Your intensely disingenuous "questions" posted to this site are anything but sincere inquiries, and your methodology is what gives you away. From your first post you have stuck top the creationist/ ID playbook of avoiding debate on the actual merits of evolution, and instead shoe-horning the conversation into a debate on the efficacy of a human being (not a scientific theory). By making the debate solely about Dawkins, you somehow think you can cast doubt upon the entire field of evolutionary biology.

This is more infrequently done with Darwin as its subject, but after beating that dead horse for years, apparently the "Beheists" and "Dembskians" (just to return the favor of grossly incorrect classification) realized the futility - and possibly the humor, but I wouldn't count on their recognition of that aspect of the situation, though it was certainly there for the rest of us - of anchoring their entire refutation of a theory with over 100 years of continuous examination and evidentiary support on the man who began evolutionary theory, willfully ignorant of the fact that even though he was the theory's metaphorical father, his understanding of the concept upon his death is looked at today as elementary at best. (Hence, when the intelligent design proponents use this argument - a most thoroughly textbook example of the Straw Man fallacy - most of us justifiably place your capacity for logic and science in the same elementary classification.)

And before you get back on here and try to run the same kind of game again, just be comfortable in the knowledge that our patience and willingness to exchange with you require that you first be sincere and truly open to our suggestions. And if you think this to be a silly and unnecessary claim, you should also realize that these are the exactly the same requisites that the Christian God demands before conferring forgiveness for your sins, so it shouldn't come across as an unreasonable request.

I hope you can eventually get to the point where you can truly open your mind to scientific evidence instead of sticking to the use of fallacious logic and semantic manipulation, all the while acting like a toddler who sticks his fingers in his ears whenever the boring old adult starts talking. But don't confuse my hoping that you do this with genuine concern, because if you do not, I will not be disappointed or even mildly bothered in the least, because you will simply be following in the footsteps of thousands of creationists/ intelligent design advocates before you. But don't wpoprry - I don't know anything about who you are, so rest assured that there are others who are looked upon as even more intellectually sinister as yourself. These scientists such as Behe, Dembski, and others of their ilk are even worse, because they necessarily fit into one of two categories due to the extensive education and access to scientific data.

These 'scientists' either:

a. truly believe in their religious convictions that God created the Earth and made humans in his own image. If this first one is true, then it forces them to look the other way when certain scientific data crosses their path. While some individuals may be able to get away with claiming ignorance or failing to understand such data, but these men are supposedly highly educated in the scientific method, and get no leeway to make such a specious claim.

OR

b. truly believe - a sincere, unequivocal belief - in their supposedly scientific claims that intelligent design is a viable science. This one is even more sinister in the scientific world, because it requires something worse than simple disregard for scientific data, namely an incompetence so exhaustive that it seriously calls their academic judgement into question for most reputable circles within science.

I can understand the first case, though I would never myself subscribe to such a feigned attitude towards science. I can see where such a viewpoint comes from without having to agree with it in the slightest. But the second case - which I doubt fits any of the leaders of the intelligent design movement, but their own actions are what open them up to this type of postulation - I cannot relate to in any way. If a scientists who fancies himself renowned in his field - as many of these individuals mistakenly do - can say with a straight face that a structure in nature is irreducibly complex, then he deserves no quarter in the scientific arena. Science is unequivocally contained and described by the simple description that explains it as the search for understanding our universe. And in the millennia-spanning history of that search, we have come to realize that the only sincere way we can hope to pursue this understanding is by observing and utilizing data from the natural world - in other words, we can only use the universe's own language in our attempt to describe it to ourselves.

Irreducible Complexity is the equivalent of a scientist looking at a structure in nature and not even trying to explain the mechanisms that brought about the structure in the first place. In this regard, intelligent design even falls behind Creationism's meager efficacy as a scientific explanation of the universe. While Creationism is purely religious in its explanation, it at least posits both an effect AND the agent responsible for effect, i.e. life began (the effect), and the responsible agent was the Christian God. While this explanation grossly (and intentionally) misses the entire point on evolution being an explanation of the PROGRESSION of life and not its origin (and therefore belongs in a church classroom, or at the very least a philosophy classroom, and definitely NOT in a science curriculum), it at least attempt to explain both necessary aspects. Intelligent design, however, simply presents the effect without even attempting to identify the responsible agent. So, inasmuch as we should endeavor to keep creationism out of the science classroom, we should try even harder to ensure that intelligent design - if it is to be brought up in academia - is placed in its rightful position as a philosophical debate.

And therein lies the indefensible dishonesty of the film Expelled. It claims that intelligent design is being blackballed from education by proponents of evolution, when what is actually taking place is that scientists are simply trying to ensure that it is discussed in the proper forum. There will always be those individuals who are so disgusted by the movement's dishonesty (and certainly not inexcusably so, considering the unscrupulous manner in which they have tried to distort the nature of their treatment in the academic community), but the obvious majority of scientists, one of the most credible and respected examples being Dr. Eugenie Scott. (In the situation of Richard Sternberg, she repeatedly advised the administrators of the Smithsonian Institute to judge him only on his valid scientific contributions in determining what to do about his inability to follow the protocols of the scientific community. This disobedience manifested itself famously in his refusal to return or renew some 50-plus very much overdue texts despite repeated exhortations from the Institute for him to do so, his mishandling of museum property (mostly form the crustacean archives) in which he kept specimens far past his allotted time during which he neglected the care of the specimens - with some found to be 10 to 12 percent low on preservative alcohol when finally returned to their rightful places, and especially his dishonesty in refusing to follow the guidelines of scientific requisites for publishing when he insisted on being the sole reviewer for Dr. Stephen Meyer's paper on intelligent design in a systematics journal despite the fact that he was not the best qualified even on his own organization's staff to do so and also despite the fact that he ignored the fact that four international scientists reviewed the paper and recommended it be rejected. Even in the face of all of the, Dr. Scott continually implored his colleagues and superiors to judge his contributions on his POSITIVE contributions to science and not his degradation of it.

Let me say - and I am not alone by any means in this statement - that if intelligent design ever compiles scientific observations and experimental results that suggest it should be a valid path of scientific effort and explanation, I will not hesitate to sincerely consider its precepts. But as it currently stands, all it actually does is hold up an occurrence in nature (we exist) without even addressing the agent responsible for that occurrence. (Though this is deliberate, because in response to objections to Creationism positing God in science, they simply removed the emphasis from God altogether and shifted their focus to "irreducibly complex structures." But in light of the points I mentioned above, it is hard for me to imagine a way in which they can alter the intelligent design movement to make it truly scientific. If I am proven wrong, it will not be the first time, and will definitely not be the last, but one thing is sure - I'm not holding my breath for that to happen.

#98 person: Dawkins is saying that it is all hardwired--and as such responsibility does not lie on the villain, but on the villains genes. Now, is 1. That proposition correct and 2. Is that proposition wicked if it is not?

Person admitted in a later post that Dawkins is not a genetic determinist, but let's assume the existence of a Snikwad Drahcir whose beliefs are those he falsely (and it would appear, dishonestly) attributed to Dawkins. The answers to person's questions are then "No", it is clearly false, and "No", because no proposition, even if false, can be wicked - that's just a category error, like asking whether democracy is purple. Attempting to persuade others of a proposition which you know or could readily know is false, and which you could readily predict to have bad consequences (e.g. "There is a global Jewish conspiracy to take over the world") can indeed be wicked. Determinism, even total genetic determinism of Snikwad Drahcir's type, although Drahcir could readily discover it to be false (e.g. by finding pairs of identical twins of which one became a career criminal and the other did not), is in my view not such an idea, because the consequence of many people coming to believe it are not sufficiently clear: your scenarios all involve long chains of "if a future Hitler..." and similar rubbish. For Drahcir to attempt to propagate his view would rightly expose him to ridicule and even censure, but to call it "wicked", when we have the "Expelled" crew cynically exploiting the deaths of millions to dishonestly smear evolutionists and MET, let alone when we have real and recent genocides to consider, would be absurd.

Re #174 Thanks Sastra, I'll follw that up. It was particularly the specific way you linked evolution and morality that struck me, suggesting further questions such as: would any alien technology-using species necessarily have reached a similar moral capacity?

Re #174 Thanks Sastra, I'll follw that up. It was particularly the specific way you linked evolution and morality that struck me, suggesting further questions such as: how far would any alien social and technology-using species necessarily have evolved a similar moral capacity? How does the cultural "evolution" of morality relate to this? There's a lot of interesting cross-cultural work going on right now in experimental economics (e.g. a recent paper on punishment in either Nature or Science, I think by Bowles, Gintis and others) which shows both important commonalities and important differences.

"...responsibility does not lie on the villain, but on the villains genes."

That's right! The choices the villain made were caused by his genes! And his experiences! And his personality! And his brain! And his thoughts! Pushing him around like a puppet...

He had nothing to do with it at all!

Anton:

there are plenty of entities we describe as making "choices" and "decisions," without assuming that they possess free will. Computer programs, for instance, and nonliving organisms with simple or nonexistent nervous systems.

Right, and we describe them in that way because we are anthropomorphizing such entities. There is nothing in a computer program that isn't in principle present in other complex physical systems, such as a river, but we don't say that a river "chooses" to flow in one channel rather than carving another. We don't say that clouds "decide" to rain. We can, as Dennett suggests, take an "intentional stance" towards all sorts of physical systems, and use the language of intentionality for such systems, but that's only because such language is handy shorthand -- it doesn't commit us to believing that such objects really make choices. Computers no more "decide" their output than mountains "decide" to have avalanches. Without a notion of actual free will, the term "choice" is merely analogical.

Even if our treatment of lawbreakers is completely determined by prior factors, Dawkins' publishing his argument is one of those factors. You don't need the concept of "choice" to justify trying to change other people's behavior through reasoned argument; you can simply think of it as one technique for "reprogramming" them.

"Trying" again implies free will -- you are choosing to attempt to achieve some end. Honestly, its turtles all the way down.

Humans may be machines, but they're social machines, and they modify their behavior based on that of their fellows. Showing people your essay on the morality of punishment is just as workable a method for altering their behavior as any other.

But if there is no free will, then you are not "choosing" to alter their behaviour -- you yourself are simply reacting as a physically determined system.

A non-physical soul would still be a machine driven by some mixture of necessity and chance; it would just be an ethereal machine.

That's an interesting argument, but one that I think most dualists would reject, since they view the soul as something like pure will, as nothing but that bit that is not subjected to necessity and chance. I don't know if that's even a coherent notion, and I'm sure such a thing doesn't exist, but I'm guessing that's the argument that would be made.

Raven, here is what I wrote, which you ought to know, since you quoted it:

Thus, he's unlikely to be extradited for anything, and it's not fair to the guy to speak as if he is, or to speak about him in the same context as someone like Ng.

Please note the absence of the words "mass" and "murderer". I was not saying that you were making the claim that he was. My point, rather, is that you've essentially decided (or, at least, the language you used makes it appear that you have) that he's guilty of the plagiarism And, yes, it is plagiarism. You're right too, though: it is also copyright infringement. The two are not mutually exclusive. I'll overlook the mini-lecture on how the concept of intellectual property applies to software, except to say, yes, I am aware of how Bill Gates was able to become such a noted philanthropist. Anyway, back to Edmondson: he's not even considered a viable suspect at this point, and should not be spoken of as such without good cause. It's very easy for stuff like that to mutate into "fact" and propagate, to harmful effect.

Now, as to the Ng thing, I apologize. You weren't the one to bring him up first, which I overlooked. I still think it's unfair to Edmondson to be associated with him, however weakly, even if it was just brought up as a case-study in Canadian extradition. That's all I was getting at there. The intent was not to attack you. Anyway, like I said, sorry about that.

raven:

you are just being a troll.

Umm, well: no. I'm not.

raven:

I also do not believe that copyright infringement is a death penalty offense.

What the...? In what possible way did I ever indicate that either you or I believed that? Although, if they ever do another Twilight Zone series, it might make a good episode:

Picture---if you will---the Information (pregnant pause) Superhighway: the digital wonder of the Computer Age...a thriving Babylon of bits....

raven:

Despite JRD, the Canadian bigot, the USA isn't (yet) a totalitarian state.

OK, well, take that up with JRD then. It's his position, not mine.

Sastra,

I always enjoy hearing creationists/ ID proponents try to twist Dawkins' words into an interpretation of tyrannically strict causal and physical determinism, rather than the emphasis he actually places on both neurological AND environmental factors (i.e. social determinism). They miss the point by missing the inference that things can be guided by determinism without taking personal choice out of human hands.

And it seems to me that they are missing the real argument here. When they imply that Dawkins meant that the "He" you mentioned in your last post ("He has nothing to do with it!"), they are bypassing the challenge I take from a great many of Dawkins' discussions on this subject, which is that it serves as a tangential reference to the discussion of what constitutes consciousness and our sense of identity.

For example, when you hear someone say "I grabbed a pen," what are they referring to with the word "I?" They could be referring to their hand, or even their physical body, but they also could be - and likely are - referring to something a little less anatomical. In any case, these creationists and ID advocates choose every time to take the conversations AWAY from science, not towards it.

In direct response to the idiot flick, Expelled No Intelligence Allowed, I've decided to stage my very first blog carnival where I will have loads of links to sites that exposes the lies being told in the film. See my latest post for details.

To Hell With Expelled Carnival

Person has selectively excerpted based on an extraordinarily shallow and unreflective reading of Dawkins's polemic. The piece as a whole is very interesting. Dawkins ends with "But I fear it is unlikely that I shall ever reach that level of enlightenment." In other words, Dawkins himself is unable to accept the arguments that he has advanced.

Some clarifications are needed....

1. I did not, as many of you suggest, classify Dawkins as a genetic determinist. He mentioned heredity, environment, genetics, etc, as factors determining behavior, and I believed I noted this. Here is what I said (and you can read it for yourself)...

" I for one am not trying to reduce Dawkins argument to merely Hitler=genes=genetic puppet. Dawkins mentions environment as well as physiology being determining factors. But he does it in a way to suggest that it is all deterministic, stimulus-response type stuff. What I am saying is that if this is so, then Hitler acting the way he did is no different than a bacteria growing in culture and interacting with antibiotics. One has a complicated stimulus, biological processing, and an induced response. Of course this makes nonsense of the idea of moral responsibility...If everything is material stimulus-response, then it is as nonsensical to say Hitler was evil for killing as it is to say that someone with DownSyndrome is evil for being mentally retarded. That DOES shift the blame from Hitler to evolution and nature."

Compare this to what Dawkins actually wrote...

"But doesn't a truly scientific, mechanistic view of the nervous system make nonsense of the very idea of responsibility, whether diminished or not? Any crime, however heinous, is in principle to be blamed on antecedent conditions acting through the accused's physiology, heredity and environment...Why do we not react in the same way to a defective man: a murderer, say, or a rapist? Why don't we laugh at a judge who punishes a criminal, just as heartily as we laugh at Basil Fawlty? Or at King Xerxes who, in 480 BC, sentenced the rough sea to 300 lashes for wrecking his bridge of ships? Isn't the murderer or the rapist just a machine with a defective component? Or a defective upbringing? Defective education? Defective genes?"

It is Dawkins who is arguing that murders are in the same class of objects as faulty cars. It is Dawkins who said punishing OR BLAMING them is like whipping the sea for wrecking ships. It follows that we CANNOT blame Hitler for his choices. They were just complicated responses to a variety of stimuli. Same for cheetahs. Same for Parkison's patients. Same for you and me.

Everyone seemed to be saying, 'But Dawkins did not take away personal choice or personal blame...stop saying that he is trivializing major crimes.' Sure he is. Just read what he says. He says responsibility is nonsense. It can't get much clearer than that. I'm not going to belabor this point. If one cannot get this from what he says, well, then I suppose we'll just have to disagree.

2. I am quite aware of the Euthyphro dilemma. I think it is a good argument, and I suppose 99% of the people here also think it is as well. Divine Command Theory has been defended, and I here that it is made imbeccible by Robert Adams in 'Divine and Infinite Goods'. Not the point of my post. My point was that Darwinism erodes all traditional concepts of morality, and places it in a relative framework of the type that 'might-makes-right'. Whoever the strongest and most reproductive is, there morality becomes dominant. No morality is better than the other, just more or less widespread. This leads into my next point...

3. Sastra has said that 1. Golden Rule morality won out fair and square in the battle for evolution and 2. We can derive a traditional, unchanging framework by starting with the principle of accepting equality and accepting the fact that it makes sense to treat yourself well, so you should want to treat anyone like yourself well too.

Here is the problem, Sastra. Let's say that Hitler had won WWII, and a morality of Aryan supremecy leading towards the Uberman had won out. Let's say the golden rule was in the minority. Let's say, for that matter, that it made people just extremely happy to kill other people like themselves but not themselves; or that the dominant group was completely cut-throat to the point that they would eat their own offspring, like sharks. Evolution is full of contingent events, and things very easily could have gone the other way. If this were the case, and you were the minority, how could you criticize the majority rule? You couldn't appeal to the fact Darwinism favored your system, because it didn't. You couldn't appeal to the fact that morality should change because you and everyone else likes and embraces equality, because no one does. You couldn't appeal to everyone that the OUGHT to embrace equality, because where did that ought come from? You say 'if...then'. Yes, if sharks wanted to be nice to their offspring, then they shouldn't eat them. Same for humans. But what if they don't want that? You can't appeal to an absolute reference, as you could IF (and I am not saying this is so) Divine Command Theory were true. You can only appeal to the desires of the majority group, and the fact is that if morality is only appealing to desires (ie desire for equality), then everyone is moral, because everyone follows their desires, including Hitler. Some desires are different, just like fangs are shaped differently, and claws. But if Darwinism is right and morality must be explained by adaptive principles in evolution alone, then that means we cannot call any morality more 'evil' than another. It doesn't make sense by our reference frame.

3. People are persuaded that Darwin did not influence Hitler to any degree. I won't argue that. But apparently he DID influence the columbine shooters, who said 'hey, we are material and we are evolving in a dog-eat-dog world, so we will behave as we please, eliminate the weak, and who can blame us since this is in accord with natural selection' (they did not say this word for word, but I'm paraphrasing what was said). Now, what to make of that? Did they misinterpret Darwin's theory? No, because Darwinism, at least by Dawkins, suggests that they were complex agents acting in a mechanistic stimulus-response way and their behavior was pre-determined, and explainable in a way that appeals to Darwinian evolution. If one wants to judge them to say, well heck, these kids were just 'wicked' for trying to self-impose darwinian principles, one collapses b/c of the morality of the argument above. Also if everything is viewed from above, they were using their adaptation (mind, etc) in a mechanistic way to eliminate competitor genes and maybe promote their own. This is what cheetahs do, so it IS explainable and excusable by Darwinian evolution. Cheetahs are not wicked. Neither were these kids. Neither was Hitler. This idea to me is dispicable.

4. Even if evolution has poisonous implications, that does not say anything about whether it is true or not. I want to go on record as saying that. And I also want to go on record as saying that I believe it is quite obvious that it /does/ have poisonous implications.
5. Everyone who says I am a dishonest troll has somehow misunderstood. I have posed my questions before...I keep asking them because I don't believe that ANYONE has met them with suitable answers, or given Richard Dawkins quite the criticism that he deserves, which should be just as much as Stein. (Okay, maybe Darwin didn't influence Hitler. BUT he did influence Columbine, and the point that STein and company are trying to make is the same...)

Anyway, I am very tired of the 'good cop, bad cop' approach that I get here. Namely, that I can ask honest questions that I don't understand in a nice way and get called a 'dishonest fuckwit' just like all other 'Xians'. Now, people say that my comments aren't nice, that they are dishonest, disingenuous, even mean-spirited by their allegations. This without me saying a cross word. But no one even thinks to jump on Sioux Larris for his stream of profanity that he types, I imagine, sitting at his desk craddling an assault riffle. That's the tone and that's the way it sounds at least (not literally, but you get the point). I'm STILL CURIOUS how Sioux gathers that I am a man? Would he mind to tell me? I don't think it was something I said, but I would like to know.

I'm not sure how profitable more discussion will be.

But apparently he DID influence the columbine shooters, who said 'hey, we are material and we are evolving in a dog-eat-dog world, so we will behave as we please, eliminate the weak, and who can blame us since this is in accord with natural selection' (they did not say this word for word, but I'm paraphrasing what was said). Now, what to make of that? Did they misinterpret Darwin's theory?

Yes. Because they forgot to have children. They were actively selected against - do you understand this?

I'm afraid I don't really understand your point. If you think that evolution has "poisonous implications", it is your own, inherent, evolved morality telling you this - and you can choose to act in accord with this morality, or not.

But if Darwinism is right and morality must be explained by adaptive principles in evolution alone, then that means we cannot call any morality more 'evil' than another.

Why the insistence that we must be able to objectively call a certain form of morality "wicked"? Whether it is just group think, or appeal to an absolute, what is the difference? We still consider it morality. I don't really know what you are trying to prove...

Person, Dawkins is asking a philosophical question. "But that's a dangerous question!" is a bad argument, because that was the whole point of the question! He is not saying this is what we must do; you are free to continue the argument and try to show that he is wrong, not just that he is "wicked".

This is different from Ben Stein's proposal, because his arguments are in fact demonstrably wrong and he has to resort to lying to make them seem remotely plausible. Unless you can show that Dawkins is doing the same, don't equate them.

Next can we discuss if it was evil of Swift to write A Modest Proposal, since it might be read by cannibals in the future?

Neither am I, person, because for all your words, I'm still not seeing a point here. You concede in #4 that the argument from consequences is irrelevant to evolution's validity. Yet you still say things like: "This is what cheetahs do, so it IS explainable and excusable by Darwinian evolution. Cheetahs are not wicked. Neither were these kids. Neither was Hitler. This idea to me is dispicable." Why? What is the point of all these words? How about a concise summary of your point. If evolution is true and its social/moral consequences are or can be horrible, then...what?

The fact that you haven't done this has an awful lot to do with the accusations of your dishonesty. Your posts remind me a little of the Simpsons:
"Yes, I'm going to marry a carrot!"
"I can't believe it! She actually said she's going to marry a carrot!"

'person' wrote- "I'm not sure how profitable more discussion will be. "

Since I also witnessed your little fact-finding mission over at PT, this is the only statement of yours I find genuine.

You can't appeal to an absolute reference, as you could IF (and I am not saying this is so) Divine Command Theory were true.

And all who believe in divine morality agree on what the absolute reference is and thus there's no possibility of any sort of atrocities happening under this moral framework, right?

A link of possible interest:

http://www.wingclips.com/cart.php?target=category&category_id=778

Includes, among other things, the plagiarized "inside the cell video," bits of interviews with PZ Myers & Dawkins, horrific mangling of the concept of random mutations, the "irreducable complexity" of the cell -- and oh yes, how could I forget? Darwinism=atheism=Nazism agitprop.

Enjoy.

This does excuse Hitler. The implications are obvious. He and his Nazi cohorts were playing the parts of dominoes falling, and their actions were perfectly in accord with the Darwinian imperative of promulgating ones genes.

But there is no imperative.

If Hitler had had children, he would have had children. Because he didn't have children, he didn't have children. Really. That's all there is to it.

You cannot derive a moral imperative from this. That just doesn't work. And that's something Dawkins has understood.

In the 22nd Century the world will be riven by an unending war between Dawkinsian Columbinists and Swiftean Cannibals.

"But apparently he DID influence the columbine shooters, who said 'hey, we are material and we are evolving in a dog-eat-dog world, so we will behave as we please, eliminate the weak, and who can blame us since this is in accord with natural selection'"

"And then let's commit suicide!"

Yeah, that's totally Darwinian. Like Reuben said, if anything they were selected against - unfortunately they didn't self-select sooner.

to eliminate competitor genes and maybe promote their own.

Which they accomplished by blowing their own brains out at the end of the day? They weren't the fittest. They didn't behave like "evolutionists" - they behaved like sociopathic homicidal nihilists. Columbine is a profoundly bad example of what you're trying to illustrate here. They do however serve as a good test case for the "let 'em off the hook" approach. Incidentally, you appear to have ignored the point made by another commenter that not even Dawkins buys into his own dangerous idea. Surely that's worth at least a nod. Why no nod?

And I also want to go on record as saying that I believe it is quite obvious that it /does/ have poisonous implications.

So? The same could be said of almost any technology or ideology that has the potential to be abused. The concept that Man has Dominion over the earth (and everything in and upon it, living or otherwise) has poisonous implications. (Literally.) So does metallurgy, especially when combined with the concept of kinetic energy. Rapid oxidation's a bitch, too.

person, as for the passage from Dawkins you cited earlier as proof of his strict genetic determinism (although at the beginning of that post you somehow said you never meant that...)

Any crime, however heinous, is in principle to be blamed on antecedent conditions acting through the accused's physiology, heredity and environment...Why do we not react in the same way to a defective man: a murderer, say, or a rapist? ... Isn't the murderer or the rapist just a machine with a defective component? Or a defective upbringing? Defective education? Defective genes?"

If you had cited that passage within its context in his book, you would see that it is the beginning of a discussion in which he uses the quoted passage to ask the questions that he immediately goes into discussion about and explains his position on - in which he proceeds to list some external mitigating factors which lead him to believe that though genetic determinism definitely has a significant role, there are variables in the equation that account for the variety of individuality and opinion in humanity. (That's a pretty concise paraphrase of that portion of the discussion.) Just to be absolutely sure I'm being explanatory enough to get my point across, this argument you've made - in its very structure - committed the fallacy of composition, and it occurred the minute you selected a portion of Dawkins' argument, a constituent part of his book, that made one point, and portrayed it as if this book, the composite item, made that same point, by proxy that point being Dawkins' own personal opinion.

These things work themselves out with a little bit of effort.

Re 189 person

" I for one am not trying to reduce Dawkins argument to merely Hitler=genes=genetic puppet. Dawkins mentions environment as well as physiology being determining factors."

And here's also what you said, in #98:

"Dawkins is saying that it is all hardwired--and as such responsibility does not lie on the villain, but on the villains genes. Now, is 1. That proposition correct and 2. Is that proposition wicked if it is not?"

If you can't keep your story straight, you can hardly complain if people think you are either stupid, dishonest, or both.

person #189 wrote:

Let's say the golden rule was in the minority. Let's say, for that matter, that it made people just extremely happy to kill other people like themselves but not themselves; or that the dominant group was completely cut-throat to the point that they would eat their own offspring, like sharks. Evolution is full of contingent events, and things very easily could have gone the other way. If this were the case, and you were the minority, how could you criticize the majority rule?

I think there is a problem with the structure of this thought experiment, and it's not going demonstrate what you want. I am grounding a common moral reference frame in a common human nature, one in which "the Golden Rule" describes a shared understanding of what it is to be fair. What you are essentially asking is "ah, but if human nature were different, wouldn't our moral reference frame be different?" Well, yes. But I don't see that this demonstrates an insurmountable problem with it now.

No moral system is going to be able to appeal to psychopaths. If humans evolve into Orcs, and lose all ability to empathise and respect others as "being like the self," then human morality is up for grabs. I, as an outsider, would not be able to appeal to the hypothetical majority here because they appear to have become another species. We're not basically similar anymore. Sounds like the Morlocks and the Eloi.

Morality is not "appealing to our desires, whatever they may be." The term involves how people relate to each other, in their attempt to be fair and consistent with those in their group. If groups want to relate to each other, then they look for common ground.

You and I are in the same boat. The only possible ground for a universal reference system to which all humans can appeal to for fairness is a basic, shared understanding of the Good -- and this is just as true whether you use Transcendence which comes down from above, or ethics which evolved from below.

Hitler and the Nazis were actually striving after this ideal: if you look at what they wrote, they weren't advocating anarchy and individual hedonism at all. Instead, they were looking for a perfect ethical utopia based on common moral excellence -- heaven on earth. Where they went wrong was in falsely seeing the human races as arranged in a hierarchy of worth, better and worse. They justified it by combining the idea of "God's chosen race" with a teleological view of Nature and its "progress." From the standpoint of science, you can critique that second part. All you can do with the first part is complain that "you guys misunderstand God, and I don't."

And that is harder to demonstrate. Establishing heaven in heaven is just as problematic as heaven on earth.

Try this: turn your own thought experiment onto the idea of a transcendent God and see what happens:

What if it turns out that God only wants the Golden Rule to apply to the Ubermen made in His image -- and it turns out that's not you? Instead, you were created as a vessel meant only for destruction, formed for damnation. The sole purpose of your soul is to amuse the Saved as they watch your contorted and painful gyrations in Hell. And laugh merrily, along with God.

Now where are you? Given that God is the creator of a transcendent morality "above" your human morality -- how could you criticize Him? To what would you appeal as your absolute reference to say "well, God would be wrong, in that case" or "in your scenario, God is evil" or even "God could not possibly be like that?"

God, after all, did not evolve living in groups, as we did. He did not need to develop any tendencies towards cooperation and empathy. God could be like ANYTHING AT ALL. So where do you stand, then, to judge and evaluate God's morality -- as evil -- or as good -- when you can no longer stand on God?

In the story, there's a reason God had to make us in His image: it was so we could make Him in ours.

person:

But apparently he DID influence the columbine shooters, who said *snip apparently fabricated paraphrase*

OK, so I did something pretty radical: I actually looked at primary sources. Here is everything I could find that could remotely be construed as "Darwinist". All of the following quotes come from transcripts of Eric Harris' journals. This isn't exhaustive, mainly because trudging through his madness is exhausting. The full report released by the police is available, but I've seen enough. All spelling and other language errors are his.

"It would be great if god removed all vaccines and warning labels from everything in the world and let natural selection take its course. All the fat ugly retarded crippled dumbass stupid fuckheads in the world would die, and oh fucking well if a few of the good guys die to[sic]."

"Isn't America supposed to be the land of the free? How come, if I'm free, I can't deprive a stupid fucking dumbshit from his possessions if he leaves them sitting in the front seat of his fucking van out in plain sight and in the middle of fucking nowhere on a Frifuckingday night. NATURAL SELECTION. Fucker should be shot."

people that only know stupid facts that arent important should be shot, what fucking use are they. NATURAL SELECTION. KILL all retards, people w/ brain fuck ups, drug adics, people cant figure out to use a fucking lighter. GEEEAWD! people spend millions of dollars on saving the lives of retards, and why. I don't buy that shit like "oh hes my son though!" so the fuck what, he aint normal, kill him, put him out his misery. he is only a waste of time and money, then people say "But he is worth the time, he is human too" no he isnt, if he was then he would swalow a bullet cause he would realize what a fucking waste and burden he was."

but before I leave this worthless place, I will kill who ever I deam unfit for anything at all. especially life.

if humans were let to live how we would naturaly it would be chaos and anarchy and the human race wouldnt probably last that long, but hey guess what, thats how its supposed to be!!!!!

So he seems to have had no real understanding of evolution, and, it also seems, no acquaintance with what Darwin actually wrote. What he had was a crude, shallow copy of Social Darwinist rhetoric that he used to spew out his rage. Should you choose to read the text surrounding these excerpts, you will find an almost hallucinatory cascade of confused, contradictory, inconsistent and incoherent venom, vitriol and hyper-violent power fantasies.

So what, really, did he want? Well, I'll let him tell you:

well incase you havent figured it out yet, I say, "K I L L M A N K I N D" no one should survive.

Who can be blamed for this? Well, I'll let him tell you:

I know I could get shot by a cop after only killing a single person, but hey guess the fuck WHAT! I chose to kill that one person so get over it! Its MY fault! not my parents, not my brothers, not my friends, not my favorite bands, not computer games, not the media. IT is MINE! go shut the fuck up!

What drew him to the vicious rhetoric he borrowed? Well, I'll let him tell you:

like the early Nazi government, my brain is like a sponge, sucking up everything that sounds cool and leaving out all that is worthless, thats how Nazism was formed and thats how I will be too!

And, in the end, what ultimately drove him? Well, I'll let him tell you (Hint: it wasn't the influence of a long dead British naturalist):

HATE! I'm full of hate and I Love it.

You can find the context here:

http://acolumbinesite.com/eric/writing/journal.html

The full police report is here:

http://i.a.cnn.net/cnn/2006/images/07/06/columbine.pdf

As to Dylan Klebold? Sorry, I've had enough of these two. Do your own research.

I think there's been quite a satisfactory solution since Turing or so. As machines, we have no way to perfectly simulate our own behavior which is faster than simply acting it out. Therefore, our behavior must always, to some degree, come as a surprise to us, even if a wiser and faster-thinking being could have predicted it in advance.

We have the illusion of free will because the alternative--correctly predicting the outcome of every choice we make before we make it--is simply impossible.

Man.

How stupid of me not to have thought of this myself!

if humans were let to live how we would naturaly it would be chaos and anarchy and the human race wouldnt probably last that long, but hey guess what, thats how its supposed to be!!!!!

See? He hadn't understood science. There is no "supposed" in science, no "ought", only an "is".

person, spend a few hours in Google and find out how often reciprocal altruism (golden rule) has evolved. Check out the vampire bats for example.

Here is the problem, Sastra. Let's say that Hitler had won WWII, and a morality of Aryan supremecy leading towards the Uberman had won out. Let's say the golden rule was in the minority. Let's say, for that matter, that it made people just extremely happy to kill other people like themselves but not themselves; or that the dominant group was completely cut-throat to the point that they would eat their own offspring, like sharks. Evolution is full of contingent events, and things very easily could have gone the other way.

You are almost onto something interesting here, but you don't think it all the way through. What if things had gone the other way? Not just Nazis winning the war, but instead of humans, the sentient beings of this planets would be cannibalistic sharks or colonial insects or whatever. Would you say that they were moral or immoral for behaving like sharks and insects?

As machines, we have no way to perfectly simulate our own behavior which is faster than simply acting it out. Therefore, our behavior must always, to some degree, come as a surprise to us, even if a wiser and faster-thinking being could have predicted it in advance.

We have the illusion of free will because the alternative--correctly predicting the outcome of every choice we make before we make it--is simply impossible.

Posted by: Anton Mates | April 13, 2008 3:59 AM

The problem with the first statement is that it assumes that anything that we have not fully simulated in our brains will necessarily come as a surprise to us. It is true that a great many things DO surprise us, although it ranges from mild amusement in some cases to life-threatening shock in others. But a great many other things do not surprise us, because we are able to predict them, either through informed speculation or - in the case of second- and third-order effects - observation.

The second statement - yours - looks like ti was taken right out of a textbook as an example of an argument failing by way of false dichotomy. Of course we cannot predict the outcome of every choice we make prior to making it, but the negation of that option does not necessarily mean that free will does not exist.

I often wish those who try to convince me that we have no free will would realize that one choice they do have is to pay attention to what they write, if only to make sure that at the very least the arguments are basically sound.

Man.

How stupid of me not to have thought of this myself!

Yeah, I don't remember where I first read that or who wrote it (Wolfram, maybe?), but it was definitely an "Oh! Duh!" moment for me as well.

It triggered a more general insight that I'm ashamed to say had never occurred to me before--namely, that a lot of philosophical questions are more properly considered psychological. People construct abstract entities to account for thoughts and feelings they can't really articulate. I don't feel like what I hazily imagine a deterministic robot would feel like, so I must have this thing called "free will" which separates me from a robot. I feel like I shouldn't steal that wallet even though I'd like the money, and it feels something like when authority figures give me a talking-to, so there must be this thing called "Right" which is giving me orders. And so forth.

Figure out what exactly it is that people are feeling in the first place when they posit such entities, and you have a much better chance of a satisfactory explanation, IMHO.

(Ditto for a lot of theological arguments. Hashing out the Kalam cosmological argument doesn't tell you much about the universe, but it tells you a lot about how human intuition deals with causation and infinite quantities.)

Interesting points. When I first came across it, I thought Godel, Escher, Bach and its recursive loops within loops idea was going to trigger some big free will/consciousness breakthrough, but the neurologists don't seem to be using it. That free will being the result of 'not being able to predict our choices' quote sounds as it it might be supported by the apparent discovery that our brain makes selections before we are consciously aware of it.

By the way, Freedom Evolves by Daniel Dennett is imo one of the best (and most interesting) explorations of how both 'free will'-- and morality -- evolved. (Forgot to recommend it earlier.)

At least bottom-up explanations of this type have the virtue of actually looking like explanations. I think that gives them a huge advantage over the "We get morals from a moral source; we get freedom from a freedom force" kind of non-explanatory explanations.

Just some quick comments, then I'm going to go do some work...

1. I was asked for a brief summary of my point. I think I have finally arrived at one. Dawkins comments have erroded the difference between Social Darwinism and Darwinian evolution itself. They are one and the same. Take PZ's post a few days ago about the 'folly' of EXPELLED:

"Darwin's real contribution, the one that had everyone smacking themselves in the forehead and wondering why they didn't think of it first, was the realization that the natural environment does the killing -- that natural selection shapes heredity. The idea of culling populations is not only so easy that a hate-mongering cretin can think of it, but that weather, bacteria, viruses, parasites, predators, etc. have been doing it for eons, with no intelligence required, and that mindless microorganisms have been far greater agents of hereditary change than the worst the Nazis ever accomplished; does Charles Darwin also get the blame for that? Darwin realized that the environment has consequences and can shape the generation-by-generation passage of hereditary traits in populations, and that examination of the natural world reveals that it has been doing exactly that."

Think about what is being claimed here. Yes, it is true that the 'natural environment' does the killing. But if Dawkins is arguing that one's intelligence, moral capacity, and decisions are part of the environment doing the selecting and are thus explained by Darwinian principles. Dawkins argues that if it is true that we are complicated stimulus-response machines, then it makes no sense to blame and punish people anymore than it makes sense to blame and punish bacteria for killing millions or cheetahs for killing antelopes. In both cases, as per Dawkins, two organisms (cheetahs and humans) are physiologically pre-determined stimuli-response machines that are using their adaptations (intelligence in humans, speed in cheetahs) to oust competitors (rival cheetahs or rival people groups) to promote their own genes (closely related cheetahs and the Aryan race). The argument form is identical. So what's this business about Social Darwinsim not being Darwinism? If morality is just an adaptation like a fang is, and nothing more, then the behavior of nations can be explained by appeal to Darwinian principles and justified by them.

So PZ, listen to this. We are not trying to blame Charles Darwin for bacteria killing millions. But we are saying that Charles Darwin made it the case that we cannot blame Hitler for what he did, at least no more than bacteria. That is what Dawkins is arguing, or at least the logical implications of his argument. And if Social Darwinism is actually no different than Darwinism, what are we supposed to say about Eugenics and other such cases like them? They made a valid appeal to evolutionary theory, and the connection was real and logical.

Now, Dawkins says that we don't have to live in a Darwinist state, because that would be facism. We don't have to obey the imperative of our genes. But why would we have to disobey them? Why would it be wicked to obey our Darwinian innate desires? The only reference we have for saying its wicked is a moral apparatus which has itself been produced by Darwinism. So in the case of a Darwinist state vs. a state implementing the common moral code, both are following Darwinistic imperatives. One is no better than the other. That leads to my next point...

2. Sastra has made the claim that somehow if our morality changed we would be a different species. He said, "I, as an outsider, would not be able to appeal to the hypothetical majority here because they appear to have become another species. We're not basically similar anymore."

I get your drift and I partially agree with what you are saying. And you make my point. By your evolutionary understanding of morality, you say that you can only criticize people working WITHIN your moral framework who agree on your basic standards so that you can appeal to a common sense of fairness. But if someone works OUTSIDE of your moral framework, how are you going to criticize them? And that is just the point! You say you can't because they are not human. But that is just not true. Someone like Charles Manson or Stalin or Pol Pot could look at evolutionary theory and say, 'as long as I get enough followers to believe what I say, then I can set the moral norms...and by the token of the ends justifying the means, if I have enough power to put the status quo morality in the minority, then no one is in a position to criticize me.' Look, this sort of thing could happen, especially in the age of the atomic bomb, and if it did it THEY WOULD STILL BE HUMAN. Manson and Hitler and Stalin and crazy psycho axe murders are human. They can breed with females, and if some dictators had their way about it they would make many females their personal sex slaves to crank out more copies of their genes.

Differences in morality, as per evolutionary theory, is like differences in jaw size or fangs. We can talk about which adaptations could survive in certain contexts, or which adaptations fortuitiously came to dominate a population. We cannot say of morality, like we cannot say of fangs or teeth, IT OUGHT to be this way or that. It is what it is, and no one is in a position to criticize it if it goes the other way. Had Hitler figured out how to make the bomb and kill half the world's populus and use your female relatives to crank out more progeny like himself, all the while his Nazi followers embracing him, you would have no basis for criticizing him, because the only thing supporting your morality is a majority who holds the same idea of fairness and right and wrong as you.

That's all I'll say for now. I'm sure I'll get a flurry of responses.

Person, you're a goddamned moron.

That bacteria act like bacteria does not imply that human beings must act like bacteria. We have evolved capabilities that allow a wider range of behavioral options. Bacteria do not have ethics or morals, but we do.

we are saying that Charles Darwin made it the case that we cannot blame Hitler for what he did

Darwin made it the case? That is as ludicrous as saying that Newton made it the case that apples fall. Darwin identified natural selection as a mechanism that operates in nature, but he no more "invented" it than Newton invented gravity. If natural selection is true, then it is true, regardless of what Darwin did.

Person, you're a goddamned moron.

That bacteria act like bacteria does not imply that human beings must act like bacteria. We have evolved capabilities that allow a wider range of behavioral options. Bacteria do not have ethics or morals, but we do.

Person is not going to rest, or even acknowledge anything you say, Prof. Myers, until he can somehow wring out of you that "Yes, Darwin caused Hitler because Darwinism's highpriest Dawkins said so, therefore Darwinism is wrong and evil."

Well, hopefully he'll at least shut-up about Columbine.

I believe Dr. Seuss's claim that, "A person's a person, no matter how small," did not take into account the sizelessness of person, who reputedly wrote:

That's all I'll say for now. I'm sure I'll get a flurry of responses.

Since nobody could be bothered to strike person, I wish to thank person for so vigorously running into everybody's outstretched fist, repeatedly, and with no appreciable effect.[/Blackadder]

I think I see what person is getting at here. If you believe in evolution, and a ruthless dictator with a following that outnumbers your group wants to kill you or enslave you, then you should just let them do it because it's natural. I mean, who are you to feel all criticizy and shit, huh?

Someone like Charles Manson or Stalin or Pol Pot could look at evolutionary theory and say, 'as long as I get enough followers to believe what I say, then I can set the moral norms...and by the token of the ends justifying the means, if I have enough power to put the status quo morality in the minority, then no one is in a position to criticize me.'

Or someone like Osama bin Laden or Pope Innocent III or Torquemada can do the same using religious dogma and trying to kill anyone who believes differently. How are you going to criticize them since they are getting their transcendental morality directly from God?

Manson and Hitler and Stalin and crazy psycho axe murders are human. They can breed with females, and if some dictators had their way about it they would make many females their personal sex slaves to crank out more copies of their genes.

And then what? Do you think they had some sort of evil dictator gene then that would inevitably turn their offspring into dictators and cult leaders? Who's the determinist here?

Dawkins argues that if it is true that we are complicated stimulus-response machines, then it makes no sense to blame and punish people anymore than it makes sense to blame and punish bacteria for killing millions

Hey Einstein, WE STILL KILL THE BACTERIA. So absence of moral blame doesn't stop us from defending ourselves. What's the problem here?

ramblin, nice job of pointing out the way they are twisting the very basis and meaning of evolutionary theory. It's almost like they miss the point that natural selection operates outside such human constructs as social dissent, but surely they can't be that naive, right?? ...Although that was deliberately sarcastic, I do believe that most of the concern trolls on the boards only have to time to come here and comment, but definitely no time truly understanding the concepts they are trying to debate.

And person, just to be clear in the future, debates about what we would think about a completely different evolutionary history and the snide 'how would you feel THEN?' questions are the epitome of pointless. Natural selection as a mechanism in nature isn't something that lends itself to any type of direction or connotation, positive or negative. So to answer your question, if I were a human as part of a completely different, anti-golden rule society based on an alternate evolutionary history, I would more than likely agree with some degree of that morality structure, because - by definition - I, along with my ancestors, would have been conditioned to the environment in which we developed as a species -- just like it is today. If somehow I were part of the minority that still had our idea of morality, I would think that I lived in a world I was diametrically incompatible with, and it would be a very troubling existence -- just like it is today for those in the minorities of today's societies.

It is for this very reason that no direction or teleological connotation can be attributed to any species evolution. To a metaphor similar to your own (which more properly fits evolution and natural selection in a social sense), things only get better or worse as they apply to your internal standards of observation. In effect, there will ALWAYS be a status quo, and there will ALWAYS be those who fight against it. Just because one side may eventually lose out does not give them reason to not fight at all. With a statement like that, I'm just glad you weren't holding a rifle next to me when things got hairy.

This is a cross-post (and I mean cross!) from Respectful Insolence:

So there I was channel-surfing, trying to find some Masters coverage, when the face of Charles Darwin flashed by. Backtracking, I stumbled upon "The Coral Ridge Hour", a Sunday morning evangelical program, which was, today, airing an episode entitled "Darwin's Deadly Legacy". Masters all but forgotten, I watched in awe as the Creationist hit parade rolled past--Ken Ham, Jonathan Wells, Michael Behe, Ann Coulter, and a host of others, all making the Darwin-Hitler connection crystal clear for the viewers.
Some money quotes:
"The Nazis used the word 'selection' in their concentration camps!!!"
"There is, emphatically, no concrete evidence for evolution"
"Evolution is a thoroughly discredited scientific theory"
"The whole theory is a gap"
"To put it simply, no Darwin; no Hitler."

No pussyfooting around the issue for Coral Ridge Ministries. Evidently they're just a bit further down the road than the fine folks associated with "Expelled", who merely intercut their film with lots of concentration camp footage and posited that Darwinism was necessary but not sufficient to cause the Holocaust.

They took it further, of course. The shedding of blood as a result of Darwin's theory didn't end with the Holocaust--oh no! Decades of teaching the ToE in schools has resulted in our children becoming perpetrators as well as victims of the Darwinian world view. Flash to footage of the aftermath of the Columbine HS shooting, in which one of the shooters was wearing a t-shirt with "Natural Selection" printed on it. Then, of course, they kicked Planned Parenthood around for a while, too, quote-mining Margaret Sanger (a GERMAN! and a DARWINIST!!!!11111one!) for all she was worth and putting forth eugenics as a principal motivation for abortion, now and forever.

Every 10 minutes or so, they cut into the gripping plot of Darwin's Deadly Legacy to invite viewers to send for a petition that advocates 'Academic Freedom' in our classrooms (to be sent in with a suggested $30 donation). The parting shot, delivered by minister D. James Kennedy, (standing in front of a laboratory set!) was something like 'we've tried Darwinism for 150 years, and look where it's gotten us.'

Frankly, it's amazing my television is still in one piece. If you're a glutton for punishment, a link to some excerpts can be found here

Oh, yes

you may not be aware of this, but the production value of televisions has gone up since the inception of religious programming of this type, purely to protect the delicate electronics from the well-known "TSIB" effect

D. James Kennedy? Hasn't he gone home to Jesus? Or do they have a celestial TV station broadcasting Xian hate now?

I like to write fiction, and sometimes find myself toying with the idea of the future these fundagelical hatemongers would have us living in if they got their way. The image I keep coming up with is something like the future society in "The Time Machine".
One population (the true Xians) living purely in the light of God's everlasting grace, and an underworld where the 'heathens' and scientists are kept as slaves, serving their saved Xian Overlords. Of course the scientists are kept around. After all, who's going to keep making medicine safe abundant food and new ipods so the Eloi/fundie kids can listen to their Xian rock?

Had Hitler figured out how to make the bomb and kill half the world's populus and use your female relatives to crank out more progeny like himself, all the while his Nazi followers embracing him, you would have no basis for criticizing him, because the only thing supporting your morality is a majority who holds the same idea of fairness and right and wrong as you.

The above assumes that Hitler is the only one that matters, and all of his female relatives and Nazi followers are completely mindless workers and soldiers and slaves, having no thoughts or opinions of their own.

Free Clue: humans are not insects.

Even while Hitler's Reich was at the peak of its military and economic power, it was not uniform. Individuals, at all levels of the hierarchy, had differing levels of commitment to the ideals of racial purity.

And really, the whole idea of racial purity is pretty damn incoherent in itself. Could any individual Nazi say with genuine certainty that he was more closely related to Hitler than to any single Jew? And would it even matter if he could? Sibling rivalry can be just as deadly as external rivalry; if murderous violence exists at all, it can be turned against relatives as easily as against non-kin.

Ultimately, the only way that anyone can have any hope of gaining a true "majority who holds the same idea of fairness and right and wrong" as oneself is precisely by holding and demonstrating the idea that fairness and right and wrong do extend equally towards all parties. As soon as one has an idea of "fairness" that is obviously biased heavily towards oneself, everyone will be able to perceive that bias, and realize that they will be more likely to lose out under it than under a truly fair system.

Tulse,

there are plenty of entities we describe as making "choices" and "decisions," without assuming that they possess free will. Computer programs, for instance, and nonliving organisms with simple or nonexistent nervous systems.

Right, and we describe them in that way because we are anthropomorphizing such entities.

No, we describe them in that way because it's a useful way of characterizing their behavior. You can study mate choice in, say, insects, without assuming that they think like humans do. It's meaningful to say that female mosquitoes have more power of mate choice than do female barley thrips; you're not talking about how they think, but about how they act.

There is nothing in a computer program that isn't in principle present in other complex physical systems, such as a river, but we don't say that a river "chooses" to flow in one channel rather than carving another. We don't say that clouds "decide" to rain.

Nor do we say that clouds "carve out their channel" like rivers do. Each of these physical systems exhibits a different suite of behaviors, and different words are appropriate as a result. Clouds and rivers don't act like computers or living organisms.

It is rather common to talk about what a particle "decides" to do in quantum mechanics, and I think that's because of a behavioral similarity--quantum systems often exhibit complex, difficult-to-predict behavior which nonetheless ends up satisfying some simple constraint. It's useful to treat them as goal-directed.

We can, as Dennett suggests, take an "intentional stance" towards all sorts of physical systems, and use the language of intentionality for such systems, but that's only because such language is handy shorthand -- it doesn't commit us to believing that such objects really make choices.

But such language is handy precisely because it tells us something about what such objects are doing. If we then call that behavior "making a choice," we have a usage of "choice" which doesn't require intentionality.

Dennett, after all, holds that a similar intentional stance is applicable to humans. We don't have to commit to believing that anybody "really makes choices"; we treat humans as intentional actors because doing so helps us accurately explain and predict their behavior. "Free will" doesn't come into it.

Even if our treatment of lawbreakers is completely determined by prior factors, Dawkins' publishing his argument is one of those factors. You don't need the concept of "choice" to justify trying to change other people's behavior through reasoned argument; you can simply think of it as one technique for "reprogramming" them.

"Trying" again implies free will -- you are choosing to attempt to achieve some end.

But, again, we can speak of programs "trying" to find a solution to some problem, and ants "trying" to carry huge loads back to their nest. Even if the word originally carried the connotation of intentionality and choice, it no longer needs to.

But if there is no free will, then you are not "choosing" to alter their behaviour -- you yourself are simply reacting as a physically determined system.

By your definition of choice, sure. But so what? People are compelled by prior factors to commit crimes, other people are compelled by prior factors to punish them, Dawkins is compelled by prior factors to complain about this, and you're compelled by prior factors to criticize his complaint.

This isn't a problem with Dawkins' argument, it's simply a consequence you find unappealing. In fact, if choice is removed, Dawkins no longer needs a justification to advance any argument--he does it because he must.

That's an interesting argument, but one that I think most dualists would reject, since they view the soul as something like pure will, as nothing but that bit that is not subjected to necessity and chance. I don't know if that's even a coherent notion

I've never seen it formulated coherently, myself. "Chance" seems synonymous with "lack of determination" to me.

brokenSoldier,

The problem with the first statement is that it assumes that anything that we have not fully simulated in our brains will necessarily come as a surprise to us.

No, it doesn't. I said "our behavior must always, to some degree, come as a surprise to us." It's certainly true that people can self-analyze and successfully predict many of their own actions. Indeed, I think that's partially to account for the experience of free will--my ability to do something unexpected in a given situation seems like "freedom" precisely because I know what I'd usually do.

The second statement - yours - looks like ti was taken right out of a textbook as an example of an argument failing by way of false dichotomy. Of course we cannot predict the outcome of every choice we make prior to making it, but the negation of that option does not necessarily mean that free will does not exist.

You should know better than to say "You haven't proved that X doesn't exist" on a forum full of atheists. The question is whether there is any evidence for free will, and if so, whether that evidence can be accounted for without assuming its existence.

The evidence most commonly given by people I talk to is that they feel like their choices are not predetermined. But you don't need free will to account for that; either randomness is a significant factor in their mental processes, so that in fact their choices aren't predetermined, or they're unable to perfectly self-simulate, so that they don't know their choices are predetermined. In either case, what's left for "free will" to explain?

But that might not be your line of argument at all. So how do you define free will, and what do you consider the best evidence?

Yes, if sharks wanted to be nice to their offspring, then they shouldn't eat them. Same for humans. But what if they don't want that? You can't appeal to an absolute reference, as you could IF (and I am not saying this is so) Divine Command Theory were true.

No, you couldn't appeal to an absolute reference in that case either. Even if the people you're talking to agree with you about the details of the divinely-dictated moral code, what if they simply don't want to follow it?

And of course usually any two people don't agree about the divine moral code. Hitler's Jesus and Martin Luther King's Jesus obviously have very different opinions on a variety of issues.

How is it that you gather I am a man? Was it something I said? Just curious about your method of knowing.

But no one even thinks to jump on Sioux Larris for his stream of profanity that he types, I imagine, sitting at his desk craddling an assault riffle.

I'm STILL CURIOUS how Sioux gathers that I am a man? Would he mind to tell me? I don't think it was something I said, but I would like to know.

Sastra has made the claim that somehow if our morality changed we would be a different species. He said...

No comment necessary, really.

People are compelled by prior factors to commit crimes, other people are compelled by prior factors to punish them, Dawkins is compelled by prior factors to complain about this, and you're compelled by prior factors to criticize his complaint.

Yes, exactly -- I don't disagree that Dawkins argument demands this, just that he doesn't seem to recognize (or acknowledge) this.

if choice is removed, Dawkins no longer needs a justification to advance any argument--he does it because he must.

Correct. My only problem with Dawkins is that he seems to imply that those punishing have free will, while those who commit crimes don't.

person #110 wrote:

By your evolutionary understanding of morality, you say that you can only criticize people working WITHIN your moral framework who agree on your basic standards so that you can appeal to a common sense of fairness. But if someone works OUTSIDE of your moral framework, how are you going to criticize them? And that is just the point!

You still seem to misunderstand what I mean by "basic standards" in human morality. I am referring to the fundamental similarities in the underlying ethics shared by all normal human beings, as have evolved throughout the entire species. Individuals and cultures place different emphasis and interpretations on the common elements in the framework, but the framework is still there -- except in the case of psychopaths, who are not "normal."

You cannot rationally persuade others to change their moral behavior if they are either

1.) of another species, one which doesn't share human values or goals

2.) psychopaths

In your example, you're assuming that Manson, Hitler, and Stalin are psychopaths who feel no need whatsoever to justify their actions as morally good. They're monsters, who think only of themselves. If I grant that, then you're right that there is no common humanistic ground I can stand on to persuade monsters they are wrong to be monsters.

But there is no possible ground to stand on in any direction which would persuade monsters. You can't do it. God Himself couldn't do it. They're psychopaths -- mentally and emotionally defective, bereft of the capacity for empathy, incapable of feeling an urge to follow genuine morality from any angle but pure self-interest. And whether someone is a genuine psychopath, or just a selfish jerk, is then a factual matter which can be examined empirically.

Hitler and the Nazis -- and Stalin and the Communists -- did accept basic human moral precepts regarding fairness. They argued that what they did was just and right from an objective standpoint. Both societies regularly cranked out a lot of justifications, explanations, and evidence, all with the view of supporting their claim that reasonable and ordinary people, with full understanding of the facts, and following the inferences, would arrive at the same conclusions. That, too, can be examined empirically, and rationally critiqued from the common ground they started from.

Manson, I think, was just nuts.

I would be interested, by the way, in seeing how you deal with my counter-thought experiment.

If it turns out that God does not share your moral standards -- and his practice of the Golden Rule is moot, since there is nobody else on His level -- then what would you stand on to criticize Him? To what would you appeal as your absolute reference, in order to say "well, God would be wrong, in that case" or "in your scenario, God is evil" or even "God could not possibly be like that?"

All moral systems rely on an assumption of a basic common ground and similarity. If you take that away, you're left with nothing. And even God couldn't give it back to you.

a lot of philosophical questions are more properly considered psychological. People construct abstract entities to account for thoughts and feelings they can't really articulate. [*snip*] I feel like I shouldn't steal that wallet even though I'd like the money, and it feels something like when authority figures give me a talking-to, so there must be this thing called "Right" which is giving me orders.

Yes - with one objection. You've been conditioned to feel that way when confronted with a moral choice. Evolved morality is as much memetic as genetic - no? Babies aren't born with at fully-developed moral code, nor will they develop one without direct or indirect instruction from their role models (parents, primarily).

My objection, Anton, is only with the precise implications of that last quoted phrase. The "thing" called Right isn't giving your orders, it's making suggestions along with other "things" called Want, Fear, and so forth. All the suggestions pile up ("ooh, free money - take!" and "not your money, bad - not take!" and "nobody looking - take" and "but could get in trouble anyway - not take!" etc.) and you make a decision based on... well, what? A strictly deterministic process? Perhaps.

Are we still on free will? I like what Arnold Toynbee said: "As human beings, we are endowed with freedom of choice, and we cannot shuffle off our responsibility upon the shoulders of God or nature. We must shoulder it ourselves. It is our responsibility."

Whether we have free will or not, we have to act as if we do! It's in our nature and good for us. (Insert smiley here.)

"You should know better than to say "You haven't proved that X doesn't exist" on a forum full of atheists."

Anton, I would have included more of your post, but this one was sufficient to show the disconnect between your line of thought and what I was initially getting at with my post. Nowhere in my post did I try to prove free will exists. If you go back and read it, you'll see that the only thing I was using your comments to prove was that you hadn't put your argument together to where it was functionally sound.

For example, I said that we cannot simulate everything prior to acting, which agrees with your post. But the only problem I was pointing out was that when you negated that premise, you automatically used its negation as support for the premise that we do not have free will, and the only way you can logically do that is if the two are a dichotomy, and as such are two statements that cannot be true at the same time, but one of which must br true at all times. And this is simply not the case with those two premises.

Never did I try to make the statement that you implied, and never did I try to use that statement as proof free will existed. My views on the subject actually fall into the compatibilism school of thought, and though I do think that we do have some freedom of will, it is not at the level of control over events that a person who believes we have free will in the traditional sense would assert.

But one thing I am absolutely sure of - my views on this subject will change before my studies are done. I hope I was a little clearer in this post, thought I have often made that misjudgment in the past!

All the suggestions pile up ("ooh, free money - take!" and "not your money, bad - not take!" and "nobody looking - take" and "but could get in trouble anyway - not take!" etc.) and you make a decision based on... well, what? A strictly deterministic process? Perhaps.

I think this cuts to the heart of the matter. "Who", or "What", is making the decisions? And is it real?

An aspect of this that I find interesting is that the more perceptive one is, the less choices there are to make. The clearer our perception, the more obvious becomes the correct action to take in any given situation. For instance, I haven't 'chosen" to be an atheist. I haven't 'chosen" to not believe in gods. I CAN'T believe in gods, my perception is very clear on this, my intelligence won't let me--it's not a matter of choice. Now, how far can you regress this?

What if ALL of our energy were to go into being as perceptive as possible, and our actions become not so much the result of making choices but rather the result of having clearer perception?

It seems like this whole thread has gone off-topic, and there's something that I've been thinking about that relates to Expelled that I don't think has been discussed yet. (Although, that's a bit hard to say for sure, with > 2000 comments on the thread)

It occurred to me that if I were XVIVO's attorney, I'd sure love the chance to depose the animators who made that "substitute" animation for Premise Media, to find out if they actually used a scientific consultant at all. If they didn't, then they certainly will have a tough time explaining how they managed to portray the structure of the cell WITHOUT copying from XVIVO. I think the last thing that Premise would want to admit to is that the did not hire a scientific consultant.

So I'm very curious to see how the hearing for the preliminary injunction goes. If it's not sealed by the court, it would be great if NCSE could post the transcript of the hearing on the "Expelled Exposed" site.

(I know, this is all premature since XVIVO has not yet asked for either a TRO or a preliminary injunction. But from the outside it sure looks like that's the way it's headed.)

Hey Phayrngulites! I need your help. Here http://blogs.news-journalonline.com/politics/2008/04/freedom_from_evolu…

See if you can figure out what this chick is trying to get.

Tulse,

My only problem with Dawkins is that he seems to imply that those punishing have free will, while those who commit crimes don't.

I really don't see how he implies the former claim.

PZ wrote:

"Person, you're a goddamned moron.

That bacteria act like bacteria does not imply that human beings must act like bacteria. We have evolved capabilities that allow a wider range of behavioral options. Bacteria do not have ethics or morals, but we do."

Just wondering, have you been following this thread at all? My argument is not that humans must act like bacteria. It may well be true that humans have a range of behaviors that constitutes some sort of free will or personal autonomy. My point--as I have now stated many times--is the /Richard Dawkins/, in the cited article, mad an argument that humans behaved AS DETERMINISTICALLY as bacteria did, or computers do, or rivers and rocks and oceans do. It follows, as it must follow FROM DAWKINS ARGUMENT, that if we do not assign 'blame' to a sea storm wrecking for wrecking a ship (his example), we cannot assign 'blame' for a murderer killing another person (such as Hitler), because in both cases no choice was involved. In principle if we combined every stimulus--environment, heredity, genetic predispositions, etc--one could say with 100% certainty how a person would react in any situation, because they do so deterministically. Now, if you think that that notion is moronic, then you are welcome to the opinion. Me too. Richard Dawkins ideas are indeed moronic, the moreso because they essentially lift any concept of 'blame' or 'personal responsiblity' from Hitler. These are his assertions, mind you. Not mine. They also serve to eliminate any distinction between Social Darwinism and Darwinian evolution, because if human behavior is deterministic--based on guaranteed outcomes of stimuli-response based mechanisms--and if our minds, morality, intelligence, etc. are adaptations, then it follows that Hitler was using his adaptations in exactly the same way as a cheetah--deterministically, marching to the beat of evolution in order to oust competing groups and to promote genes similar to his own (a rough form of kin selection). Though Hitler never made an explicit appeal to these ideas for an excuse or justification, the point is that he could have. The Columbine kids in fact did. They appealed to Natural selection for justification, and, if it is true that mind and morality is part of nature and an adaptation to propogate, their is no real distinction between natural selection and artificial selection. A cheetah uses his fangs. Hitler used his mind. Both were equally determined, both are not to 'blame' for what they did. This is the reasoning that flows from Dawkins logic. If you don't like it, take it up with him.

Now, it is entirely possible that free will exists under an evolutionary scheme, or philosophically hard-determinism is not incompatible with moral responsibility. These are not the arguments that I am fighting, b/c they are not the ones Richard is making. He is making the opposite case, and apparently, you will not criticize him but will caricature me as setting up a warped strawman version of what he is saying. I don't think I have taken anything out of context.

I did mention that I thought that evolution and methodological naturalism DOES erode morality, because it stipulates that morality is an evolved trait, that it was a contingent adaptation that could have taken a different form. If someone were to accept the fact that the basis of discerning right and wrong is nothing more than a fortuitous adaptation, then it is pretty obvious that many might not be as compelled to follow it, just like they might not feel as compelled to chew on the left side as the right after finding out there is no outstanding basis for it besides sheer convention.

Think about it. If that is all morality is, then it is no different than evolved taste buds. Most people agree that certain foods--chocolate, for example--taste very good. But if you met someone who just did not particularly like the taste of chocolate, you couldn't persuade him that he should. It is his opinion gained from a biological trait, and it follows that there are no 'shoulds' or 'oughts' to it. The same applies if you meet someone--Charles Manson, for example--who just thinks that killing is a good thing. The differences in your morality is no more significant than your differences in preference for certain foods and tastes. They are just evolved characters, and they vary. No outside frame to say one is better than the other. That means that might makes right. The guy with the most power and influence makes the rules for morality. We would have no basis for criticism if Manson took over the world, other than he won it fair and square, by Darwinian means. Francis Collins also seems to follow this line of reasoning, which is why he rejects evolutionary accounts for human morality and altruism. This is a case where he, as well as I, would agree that embracing evolution could lead someone to do something wicked. Again, the columbine kids are an example.

Finally, yes I am aware that Divine Command Theory suffers from the same sort of arbitrariness. Instead of saying, 'what if Manson took over' we could say 'what if God commanded us to kill babies, like he did in the Old Testament.' I will point everyone to philosopher Robert Adams book, 'Divine and Infinite Goods' SINCE HE SPECIFICALLY ADDRESSES JUST THIS POINT (AND USES A DISCUSSION OF BIBLICAL PASSAGES IN CONTEXT--LIKE 1 SAM. 15 AND OTHER PASSAGES WHERE GOD COMMANDS EXTERMINATION AND CHILD SACRIFICE.) Incidentally, this book lays to rest the notion that this point is somehow 'unanswerable' or overlooked by Christians. It is not. Adams has made DCT impeccible, and one should really look at his work before dismissing it. It has the benefit that if DCT is true, even in a minority of one, we can still proclaim the truth is the truth, both moral and philosophical (good Ghandi quote). It doesn't appeal to human opinion--it is fixed and eternal and immutable as God's nature itself.

I have made my point time and again. I won't make it anymore. I'm sure many misunderstandings are my fault. I thank everyone for their time and patience, even though far too many of you were rude.

I have made my point time and again. I won't make it anymore. I'm sure many misunderstandings are my fault. I thank everyone for their time and patience, even though far too many of you were rude.

Posted by: person

Please be true! Please be true! Please be true!
Just the same, anyone who uses the argument ad nazium will get the same treatment. Please do not feel special.

I am not going to comment on the origins of life. For me to do so and say it with true conviction of knowledge I possess would be completely ignorant of me. I was not there, and have scientific PROOF one way or the other. I will also say that I have no scientific PROOF of gravity, or scientific PROOF that I even exist.

I will say that this blog seems enamored with people trying to state that keeping a specific person out of a SCREENING of this movie is a wholly awesome way to discredit the movie itself. I see no problems with it. If I want someone to pay to see a movie that I made, then that is my right. Even if the person is in the movie. I live in the U.S. If I want to look at my credit report more than once a year (I am happy that they give me one free look), then I have to pay for it. It would seem that information in my credit report would be personal information that I should have access to whenever I want it, for free. Same with hospital records. If I want copies of a hospital record, I have to pay an overpriced charge ($2.00 for the first page, $1.00 for every page after). They say it covers costs associated with making copies. I can't even take the records out of the hospital to copy them myself. Again, personal information. I should be able to take those records out when I want and to where I want.

The point I am making in my ramblings is that I see no issue with a creator of a movie keeping someone out of a free screening. In comparison with society today as a whole, that is the least of our worries.

That being said, when he gets banned from the movie while trying to pay to enter it, then there are issues.

interesting, that was not.
Besides, the point is not PZ was kicked out. The point, and you would know this if you actually read anything here, is the mockumentary is full of lies. The expelling of PZ is merely the rancid cherry on top of a shit sundae.

Plus, it exposes the hypocrisy of the premise of the movie

which is always fun

it's like discovering Al Gore is the power behind the throne at Exxon

Well, I guess person will shut-up about Columbine, if not for the reasons I had hoped (i.e. acknowledgement that the idea that Darwin bears responsibility for Harris and Klebold is utter bullshit). I'm actually not even sure what the hell person's argument is anymore.

We would have no basis for criticism if Manson took over the world, other than he won it fair and square, by Darwinian means.

"by Darwinian means.", person? What, he grew some cells in a vat and they evolved into a gun?

What is your obsession with ultimate morality? Has it occurred to you that the sense of ethics that humans have "evolved" has selected against the likes of Manson, and the Columbine shooters, and Hitler? They didn't get away with their troublemaking for a reason. Our species has evolved a bias against them--again, for a reason. The only reason we would have to not criticize them is if we were all dead.

Whether these characters were "evil" according to your definition, or just missing some vital genes and were psychopathic, makes no difference--we still do something about it. Surprise! Do you let the sea storms just wreck your ships because the sea isn't really evil? It doesn't make any difference if Hitler was personally responsible and murdered out of free will or not; we still do something about him--whether we blame him or not. The only difference between us and you, is that in your world you tie him to a stake and burn him for being possessed of the devil, and we might dissect the guy to find out what made him tick. We might even do it dispassionately, with only sadness that it happened, and no sense of outrage that "one of God's creatures has been disobedient." Are you following me here?

You are like millions of people who don't want to investigate because you might find things that make you uncomfortable. And now you want scientists to not describe accurately what they find because it interferes with your comfortable mythology. You are coming up with all kinds of reasons to blame the investigators (like Darwin) for creating evil in the world when all they are doing is describing the world! You fucking asshole.

Have you spent all this time trying to get us to admit that our sense of morality doesn't come from your god? Okay, admitted. Now go away because you are truly tedious.

Thomas: Nice work on addressing the Columbine angle, by the way. Primary sources are useful? Who knew?!

Several brief points in response to person #237 (who appears to have left)

1.) I believe that Dawkins was only arguing against the kind of ultimate responsibility which merits punishment for its own sake, claiming instead that an evolutionary understanding of why we do what we do entails correction, not retribution. If he was really arguing that determinism negates responsibility, then I (and Daniel Dennett) disagree with him.

2.) Evolution explains how we got all our motivations -- including desires to help competing groups and restrain ourselves from having too many children. Just as with any natural law, it's descriptive, not prescriptive. There is no implied mandate within it to behave in any particular way to "help" it along or do what we are "supposed" to do. Social Darwinism is the belief that the theory of evolution is the blueprint for how we should -- and must -- behave. It is an example of the genetic fallacy. Even if he was making the point you said he was, Dawkins was not advocating Social Darwinism.

3.) It is also a genetic fallacy to assume that, since how we evolved as moral animals was contingent, then the morality we have now is completely arbitrary. As long as there are basic moral commonalities in the human species, morality is fixed on those commonalities. The differences of opinion among individuals have a common ground to be arbitrated on.

4.) I have not read Adam's book, so I cannot comment on it. However, a transcendent morality which is "fixed, eternal, and immutable" is worthless to us if it does not satisfy human opinion. I do not think person has considered this seriously enough.

I thank person for his or her time, and the courteous discussion.

LOL! Sastra, you have more patience that I. ; )

**"I will also say that I have no scientific PROOF of gravity, or scientific PROOF that I even exist."

Clearly you must be working with a different definition of scientific proof...I may have no scientific proof of an explanation of the ORIGIN of life, but there is more than enough data for me to use to simply prove that I exist - and you also, for that matter - "you" posted on this board, so "you" must exist somewhere.

**"If I want someone to pay to see a movie that I made, then that is my right. Even if the person is in the movie."

I doubt that many people have not already made up their mind about Mathis's exclusion of PZ being right or wrong. He did it, and what really matters is why. If his intentions are above board and come with a rational explanation, then I'm sure no one would care. If it was based on some personal or ideological difference, then it was - by definition - discrimination.

In the first case, you are making the same mistake Hovind did with his specious offer of a reward to the person who could "prove" evolution to him, but set out criteria that dealt with abstracts and prohibitive requirements, making proof under his definition impossible.

In the second case, you're missing the point, either intentionally or not. Sure, Mathis has the right, but he also has a motive behind exercising that right with such a narrow application (i.e., singling out PZ).

RambinDude -- not really. I didn't think person was making a bad argument (or arguments); he or she wrote well, and was very well mannered. There have been books written by philosophers on the issues raised here. I disagreed with person, but liked him/her.

I have seen much, much, much worse -- as have you. Sometimes that can make us touchy ... and sometimes that can make us grateful for small mercies.

(Divine Command Theory (!))

Adams has made DCT impeccible, and one should really look at his work before dismissing it. It has the benefit that if DCT is true, even in a minority of one, we can still proclaim the truth is the truth, both moral and philosophical (good Ghandi quote). It doesn't appeal to human opinion--it is fixed and eternal and immutable as God's nature itself.

The very fact that you insist that we look at the argument means that whatever the argument is, it is not innate. If it isn't innate, then it's based on something that is external to ourselves. If it's external to ourselves, then there's either objective physical evidence that it is universal, in which case there is no need to invoke God as the reason, or there is no physical evidence that it is universal, in which case it comes down, once again, to a matter of personal opinion.

You might want to be more careful what you type. There is nothing called "Divine and Infinite Goods", as far as Google knows, but there is a "Finite and Infinite Goods", which looks like it is what you meant.

I see that there is a review of it on an atheist site, which is a bit ironic:

  http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/stephen_sullivan/goods.html

Still waiting for Mr. Person to make his point the first time, let alone "time and again." He concedes that the appeal to consequences is irrelevant, and then appeals to consequences. At length. Round and round we go, and I'm starting to get sick.

And the "sea storm" analogy's an interesting one. I wonder what he knows about natural hazard mitigation. Take flooding. Can't blame floods for destroying houses...right? But then...what are all those levees for? What's the NFIP? What are local floodplain ordinances, and why do they discourage floodplain development and require elevation of floodplain structures? Why do the Feds spend hundreds of millions annually doing things like buying up floodprone homes?

For something we can't "blame" for damaging homes and property, we sure do spend an awful lot of effort directly and indirectly managing and responding to floods. We corral floodwaters, divert them, and adjust our own behavior to avoid harm. Sure, floods are "just" a force of nature...it's not like they're conscious entities that can collect information from their environment, process it and respond to it. You can't reason with a flood, so you lock it up, redirect its energy, or get the hell out of its way.

But let's get crazy and pretend floods were sentient. What else might we do in an effort to mitigate their destruction? Well, we might try manipulating their environment on a more sophisticated level to encourage the outcomes we want, no? We might try giving them incentives, both positive and negative, to cooperate. We could point out the consequences of their actions, threaten to punish them if they don't modify their behavior, and reward them if they do.

Nah...we can't do that. It all sounds too much like assigning blame. Since we can't blame natural hazards for the destruction they cause, there's no point in trying to alter their behavior. The Feds will be happy to hear that...they'll save a bundle of cash axing NFIP and FEMA. Army Corps will probably be unhappy about their budget cuts, though.

Digg just had this article that is germane to the discussion of free will.

Kseniya,

Yes - with one objection. You've been conditioned to feel that way when confronted with a moral choice. Evolved morality is as much memetic as genetic - no? Babies aren't born with at fully-developed moral code, nor will they develop one without direct or indirect instruction from their role models (parents, primarily).

No argument there. If the main function of morality is to help you get along well with others, it's pretty critical that you be able to modify it to match the society you've been born into.

My objection, Anton, is only with the precise implications of that last quoted phrase. The "thing" called Right isn't giving your orders, it's making suggestions along with other "things" called Want, Fear, and so forth.

That's quite true, but I think people tend to feel that Right is more of an external influence than Want and Fear. You often see that attitude among theists arguing that you need God to be good--they say that we want to steal money and run away from any danger and bang all the hot people we can find, but something tells us that it would be wrong. How many times on Pharyngula has someone said something to the effect that, "If there's no God to tell us to be good, why shouldn't we just do whatever we want?" Ignoring, of course, the fact that one of the things we want is to be good.

Part of that externalization could be religious conditioning, but I think it's also built into the nature of our moral feelings. Morality tends to be primarily concerned with our relations to other people, and it's also more explicitly taught to us than most other values. Your parents give you lectures on being nice, not stealing, and so forth; generally they don't have to give you lectures on the desirability of money and safety and tasty food. So it's easy to feel that your moral impulses must always come from some transcendental (to borrow person's language) source, rather than from your own brain.

All the suggestions pile up ("ooh, free money - take!" and "not your money, bad - not take!" and "nobody looking - take" and "but could get in trouble anyway - not take!" etc.) and you make a decision based on... well, what? A strictly deterministic process? Perhaps.

Pretty unlikely to be 100% deterministic, no? There's quite a bit of evidence for chaos in the nervous system, so if nothing else, quantum-scale randomness must occasionally get amplified and have a noticeable effect on one's behavior.

There's plenty of evidence for chaos in my nervous system. o_O

I've been stressed out lately and not writing very clear comments, but you understood me perfectly. As usual. And I understand you. That was very clear. I agree.

Pretty unlikely to be 100% deterministic, no?

I tend to think the same way. Any realistic model of reality has a bit of randomness built in. ;-)

brokenSoldier,

For example, I said that we cannot simulate everything prior to acting, which agrees with your post. But the only problem I was pointing out was that when you negated that premise, you automatically used its negation as support for the premise that we do not have free will

But that's not the premise (or more accurately the conclusion) I was defending. I was responding to the following by Tulse in #129:

To be clear, I think that's right -- we are essentially machines, just like every other physical object in the universe. But that does make accounting for the illusion of free will really hard to explain, and I don't think that anyone has provided a satisfactory solution.

Tulse was asking how to explain our perception of free will if we are, in fact, machines incapable of choice. S/he wasn't asking for a disproof of the existence of free will, and I have no intention of trying to construct one.

Equivalently: if someone asks how I explain UFO sightings if aliens have never visited Earth, and I respond by suggesting marsh gas and weather balloons and the planet Venus, that doesn't mean I'm actually trying to prove that aliens have never visited. I'm merely pointing out that you don't have to hypothesize alien visitations to account for that particular body of evidence.

My views on the subject actually fall into the compatibilism school of thought, and though I do think that we do have some freedom of will, it is not at the level of control over events that a person who believes we have free will in the traditional sense would assert.

How do you define "freedom of will," then? I'm not trying to be snarky; it's entirely possible that, given your definition, I'll agree that it exists or at least has some good evidence to back it up. Definitions of "free will" seem to vary as widely as those of "God."

I hope I was a little clearer in this post, thought I have often made that misjudgment in the past!

Pfft, if you want to have a good philosophical BSfest, clarity's no fun at all. I carefully translate all my posts through Babelfish into German and back, just to make sure they're properly and profoundly impenetrable.

That means that might makes right. The guy with the most power and influence makes the rules for morality.

No, if we accept your simplistic account, then the guy or girl with most grandchildren makes the rules for morality. The pope has lots of power and influence, and he makes rules for morality, but I don't see his genes taking over the world.

Think about it. If that is all morality is, then it is no different than evolved taste buds. Most people agree that certain foods--chocolate, for example--taste very good. But if you met someone who just did not particularly like the taste of chocolate, you couldn't persuade him that he should.

But if you met someone who had never tasted chocolate, you could try to persuade him that it would be in his best interest to do so. And since probably the majority of people do like chocolate, they can team up and stop everyone who tries to take their chocolate away.

It is his opinion gained from a biological trait, and it follows that there are no 'shoulds' or 'oughts' to it. The same applies if you meet someone--Charles Manson, for example--who just thinks that killing is a good thing.

You seem to be under the misconception that Charles Manson or Hitler would care what you think. That it's your disapproval that keeps potential Mansons and Hitlers from killing. How naive.

Finally, yes I am aware that Divine Command Theory suffers from the same sort of arbitrariness. Instead of saying, 'what if Manson took over' we could say 'what if God commanded us to kill babies, like he did in the Old Testament.'

Thank you, that's something many in your position won't admit. But...

I will point everyone to philosopher Robert Adams book, 'Divine and Infinite Goods' SINCE HE SPECIFICALLY ADDRESSES JUST THIS POINT (AND USES A DISCUSSION OF BIBLICAL PASSAGES IN CONTEXT--LIKE 1 SAM. 15 AND OTHER PASSAGES WHERE GOD COMMANDS EXTERMINATION AND CHILD SACRIFICE.) Incidentally, this book lays to rest the notion that this point is somehow 'unanswerable' or overlooked by Christians. It is not. Adams has made DCT impeccible, and one should really look at his work before dismissing it.

If he does make it impeccable, why can't you describe this impeccable answer in your own words instead of just pointing to the book?

Kseniya,

I've been stressed out lately and not writing very clear comments, but you understood me perfectly. As usual. And I understand you. That was very clear. I agree.

Yeah, everyone agrees with me once they understand exactly what I mean. If I ever appear to be less than lucid and infallible, you should assume that the problem lies with your own powers of comprehension. In fact, consult your doctor immediately, in case your Wernicke's area has been damaged.

Seriously, chalk it down to your considerable reserves of clarity and understanding, even under stress; I doubt I had much to do with it. But why the stress, unless the answer is excessively embarrassing or legally incriminating?

person,

Most people agree that certain foods--chocolate, for example--taste very good. But if you met someone who just did not particularly like the taste of chocolate, you couldn't persuade him that he should. It is his opinion gained from a biological trait, and it follows that there are no 'shoulds' or 'oughts' to it. The same applies if you meet someone--Charles Manson, for example--who just thinks that killing is a good thing.

Yes, that's quite true. Now, would you please provide us with a Divine Command-based argument that would persuade Manson or Hitler not to kill people? That would really come in handy for dealing with future murderous psychopaths.

You do know that the Manson Family was a religious cult, and that Manson declared himself the reincarnation of Jesus Christ, sent to fulfill Biblical prophecy? And that Hitler was a Christian who thought he was doing the will of God? So, y'know, it seems like they'd be a perfect audience for such a powerful moral message. I guess they just missed hearing it somehow.

I love how when the IDiot leaves, the International Atheist Conspiracy continues to march in perfect lockstep, with one will and no disagreements.

One will? Heretic! The IAC has no will, it marches deterministically. ;)

Anton:

*S/he wasn't asking for a disproof of the existence of free will, and I have no intention of trying to construct one.

My mistake - I'll put myself in time-out for that one when I finish typing...

*How do you define "freedom of will," then? I'm not trying to be snarky; it's entirely possible that, given your definition, I'll agree that it exists or at least has some good evidence to back it up. Definitions of "free will" seem to vary as widely as those of "God."

We definitely agree on the part about free will's variety of definitions. I think of free will in its most basic sense - the ability to exercise control over your actions and surroundings. While I don't think any supernatural or divine power robs us of such, I tend to look at free will as a capability built into all of us humans that came about with the phenomenon of what we consider modern consciousness. And while I think that most of us are born with it as an inherent capability, I also think that once the human race understands something, it can then begin to try to control it. So in the case of free will, I believe that some people truly have it some of the time, while no one enjoys it all of the time. And still other times - and I view this as the great majority - individuals may be under the impression that they have and are using their free will, but due to circumstances they are unaware of, they are acting willingly but are unaware that they are being manipulated by some opther source - therefore having no free will. (Whether that source is genetic, social, etc...)

For example, as an Army officer, one of the things we were taught in the area of motivating soldiers to follow orders was that the most effective way to get someone to complete a task - and do it above and beyond the standard - was to get them in a mindset where they truly wanted to complete that task. (i.e., make your will become theirs) In this kind of case, I do not think the one completing the task has true free will. (This is because of the other aspect of that motivational technique - usually, the veracity and success of my motivation will determine how well they complete the task. If I succeed in fully motivating them, I get a great result; If I only partially succeed, I get a result that is merely satisfactory, or worse.) And although rare, I do think that every once in a while a human will enter a situation in which he or she truly does exercise control over their surroundings and actions. But I'll say again, I do not think that one human has ever lived that has enjoyed free will for their entire life, and I don't think there ever will live such a human. I've tried my best to get my train of thought on the subject across - I hope I succeeded...

*Pfft, if you want to have a good philosophical BSfest, clarity's no fun at all. I carefully translate all my posts through Babelfish into German and back, just to make sure they're properly and profoundly impenetrable.

Haha, true... I'm not even close to my degree yet and I've already become quite accustomed to the haze! The reason I was trying to point out structure in your argument was probably the fact that I've had fallacies and argumentation theory shoved down my throat for a couple of weeks now. Let me know what you think.

http://www.wired.com/science/discoveries/news/2008/04/mind_decision

While the initial post may be funny its totally irrelevent. You can go buy a ticket like the rest of us and see what you will.

Also, evolution is a tricky thing. The evolutionist bunch mocks anyone that disagrees with it and when you make a valid point about the issues facing evolution, just like the initial poster does, they contend that has changed, that is no longer common belief. See, it changes like the wind, to them that is the beauty of it and its 100% correct so shut up with your silly ideas.

At the end of the day the evolutionist can never prove he is right. Once he dies if he is right he is just worm food like the Christian. Now if he is wrong he does get to know that for eternity in not so happy of a place. Its the billion dollar bet on nothing. Keep playing, its funny and sad watching you wallow in your brilliance

Hey, another creobot!

If there's an actual human intelligence behind that, it's not much of one...

Let's see...

- Conflation of evolution with atheism... CHECK
- Reference or allusion to Pascal's Wager... CHECK
- Explicit threat of Hell, tendered with implicit glee... CHECK
- Blanket generalization about "evolutionist" behavior and attitude... CHECK
- Inability to apprehend the concept of a dynamic body of knowledge which is itself the product of a self-correcting rational process... CHECK
- Fallacious appeal to assumption of "proof"... CHECK
- Strawman version of the "evolutionist" sense of the correctness of the theory... CHECK
- Standard claim of intellectual repression... CHECK

Did I miss anything?

Kseniya,

Ah, I think you missed: - Obligatory parting snark expressing a person of faith's contempt for the rational mind - CHECK

But no, otherwise I think you got it all.

That reminds me, I'm running out of forms. ; )

Hi folks,

I think it´s time now to thank you pharyngulites for a thrilling time here at this blog.
I came here around 22nd of March and it never has been annoying.
Thank you for the glimpses on DET and on how scienctists work.

Now I wanted to point out some contributors to thank but i feel my ability writing english is
much to low to express my gratitude.

So have a good time. Make us all a good time.

Yoeruek

PS. still watching

There is a stupid expelled poster up at my school. I wanted to tear it down, but i suppose it does have a right to be displayed (it's on a board for such purposes). So, instead I drew a mustache and beard on Ben Stein.

#264 Kseniya,

You forgot spelling errors ("irrelevent," "its" instead of "it's") and clunky sentence structure, although not as bad as most of his colleagues. And no ALL CAPS! Bravo!

Bob the moron said:

...when you make a valid point about the issues facing evolution

The only problem is, that neither you, nor any other Creationist/Intelligent Design proponent has ever made any valid points about any issue facing evolution.

Ever.

When you or any of your fellow brethren do make a valid point about issues facing evolution, rest assured that we will take note.

But, I don't have time to wait for you to cobble together a valid point, as, I need to go finish my education, start and run a business for a decade or three, get married, have children, retire, and take up knitting afghans and legwarmers for Clydesdale horses as a hobby.

Any proof that this actually happened? Sorry if I don't trust a blogger.

The Myth of Charles Darwin's Theory of Evolution.......
As a Christian, my belief in God would not change much regardless of whether evolution is true or false. Atheists and the secular left however, need evolution to be true because they think evolution disproves the existence of God. As Oxford zoologist Richard Dawkins said, "Darwin made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist." That is why the left panics whenever someone mentions the vast accumulating evidence against evolution. After 150 years of looking, and with no proof of evolution being found, the only reason this idea is being held on to is because it has become the religion of the left, believed with blind faith, against a staggering amount of evidence that disproves it. Every so-called discovery "proving" Darwinism has turned out to be a hoax. Philosopher and mathematician David Berlinski was correct when he said, "Darwinism is the last of the great 19th century mystery religions." The reason that after 150 years it is still called a theory is because the evidence does not support it and it has not been able to explain the history of life. If it had proved to be true it would be called the law of evolution. In addition, with the advancements in molecular biology and an extensive fossil record, we are able to study the potential for random evolution like never before. We must be honest and get beyond the cognitive dissonance between claim and fact.
Most people, due to their ignorance, think Darwin's theory is a fact. Since there is so much misinformation about Darwinian evolution let's be clear about what the theory says. Darwin's theory of evolution states that life began with single-celled life forms which evolved into multi-celled life forms which eventually evolved into higher life forms and finally into man. Evolutionary theory states that changes in morphology are induced purely by chance and that evolution is not directed in any way regardless of the challenges presented by the environment. Random mutations occur and favorable mutations are preserved by natural selection. Pink daisies evolving into blue daisies or small dogs evolving into big dogs are impressive. However, the daisies remained daisies and the dogs remained dogs. This is called, micro-evolution, and of course this occurs in nature. However, there is not even one example of one phylum (body type) or class of animal evolving into another. That process is called macro-evolution and that is precisely what Darwin's theory tries to explain. The problem with Darwin's theory was that he based it on animal husbandry rather then the fossil evidence.
The first piece of fossil evidence relates to the fact that life, single celled organisms, appear in the fossil record 3.3 billion years ago, a mere 500 million years after water appears 3.8 billion years ago. 530 million years ago the Cambrian explosion of animal life occurred. About 50 phyla (basic body plans) suddenly appeared in the fossil record. Only about 34 survived and the rest became extinct. Since then no new phyla have evolved. Darwin's theory also holds that nature does not make jumps. Abrupt morphological changes do not occur according to Darwin. The Cambrian era's sudden appearance of all the phyla known today appeared with fully developed limbs, claws, eyes with optically perfect lenses, and wings. These exploded onto the scene with no underlying hint in the fossil record that they were coming. Directly beneath these fossils are older fossils of one-celled bacteria, protozoan, and algae. The appearance of wings is a classic example. There is no hint in the fossil record that wings are about to come into existence. And they do, fully formed. These findings have been shown to be true in fossils all around the earth. Random processes could not have suddenly formed such complex structures. Something else is at work. Some other process produced these unexpected sudden developments. It was not Darwinian evolution. It is not surprising that Darwin himself, in the Origin of Species, pleaded many times with the reader to ignore the fossil record if his theory is to be believed, and today we have even more fossil evidence. The fossil record did not then nor does it now support this theory. In fact the sudden appearance of new species in the fossil record is so common that the scientific journal Science featured an article, "Did Darwin get it right?" And they answered that question no.
Advances in molecular biology have also given us the ability to statistically analyze the mammalian genome and calculate the probability of possible protein combinations required to form life coming together solely by chance. That probability number has 405 zeros behind it and that is with using assumptions we know to be false about protein combinations but assumptions that make the calculations favor random evolution. To make matters worse this trick needs to be repeated a billion times. Probability calculations show that random evolution is a statistically impossible explanation of the history of life. The statistical impossibility of randomness producing order is not different from the attempt to produce a meaningful string of letters more than a few words long by a random letter generator. This is because the number of meaningless letter combinations greatly exceeds the number of meaningful combinations. The same is true with life.
We also have the ability to measure statistical similarities of genes between animals. The gene that controls the development of the eye is the same not only in all mammals, but is shockingly similar to the gene that controls the development of the eye in mollusks and worms. Somehow the same gene was selected in all visual systems in animals. The similarity of these genes is so great that it could not have occurred randomly. To continue to advocate that random events led to the independent evolution of structures so similar in different phyla (convergent evolution) is dishonest. These discoveries prompted the scientific journal Science to report: "The hypothesis that the eye of the cephalopod [mollusk] has evolved by convergence with vertebrate [human] eye is challenged by our recent findings of the Pax-6 [gene] ... The concept that the eyes of invertebrates have evolved completely independently from the vertebrate eye has to be reexamined."
In 1909, Charles D. Walcott discovered this explosion of life in the Cambrian era. He collected about 70,000 fossils from the Burgess Shale in Canada. These fossils were representative of all the phylum that exists today. Remember, no new phyla ever evolved after the Cambrian explosion (which is an interesting topic in itself). Walcott, being an adherent of Darwinian evolution, could not believe that such a burst of complex life forms could have appeared simultaneously. He unfortunately decided not to report his findings. He allowed ideology to take precedence over the evidence. A typical liberal trait. In 1985 these fossils were found in drawers at the Smithsonian Institute. Imagine how different our perception of evolution might be today if he had not buried the evidence.
We are doing our children a disservice by still teaching Darwin's theory as a viable explanation for the evolution of life. It should be taught as one of the theories that was believed in the past, like the earth is flat, but was later shown not to be true. All the evidence points to some intelligent design to life as being far more likely than random evolution which turns out to be a statistical impossibility. Isn't it ironic that it turns out that you need more blind faith to believe in evolution than intelligent design? And they say religious people are irrational. We owe it to our children to be honest about the scientific evidence. It speaks for itself. Dr. Francis Collins (who was an atheist) headed the team of scientists who worked on the Human Genome Project. After he completed his work he said, "The choice to believe (in God) is actually the most rational conclusion when you look at the scientific evidence." We should follow his lead.

JC

To Stanton and the the "science" bloggers.......
The Myth of Charles Darwin's Theory of Evolution
As a Christian, my belief in God will not change regardless of whether evolution is true or false. Atheists and the secular humanists however, need evolution to be true because they think evolution disproves the existence of God. Richard Dawkins said, "Darwin made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist." That is why you panic whenever someone mentions the vast accumulating evidence against evolution. After 150 years of looking, and with no real proof of evolution being found, the only reason this idea is being held on to is because it has become the religion of the left, believed with blind faith, against a staggering amount of evidence that disproves it. Every so-called discovery "proving" Darwinism has turned out to be a hoax. Philosopher and mathematician David Berlinski was correct when he said, "Darwinism is the last of the great 19th century mystery religions." The reason that after 150 years it is still called a theory is because the evidence does not support it and it has not been able to explain the history of life. If it had proved to be true it would be called the law of evolution. In addition, with the advancements in molecular biology and an extensive fossil record, we are able to study the potential for random evolution like never before. We must be honest and get beyond the cognitive dissonance between claim and fact.
Most people, due to their ignorance, think Darwin's theory is a fact. Since there is so much misinformation about Darwinian evolution let's be clear about what the theory says. Darwin's theory of evolution states that life began with single-celled life forms which evolved into multi-celled life forms which eventually evolved into higher life forms and finally into man. Evolutionary theory states that changes in morphology are induced purely by chance and that evolution is not directed in any way regardless of the challenges presented by the environment. Random mutations occur and favorable mutations are preserved by natural selection. Pink daisies evolving into blue daisies or small dogs evolving into big dogs are impressive. However, the daisies remained daisies and the dogs remained dogs. This is called, micro-evolution, and of course this occurs in nature. However, there is not even one example of one phylum (body type) or class of animal evolving into another. That process is called macro-evolution and that is precisely what Darwin's theory tries to explain. The problem with Darwin's theory was that he based it on animal husbandry rather then the fossil evidence.
The first piece of fossil evidence relates to the fact that life, single celled organisms, appear in the fossil record 3.3 billion years ago, a mere 500 million years after water appears 3.8 billion years ago. 530 million years ago the Cambrian explosion of animal life occurred. About 50 phyla (basic body plans) suddenly appeared in the fossil record. Only about 34 survived and the rest became extinct. Since then no new phyla have evolved. Darwin's theory also holds that nature does not make jumps. Abrupt morphological changes do not occur according to Darwin. The Cambrian era's sudden appearance of all the phyla known today appeared with fully developed limbs, claws, eyes with optically perfect lenses, and wings. These exploded onto the scene with no underlying hint in the fossil record that they were coming. Directly beneath these fossils are older fossils of one-celled bacteria, protozoan, and algae. The appearance of wings is a classic example. There is no hint in the fossil record that wings are about to come into existence. And they do, fully formed. These findings have been shown to be true in fossils all around the earth. Random processes could not have suddenly formed such complex structures. Something else is at work. Some other process produced these unexpected sudden developments. It was not Darwinian evolution. It is not surprising that Darwin himself, in the Origin of Species, pleaded many times with the reader to ignore the fossil record if his theory is to be believed, and today we have even more fossil evidence. The fossil record did not then nor does it now support this theory. In fact the sudden appearance of new species in the fossil record is so common that the scientific journal Science featured an article, "Did Darwin get it right?" And they answered that question no.
Advances in molecular biology have also given us the ability to statistically analyze the mammalian genome and calculate the probability of possible protein combinations required to form life coming together solely by chance. That probability number has 405 zeros behind it and that is with using assumptions we know to be false about protein combinations but assumptions that make the calculations favor random evolution. To make matters worse this trick needs to be repeated a billion times. Probability calculations show that random evolution is a statistically impossible explanation of the history of life. The statistical impossibility of randomness producing order is not different from the attempt to produce a meaningful string of letters more than a few words long by a random letter generator. This is because the number of meaningless letter combinations greatly exceeds the number of meaningful combinations. The same is true with life.
We also have the ability to measure statistical similarities of genes between animals. The gene that controls the development of the eye is the same not only in all mammals, but is shockingly similar to the gene that controls the development of the eye in mollusks and worms. Somehow the same gene was selected in all visual systems in animals. The similarity of these genes is so great that it could not have occurred randomly. To continue to advocate that random events led to the independent evolution of structures so similar in different phyla (convergent evolution) is dishonest. These discoveries prompted the scientific journal Science to report: "The hypothesis that the eye of the cephalopod [mollusk] has evolved by convergence with vertebrate [human] eye is challenged by our recent findings of the Pax-6 [gene] ... The concept that the eyes of invertebrates have evolved completely independently from the vertebrate eye has to be reexamined."
In 1909, Charles D. Walcott discovered this explosion of life in the Cambrian era. He collected about 70,000 fossils from the Burgess Shale in Canada. These fossils were representative of all the phylum that exists today. Remember, no new phyla ever evolved after the Cambrian explosion (which is an interesting topic in itself). Walcott, being an adherent of Darwinian evolution, could not believe that such a burst of complex life forms could have appeared simultaneously. He unfortunately decided not to report his findings. He allowed ideology to take precedence over the evidence. A typical liberal trait. In 1985 these fossils were found in drawers at the Smithsonian Institute. Imagine how different our perception of evolution might be today if he had not buried the evidence.
We are doing our children a disservice by still teaching Darwin's theory as a viable explanation for the evolution of life. It should be taught as one of the theories that was believed in the past, like the earth is flat, but was later shown not to be true. All the evidence points to some intelligent design to life as being far more likely than random evolution which turns out to be a statistical impossibility. Isn't it ironic that it turns out that you need more blind faith to believe in evolution than intelligent design? And they say religious people are irrational. We owe it to our children to be honest about the scientific evidence. It speaks for itself. Dr. Francis Collins (who was an atheist) headed the team of scientists who worked on the Human Genome Project. After he completed his work he said, "The choice to believe (in God) is actually the most rational conclusion when you look at the scientific evidence." We should follow his lead.
Bring on the blogstorm! I am taking my son and his entire 6th grade class to see Expelled on Friday night. We are really looking forward to it.
PSA

JC/PSA, you wallow in misinformation. Educate yourself:

http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/faqs-evolution.html

JC/PSA:

Dr. Francis Collins (who was an atheist) headed the team of scientists who worked on the Human Genome Project. After he completed his work he said *snip*

Not that JC/PSA will care, since he/she/it probably didn't even read the giant block of pasted creationist apologetics, but that's actually not quite how it went. Collins' account is quite different:

"But then I went to medical school, and I watched people who were suffering from terrible diseases. And one of my patients, after telling me about her faith and how it supported her through her terrible heart pain, turned to me and said, "What about you? What do you believe?" And I stuttered and stammered and felt the color rise in my face, and said, "Well, I don't think I believe in anything." But it suddenly seemed like a very thin answer. And that was unsettling. I was a scientist who was supposed to draw conclusions from the evidence and I realized at that moment that I'd never really looked at the evidence for and against the possibility of God."

Now technically, it's true that Collins said that after the intial sequencing of the human genome was completed, but it was directly in reference to his conversion years prior to there even being a Human Genome Project. The full quote is here, though I assume it actually comes from his book The Language of God. I paraphrase (but accurately):

"[Lewis' Mere Christianity] convinced me that the choice to believe is actually the most rational conclusion when you look at the evidence around you."

From reading JC/PSA's pasting, you'd be under the impression that it was evidence gathered by the HGP which occasioned Collins' return to faith. And you'd be wrong. I rather think the fostering of that impression was exactly the point, though.

Primary Sources: 2
CreID apologists: 0

Of course, you could also just check wikipedia.

Oh, hey, I just found the original source of JC/PSA's pasting:

http://www.forward.com/articles/12924/

Sorry, no links to individual comments there. The really groovy bit is this:

JC/PSA:

The Myth of Charles Darwin's Theory of Evolution
As a Christian, my belief in God will not change regardless of whether evolution is true or false.

The original, posted by Dr. Sabi Israel on Mar 19, 2008 at the above URL:

The Myth of Charles Darwin's Theory of Evolution
As Jews, our belief in G-d would not change regardless of whether evolution is true or false.

That was not bright, JC/PSA. It's like they want to get caught.

EXPELLED! even by a server.

That must suck.

[Comment #2032, or whereabouts.]

This does excuse Hitler. The implications are obvious. He and his Nazi cohorts were playing the parts of dominoes falling, and their actions were perfectly in accord with the Darwinian imperative of promulgating ones genes.

But there is no imperative.

If Hitler had had children, he would have had children. Because he didn't have children, he didn't have children. Really. That's all there is to it.

You cannot derive a moral imperative from this. That just doesn't work. And that's something Dawkins has understood.

I think there's been quite a satisfactory solution since Turing or so. As machines, we have no way to perfectly simulate our own behavior which is faster than simply acting it out. Therefore, our behavior must always, to some degree, come as a surprise to us, even if a wiser and faster-thinking being could have predicted it in advance.

We have the illusion of free will because the alternative--correctly predicting the outcome of every choice we make before we make it--is simply impossible.

Man.

How stupid of me not to have thought of this myself!

if humans were let to live how we would naturaly it would be chaos and anarchy and the human race wouldnt probably last that long, but hey guess what, thats how its supposed to be!!!!!

See? He hadn't understood science. There is no "supposed" in science, no "ought", only an "is".

person, spend a few hours in Google and find out how often reciprocal altruism (golden rule) has evolved. Check out the vampire bats for example.

What is Myers like 6 years old? What a child!

Hey PZ, why not cut through all of the nonsense and go straight to a debate?? I've seen Dinesh D'Sousa and Hitchens debating on TV, and, truthfully, I thought that God came out on top!! Maybe you could do better than Chris! So, will you debate Dinesh?? ..... didn't think so.
Stick to your religion, evolution, that you can cling to with blind faith. You'll feel more smug and secure that way.

They don't get any brighter or more interesting do they...

Donald Duck thinks Dinesh D'Souza is God?

*blink*

Who slipped the LSD into my coke bottle?

Donald Duck thinks Dinesh D'Souza is God?

Nah, but Donald doesn't mind doing him the occasional favor. Dinesh is a good friend of his uncle, after all.

Sorry. Above I said I paraphrased Collins. I didn't, exactly. Rather, I gave a truncated quote with an explanatory paraphrase in brackets. Still accurate, though.

It's not very prudent in my opinion to believe that I have any answers, to either life's origins or evolutionary progress, so I am not responding with the hopes of circular rhetorical debate. It simply struck me as silly that a well respected scientist would not be able to tell the difference between a "policeman" or security guard. Are you kidding me? Come on Dr. its obvious you knew, and decided to polish your interesting story, in hopes to up the shock... and yes it is a little thing, however Im not a fan of a scientist, i respect, coloring any story. it would be nice to simply get the facts for once, from either side.

What creationists accuse scientists of:

1. State the problem
2. Formulate the hypothesis
3. Make observations
4. Blind faith
5. Hypothesis accepted

How they answer their own questions:

1. Defer to authority
2. Hypothesis accepted
3. Faith shaken by contrary evidence
4. Peer review (peers = other creationists)
5. Hypothesis accepted

Richard Dawkins is probably one of the most uneducated men in this field ever to pose as an authority on the subject of intelligence in the first place. I laugh sarcastically at anyone who pitifully looks to him to even know how to wipe their ass properly. He means well, poor thing, and it's true that he has now been exposed for the fool he really is, but if anything The Dawkins Delusion is only a small example of how closed minded people are in the US. Thankfully I grew up in Europe where people are not so ignorantly eager to expose their one last functioning brain cell to harm by actually trying to equate ID with Creationism. People who immediately shout "Creationism!" at the first sign of pattern surprise me in how they don't do so in every other area of their life where patterns and design emerge with every passing moment. And I also assume they must not be that informed in areas of science themselves as much as they parrot what others say. However I was amused by Richard Dawkins who admits to the possibility of life being planted here by intelligent alien life. I must have laughed for about an hour over the irony and absurdity. What are next, fairies? Thankfully ID avoids one of the fundamental problems of Pat Robertson and Richard Dawkins (oh yes, both men use the same circular reasoning): Scientific evidence. I have set under great minds on both sides of the debate and unfortunately both sides typically have an agenda. ID stands apart in that it neither caters to one side or the other and to argue otherwise is to only demonstrate the extent of brain-washing one has endured. The fact that I'm still reading moronic references to Creationism in reference to ID only goes to show that so many TV-entertained people in the US still don't know how to think for themselves or distinguish scientific observation from mere wishful thinking. I hate to break it, but merely wishing ID out of existence does not make it disappear anymore than arguing that the earth is flat is going to stop intelligence from discovering the facts. If only ignorance like this could go extinct... now that would be evolutionary progress at its best.

Never heard of the Wedge Document, eh, Marco?

Read the Bible. Learn something, have some faith, instead of being a dork that believes we came from monkeys.

I nearly fell out of my seat while watching "Expelled" this afternoon when I heard Richard Dawkins put forth an Intelligent Design theory for explaining the origins of life. According to Richard Dawkins, it's ridiculous to talk about God and hobgoblins, but perfectly scientific to propose that intelligent beings from elsewhere in the Universe seeding life here on Earth. Amazing!

Well, the loons are out. It's gonna get busy around here. And crazy...well, crazier.

it's ridiculous to talk about God and hobgoblins, but perfectly scientific to propose that intelligent beings from elsewhere in the Universe seeding life here on Earth.

it's called panspermia, and it wasn't proposed by Dawkins.

Moreover, he actually was responding to a question asking about what the designer might be IF NOT GOD, since if you look at the Disinformation Institute's own website, ID supposedly has nothing to do with religion.

now, if you wish to continue to flaunt your total ignorance, feel free.

Just ignore us laughing at you.

Read the Bible. Learn something, have some faith, instead of being a dork that believes we came from monkeys.

oh yes, read the Babble and learn fun science facts!

LOL

I think you'd be better off burning it instead of heating oil to keep yourself warm in winter.

I think you can get unlimited free babbles, which would make it quite economical, though you might have to figure out how to make up the extra carbon footprint.

You've got to love the assumption that an omnipotentdeity is more reasonable than, say, a couple of white mice from another galaxy. Why is a spirit-thing-entity outside physical reality but able to intervene in it so reasonable that it requires not evidence but merely the proposition of its existnce?

Oh, yeah; it's not.

What if it only breaks even before goes to DVD?

At 3.4 million it would rank at only the #3 opening weekend for a documentary film?

Oh! What a failure!

Really, if it does that well, the DVD sales are sure to make it a big profit and Premise will trot out more of these low-budget documentary films.

I see that as a great victory.

See my blog for my take on all of this plus some EXPELLED clips.

I saw a prescreening and one of the producers said it cost around $5 million to make (I've also heard $7 million including distribution) and they were planning to spend "millions" more in marketing.

So I think it's safe to say the entire production was in the single digit millions.

Think about it, DVDs cost about a buck to reproduce and package. That's where the profit is. It means Premise will have to sell about 200,000 units to raise a budget for another film like this one.

Can't wait.

Its so pathetic that people would call someone that does not agree with them an idiot. I'm so boggled as to why some people are so full of anger, what is it about believing in a Creator that makes you angry...does it make somebody a bad person? The only thing I can come up with is envy. I think people are envious of people that have the potential to believe, because deep down inside you want to believe but your mind will not allow you. To me its pretty simple, I don't see the air I breathe but I believe I'm breathing it,just like I don't see my Creator but I am here thus, being created. Hey if I happen to be wrong I have nothing to lose, but on the other hand believing in God has made me a much better person because I dont live life selfishly. I sincerely feel sorry for those who are missing out on what life really is about. Oh and I can't wait to see "Expelled" and I really had no intention on watching it before I came across this blog...thanks!!

You were saved from spending an evening with Dawkins. You should be very happy! The man is an awful bore and incredibly tedious.

I heard that "Expelled" had the third highest opening for a documentary of all time.

"The creationist propaganda film Expelled."

Is this film no more propaganda than "Fahrenheit 9/11" or "An Incontinent Truth." I saw all three of the movies in the theatre, and I must concur that Expelled has a bias toward intellectual design, but all three of those movies were biased. There is no such thing as an unbiased documentary. Every movie has a particular. Calling it "creationist propaganda" is just a ploy to seem clever, when you actually have nothing better else to say.

To all of you who look at us who hold to ID as inbred Southerners who are mentally challenged and should not be allowed to enter academia, I say come up with something new, than just name calling and put downs. Since supposedly I believe in a fairy tale, but merely a theory that cannot be backed up at all. If that is true, then I need to be enlightened. Please someone give me irrefutable evidence that evolution is absolutely irrefutable fact. Not one theory, I want facts. Is it more far fetched to believe that God, outside the realm of physics, set physics into motion, or that aliens or crystals seeded the proteins to make the first cell?

I apologize for my passion, or even my rudeness, but I will not be stereotyped anymore. I am tired of put downs, I want for someone to show me irrefutable evidence that my faith is in vain.

For all who believe this blog please contact me as I have some very good ocean front property in Arizona going cheap.

what is it about believing in a Creator that makes you angry

Believing in a creator is not the problem. Sabotaging and destroying science is the problem.

Calling it "creationist propaganda" is just a ploy to seem clever, when you actually have nothing better else to say.

But we do have something better to say, "It is inaccurate, distorted, malicious, ineptly produced, lying creationist propaganda." And if it suckers you in to believing its message then you are ignorant in not only science but also history and basic logic.

"I say come up with something new, than just name calling and put downs."

I say come up with a testable theory, than just calling god in to explain everything. (Pssst, it's not science.)

"Please someone give me irrefutable evidence that evolution is absolutely irrefutable fact."

Do you have anything close to enough education or knowledge of science to understand irrefutable evidence if it were given to you? Didn't think so.

Do you have doubts about the theory of relativity? How about plate tectonics or electromagnetism? If you are convinced that the science of evolutionary biology is wrong, it is because you have been systematically lied to by professional liars. They have been lying, systematically, for many years, and the reality based community has not called them on it (they've been too busy trying to figure out how the world works). That is changing. The more you are informed about science, the more you will realize that creationism has nothing except religion--and systematic lying.

If you actually want to learn something about evolution you might try "Introduction to Evolutionary Biology" at TalkOrigins

PZ Myers also has several posts refuting creationism. Like this recent one. Four bad arguments against evolution

The commenters here are also very knowledgeable people, and include many scientists (not me). You might try reading what they have to say.

Democrat vs. Republican... City boy vs. Country boy... Wall Street Broker vs. Amish Carpenter... Evolutionary Science vs. Creation Science...

Isn't it amazing what diversity we can accept and what diversity is vehemently opposed? I am tired of the evolution origins realm assuming themselves as scientist and purporting that anyone outside their fence as something less. True science is not a defense of a theory, but rather a systematic approach to evaluating a theory. True science is based on verifiable, repeatable experiment. Neither the evolutionist nor creationist are able to reproduce the origin of species because of what we have come to understand as one of the Laws of Thermodynamics - matter is not created or destroyed.

True science is unable to show what you ate for lunch a month ago, just as it cannot verify where all matter began. Just the same, true science cannot verify the missing link - without the presence of the missing link. True science is limited and therefore is not able to answer all questions within the universe. By observation and collective thought, many amazing facts have been established. However, no amount of collective thought can verify the theory of evolution OR creation. This is specifically in reference to origin - not one species evolving at a micro level. My children "evolve" every day... I have marks on the door frame to prove it (ah, science). But observation of that change does not verify their origin.

This argument will not be solved by science - at its heart it is a heart issue. If you don't believe in God, it is a proven fact you will oppose any theory or proposal that gives any credit to a higher power. If you do believe in God, it is a proven fact that you will oppose theories that do not align with your understanding of God's creation and works. True science will never solve this debate - the debate and the answer exists outside of science.

I am confident of my origin... but I do not rely on experiment to define my origin or existence. There is room in any classroom for either theory, but in reality neither belong there. True science only eliminates options because of test and analysis... not because of emotional bias!!!

Wow. The last time I saw so many pompous shitheads was when the Born Again Christian movement was in full swing in the 1970s. Now, its the atheists acting like know it all assholes.

GG atheists!

SGT Ted, the reason we're pompous is that we've taken the time to learn what it is we're talking about, and we're extremely tired of know-nothing faithbots claiming their ignorant opinions are somehow equivalent.

Speaking of which, thanks for sharing your opinion.

Oh then let me bow to your superior intellects.

You still come across like a bunch of assholes. I don't care what you know or don't know.

Just saying...

I doubt very much anyone here cares what you think Ted.

Brownian, did you know that life contradicts the ... uh ... something-th... uh... law of thermometers?

I doubt very much anyone here cares what you think Ted.

If you all act like the most smug, opinionated, Theists, you are no better than them.

Ted,

You come here and call everyone pompous shitheads and have the balls to call us smug and opinionated?

Fuck you.

OMFSM!!!
The Late Late Show with Craig Ferguson has that Moron, Ben Ste-n as a guest! You would not believe the amazing shit that is just falling out of his mono-toned mouth!
He actually said this movie is a good one to watch STONED.
He actually suggested taking a hit of acid (partially in gestures)
He said that he wanted people to watch and just OPEN their minds.( Oh, the hypocrisy!)
He states that Darwinism claims to be the reason for the planets orbiting around the sun, and that Darwinists feel it is the basis for astronomy!
When Craig Ferguson said that he didn't think Darwin ever said there was no God - Stein replied "well, yes, actually later in his life he kind of did!"
What a flatulent Butt-head.
Does this man NEVER shut up?
I have a favorite saying. "Stupid people are entertaining...if you just sit back and enjoy the show, they will bend over backwards to show you just how stupid they can be!"
I think Mr. Stein just won the MORON GOLD STAR for today!
I have never seen such a case of rampant case of open mouth-insert foot! WTF?
Despite evidence to the contrary, I am speechless.
Smite him, Oh Mighty Smiter!

Mr Meyers was not admitted to the movie for the following in the words of assistant producer M Mathis;

"Yes, I turned Mr. Myers away. He was not an invited guest of Premise Media. This was a private screening of an unfinished film. I could have let him in, just as I invited Michael Shermer to a screening in Nashville. Shermer is in the film as well. But, in light of Myers' untruthful blogging about Expelled I decided it was better to have him wait until April 18 and pay to see the film. Others, notable others, were permitted to see the film. At a private screening it's my call."

Mr Meyers had displayed a belligerent bullying attitude about the documentary and it is totally within bounds for the producer to deny admission to a private screening.

That's quite interesting though not surprising. Having just seen the film, I do have one question: do Darwinists really believe life began on the backs of crystals or from some sort of "seeding"? This all sounds very Kryptonian, and I can't imagine anyone claiming to both believe this and that they are intelligent. At least the "seeding" idea is somewhat science fiction, but I always thought crystal technology belonged in the comic books with Superman. If I'm just totally missing it, I'd love to read more on the subject. I also fully realize this was not your response, Prof. Myers; however, I found your blog and thought I'd ask.

Okay, so I also have a second question: How is "seeding" not intelligent design? Just because the "planters" came from Darwinian evolution, they still would have intelligently designed the earth or at least its inhabitants. And where did their "planters" come from? I really don't see how this answers anything, but I'm certainly willing to investigate further.

Ryan Riley:

"do Darwinists really believe life began on the backs of crystals or from some sort of "seeding"?

Darwinists Evolutionary biologists do not know how life began. There are many hypotheses but nothing is confirmed. The theory of evolution is a description of how life evolved once it did get started. There is a great deal of evidence for this theory. There is little hard evidence for concluding anything about the origins of life--as of yet. The very first replicators that eventually evolved into organic life? Maybe it was crystalline structures, who knows? Many possibilities are being considered.

And if life was seeded by aliens (not a hypothesis currently in vogue, nor one favored by Richard Dawkins, in spite of what the movie tried to imply) then how did the aliens come about? You're right, it doesn't answer anything. You're still left with "How did life get started." The question remains unanswered.

"do Darwinists really believe life began on the backs of crystals or from some sort of "seeding"?

also see:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origin_of_life#Clay_theory

do be sure to review the critiques of the various ideas before concluding all scientists subscribe to one or the other as well.

Hey LT.

It's Myers. He was invited in an email by Premise Media. He was on the premise media email list. And was invited in an email to attend a preview screening.

And yes we understand that Mathis is a fraud and a liar. Most of, if not all of, the scientists that support evolution that were in the movie were scammed into believing they were being interviewed about the intersection of science and religion. And not a movie that debases darwin, atheists and science and pretends that ID is science.

If you were tricked into being interviewed for a movie that supported paedophilia under the premise that you were interested in early childhood education... I think you would be "display a belligerent bullying attitude" about it too.

www.expelledexposed.com

Okay, so I also have a second question: How is "seeding" not intelligent design?

actually, at best this could logically be compared to the idea of "theistic evolution", not "intelligent design".

OTOH, the IDiots are expanding the size of their big-top tent every day.

Thanks RamblinDude and Ichthyic for your responses. I'll look into the link you sent. Also, apologies for the "Darwinists." That's the term used from the movie; obviously, it is not accurate. Also, I realize that not everyone subscribes to these two theories, but it surprised me that anyone would, to be honest. If there is evidence to such claims, I am fascinated.

Thanks again.

Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools.

Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools.

Professing himself to be pious, he became smug and self-serving.

How is "seeding" not intelligent design?

Seeding itself is not at all intelligent design. It is simply putting life on earth, or on something that will bring it to earth.

Seeding could be simply taking life that arose abiogenetically, and then evolved, and transplanting it to another environment. We do this all the time, but we don't think that bringing a bird to America from Australia is "intelligent design", apart from the collection of the bird, and the journey itself.

But conceivably aliens might be able to design a life-form and put that onto the earth.

That would be intelligent design, and it is not something that we can rule out.

It is not Intelligent Design, however, because Intelligent Design is a claim that some intelligence acted but without leaving any of the traces of design that humans or humanoid aliens would be likely to leave. That is, they don't predict that rational methods will be used to design and produce this life, and they don't claim that there is any independently detectable purpose behind it. We would expect both rationality and a discernable (if not necessarily an easily discernable) purpose from aliens, by contrast.

Conceivably aliens could create and seed life whose designedness might not be detectable by now, or even at the start. But if that is so, then it is barely even a hypothesis, and certainly not one that can be used in science.

No one denies that undetectable intelligent acts may be occurring in this universe, apart from ourselves and (arguably) other animals. The point is that detectable intelligent acts are not responsible for life or anything else that we see.

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

The point is that detectable intelligent acts are not responsible for life or anything else that we see.

Again, of course, except for those produced by known animal.

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

PZ - It's good to know that you believe the end of religion will bring about a scientific utopia for us all. It worked so well for Lenin, Stalin, Hitler, Mao Tse-Tung, Pol Pot, why not give it another go? Brilliant.

Your comments were just about the funniest parts of the movie. That and those of another deep thinker who said that the source of life might have been cells that somehow were magically formed, out of vapor I guess, and road around on the backs of crystals. Hillarious.

It's a real comfort to know that the two of you are disseminating your wealth of wisdom into the minds of university students. God help us all.

Mark Johnson,

if you had really listenned to what PZ said in that movie (and not fabulated) he talked about religion becoming a side dish instead of the main course, such as it is already the case in most of the developped nations (such as western Europe, Japan, Australia) except the USA. As far as I know, these countries are very far from being inspired by any of the dictators that you are mentioning.
Also, I doubt Dawkins was talking about cells being magically formed. If you can't understand what people say, or you know absolutely nothing about the field of abiogenesis :
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis
that's your problem, but please avoid this occasion to demonstate not only your ignorance but also your profound disrespect for these people whose profession it is to study these questions. If in the past, humans had always stopped at "God did it" as an explanation for every natural phenomena, we wouldn't have discovered any of the technologies which make us a modern civilization today. So please, next time you spit your apparent profound dislike of science and what it represents, think a little bit more...

I have made Ben Stein the first nominee for an award, including an ignorance offset at http://ignoranceoffsets.com

amazing how you liberals and atheists react to any mention of your ignorance. evolution can not be proven but you treat it like it is. why can't you be open minded ? what discussion are you afraid of ? you all operate with the same little pea brain that the rest of us have. you are not superior. if evolution is to be the only answer then prove it. until you do prove it ,as scientists you must keep your minds open.we who accept your claims as possibly valid see you as elitists unable and unwilling to allow any discussion .( don't bother me with any facts my mind is made up )show us the fossils of ratbats or batrats.

amazing how you liberals and atheists react to any mention of your ignorance. evolution can not be proven but you treat it like it is. why can't you be open minded ? what discussion are you afraid of ? you all operate with the same little pea brain that the rest of us have. you are not superior. if evolution is to be the only answer then prove it. until you do prove it ,as scientists you must keep your minds open.we who accept your claims as possibly valid see you as elitists unable and unwilling to allow any discussion .( don't bother me with any facts my mind is made up )show us the fossils of ratbats or batrats.

HAHAHA.

That's a joke right???

Learn to read and write before you bitch about elitists treating you as stupid, Stupid.

I'm a Christian. Thanks for your story, PZ. How you were treated was shameful. I have made TV and video shows, and would never treat a guest like that!

Dear Negentropyeater:

You apparently didn't see Expelled, or slept through parts of it. I wasn't referring to Dawkins, and I accurately summarized what PZ said about his vision for the world's next man-made Xanadu.

You're right, I don't know anything about abiogenesis. There is a lot of superficial pseudo science I know nothing about. And, there is a lot of it to choose from.

Are you trying to say it is sacrilegious of me to critique the learned professors? It sounds like you might be organizing an inquisition. That's very religious of you.

I find it particularly humorous that those "caught on film" are crying foul. It seems very strange that the world's largest brains could have been hoodwinked in such an audacious manner. There ought to be law against movies and documentaries that portray Darwinism in a bad light.

Oh, contraire! The US is ahead of the other western nations you mentioned. I believe we now lead the "civilized" world in sexually transmitted diseases, abortions, teenage pregnancies, percentage of population in prison, and out-of-wedlock births. We have steadily been "progressing" since our Darwinian enlightenment, wouldn't you say?

MJ

It sounds like you might be organizing an inquisition.

Boy, don't you wish. Sure would validate your persecution complex, wouldn't it?

It seems very strange that the world's largest brains could have been hoodwinked in such an audacious manner.

Anyone can be taken in by lies if they've got no prior reason to doubt what the liars say.

There ought to be law against movies and documentaries that portray Darwinism in a bad light.

Again, you wish. But we do reserve the right to openly and outwardly criticise liars.

We have steadily been "progressing" since our Darwinian enlightenment, wouldn't you say?

No. Most of secular Europe has though, wouldn't you say?

So dishonesty is OK? Lying to people you interview to misrepresent their views is OK? Perhaps STDs and teen pregnancies would go down if the religious didn't rail against condoms and pressure for the giant failure that is abstinence only sex-ed. Who cares about out-of-wedlock births? What does that even mean? Since when do you have to be married to have children? You can be perfectly good parents and not be in a legal union. Having children with someone you're not married to is not immoral and not something to worry about.

"You're right, I don't know anything about abiogenesis. There is a lot of superficial pseudo science I know nothing about. And, there is a lot of it to choose from."

Ignorant and proud. A fine poster child for ID you are.

Mark Johnson (#326) a-ha'd,

Are you trying to say it is sacrilegious of me to critique the learned professors?

To critique something, you should have some substance to the argument. Some knowledge. Otherwise, it's not a critique, it's a complaint.

It sounds like you might be organizing an inquisition. That's very religious of you.

Exactly, that's why I think Negentropyeater wasn't saying that, so your question to him was meaningless.

You're not big on language skills, are you?

Oh, contraire

It's 'Au contraire'...And I guess that answers my question.

Box Office Update

Expelled is exponentially failing at the box office, with a half-life of about a week.

Weekly and weekend grosses have fallen by 50 percent (actually a shade more) each of the last 3 weeks. Each week the per-screen receipts drop by about a quarter, and it loses a third or so of its screens. (The per-screen figures keep dropping depite the ditching of screens, presumably the less profitable ones.)

It did about 4 million its first full week, 2 million its second, 1 million its third, and is set to do about a half million its fourth week. (It did a measly $328K for weekend 4.)

At this quite impressive rate of exponential decay, it can't do more than about $8 million no matter how long it runs. (Summing 4 + 2 + 1 + 1/2 + 1/4 + 1/8... asymptotically approaches 8.)

There is no way they'll make back their multimillion dollar production costs plus their multimillion dollar ad budget from their cut of 8 million dollars gross. (They'll only do about 2/3 of what they predicted for the opening weekend alone.)

Premise Media reported that its exit polls showed that 96 percent of viewers would recommend the movie, and made it sound like there'd be a groundswell of popular support despite the overwhelming critical consensus that the movie sucks.

http://scienceblogs.com/framing-science/2008/04/some_exit_poll_data_on_…

That's clearly wishful thinking; Expelled continues to tank spectacularly. Apparently either the Premise folks are lying---wouldn't that be a shock?---or the movie's fans are not taken seriously by anyone they're talking to. (Maybe their friends and families know they're crazy.)

In what I can only explain as a time-delayed act of drunken stupidity, I went to see Expelled.

It was even worse than I expected.

Richard Dawkins was IN the movie. He was interviewed for it. Maybe he wasn't mistakenly let in after all.

"I went to attend a screening of the creationist propaganda movie, Expelled, a few minutes ago. Well, I tried ... but I was Expelled!... and a policeman pulled me out of line and told me I could not go in.

... I asked why, of course, and he said that a producer of the film had specifically instructed him that I was not to be allowed to attend. The officer also told me that if I tried to go in, I would be ARRESTED."

Gee, you must indeed live in some strange FASCIST country, that such behaviour is tolerated from the "authorities".

Pray tell, where is it?

"I assured him that I wasn't going to cause any trouble."

Why? I mean why didn't you ask for HIS ID, and threaten to report this JackBoot, a PUBLIC "servant", for acting malevolently on behalf of a PRIVATE party?

"I went back to my family and talked with them for a while, and then the officer came back with a theater manager, and I was told that not only wasn't I allowed in, but I had to leave the premises immediately. Like right that instant.

I complied."

Ditto; Why?

The people must have been conditioned to be such compliant sheep in that country of yours. Perhaps there hasn't been much evolution there.

Pray tell, which country are we talking about?

Sincerely,
Dennis Revell.

What are you going on about? Your sarcasm isn't getting through.

...
... what sarcasm?

...

OMG OMG... Oh what a coup... OMG we are so smart weeee yahhh!!! OMG we should pat each other on the back and tell each other how very smirt u ar... ddduuuuuuuhhhh!!!!

For people who think they are the most intelligent and enlightened bunch on the planet earth or anywhere else for that matter you all act like a bunch of 3 yr olds going for a picnic... yah yippieee... After reading the stupid childish diatribe from you lot I would jump ship in a heartbeat. You offer nothing intelligent but proven or try to, that you are the bigger kid on the block and everyone has to go your way or the highway... Stop being so afraid of different ideas... Oh look a ball.... what me to throw it for you.... dipshits

It's SCHMUCK you fucktard.

And ID isn't a different idea. It's really old one.

You-all DumbSmucks:

We're not "afraid" of anyone or anything [that's why we are so loud, see], we just have this natural aversion to liars, charlatans, and con-artists, that's all.

I'm sorry that you seem to accept that as "different", rather than call it as it is, and I'm sorry that reality doesn't conform with creationist lunacy, either. For shame.

Come back when you can construct even the simplest of sentences correctly.

The fool thinks there is no God and the beliefs of Christians are seen as foolish. But God uses the ideas perceived foolish to ultimately shame those who think they have understanding.

So there you have it from this 'liar', 'charlatan', 'con artist' 'fucktard', 'pious', etc etc. Just thought I'd save you the effort. Though judging from previous comments you will continue.

Greetings from the land of my fellow preacher and man of faith, the high priest of self-deification and the church of misohotheos, the rev. Richard Dawkins.

The fool thinks there is no a God and the beliefs of Christians are seen as foolish.

There, fixed it for you.

How illuminating, Nick.

If the Christian is seen as a fool then the beliefs will be viewed as foolish. But from your perspective, which, of course, may be wrong.

Huwlpt,

Look, you moron, your comment had no more content than "ner-ner-ne-ner-nerr", so I replied in kind. If you have an argument to put forward, do so. Otherwise, fuck off.

But God uses the ideas perceived foolish to ultimately shame those who think they have understanding.

You're not thinking carefully about that notion (from Corinthians, mostly, as I recall).

If god uses stupid means in order to fuck with the minds of those who try honestly to understand the universe as it is, and make them look foolish... then god might well try something even stupider in order to make you look foolish.

Maybe Scientology is the true religion now. Maybe Mormonism is. Or maybe it's Islam instead. Or maybe it's something completely different that no-one has heard of, which will change next Tuesday to something else that no-one has heard of. You simply cannot rule out anything, no matter how stupid it sounds.

Once you posit a god who fucks with peoples minds; once you posit a god who deliberately does things that make no sense whatsoever solely to mess with people who think they know what is going on... you've left yourself open to receiving the exact same treatment; to being mind-fucked; to being messed with. And you're also therefore open to suffering the same fate as the most strident atheist and blasphemer that ever was, just for not getting the new memo.

See you in Hell!

You simply cannot rule out anything, no matter how stupid it sounds.

Blessed are the Pastafarians, for they shall have strippers and beer volcanoes.

Yeah! Expelled is now available via the usual p2p methods (and it's barely stealing, as the probability that the dvd will ever be released here in France is about zero).

But... as a foreigner, I find spoken English a bit hard (especially since I intend to show this movie to a lot of friends and have a good laugh at it). Has anybody per chance got some subtitles for the movie? (English or French Canadian).

Thanks so much for this! This is exactly what I was looking for

Why all the emotion? If we are talking facts, logic, and scientific proof then emotion has no place nor credibility.

Very good. Really funny! Thanks for this.

I am so happy I watched expelled!

It's finally clear to me that the I.D.'s have less cred than the Creationists.

Not one argument that helps the I.D. case. So many that showed their ignorance of what Darwin said.. Darwin was brilliant for a man of his age.. the father of modern biology. If I.D. was real, wouldnt it have worked a point that said... Darwin is wrong here, here and there... modern science is wrong here, here and there because we have data that says....

Michael Schermer said it all... there was and is no working of buts in the field or the lab.

Thanx for pointing this movie out to me.. Pity PZ had to miss it on the big night...