Mark Mathis does not come off as a nice man in interviews. You may have listened to the SciAm interview, a truly painful experience in which he made claims about evolution and then backtracked when confronted with his mistakes…and admitted that he knew nothing about the subject. He's done it again in an interview with a Detroit weekly (scroll down to the "Unevolved" article on that page).
I confront Mathis with this point, and he counters that evolutionary theory is also untestable. This is patently untrue—to give just one example, scientists have witnessed speciation, the arisal of a new species from an old one.
When I point this out, he interrupts me immediately: "Whoa! Wait a minute! Please send me whatever material you have that demonstrates that we can observe speciation because I have not seen anything. I've never heard anyone even claim that!"
Is he serious? He's just produced a film about evolution, and he's never heard of the fact that speciation has been observed and thoroughly documented in the scientific literature? I'm stunned. I send him peer-reviewed research confirming this fact via e-mail, and he later responds, "This isn't an important argument for me."
So I ask him about falsifiability. Clearly, evolution could potentially be disproved, but how could one ever disprove the existence of a deity? He laughs. "You can't apply falsifiability to Darwinian evolution. How is it falsifiable?"
I respond by quoting the biologist J.B.S. Haldane: "Fossil rabbits in the Precambrian." One instance of fossils appearing in the wrong strata would disprove current evolutionary theory in an instant. Mathis pauses before saying, "If you want to get into the science..." He then trails off and mutters something irrelevant before finally confessing, "Look. You can get into the intricacies of the science on both sides. And I am not qualified." On that point, we can both agree.
It's really easy to find descriptions of speciation events on the web, there are thousands of papers on the subject, and there are even whole books discussing it (with difficult, hard-to-find titles like Speciation, which must be why Mathis couldn't find them). It is cute how the poor man melts down when he meets anyone with even a hint of scientific knowledge. I don't think "Fossil rabbits in the Precambrian" counts as a scientific intricacy, at least not in the circles I hang out in, where it's more of a glib quickie. But then, even that level of science probably leaves poor Mathis floundering and lost.
You'll have to read the rest to find out what he says about me, personally. I guess calling him the ass-prod was an insult that really stung.
Sagittarius: Uh-oh. A Republican is going to notice that you are a man-animal hybrid today. Expect vicious denunciations on the steps of the Capitol; beware of federal agents in white lab coats.
- Log in to post comments
If it stung, why has he been doing nothing but acting like an ass-prod ever since?
Come on, he's the typical repressed moron, he likes being an ass-prod and unconsciously flaunts it. He just can't admit it.
Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/2kxyc7
He's obviously not keeping up with the YEC literature, since they are dead keen on speciation these days. Indeed, they rely on it, to get post flood biodiversity. Carl Wieland of AiG says:
Poorly-informed anti-creationist scoffers occasionally think they will 'floor' creation apologists with examples of 'new species forming' in nature. They are often surprised at the reaction they get from the better-informed creationists, namely that the creation model depends heavily on speciation.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/TJ/v11/i2/speciation.asp
Mathis obviously isn't a "better-informed creationist".
Apparently he doesn't come off as a nice man in person, either. I've got a couple of friends in the film biz who have met him and agree that ass prod is... sweet, kind, and mild as a way to describe him.
But where are the dogs turning into cats, huh? ;^)
"But if ID isn't creationism, then oral sex isn't sexual relations."
...
"The theory of relativity will be taught alongside the theory of divinity, which maintains that E = whatever God good and well pleases."
I rather like this guy.
I'm not sure what an ass-prod is. All these scientific terms confuse me sometimes.
Listen, lets get away from the facts. Truth isn't about facts. This evolution stuff is all fact, no heart. There are those who think with their head, and those who know with their heart.
(Courtesy to Stephen Colbert)
Oh, and just read the review:
How come Kevin Miller never posts here anymore? I want to taunt him for being such a shitty, oh-so-very-shitty writer.
but
does count as damn funny.
I pulled together from all on line image sources google could finger as many images of fossils or renderings of what the living creatures might have looked like and a few game attempts at cladistic trees and set them as a slide show screen saver. its kinda like flash cards. and I am getting the names down for all the wacky weirdness found in the Burgess shale. But damned if I have seen a rabbit yet.
Precambrian rabbit: made me laugh.
This is my favorite of the Mathis quotes from the article, "We have the option of ex... uh, of kicking, uh, of not allowing P.Z. Myers to come to the film he wasn't invited to. Okay? Who cares?!"
LOL! Some people are born to be clowns.
C'mon, man! I've been waiting all day for my horoscope! When are you going to post for Aires?
"The theory of relativity will be taught alongside the theory of divinity, which maintains that E = Oh fuck it, God-did-it!"
Still no Taurus horoscope, eh? Well to hell with you, I have an email that says I have been "confirmed for the finalist's prize of $500,000." So I don't need those lottery tickets. I am rich, RICH. And I am going to make a movie with my money and expose you as the Athiest you are. Bet that's never been done before.
By this time, I think "wanker" fails to sufficiently describe Mr. Mathis. I think I'll come around to "ass-prod".
Not to step on PZ's toes, but I've got one for Gemini that incorporates a comment my roommate made last night:
Gemini: As a twin, prepare to be hounded by behavioural geneticists, sociologists, and psychologists, especially if you and your clone are raised apart.
Ah, a Sagitarrius horoscope! That's me!
Damn you, PZ!!! You have outed my hybrid nature in your horoscope. I'll see you in court. In Texas.
I've been thinking: I doubt that all the volleys we online science-writing folks have fired at Expelled have impacted the movie's core demographic, but Web sites like Expelled Exposed have probably influenced the critics who have reviewed the movie. I mean, who reviews a movie nowadays without Googling for it? This matters all the more because prior to its opening, the film had rather low awareness scores. Outside that core demographic, people might only be hearing about it through negative press.
Creationists like to use the word species, but they obviously don't know what it really means. To understand them better (if you want to), substitute the word "order" or "class" when they say species. Then you can understand that what they are saying has never been observed is the ID Tinkerer God doing his stuff, and they're right.
Seriously, would fossil rabbits in the Precambrian really falsify the theory of evolution? I've always wondered about that.
Mark Mathis. Hahahahahahaha. He makes Geoffrey Simmons look like R.A. Fisher.
Wow. Just, ...Wow.
Just idly wondering about the "rabbit fossil in the precambrian" bit:
If such a discovery were ever made, could it alternatively be considered as evidence in support of the possibility of time travel rather than as an invalidation of evolution?
Or would the existence of time travel in and of itself invalidate our modern understanding of evolution?
Or is the very question evidence that I read too much science fiction?
Screechy @ #20, at this point, a fossil located in the "wrong" strata would most likely be a hoax. If it is genuine, my understanding is that it would really cause a stir. But the entire model would not be thrown out. The new observation would need to be understood and assimilated into the current body of understanding and information.
Expelled - the comedy that keeps on giving.
It's really easy to find descriptions of speciation events on the web, there are thousands of papers on the subject, and there are even whole books discussing it (with difficult, hard-to-find titles like Speciation, which must be why Mathis couldn't find them).
That's okay Ben Stein didn't see any substantial criticisms of his movie either. I think maybe they having reading glasses problems or something over there.
#23 amphiox wrote:
You may be on to something.
Three cheers for Jay Davis! Encouraging to see that there are still sensible members of the press.
The problem with starting with your conclusion, like Mathis shows, is that you don't need to know squat and that fact may very well shine through when you least want it too.
What an ass prod/-clown/-hat!
Creationist hardly ever (never??) use the term 'species' they virtually always use the term 'kind.' There is more weasel room implicit in 'kind.' By using 'kinds,' creationists can blather rapidly- Gish galloping and forever moving goal posts.
A simple argument that has, as yet, always worked when dealing with Gallopers is to insist that they define 'kinds' at whatever taxonomic level they prefer and then skewer them with the implications of their choice. Works because the Gallopers have no real knowledge of evolution or taxonomy (or science).
Mathis' impeccable logic is just soooo simple, PZ!
He claims entry into the ranks of the multiply-born. That means he can make a movie all about what he thinks is necessary for anyone else to claim they, too, are similarly oriented, and claim it's not about that at all. It's okay. He's in the same company with St. Peter, who made three similar denials before the poultry signalled it was dawn.
You, on the other hand, claiming to only have been born once, are cursed with the damnable burden of consistency, which proves you are in no such august company. That makes him right.
He gets to misrepresent his production in order to trick biologists (and "other" atheists) into speaking candidly, so he can twist your words into his pre-conceived "Lord.Privy.Seal" editing style, but that's okay, you see, because since his sins are forgiven, any future sins he may commit (like bearing false witness, for example) will also be forgiven. He's in the clear.
You, on the other hand, can find no solace in your dogged adherence to simple truth, since you, being among the voluntarily unforgiven anyway, will gain no credit in his imaginary afterlife by hiding behind abstract notions of childish ethics. You automatically lose.
He gets to exaggerate and misrepresent the poorly-articulated rantings of a genocidal movement as the result of evolutionary doctrine, since if he succeeds in this effort, hordes of new believers will obviously clamor to join the ranks of the multiply-born. His ends justify his means, because the latter are designed to achieve what is, to him, a greater good. Why, no deity would dare punish him for that!
You, on the other hand, are to him nothing more than a tool he can use to achieve those ends. Since you are not of his multiply-born association, this gives him the right to treat you however he wishes. Should you "repent," you will automatically (by definition) acknowledge the correctness of his actions anyway, and (what is more likely) if you don't, at least those undecided may see the just (shabby?) treatment you have received at his hands, and thus be persuaded to join the "winning" team.
He most assuredly does not have to know anything at all about speciation, genetics, or any science whatsoever. He only needs to claim he is speaking for God (while claiming not to speak for God), and those whom he regards as godly will recognize his inherent godliness. Only the truly wise will be given the gift to recognize his wisdom.
You, on the other hand, will find no solace in all your knowledge, incomplete and imperfect as it is, which will drag your soul into his version of Hell, kicking and screaming.
He is dangerously deluded about many things, most importantly, the nature of his presumed religion.
You, on the other hand, are sane.
Now, if you'll excuse me, I need to get to Bible study tonight. Then I have to help a friend pick out a good astronomical telescope for a precocious 6-year-old niece.
I guess that makes me a closeted Nazi sympathizer.
Logic is soooo simple.
You know reading about that interview with Mark Mathews shows that there is money to be made being an internet troll. I suspect PZ is far too kind in his language describing this man. "Delights in knowingly committing evil" seems to be the best description for Mathews.
"oral diarrhea"?
Who talks like that?
Yeah, you must've said something really nasty to get under his skin like that. I think that's the first time I've actually seen somebody's spluttering quoted before. Is it just me or does anyone else imagine Mathis turning red in the face and spitting whenever he talks about PZ?
[self promote]
BTW, I've added my first post to my blog. I'm not quite as eloquent as some others, but perhaps with practice...
[/self promote]
If it were up to me, I'd wait until you learn to spell it.
Seriously, would fossil rabbits in the Precambrian really falsify the theory of evolution? I've always wondered about that.
If it checked out, it would definitely falsify something, but what? Evolution, geology, radiometric dating, or all of them?
What I find most hilarious is that these people believe the commandment "thou shalt not bear false witness" came straight from the mouth of the all-powerful creator of the universe. And yet they seem completely unable to bear any other kind of witness.
#2
"Carl Wieland of AiG says:
Poorly-informed anti-creationist scoffers occasionally think they will 'floor' creation apologists with examples of 'new species forming' in nature. They are often surprised at the reaction they get from the better-informed creationists, namely that the creation model depends heavily on speciation.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/TJ/v11/i2/speciation.asp "
Carl Wieland no longer is with Answers in Genesis, but remains with the progenitor, Creation Ministry International (the original AIG). Note that CMI has taken AIG to court in Australia over some kurfufel between them.
Jim Lippard's Blog has a good review of the action.
I wonder if Mark Mathis gets dumber by hearing himself talk in his own interviews. Maybe earplugs would stop the leak?
www.lifescienceprize.org/
That article has a picture of Mathis, I assume? That's what he looks like? Wow. He's just so... dull.
I mean, I'm sure he gets that a lot, but at least this time it's in regards to his appearance.
Wow. Mathis really, really doesn't like PZ:
(I like what the article writer had to say: Just to clarify, Myers did not break into Mr. Mathis' house in a drunken rage with a bowie knife--he has simply been critical of Mathis' arguments.)
And:
The part of the article where the reporter points out that it wasn't an invitation-only screening is also priceless...
#37 Ganf wrote:
Oh, no...did the argument over the style of saddle that humans put on dinosaurs get out of control?
"Look. You can get into the intricacies of the science on both sides."
hmm, this reminds me of something... Oh, I've got it now:
who knew Mathis was trying out for a role on the Simpsons as Homer's dumb(er) brother?
#39 -
Ok. I'm going to call that one the "Crazy guy on the street corner fallacy".
Basically it goes like this:
The crazy guy on the street corner shouts out a challenge. Nobody responds. The crazy guy declares that since nobody disproved him then he must be right.
Or am I missing something?
"If you want to get into the science..."
You are f***ing kidding me.
Yes, you lack-wit! We want to get into the science! That's exactly what we want to get into! That's exactly what your pathetic excuse for a movie claims to get into!
That's like someone grilling Michael Moore and having him reply, "Well, if you want to get into politics..."
Okay. Greta. Breathe. Calm blue ocean, calm blue ocean...
If anyone would like to contribute to my Precambrian Geology Research Fund you will be enabling my crack team of experts to spend the summer in NW Montana's Glacier National Park swilling beer working on the intriguing fossil rabbit question - will share authorship. Thanks in advance.
Hy PZ, hr yr mthr lks t f..k wll hng blck mn lk m s prhps 'm yr dddy.
[Mark? Is that you? -- pzm]
PZ, please close the font tag before the last sentence...
Hmmm... just maybe we might want to get into the science, when we're talking about a scientific theory all the time, when we're already neck-deep in the science, then just maybe...
TSIB.
SQUEEEEEEK! :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D
Well said.
Bingo.
OK, I'll stop here, rather than copying the whole review. Except for this part (sorry, I can only put whole paragraphs into Comic Sans):
There we have the admission. Trumpet it.
Certainly. But time travel is probably less parsimonious.
"I've been waiting all day for my horoscope! When are you going to post for Aires?"
You're an Aires? How cool! I'm a De Janiero!
"April 24: You will meet a handsome stranger in a very small bikini. She will want something from you. But since you don't speak Portuguese, she will walk away in disgust."
Steve "This might be a good thing." James
No one with a sound knowledge of the English language. One does not "read oral" diarrhea.
"Listen to oral diarrhea" would work.
"Read verbal diarrhea" would also work.
Okay. Greta. Breathe. Calm blue ocean, calm blue ocean...
Can Mathis swim?
If PZ can dream of priests on lawnchairs floating up to heaven, I can dream of the demented fuckwits like Mathis sinking in a calm blue ocean, right?
Ok, I guess I should add sharks, too.
Maybe lasers attached somewhere...
No, Mr Mathis. We have your photo. You're white.
Don't you want to get into the science?
Why so complicated? I'm sure PZ will gladly mutate a zebrafish for you.
Why is it that posts about Expelled tend to bring out our craziest and preening lurkers, I wonder?
Why so complicated? I'm sure PZ will gladly mutate a zebrafish for you.
Hey! It's my fantasy and I'll add sharks if I wanna!
nyah!
:p
besides where would we attach the laser beams on a zebrafish?
even mutated ones have heads that are too small.
...of priests on lawnchairs floating up to heaven...
No one ever claimed that the rapture wouldn't involve balloons.
Well if you're a rotten lying ass-prod who makes a dishonest movie, maybe you and your bad film *jazz hands* deserve to be attacked.
Why is it that posts about Expelled tend to bring out our craziest and preening lurkers, I wonder?
surely that's a rhetorical question?
I mean, we're talking people who saw Expelled and liked it, right?
I'm black and proud!
proud of what? being an ass?
guess what: color has nothing to do with that.
what's that you say?
No one ever claimed that the rupture wouldn't involve balloons?
:p
I thought that the first thing that one should do while in a hole is stop digging - fortunately for those that like watching the stupid slow-roast in its own juices, but not so fortunately for Mr. Mathis or the Exhumed creators, Mr. Mathis has not learned this. I guess that he and Mr. Stein are trying to prove that there really is an infinite amount of stupidity in the universe.
I'm glad you had the decency to censor the word 'fuck' there. Otherwise, we might have got the impression you were being rude.
I guess that he and Mr. Stein are trying to prove that there really is an infinite amount of stupidity in the universe.
...or that you really can end up in China if you just keep digging the hole deep enough?
So let me see here. We (I use "we" to signify the common line taken by the majority of commenters) said the movie was a sham. It is. We predicted that the XVIVO movie was ripped off. It was. We predicted that the music was taken without rights. It was. We predicted that Mathis only kicked PZ out because he didn't like PZ, and for no other reason. Mathis confirms that. We also predicted that the movie would gross less than Expelled *jazz hands* expected. It has. We also predicted that it would get viciously panned. And what do you know?
Even The Onion gives the movie an F.
http://www.avclub.com/content/cinema/expelled_no_intelligence_allowed
Paging Chris Mooney, we need some clean up on isle three.
Ichthyic (#59),
I know I don't get good answers from these people, so yeah.
Helps bide the time before a good disemvoweling happens.
It's being shown at Notre Dame this Saturday. Free Chipotle if you come!
The science department should protest...
The science department should protest...
The biology students should go get a free burrito and then shred the fuck out of the movie for their fellow students.
re #52, 62:
What's the context? Did one of PZ's dungeon crawlers slither out for a bit?
Band Name!
Precambrian Rabbit
No, he also confirmed having had one other reason. As I quoted:
He actually agreed with Nisbet & Mooney that all publicity is good publicity.
It should point and laugh.
Great minds think alike... 0:-°
Blake @ #18:
Like you, I would hope that the online discussion (and particularly Expelled Explosed) would enlighten reviewers, but a surprising number of them seem to accept the basic premises that there's a genuine debate about the viability of ID as a scientific theory, and/or that some poor scientists really are being unfairly punished for their brave, pioneering work in ID. This includes quite a few reviewers who have utterly trashed the film on other grounds--see, for example, Jeffrey Kluger at Time, who says "It's impossible to know from the handful of examples [Ben Stein] cites how widespread the problem is, but if there's anything to it at all, it's a matter well worth exposing." Jeez. Are journalists unable to type a few words and click a mouse? Maybe even read the Kitzmiller decision? (A notable exception is Roger Moore (no, not James Bond) at the Orlando Sentinel, who tears the Expelled folks a few extra holes.) There's a pretty good collection of reviews at Rotten Tomatoes, for further reference.
Yeah, but I think they would take that as an opportunity to educate lots of Chinese people on the facts of evolutionary theory. If they succeed, they'll be able to ensure that China develops a successful economy in...2300. Of course, they haven't succeeded at anything other than revealing their own stupidity and mendaciousness and creating unintentional humor, so I don't expect them to start being successful now.
It should point and laugh.
damn straight.
something Nisbet just DOES NOT get.
At least Mooney had only forgotten for a time, I think.
#64 And don't forget, Michael:
Rotten Tomatoes percentage of positive reviews:
Expelled: 10% (all reviewers), 0% (top reviewers)
Zombie Strippers: 38% (all reviewers), 30% (top reviewers)
Battlefield Earth was 3%...come on, Ben, you've got a ways to go!
I don't get why Mark Mathis objects to being called an "asp rod".
(Maybe he hates X-Men for grossing more in a weekend than he will in a lifetime?)
It's been taken.
A friend of mine from Washington DC formed a band called "Precambrian Rabbit" six or seven years ago.
I wish Mark Mathis didn't me.
Once again, I'm envious of PZ.
Band Name!
Precambrian Rabbit
Yosemite Darwin sez:
"Ah hate thet precambrian rabbit!!"
"Be vewwy quiet... I'm hunting pwecambwian wabbits..."
>It's been taken.
>A friend of mine from Washington DC formed a band >called "Precambrian Rabbit" six or seven years ago.
Crap. I guess we'll have to continue to perform as "Astronaut Love Triangle."
Daffy Mathis sez
PZ you're dethpicable!
Forgive me David, that is true. Though I suppose I see it being a bit post-hoc-damage control-y and so I dismiss it. Yet even if we take both his reasons at face value, neither of his offered reasons have any ethical justification behind them, nor do they confirm what many trolls have claimed: PZ broke the rules and was rightfully "Expelled". So in then end, the point remains unchanged.
Wow. Do you read Nature Cell Biology? Or did you get the idea of "asp rod", thought there might be a funny picture to it, and entered it in images.google.com?
:-D :-D :-D
Of course not. I'm saying it's even funnier than you said it was!
Tsk, tsk. Mathis is such a child. Unfortunately I know other bratty zealots just like him whose dogma supercedes anything other than their solipsistic view of the world. Mathis is just bawling after being spanked with science by PZ. Nanny nanny boo boo.
Paul, perhaps you should learn how to spell and use grammer correctly before you join the adults on a blog. Goodnight Princess Paulie ! Go teetee so you don't wet your bed, snoogums!
I love to make posts just to sit back and watch you all argueing among yourselfs about a movie so please don't stop as I'm really enjoying all this live entertainment among you back and forth {You're all in a tizzy over this movie so please keep it going}
You know the old saying: if you throw a stone into a bunch of dogs, the one who yelps is the one who got hit but in this case the whole pack of dogs are howling in unison.
{even before this movie came out} so as I said, please keep it going. Good nite. I'll be back tommorow, same time, same channel. This is better that watching a tv.
Your English is 'unpeccable'
don't stop as I'm really enjoying all this live entertainment among you back and forth
too bad the only thing you yourself can contribute are the tears of a clown.
Shorter Paul: I said something dumb and you all ripped me a new one, and I have nothing of substance with which to defend myself.
Regarding PZ being expelled from Expelled, it would appear that PZ's karma ran over Mathis's dogma.
(I've always wanted to say that!)
Mikey M - I vote for "Spanked With Science" (jsn @ #84).
*slaps forehead*
"Hello, my name is Michael X and I will be your joke-missing dumbass this evening."
I would have said his English was peccable, myself. As in:
I know a little man both ept and ert.
An intro--? an extro--? No, he's just a vert.
Shevelled and couth and kempt, pecunious, ane,
His image trudes upon the ceptive brain.
When life turns sipid and the mind is traught,
The spirit soars as I would sist it ought.
Chalantly then, like any gainly goof
My digent self is sertive, choate, loof.
--David McCord (1897 - 1997)
I always wanted to be a fossil rabbit....
sigh...
Mathis' "oral [sic] diarrhea" comment on PZ is real shiny mirror stuff given that his whole movie is visual and aural [not sic] diarrhea.
Of course with the Ono/Lennon/EMI lawsuit pending, it may become less "aural" as time goes on.
In sum one can respond to Mathis with some class: "You speak unskilfully: or, if your knowledge be more, it is much darkened in your malice" [or is that in your "mathis"?](from Measure for Measure)
Or maybe just a good old 16th century insult like this is appropriate given the movie is about concurrent with knowledge from that era: "Thou villainous rampallian malt-worm!"
Of course a pithy "Fuck you" is also well placed as we have seen from someone around here :)
@ themann1086 (#65): Can you give me details of the Notre Dame showing? I've got friends there, and I'd like to make sure someone is going to be there to point out the lies.
It seems like many Catholics are willing to side with this crap, which is a shame. They used to be pretty good on the evolution issue (I thought they learned their lesson with Galileo). But Kevin Miller points to a Catholic review of Expelled that's bone-headed sympathetic. (Did you know that Neo-Darwinism isn't a biological theory but is simply atheism? Where do they find these idiots?)
"Seriously, would fossil rabbits in the Precambrian really falsify the theory of evolution?"
We assume as a starting point (1)that the fossil really is a rabbit, (2)that the formation really is pre-Cambrian, and (3)that there hasn't been some sort of reworking that moved the fossil from one stratum to another. Any of these could be wrong, but geologists can usually tell the difference.
But if everything checks out, the most we could say is that there's something very wrong with our current ideas of the chronology of evolution. Starting with Darwin, and increasing at an increasing rate, evolutionary theory has been based on observable variations in developmental processes, rather than on the fossil record.
A better refutation would be the discovery that every organism is an exact duplicate of its parents, or that variation is never inherited, or that variation makes no difference in survival. No heritable, significant variation, no evolution as we believe we know it. But these supposed refutations are manifestly untrue, which leads to the strong suspicion that it's too late to refute evolution. Details of the theory will change, mainly by getting more intricate, but the major thrust seems safe.
I gotta say, I like Jay Davis's labels for the suppressed alternatives to the theory of gravitation and the germ theory of disease:
Nice! (I always liked the idea of intelligent falling, but the name left me flat).
@ themann1086 (#65): Can you give me details of the Notre Dame showing? I've got friends there, and I'd like to make sure someone is going to be there to point out the lies.
All I know is that it's Saturday, and the 8x11 ad is hanging on my dorm's official announcement bulletin board, along with a signup sheet which currently has 10-15 names on it. It's at 4 o'clock I believe. I don't know if it's actually on campus or if they're going off for it. I don't know if it's up in other dorms or if it's just my crazy rector [Stanford Hall]. I'm thinking about hanging up an "expelled exposed" thing next to it.
@#95 Physicalist --
Hey, didn't you learn anything from the super-trailer to Stein's ground-breaking documentary? The days of Galileo were truly the halcyon days of academic freedom and scientific inquiry. He would never have been expelled for believing in an intelligent designer.
Mathis sounds like an overgrown little boy with a bad temper and a bad attitude - just like his own Big Daddy!
@#98 themann1086 --
I think posting an Expelled Exposed sign next to it is quite a good idea. If I end up going to see Expelled (half of me wants to out of morbid curiosity, the other half doesn't for the sake of my remaining sanity), I'm thinking about wearing some kind of Expelled Exposed sticker/sign. Not that it will probably do any good. I've given cretinous IDiots in Pharyngula threads direct links to relevant Expelled Exposed pages with detailed facts about the lies propogated by the "great film" they'd just seen, and even when they reply to others' comments, they blatantly ignore mine...it's really bizarre. Are they actually capable of seeing this information and not realizing how grievously misleading the movie was? Or do they just not care?
Uh-oh. Whose house was it?
I think Precambrian rabbits would be stronger evidence for time travel than against evolution-- after all, the physics we know doesn't rule out closed time-like curves, and the evidence for descent with modification is downright overwhelming. Still, it sure would shake things up-- unlike the corroded spark plugs embedded in concretions and other 'mystery objects' some creationists get all excited about...
#95 Physicalist wrote:
On the whole, Catholics are still good on the evolution issue. Evolution is taught properly in Catholic high schools and universities, Ken Miller is one of the biggest champions of evolution out there, George Coyne and Templeton Prize winner Michael Heller (both priests) have publicly opposed ID, even Dinesh D'Souza realizes ID fails as a scientific concept. There are of course exceptions, like Michael Behe (although we of the Global Darwinist Conspiracy™ know he's really a mole planted to throw court cases).
I'd like to dig those up and worship them. They'd be perfect for The First Church of the Stig-Matic Transmission.
David:
You've done it again! I haven't been able to come up with a weird biology reference too obscure (or obscured) for you to spot! (Not that I'm really trying, but opportunities do present themselves, as with the "emphatic nematomorph" thing... Though, on another tack, I'm a little surprised nobody jumped on the Firefly reference in the same comment... heh.)
But... Sigh. I cannot tell a lie. The latter guess is, of course, correct. I hope you're not too disappointed in me, but just imagine my glee when I stumbled over that particular asp rod! It was too good to be true! :-D
#60: "fortunately for those that like watching the stupid slow-roast in its own juices...."
LMAO. This ranks right near the top, alongside "It's like being bukkaked with stupid!".
LMAO, #45...
Evolution Control Bureau
To: N. Merkin Fossil Service
Subject: Precambrian rabbits. Again.
Reports have surfaced of another precambrian rabbit find in the vicinity of the mathais arse. Not yet confirmed. Investigate.
As per the 3855 CE directive, rabbits are to be removed from the precambrian. Any that fossilised are to be destroyed. Subsequent amendment of 1296 CE authorises the starting of a local war or other minor distractions without prior approval.
Yours in the truth,
Dr Fudd, director of the precambrian (except ducks)
Evolution Control Bureau
To: Dr. Fudd, dir. Precambrian (exc. ducks)
Subject: Crocoducks -- what to do?
More bad news on the evolution front.
People are beginning to become suspicious at the lack of transitional crocoducks in the fossil record. As a result, we are asking you to broaden your department to include ducks.
Any help with the crocoduck problem will be greatly appreciated. Lack of cooperation may end in your being summarily expelled from the Bureau.
Big Science be with you now and always,
Dr Duff, Transitional Fossils Dept.
I just saw 'Expelled' tonight, and I'm not sure what to think. Was it supposed to be an expose on Intelligent Design as a theological misfire, or as a way to expose teachers of ID as frauds, or to ridicule scientists as godless heathens? I just don't know. I came away feeling that Ben was just doing his job as an interviewer, but his activities in promoting the film led the public to think he was stumping for the creationist's side.
I consider myself as believing in a higher power, but I can't identify it. I lost all faith in organized religion many years ago (based on policies 500 years out of date), but just recently began questioning my own belief in God as we have been told to understand him. After all, more people have killed or have been killed in the name of God than for any other reason known to man. Not to mention the folks God has killed (O Benevolent One). God so loved the world, he gave to us his only begotten Son, plagues, disease, war, floods, fires, earthquakes, creationists, et al.
The film itself didn't sway me one way or another, I'm probably going to side with science anyway, since it makes way more sense. But to think that educated people are losing jobs over shit that is so stale is beyond me. What happened to the open-mindedness of college? Are we supposed to believe everything we hear (Bush)? Aren't university campuses the hotbeds of free thinking? Guess not.
The film seems to suggest that proponents of ID are, at heart, trying to combine religion and science. I have been trying to do this myself for quite some time, but I can't seem to put two and two together. The practical side of my brain keeps taking control, meaning no more God thoughts.
To: Dr Duff, Transitional Fossils Dept.
RE: crocoducks
I've found the appwication of a warge bore shotgun fixes a gweat many pwoblems.
Have you twied that?
Yours in the truth,
Dr Fudd, director of the precambrian (except ducks)
But to think that educated people are losing jobs over shit that is so stale is beyond me.
It's simple, Paul.
they lied in the film.
none of the people who were supposedly persecuted for the beliefs were actually fired.
see for yourself:
Expelled
I'm glad to hear this piece of trash didn't manage to sway you, but you should spend some time looking at all the lies used in spinning that tale, anyway.
If for nothing other than future reference, because they aren't new lies, and you will see them again and again.
#110 Paul:
Only if "just doing his job as an interviewer" means lying to people in order to garner said interviews. There can really be no question that he was stumping for the creationists' side, both in the way he & the Expelled team made the movie and in the way he promoted it.
Most of the claims of people losing their jobs were distortions of the truth, over-exaggerations, or outright lies. That said, departments of science are completely justified in firing people whose unscientific beliefs interfere with their abilities to do their scientific jobs. Science is not about believing everything we hear -- quite the opposite. It's about hearing the evidence and theories, listening, and making an evaluation of the theories. Science has listened to ID -- and it's repeatedly (including in this sorry film) shown itself to be utter unscientific nonsense.
My grandfather has a saying that's apt for this situation: "Be open-minded, but not so open-minded that your brain fall out."
Religion = Supernatural
Science = Natural
No matter how you look at it, combining the two just doesn't make sense.
Well to be fair the lagomorphs have proven difficult to classify. Then we know the early Triassic mammals only from their teeth. Not exactly the pre Cambrian (or the Silurian or the Devonian) but.... It would clear a few things up.
One night at a party, some guy who was old enough to be my father was practically at my throat because I insisted that rabbits weren't rodents, they were lagomorphs. The closest he came to acknowledging that I might be right was when he said "Well, it must have been a recent reclassification." Yeah, it was - only about 100 years ago. He finally broke down and left to look it up, and... didn't come back. Heh.
The same guy had also insisted that ferrets were rodents, too, and that squirrels would rather eat raw meat than anything else. Freakin crazy dude. (What next? Blood-sucking hummingbirds that were actually Microchiroptera?)
Folks, Stein isn't just a paid interviewer, he cowrote the movie.
Aries: Today will be a bad day. You will meet a man in a black suit who looks like the Devil from the TV series Reaper. Your bowels turn to icy water. Then you will realise that he doesn't have the deep tan. Relief. Then you will realise it is Ass Prod Mark Mathis and you bust a gut laughing at his willful stupidity. I told you today would be a bad day.
Please, can we start using the word "testable" rather than "falsifiable"? Falsifiable is a stupid word with misleading implications.
Evolution (by natural selection) is not falsifiable because it isn't false. So any attempt to falsify it either fails or is flawed. It is however testable, verifiable, provable, etc.
Is Creationism falsifiable? Tricky. It's not a testable theory in the scientific sense, but it is false and known to be false, so simple hand-waving logic says it's falsifiable.
I don't want creationist morons doing this:
Scientist: creationism is not falsifiable
Religious idiot: it can't be false, so it must be true! I win!
Scientist: that's not what I mean, but evolution by natural selection is falsifiable
Religious idiot: so you say it can be demonstrated to be false! hey! I win again! this is too easy!
Your review pleases skepticism cat.
Sam C (118) I was a bit concerned about that too at first. In the last few weeks I've been debating against the IDiots on a few forums and none of them seem to have had trouble with that word.
My hunch is that they are confused by it and look it up. The definition of falsifiable is pretty solid.
Wow. Mathis gets dumber and more full of himself with every new thing I read on him. It's no wonder that Mathis hooked up with someone like Stein and Kevin Miller. They are all three peas in a pod. Is there some sort of inherent magnetism that comes along with full force headlong charging egotistically supported stupidity? At least from where I sit I don't see any geniuses involved on this film. It's like a little clutter of moron elements that are attracted to each other to form some super moron molocule. And it's radioactive. It radiates stupidity.
Sam C @ #118 : The word "falsifiable", like the word "theory" in the mouths of creationists, is a word that doesn't mean what it sounds like. Given that nothing is actually provable or verifiable ("well, yes, 9 IS 9.81 NOW, but what about tomorrow?") but eminently testable, falsifiability, is, simply, the JREF $1 million-dollar prize, writ large. It says "I am so confident in my theory that I will state, right up front, the conditions under which I will unconditionally state that it is wrong."
(On the other hand, you probably have a point there. Sometimes the best way to lead someone to the idea of )
On a related note: Precambrian rabbits only falsify evolution if you take the first and most simplistic form of Popperian falsificationism.
The more commonly-used variant is Lakatos's variant, which is that a theory is not just a theory; it is a system which makes a series of predictions and thus generates its own subtheories. As such, Precambrian rabbits might disprove evolution (the core of the theory) or the assumption that the rock really is Precambrian (the periphery of the theory).
Thus, if one found a rabbit in Precambrian rock, the _first_ thing you ask is not "ok, that's it, evolution is wrong."
Before you ask that, you'd ask "Is this really precambrian rock? Is the radioactive dating correct?" But you'd probably ask "Ok, did someone misfile this rock?"
Of course, the first thing you'd ask is "Damn, is it April 1st already? All right lads, joke's over."
I can't understand why you put 'unpeccable' in quotes: it's a perfectly cromulent word.
A digression, if I may.
When we talk about 'falsifying evolution', particularly in the context of creationism, it is tempting to think of some situation where evolution would be thrown out in its entirety and replaced by a completely different theory such as one the IDers would like (and let's pretend for the sake of argument that they actually have a theory).
Has such an upset ever happened in the history of science? A well formed scientific theory, I think by definition, must agree closely with observation. In the only examples I can think of where accepted scientific theories have been replaced they have been superseded rather than overturned.
Newton's theory of gravity was pretty damn good for the domain it was applied to. It was superseded by relativity, not replaced by intelligent falling. It is just as functional as ever, but we now know that it is not the whole story.
The same could be said of the shift from Ptolemaic to Copernican astronomy; I recall from a university paper a long time ago that the geocentric model produced more accurate predictions at the time of the original heliocentric model. Geocentric astronomy was not grossly incorrect in its predictions of (relative) planetary position, it was superseded by a theory which predicted the same thing but was more elegant.
Can anyone point me to a decent scientific theory (i.e. not ancient Greeks making stuff up) that has been totally chucked out the way IDers would like to chuck out evolution?
SAGITTARIUS: All your friends are laughing behind your back (kill them)
Take down all those naked pictures of Ernest Borgnine you've got hanging in your den
Hematite: I'm no scientist (don't panic!) but I do follow science as much as I possibly can, and I think I'm safe in saying that there is no other theory that can be "chucked out". Every other scientific or pseudo-scientific theory makes predictions of some sort, even alchemy and astrology etc. (I mentally winced at typing that, but there you have it.) Of course the predictions are not necessarily true, and they are both testable and falsifiable theories. Astrology is all about making predictions of course - which can be tested. But this is where creationism and ID fall flat. They make NO predictions, they are NOT testable or falsifiable, and are therefore NOT scientific, not in the least. That's it. End of story.
As I said, I'm not a scientist, but this simple fact is so obvious to me I just don't understand why Mathis and his cronies can't see it. Their self-delusion is mind-numbingly staggering.
JohnnieCanuck, FCD @92: Thanks for that poem; I have never heard of David McCord before, and I love word-play poetry. Try some of mine sometime (follow the link).
You certainly learn a lot on this blog!
I'm sure Karl Popper would disagree. "Falsifiable" is a clearly-defined word with an exact meaning that is critical to the philosophy of science. For a proposition to be falsifiable, it must be capable of being shown to be false by experiment. If a proposition is testable, what does that mean? To me, "testable" admits the interpretation that the proposition can be shown by experiment to be true, which makes the proposition strictly unscientific: you can never prove a proposition true by experiment, only false.
IMHO, seeking to replace "falsifiable" with "testable" is an argument for a huge step backwards in epistemology and philosophy of science.
...you are a man-animal hybrid...
I'm a man-animal hybrid, but also a Gemini, so am I safe?
#92
Photoshop!
Of course you can; any falsifiable proposition is the negation of a verifiable one, and vice versa.
This is why "falsifiability " has misleading implications.
I have been waiting for a week to watch Mathis & Co. spin their flop of a film on the website. You'd think that outspoken verbal masturbators like him would gleefully cheer on all the dozens of people who went to see his film, but nothing. Not a word.
Hematite at #124: I have a couple of good ones:
i. Pre-Rutherford's "plum-pudding model" of the atom-- chucked out because the evidence, when finally examined, turned out to be against it.
ii. Pre-Bohr, postRutherford-'s "mini-solar system mode" of the atom-- chucked out because of theoretical considerations. Note, however, that we still let lay people think it's like this.
iii. The theory that the sun might provide its energy via contraction-- thrown out because: a. Historical evidence did not show the sun being bigger in the past at a rate commensurate with the the amount of heat energy being produced (Asimov had a good calculation in his book "Beginnings" if I remember correctly.), b. alternative methods of heat production involving radioactivity that were consistent with the knowledge of how old the earth was via other methods.
iv. The theory that stars were powered by gravitational energy from matter falling onto its neutron core, by Lev Landau-- thrown out because the results were not consistent with observation.
v. Luminiferous ether-- Michelson and Morley's experiment strongly suggested the lack of such a medium allowing light's passage. Thrown out after Lorentz and Fitzgerald's "contraction" equations that would bring the ether theory in line with observation were deemed to be ad-hoc. (However, please note that Einstein's special relativity uses the exact mathematical form of the Lorentz-Fitzgerald equations, but in a different physical context)
vi. The assumption that fish grew limbs after coming onto land-- currently under review, but almost certain to be thrown out due to new fossil evidence showing a fish with limbs.
None of these apart from the Rutherford atom and the loss of the luminiferous ether really hit the headlines, of course.
Hematite at #124: I have a couple of good ones:
i. Pre-Rutherford's "plum-pudding model" of the atom-- chucked out because the evidence, when finally examined, turned out to be against it.
ii. Pre-Bohr, postRutherford-'s "mini-solar system mode" of the atom-- chucked out because of theoretical considerations. Note, however, that we still let lay people think it's like this.
iii. The theory that the sun might provide its energy via contraction-- thrown out because: a. Historical evidence did not show the sun being bigger in the past at a rate commensurate with the the amount of heat energy being produced (Asimov had a good calculation in his book "Beginnings" if I remember correctly.), b. alternative methods of heat production involving radioactivity that were consistent with the knowledge of how old the earth was via other methods.
iv. The theory that stars were powered by gravitational energy from matter falling onto its neutron core, by Lev Landau-- thrown out because the results were not consistent with observation.
v. Luminiferous ether-- Michelson and Morley's experiment strongly suggested the lack of such a medium allowing light's passage. Thrown out after Lorentz and Fitzgerald's "contraction" equations that would bring the ether theory in line with observation were deemed to be ad-hoc. (However, please note that Einstein's special relativity uses the exact mathematical form of the Lorentz-Fitzgerald equations, but in a different physical context)
vi. The assumption that fish grew limbs after coming onto land-- currently under review, but almost certain to be thrown out due to new fossil evidence showing a fish with limbs.
None of these apart from the Rutherford atom and the loss of the luminiferous ether really hit the headlines, of course.
Ah! Very good, thank you Notkieran. I am humbled by such good answers to a question I was too lazy to research on my own. I should have remembered the ether though. Rutherford is on the New Zealand $100 bill, you know. Yay science!
I think I should go do some research into the scientificness of the theory of ether, it's far too long since I deliberately researched a topic. Phlogiston too, I love that sensible sounding but sadly mythical history of science stuff.
Hematite: Pleased to be of some small service. Since I started teaching A-levels, I rarely get the chance to discuss the stuff I learned in history and philosophy of science-- parents get upset when I don't spend every single moment in class on syllabus-related exam stuff, and students always seem to feel that they have better things to do with their time outside of it.
America, the land where even the Catholics are Southern Baptists...
Er... not at all. It says "Nature Cell Biology" in the page title. I don't read NCB, and I had never encountered asp or rod before.
Right back at you. :o)
The funny thing is... as was found out in the late 90s and early 00s, Rodentia and Lagomorpha are each other's closest living relatives, and their last common ancestor must already have gnawed. In other words, the lagomorphs might as well have been left inside Rodentia. (They won't be put back in, though, now that everyone got used to them being separate.)
It is falsifiable in principle.
No, nothing is verifiable or provable, except in math and logic. How would we recognize the truth if we found it? By comparing it to the truth, which we don't have?
By observation, you mean. If an observation can be arranged under controlled circumstances, fine, but that's not necessary, even though it tends to help.
Thrown out in the early-mid 1990s when it was discovered that Acanthostega retained internal gills. Ichthyostega also still had them, as was found a few years later. Limbs are for walking, alright -- just not on dry land, but probably for moving through dense vegetation.
Anton @#132:
Hmmm... a verificationist? a logical positivist? I thought they were all dead.
Scientifically useful theories are those that we believe to be true in general (we can use them to make predictions), in the simplest case, universally quantified predicates of the form: (∀x∈X)P(x). The confusion arises because in both verificationism and falsificationism, we try to evaluate P(x) over a good sample of X to increase our confidence that ∀x P(x).
Only if P is falsifiable (i.e. we can evaluate ¬P) can one of De Morgan's Laws, ¬∀x P(x) ⇔ ∃x(¬P(x)), be applied. It tells us that P is not universally true if there is a single false outcome for some x.
What you appear to be arguing is that for every experimentally evaluable P, ¬P can also be evaluated when, in fact, that is the defining characteristic of a falsifiable theory. So it seems like you are using the definition of falsifiability to argue against falsifiability. If I thought about it a bit more, I'd probably be able to be more specific, but I suspect that it has something to do with an implicit false assumption that because a predicate in a theory can simply be negated, that this necessarily yields another valid theory whose model is simply the complement of the first one, but I'm just guessing at that.
It is true that science, in practice, does not proceed along the lines of strict methodological falsificationism, but in principle a scientific proposition must always be falsifiable and there is no substitute for this notion.