Another interview with Michael Edmondson

The guy deserves all the accolades he gets. Speaking for myself, I hope he has a very long career, irregardless of his theistic leanings -- whatever they may be. Purely brilliant piece of viral animation. It still makes me laugh.

The more I read and hear about Expelled, the more I come to the belief that it is all one giant Poe.

The tipping point was Stein's interview on (I think) the 700 Club where he berates "Darwinism" for not being able to explain the origin of the universe. I mean, can anyone really be that stupid? (rhetorical question, PZ) Something is fishy when a representative of the supposedly nonreligious ID movement is making statements that even Answers in Genesis would be embarrassed by.

Can it be that the Expelled crew will actually wind up making "Crossroads", and that the content of that movie will be the public reaction to Expelled: How easily their lies were soaked up by true believers, how much money they made off the credulous, the obliviousness of their supporters (even the DI!) to their freedom-of-religion angle (at counter-purposes to their official sure-it's-science stance), and how the reality-based community reacted, not just with sound and fury, but with sound rebuttals.

Now that would be an accurate depiction of "the intersection between science and religion."

Jason Failes,

The sad thing about Poe's Law is that yes, there really are Creationists that are that stupid.

"The tipping point was Stein's interview on (I think) the 700 Club where he berates "Darwinism" for not being able to explain the origin of the universe. I mean, can anyone really be that stupid?"

I think one need to recognize that the word "darwinism" just evokes different associations for science-educated people than for creationists. To creationists, "darwinism" is hopelessly conflated with atheistic materialism, and they use the word as a general proxy for every domain of inquiry they'd like to sneak god back into. when they say "darwinism", they aren't talking about biological evolution, they're talking about the whole idea of removing gods from explanations of the origins of things. They need a word to communicate the opposite of the "design" approach, and "darwinism" works well because already invokes all the right associations among their intended audience.

Ben Stein is essentially saying that atheistic materialism cannot explain the origin of the universe, not that darwin himself, or biological evolution, has anything to do with the origin of the universe.

"Darwinism" is just lingo, chosen because it conveys an intended meaning to a specific audience. The science-educated are not part of that audience. Because they are not communicating anything to us, they feel no obligation to correct their terminology in a way that would convey accurate meaning to us.

It's funny to me how people reacted to this on youtube. This one fellow made a video reply about 'stupid fundamentalist atheists' favoriting the video and the cult of dawkins and all that shiat.

What makes me love the whole thing is how atheists LOVED the video despite some obvious and not so obvious jabs at science. It was funny, bottom line it was funny!!

If atheists fundamentalists were really so bad you'd think there might have been a single protest or uprising but so far I haven't heard of any.

Seth, the term 'atheist fundamentalist' is an oxymoron. So there aren't any atheist fundamentalists to protest about anything.

A fundamentalist is someone who believes in the literal truth of scripture.

Much like "Sexpelled", "Beware the Believers" is funny because it gently undermines the gravitas of at least one very brilliant person. Its humor and grasp of the facts guarantee that although most of us might not entirely agree with the sentiment, we appreciate it nonetheless.

@ #3,

I've never understood why materialism is a bad thing. Science requires it to make any sense. If we factored unpredictable, random supernatural interjection, science could produce nothing. We would have F=God, instead of F=m*a. In fact, every equation would simply be equal to God. Removing materialism throws an unnecessary, unknown variable into every piece of information we've ever gathered.

Additionally, materialism only applies to science. By using materialism, science is not claiming it applies everywhere. I think we should be proud that they conflate materialism in science with materialism in all realms, because it shows how widespread science has become.

JRQ @3:

Well, that was just one example. How about the whole Darwin-Hitler argument? If I was a Christian, the last thing I would want to do is draw attention to the Nazis and Mein Kampf.

Or, how about the "expelled" themselves? Even wiki-level research reveals that most of them did highly unprofessional things and experienced no repercussions, except e-mails critical of said unprofessional actions.

So, yeah, I still think that this level of stupid has been "intelligently designed" by the producers to discredit ID itself.

Or maybe, since so many people work on a movie, it's a mix of Poe-artists and true believers?

Dennis, that's exactly right as far as I'm concerned -- my point is that Stein and ID crew just use "darwinism" to exploit negative associations with materialism their audience is already making (godlessness = purposelessness = meaninglessness = immorality). These associations are a result of deeply fuzzy thinking and an unwillingness to understand things that seem threatening... but they are the core of the complaint nonetheless. Even "academic freedom" is a secondary issue.

I think taking Stein to task for conflating the origins of biological diversity, life and the universe misses the point a bit: Stein isn't really talking about those things...he's talking about godlessness and its all its various spurious associations; that's what his intended audience hears when he says "Darwinism".

Yeah, I think you're exactly right. Often in a debate, the 2 sides are talking about different things. Scientists are debating the merits of a scientific theory, and creos are thinking of a worldview.

To #1: Irregardless, as a word, does not make sense - Ir is a negation and regardless (the word you meant to use) means "without regards to;" going by those roots, the word irregardless would mean "without without regards to." It doesn't make sense.

Sorry for nitpicking, that word just irritates me and I've made it my personal mission to eradicate it.

Irregardless, I will still use that word.

I must be the only person alive who didn't like that video. I found it obnoxious, ugly, and rather incoherent. In tone, it was not unlike a bad commercial, but with far less substance. Yuck!

DaveX # 14

Dave you are not the only one. My nice old grandmother HATED it. Although, to her credit she described why she hated it without using the word "yuck".

Edmondson's comments remind me of the comments made by Trey Parker and Matt Stone last year. Essentially they operate on the premise that every belief is ripe for ridicule and play no favorites.

Michael Edmondson, from the interview:

In the second video there appears the text 'In Vitro Vertas.' It means 'the truth is in the test tube.' I think that is a true statement for this issue. If intelligent design is true the truth will eventually come out through the science.

This betrays a profound ignorance of science, and I'm really disappointed. Has Edmondson read the Wedge Document? After being in the thick of it, I'm amazed that Edmondson didn't catch on that Intelligent Design as a political movement has no intention of proving its point in the laboratory, so it manufactures public controversy with propaganda like Expelled, complete with conspiracy theories and deceptive tales of suppression. Supernatural causation is a philosophical concept, and that's why it has completely failed to produce peer-reviewed scientific research, not because of Big Science.

As much as I appreciate Beware the Believers, I have been feeling more and more ambivalent about Edmondson and Matt Chandler. Their piece was originally supposed to be part of the film, after all, and this is a movie that makes the patently false claims that Darwin was necessary for Hitler, evolution=atheism, intelligent design is a science, and Sternberg et al. were persecuted by a vast conspiracy. It is already being used to negatively impact public education as "academic freedom" antievolution bills are being discussed in state legislatures. Yes, in the end the animation wasn't used in the film and the creative duo removed themselves from the credits, but I find this to be a weak redemption of their actions.

Since the makers of Expelled are so fond of Nazi imagery, let me employ some of my own. In the attack on science, Edmondson and Chandler are would-be enablers who recanted direct association with the anti-science forces at the last moment - had the piece been included in the film, the apt comparisons would be to Leni Riefenstahl and Albert Speer. Riefenstahl denied she was making propaganda, and while she was never convicted of a crime her film career was ruined by her association with the Nazis. Speer, the architect of the Reich, probably saved himself from execution at the Nuremberg trials by expressing remorse and revealing a plan to assassinate Hitler - he was imprisoned for 20 years. Both denied knowledge, or at least remained willfully ignorant, of the concentration camps. Edmondson and Chandler seem similarly ignorant of the pernicious plans of their employers.

I get the sense that Edmondson is smart enough not to get sucked in by his employers' misrepresentations, but cautious enough not to directly ridicule them. And when satire is too transparent, it's less sharp.

I suppose it's possible that I'm misreading it, but the lyricist does display a more robust knowledge of the evolution vs. creationism political debate than any other creationists I've encountered, along with a wry, honest wit. The details of the animation match the quality of the lyrics.

Actually, I almost hope that those responsible are sincere creationists. It would elevate the political debate far above Stein's standard of playing with holocaust graves the way Comfort and Cameron play with their bananas.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wedge_Document

#17 - Am I Leni or Albert?

Removed from the credits? Since when?

I stand by this statement:
If intelligent design is true the truth will eventually come out through the science.

@#20 Michael Edmondson --

I stand by this statement:
If intelligent design is true the truth will eventually come out through the science.

Yeah. Too bad BS has announced that "Anyway, I couldn't give a [profanity] whether a person calls himself a scientist" and "Science leads to killing people".

And based on the behavior I've observed from individual cretinous IDiots and from ID orgs such as the DI, I think he speaks fairly well for the whole movement....

#12 Steven Alleyn said:

Sorry for nitpicking, that word just irritates me and I've made it my personal mission to eradicate it.

Yes. Point taken, though I did realize the brain-fart the moment I hit "Post." Unfortunately, I did not have the ability to correct the error; and if there is one thing I hate it is when somebody immediately creates another post just to correct his/her own faux pas when the intended meaning was clear nonetheless.

Michael Edmonson @ #20:

I stand by this statement:
If intelligent design is true the truth will eventually come out through the science.

The trouble is, none of the IDiots are even TRYING to do any science. When asked for evidence in support of their claims, they flee in abject terror, or vomit out rotten, long-debunked lies. When offered money to do research, they don't even bother making a proposal. These people just aren't interested in science. Never have been.

(PZ Myers makes a cameo at 1:54)

What's ironically amusing about (genuine) religious fundamentalists calling atheists who actually dare to openly express criticism of religious beliefs "fundamentalist atheists" is that in doing so they show that they recognize that the term "fundamentalist" is a pejorative one. Being a fundamentalist isn't a good thing, and they know it.

Also this, from the American Heritage Dictionary (4th Ed.):

1. A usually religious movement or point of view characterized by a return to fundamental principles, by rigid adherence to those principles, and often by intolerance of other views and opposition to secularism.

2. a. often Fundamentalism An organized, militant Evangelical movement originating in the United States in the late 19th and early 20th century in opposition to Protestant Liberalism and secularism, insisting on the inerrancy of Scripture. b. Adherence to the theology of this movement.

In other words, atheists can't be fundamentalists, by definition.

@#25 SteveG --

In other words, atheists can't be fundamentalists, by definition.

While I agree that this is rather funny, I have to say that I think this particular dictionary definition outmoded in general cultural use, and its use is prescriptivist -- nowadays, fundamentalist has simply come to mean someone who dogmatically holds the same ideals no matter what valid arguments or evidence is presented to the contrary. In this context, while I doubt their could be dogmatic atheists per se (I've never seen any valid evidence/argument for a higher power, and atheism is simply a lack of theism), there certainly could be fundamentalist forms of various atheistic philosophies.

"I stand by this statement:
If intelligent design is true the truth will eventually come out through the science."

Ok, I can agree with that. If ID wants to be accepted as a science theory, the only legitimate route is to do so through following the methods of science. Form testable hypotheses, do research, publish results, and undergo lots and lots of criticism by people in the field. Meet their objections.

Scientists don't give a crap if a theory brings in God -- as long as it brings in God as an actual predictive mechanism, and not just a place holder for ignorance. They love when new areas of research open up. The more unexpected and counterintuitive, the better. That's where you get the discoveries, the excitement, and the sex.

There is no need for propaganda. There is no need to sway the public. There is no need to let the children decide. There is no need to play the martyr.

"Galileo was no idiot. Only an idiot could believe that science requires martyrdom - that may be necessary in religion, but in time a scientific result will establish itself." - David Hilbert (I'm thinking of getting this on a sweatshirt)

That said, Intelligent Design can't do the science. It's not formed as a testable theory. There's no "there," there. The few shreds of "sciency-sounding" stuff it's put out -- like Dembski's filter and Behe's Butt Propeller -- have been shredded by experts who know how to take poor ideas apart. ID has no tests, proposes no models, makes no predictions, opens up no new areas of research, and basically comes down to nothing more than Step Two in the Sidney Harris comic -- the part of the equation that needs to be "more explicit."

Suddenly a miracle occurs is unlikely to occur in a test tube, and it's not an explanation of anything. It's an excuse for not having an explanation.

If intelligent design is true, then the truth will eventually come out through the science.

But if it is not true, then you will see it coming out to a theater near you.

The tipping point was Stein's interview on (I think) the 700 Club where he berates "Darwinism" for not being able to explain the origin of the universe. I mean, can anyone really be that stupid? (rhetorical question, PZ)

As a certain chuko once wrote here on Pharyngula:

"Creationists are not just more stupid than we suppose, they are more stupid than we can suppose."

Can it be that the Expelled crew will actually wind up making "Crossroads", and that the content of that movie will be the public reaction to Expelled: How easily their lies were soaked up by true believers, how much money they made off the credulous, the obliviousness of their supporters (even the DI!) to their freedom-of-religion angle (at counter-purposes to their official sure-it's-science stance), and how the reality-based community reacted, not just with sound and fury, but with sound rebuttals.

Now that would be an accurate depiction of "the intersection between science and religion."

Yes, and this movie should be made in any case.

What makes me love the whole thing is how atheists LOVED the video despite some obvious and not so obvious jabs at science.

I maintain there weren't any. Instead, the whole thing is a parody of what the cdesign proponentsists believe science is.

A fundamentalist is someone who believes in the literal truth of scripture.

That's a literalist. All literalists are fundamentalists, but not the other way around -- a fundamentalist is someone who wants to return to the fundamentals of the religion or other ideology, even if those fundamentals are perceived to be an allegorical reading of Deeper Truths Beneath the Surface That Are Only Revealed to the True Believer.

Still, you're right that it doesn't make sense to apply that term to atheists. The fundamental, and indeed the only criterion, for atheism is that "there is almost certainly no god" -- so either all atheists are by definition fundamentalist atheists, or... well, I should go to bed. :-)

I get the sense that Edmondson is smart enough not to get sucked in by his employers' misrepresentations, but cautious enough not to directly ridicule them. And when satire is too transparent, it's less sharp.

I suppose it's possible that I'm misreading it, but the lyricist does display a more robust knowledge of the evolution vs. creationism political debate than any [...] creationists I've encountered, along with a wry, honest wit. The details of the animation match the quality of the lyrics.

Agreed.

Actually, I almost hope that those responsible are sincere creationists.

Lasciate qui ogni speranza voi che intrate.

The trouble is, none of the IDiots are even TRYING to do any science. When asked for evidence in support of their claims, they flee in abject terror, or vomit out rotten, long-debunked lies. When offered money to do research, they don't even bother making a proposal. These people just aren't interested in science. Never have been.

We have a winner.

If intelligent design is true, then the truth will eventually come out through the science.

But if it is not true, then you will see it coming out to a theater near you.

Well said.

The only problem with "irregar'less" is that people keep putting in that odd "d" that has no place in that otherwise dandy word.

I think mr. Edmondson's statements are nicely politic. After all he may well be under contractual obligations that would keep him from being too outspoken.

He's right that the science will make the decision. He may just have missed that science's been there, done that and got the T-shirt already. Easy mistake to make, really.

"If intelligent design is true the truth will eventually come out through the science."

I agree,

but noting that the DI doesn't do science,

that the Wedge Document indicates that they have no intention of doing science,

and that there is absolutely no evidence of even a naturalistic creator (say artifacts from visiting extraterrestrials, or genetic engineering markers in our genome), much less a diety,

how long would you wait for that "Eventually"....a few thousand more years?

Remember, it is not up to skeptics of any theory to disprove it, but rather for its proponents to demonstrate its validity. ID has failed to do this, in its most recent incarnation, during 2 thousand years of Christian apologetics and "creation science", and during the tens of thousands of years people have sought supernatural explanations for natural phenomenon.

From Thor to lighting, from Posideon to pressure systems, every "intelligent design theory" that has ever existed has fallen, replaced by a naturalistic theory.

To reverse this trend, you will need extraordinary evidence. And, though not short of philosophy, apologetics, arguments from ignorance, and voodoo math, evidence is one thing that the ID movement has not produced even one hint of.

"Prove me wrong, kids, prove me wrong." (-Principal Skinner, the Simpsons)

Dudes, there IS a god, and his name is Mike Edmondson. Well done, my man. Sokal would be very very proud, and Expelled will go down in history as one of the best hoaxes of all time.

The sad(ish) thing is that even when this all goes public, people still won't believe it. Is Ben Stein in on the gag, or is he the butt of the joke? Hats off, in a big way.