It's the Expelled DVD…and wouldn't you know it, it's already got a pile of positive reviews from creobots. If you've seen it, maybe you'd care to go give it an honest review?
Don't forget to mention Expelled Exposed!
- Log in to post comments
More like this
Since it has come up in the comments on my review of Kazuo Ishiguro's novel Never Let Me Go, I'm going to go ahead and discuss some of the issues around cutting-edge biomedical technologies in the book that might, or might not, be plausible when pondered. (As Bill points out, the scientific…
The Discovery Institute is stepping up their smear campaign against Randy Olson and Flock of Dodos, and the biggest issue they can find is their continued revivification of Haeckel's biogenetic law. They've put up a bogus complaint that Olson was lying in the movie, a complaint that does not hold…
I have to confess to being amused to no end by the reaction to my tsunami post on ARN's message boards. They've all got their panties in a bunch because of how horribly insensitive I am, though I frankly think this outrage is entirely fake. It's just easier to focus on that rather than on the…
As you've probably heard, Stephen Meyer of the Discovery Institute published a book last year calle Signature in the Cell. It stunk, it got virtually no reviews from the scientific community, although it was avidly sucked up by the fans of Intelligent Design creationism. One curious thing about the…
We'll be able to download the file from bit torrent as soon as the dvd is out. We can see just how bad it is.
Z
Missed my chance to get this into any of the cracker-based threads, but I couldn't leave it un-said:
A bio professor, P-Zed,
Wished everyone would use their head.
"Religion's a fake!
You might as well take
Your Host with black coffee instead!"
This is sort of like a super poll, with 27 (and counting) review ratings to skew. We could have fun all with this all afternoon.
Someone already panned it there:
Cretinous Creationsts' Propaganda, July 18, 2008
By J. Mero (Australia)
"If you like this movie, please seek help because you are a delusional, easily influenced brain-washed under-achiever.
Or at least see to that you are sterilized so that you are out of the gene pool.
As to the movie . . . if you are able to sit through it, your level of education is such that you should sue your local board of education.
Of course if you have spent your life up till now in a dark cave, then this drivel might seem interesting. But rest assured there are people who talk in voices that are more pleasant to listen to, not whining like a little pig that has its ears twisted.
If you are an IDiot then of course this film will be part of your curriculum so you remain an IDiot."
I would hope some of you could do better, with facts, not personal attacks.
Maybe we should start a collection: you know, the first twenty bucks go to buying the DVD from Amazon (through P-Zed's affiliate link), and everything after that is donated to the NCSE. It'll be like John Scalzi's trip to the Creation "Museum", only this time, it'll be P-Zed's Expelled-watching party.
Blow that page up people
The most damming evidence for the mediocrity of this film is the absence of the thing on file sharing networks or Usenet.
I'm not even sure it's worth pirating... and my bandwidth is unlimited. Perhaps after a beer or six with a friend it'll be a laugh.. Ben Stein is somewhat of a buzz kill though.
If I do, I'll give it a rating on Amazon; plus I'll even do it honestly and fairly! Which really isn't giving it much of a chance in hell...
It's currently rated 3.7/10 at the Internet Movie Database. Free to register...just sayin'.
Not even worth the price of "free". This one will be a staple on late night Xian Broadcasting TV. They will also most likely give away the DVD at fundie church functions.
Not even going to watch it then, my time is worth something. The basic message, "Darwin is responsible for everything bad that happened in the last 2,000 years."
Why does amazon.com want us to buy Stargate - Continuum with it? Better together? Maybe if you watch Stargate and use the Expelled DVD as a coaster or something.
The DVD-only scenes show a little more of the his interview than PZ might have wanted.
http://tinyurl.com/6bl4s4
They're still aiming for break-even. I'd say it's a toss-up whether or not they'll get it.
Fortunately for them they have a considerable captive audience of the naive/idiotic (sad as its take was, it's still the most successful movie documentary so far this year). Unfortunately for them, a relative few will probably end up being played ad nauseam in church basements and sanctuaries, so most of the sheep won't have to pay for this drivel.
I'm guessing that almost all of the force has gone from this particular bit of nonsense. Most of all, it really can give no one any talking points, since its main lie that science=naziism has been so thoroughly exposed.
Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/2kxyc7
I wondered why they bundled this together with the new Stargate movie too. I guess if you're stupid enough to take Stargate for anything more than an entertaining fiction you might think of the Goa'uld, the Ancients or the Ori as intelligent designers.
Creation "science" explained:
Observations: It's difficult to comprehend. It seems inexplicable. It's complicated.
Research: Read the Bible.
Conclusion: A magic sky-genie did it.
"The most damming evidence for the mediocrity of this film is the absence of the thing on file sharing networks or Usenet."
Unfortunately the documentaries binaries groups have been deluged with creationist videos in the last couple of days, "Dr. Dino," etc.
Someone in the last few hours got sick of it and started posting some Dawkins videos in retaliation.
I heard PZ Meyers has autographed dozens of DVD copies of Expelled...lol...I also heard that he will have autograph sessions when the DVD is released in October, dates haven't been set yet on where he will be to sign your new DVD...And lastly, I'm just kidding! lol
Down half a star already, and the "most helpful" review is no longer an IDiot. Keep up the good work!
Currently:
32 Reviews
5 star: (18)
4 star: (1)
3 star: (0)
2 star: (0)
1 star: (13)
It's at 3.3 now. Oppression! Persecution! Conspiracy!
point and laugh, point and laugh.
I'm sorry that your big film debut is doing so poorly, PZ. Better luck next time.
#11 Mena
"Why does amazon.com want us to buy Stargate - Continuum with it? "
Well, I assume that its due to the fact that both are Science Fiction?
(Although I tink, that StarGate is MUTCH closer to reality and scientifically more correct....)
#14 : the notion that the Ancients seeded life throughout the milkyway only shifts the goalpost as it doe not explain where the Ancients came from to begin with!
From comment #4:
I suppose you mean the fact that evolution is science and intelligent design is magic.
It's also a fact that magic proponents are willfully ignorant, stupid, gullible, dishonest, and insane. I see nothing wrong with pointing out these obvious facts.
Just so you know.
Was Dawkins the idiot who thought aliens seeded life on earth, or was that some other atheist idiot? There is absolutely no proof that aliens exist and absolutely no proof that, even if they did exist, they seeded life on earth. And of course that begs the question: Who created the aliens? I find it mind-boggling that he won't even entertain the possibility that God could have created humans, but he is perfectly willing to believe that invisible little green men could have created humans. Please don't counter with "What about Roswell? There have been reports of people seeing aliens." Show me the beef. Also, there have been reports of people seeing God (e.g., Saint Paul, etc.), so there is at least as much evidence for God. Moreover, Dawkins dodges the question of who created the alleged aliens--who was the first cause or prime mover? Science teaches us that "something cannot come from nothing." Something must come from something--so something created the first molecules, atoms, elements, etc. Gotta go--"My Favorite Martian" is on t.v. right now.
And Sandi veers off into the wilds of irrelevency.
As an aside, whenever I see "Sandi," I fill it in with the phrase from Saddam's song in "Bigger, Longer, and Uncut."
To CortxVortx (#27): everything I said was relevant to the movie "Expelled." I saw the movie; clearly you didn't. Guess you just can't debate me in a rational, intellectual fashion.
Long time reader, first time commenter.
Honestly, would there be any point in myself watching "Expelled"? (Other than seeing the humorously lame attempt at ID apologetics?)
Sandi,
Dawkins was considering the possibility of panspermia in response to a question about the possibilities of intelligent design, showing that he's more than willing to think about ID. He's considered the possibility of god as the intelligent designer, but since there's no evidence (none at all), he's stopped considering it. I expect you'll find that he's not spent any more time considering panspermia either.
One question at a time. Which of them is giving you the most trouble?
#25, OK, there should no spiteful remarks on an amazon movie review. I still like J. Mero's comments (see #4). He very accurately described the people who would like the movie Expelled.
Sandi #26
Hee hee... you are just too cute.
Is there anything cuter then a IDiot using the very same arguments we use against her silly ID beliefs (ie, "show me the beef") to argue against ET visitation? LOL...
Irony... Ur doin it right!
Just for clarification, though, Sandi (with an "i"... so cute...), panspermia really doesn't mean that life was put here by little green men visiting, and I doubt you'd get Dawkins to even consider that possibility. No, the idea behind panspermia (and it is a contreversial one, for sure... but that's beside the point) is that certain ingrediants for life arrived on this planet via some extra-planetary means... like an asteroid.
And, if you really think the bulk of us here are actually supporters of the UFO crowd... you're sillier than I thought. Nice try though...
From comment #26:
Sandi would like the movie Expelled. If she's gullible enough to believe in God sightings, she should have no problem believing the crap in Expelled.
According to the intelligent design idea, miracles occur frequently, especially back when the sky fairy was magically creating the millions of different species of the past and the species living today. It's a childish fantasy world the magic proponents live in. I have no problem with their breathtaking stupidity, but I have a big problem with their attempts to make magic look scientific so they can stick it into science education.
Bunk: Interesting reply, but we really don't know whether Dawkins continues to believe in "panspermia" or not. But it's very telling that he dodges one of the central questions posed in "Expelled"; that is, who or what was the creator of the elements in the Universe? As I said before, Science teaches us that "something cannot come from nothing." Something must come from something--so something created the first atoms, elements, etc. There must be a First Cause or creator. Until Dawkins can answer that question, he shouldn't categorically deny the existence of God and say that it's more likely that aliens created everything. Who created the aliens??? Scientists should seek to find answers with an open mind, not eliminate possibilities because of a particular agenda.
Sandi might go running to her helpful Dictionary of Logical Fallacies to discover the meaning of "beg the question."
"I do not think it means what you think it means."
Sandi #36
Something must come from something--so something created the first atoms, elements, etc. There must be a First Cause or creator.
Again with this? Sandi... if your statement is true, and something must come from something. Who created the creator?
Turtles all the way down...
You haven't a fucking clue what science is or what it teaches, moron, so don't you dare deign to try to 'educate' us about what 'science teaches', especially as you're only using 'science' to half-assed justify your ontological argument, you Dark Ages-worshiping, lying freak.
Oh and Celtic Evolution (#33), sorry to have to wipe that smarmy, condescending look off your face, but Dawkins specifically mentioned aliens--he didn't talk about meteors. Guess you should watch the movie like I did.
Re: #28
Irrelevent, since Dawkins does not accept, nor does he argue for, "panspermia." That someone else does, whom you cannot recall, does not matter if he is not in the movie.
Sightings of aliens and gods: Not in the movie, hence, irrelevent.
You are correct that I can't debate you "in a rational, intellectual fashion," but not for the reason that you suppose.
Besides, I thought you were watching "My Favorite Martian" ...
(Still hearing "I can change! I can change!")
Dang, not Expelled again.
When I saw the article title I thought you were going to plug the upcoming BluRay release of the Firefly boxed set. Now that's something worthy of note on this blog.
@ Sandi
sorry to have to wipe that smarmy, condescending look off your face
*looks around panicky*
How did you know I had that look on my face?
Are you.... psychic?
DVD sales should be as stagnant as the theatrical sales. Their biggest customers will likely be fundamentalist churches who'll buy one copy then show it do their entire congregation for free (any money that could be taken for collection would go to the church). So one DVD per every 500-1000 crazies? It's not like Batman or something where they'll sell one DVD per family, or something to that effect.
Anyway, I think it's theatrical sales that determine whether or not a sequel would be profitable...
Sandi @36 wrote:
There is!
It would be dishonest to review this garbage without having seen it, and it hurts our cause if the reviews are one liners that don't give any impression of having done so.
At the very least find some information about the film and report that. The reviews that have appeared today are embarrassing, in my opinion.
If we are better than they are -- and there is no question about that -- then we should behave in accordance with those values.
Just sayin'.
Sandi, you still seem to have missed the point that Dawkins was asked to speculate about what the best case scenario for finding evidence for ID would be.
At no point does he say that he thinks that alien seeding is likely, let alone what he thinks happened. He uses it as a hypothetical example of how ID could be found to be true in such a way that we could find out about it via EVIDENCE, which is the whole point of the question. Dawkins has many times said that he's considered the possibility of a creator: but just like aliens, it's one for which he doesn't think there is any evidence to recommend it. It's just that in the case of aliens, IF they existed, they would at least leave evidence we could use to discover their doings.
Saying that generic, all-powerful creator "did it," however, is basically synonymous with not explaining anything at all.
Somehow, in your mind, that all got mistranslated down into "Dawkins believes aliens did it, but won't even consider the possibility of God" which is so far off the point that it's hard to understand how you even ended up there.
Celtic Evolution: The one who created the laws of nature would not be subject to them. No beginning and no end to the big guy. And Brownian: you don't even deserve a reply for your angry ranting swears. If you take a course in logic, as I have, you'll learn all about "Ad Hominem" arguments. Since you probably don't know Latin, that means attacking the person. When you can't refute the other person's arguments in a debate, you resort to insulting the person instead.
Sandi,
Instead of wasting everyone's time here, perhaps you'd entertain an email discussion in a "rational, intellectual fashion"?
My email is: fps.jason AT gmail DOT com
@ Sandi
So, you adamently state, to prove your point, that "Something must come from something", and then, rather conveniently qualify that by saying "The one who created the laws of nature would not be subject to them. No beginning and no end to the big guy."
And you don't see why you're full of shit? Get a grip, Sandi... and please take a close look at the problems you create when you make braod statements of knowledge about the nature of things but can easily get around any argument by saying that the being somebody insisted made everything to you when you were a wee one isn't bound by those laws.
There's no point in arguing with you... you have a "get out of intellectual jail free" card. And you're too thick to realize the problems that causes... how can you ever trust anything you observe?
Oh, and since you wanted to talk about fallacies: What you presented in your first response is called a "Straw man argument", perhaps you heard of those in your course on logic.
Sandi (#36), you're being dishonest. Dawkins never said it's 'more likely' aliens created anything. Bringing life from another planet is not the same as your god's magical creation, and Dawkins certainly agrees that the distance between solar systems is too vast to take seriously the idea that aliens brought life here. Also, Dawkins has said, even if creatures from another planet brought the first living cells to earth, those creatures had to have been the result of evolution. There's no magic in the universe, Sandi. Your god idea belongs in the Dark Ages, not in the 21st century.
However, if your magical fantasy world makes you happy, that's fine with me. Just don't be surprised if everyone laughs at you.
Also, please stop lying about scientists. Nobody likes a liar. Dawkins never said there was ever any magical creation by gods or aliens or anybody else. Also, Dawkins most certainly agrees with virtually every scientist in the world that the development of the first living cells on earth was a natural process.
DVD sales through Amazon must be how they're gonna reach their $750,000,000 in revenue.
Hey, it could happen.
We know the history of Dawkins' comments in Expelled, how they were obtained under false pretenses, and edited to fit the Expelled agenda.
Rather than getting all of your information from movies, perhaps you should crack open a book or a few thousand--like we did.
If you take a course in logic, as I have, you'll learn all about "Ad Hominem" arguments. Since you probably don't know Latin, that means attacking the person. When you can't refute the other person's arguments in a debate, you resort to insulting the person instead.
Pot, meet kettle. Sandi attacks Brownian for resorting to personal attacks, but also suggests he's unintelligent, or at least ignorant, and certainly not as well-informed as she is.
However, Sandi, you seem to be dodging the really tough questions, such as when Bad notes, "Dawkins has many times said that he's considered the possibility of a creator: but just like aliens, it's one for which he doesn't think there is any evidence to recommend it."
I'm glad you've taken a course in logic. Perhaps you should take a course in science, though, since, logically, you can argue the validity of just about anything. Science, however, requires you to stick to the facts.
Sandi, I think you'll find that Dawkins' point (or to be precise what he claimed was his point) is that it is more probable that we were seeded by aliens than created by some God. I personally think it is more probable that the first self-replicating molecules appeared on Earth or at least in the solar system.
Aliens is more likely than god though since the anthropic principle seems to indicate that life probably originated on countless other planets in the universe too, simply due to the sheer size of it. As for the probability of the existence of god, well there's no physical anything that could indicate even an inkling of a percentage point of probability for that.
As for "nothing comes from nothing" you clearly have no clue about quantum physics. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virtual_particles - this might help.
But anyway, yes you are correct that I nor anyone out there really has any idea where things come from - what there was before the big bang, what our universe is expanding into, or whether reality is a multiverse, or the nature of time and space and indeed of reality. Some have a better capability of understanding, since their life is dedicated to the study of our reality (physicists, just in case you though I meant priest).
What you really ought to find shocking though is not the fact that we still have this mystery and that we're trying to find answers, but rather that you seem to already know the answer - a desert tribe's god did it. Maybe now we ought to stop searching then, and drop down on our knees and pray to your imaginary friend. So much for human progress.
Another point against your flawed logic is that you refuse to accept the possibility that reality is in fact infinite (and that the big bang is but one occurrence in some sort of greater reality) but the idea that your desert god is infinite and eternal seems not to bother you one bit.
And the fact that you are mixing up evolution, abiogenises, the origin of matter and the qualities of reality, is a testament to your ignorance.
Sorry, but you need an education :/
Yeah, you go home and tell your church group that. It doesn't preclude the fact that you're a lying, deceitful moron.
One more thing, Sandi. As to your request in #26 to "show [you] the beef," uh, I think I'll pass.
Pwned.
#36 Sandi:
Science teaches us that "something cannot come from nothing."
No. IDiots teach other IDiots that "science teaches us that something cannot come from nothing". You've fallen prey to the gaping maws of common sense and gullibility I'm afraid. Common sense indicates that something cannot come from nothing. Gullibility leads you to believe those who support your common sense notions.
Unfortunately common sense and your friends, as is so often the case, are telling you lies. Go read a little about vacuum energy and the Casimir effect and you'll discover that scientists teach that something can indeed come from nothing (for all 'common sense' definitions of the words something and nothing at least).
The world is quite complicated and you are simply not well educated enough about its workings to have any justification for commenting upon it. Learn a little about it and once you've realised how utterly ill-equipped you are to pass judgement on reality you might like to spread some of your new found humility around amongst your friends.
Until then kindly desist from spreading your intellectual detritus through the world. Fingers off keyboard and firmly on lips please. Here endeth the lesson.
When pressed he gave it a 1% chance, liar.
What you lying tards never pay attention to is that there is such a thing as an "intelligent design" hypothesis that could be considered scientifically (arguably it would not be scientific, since it's not really an answer come up with in response to evidence, but that needn't detain us). In the parlance of those who speak of science as the study of the "natural", intelligent aliens would be such a "natural" cause, and could reasonably be considered. In other terms, since we can only detect design if it is something like our own (purposeful, rational), we'd only be able to consider designers reasonably like ourselves, presumably humanoid aliens.
Dawkins would be remiss if he dismissed aliens out of hand as the originators of life. It remains a bare possibility, though not one that actually explains the origin of life in general.
The IDiots, like yourself, conflate an inscrutable designer with those that we could detect, aliens who are not god-like. It is completely disingenuous and stupid, hence we have to point out how stupid and dishonest you actually are if we are to address your "points" at all. That is to say, if we or Dawkins make intelligent points, and all we get is the equivalent of a yelp from a bozo such as yourself, how are we to address the yelp without noting that it has no relevance to the issue at hand (which is not the origin of the universe, or even the existence of God, you ignorant clown).
Paley himself was positing a designer which was limited (in his actions, if not in potential), as humans are and aliens are presumed to be. Which tells you something, that Dawkins can and does entertain (relatively) honest ID hypotheses. The completely dishonest claims of Behe and of Dembski, which do not look for positive evidences for ID (like Paley did, if not very competently), but only want us to conclude "design" due to supposed problems with evolution, are unworthy of consideration--except to show what a sham they really are.
Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/2kxyc7
Sandi said:
It's a good job that most scientists don't do what you have, Sandi. As you appear to know of a few logical fallacies, you should know that you are also engaging in one: The argument from personal incredulity.
You might also want to read this to understand how something can indeed come from nothing:
Creation ex nihilo - Without God
Observe how creationists simply decree by fiat that "God" is an uncaused cause, that it exists outside the universe (rendering it unknowable and indiscernible by definition), and then presume to arbitrarily ascribe to it whatever unconstrained abilities are needed to account for unknowns.
This is why nobody wants to waste precious time and resources debating creationists. It advances human knowledge precisely nowhere.
Sandi has also demonstrated her misunderstanding of argumentum ad hominem. I think we have hit the trifecta, folks.
"Why does amazon.com want us to buy Stargate - Continuum with it? Better together? Maybe if you watch Stargate and use the Expelled DVD as a coaster or something."
Because they're both science fiction, of course!
Disclaimer: the following post is parody and does not represent the views of Josh. If Sandi had half a brain, he wouldn't have to explain this up front.
There is absolutely no proof that God exists and absolutely no proof that, even if it did exist, it created life on earth. And of course that begs the question: Who created God? I find it mind-boggling that Sandi won't even entertain the possibility that aliens could have created humans, but she is perfectly willing to believe that an invisible man in the sky could have created humans. Please don't counter with "What about Saint Paul? There have been reports of people seeing God." Show me the beef. Also, there have been reports of people seeing aliens (e.g., abductees, etc.), so there is at least as much evidence for aliens. Moreover, Sandi dodges the question of who created the alleged God--who was the first cause or prime mover? Science teaches us that "something cannot come from nothing." Something must come from something--so a creator that appears from nothing is implausible.
......
Pretty sad when I only have to replace a few words in your rant to make it sound like a typical UFO nut posting.
I find it totally unsurprising that the list of "people who bought this also bought" included a book calling liberals "fascists", another bashing atheists, and another denying global warming. Priceless.
Even if ID wants to not look like a group of conservative, religious, nut jobs, their audience will always speak up and show them for what they really are.
Oh, and Sandi is a twit. Killfile is our friend.
Thank goodness the cavalry has finally arrived! I wrote the first review (on July 3) and I've been fighting the stupid almost single-handedly for three weeks. When I saw the sudden burst of negative reviews today from all over the globe I knew the Pharyngula hordes had been unleashed.
Sandi, go Richard Dawkins' website, here, and scroll down about 15 paragraphs to learn why Professor Dawkins said what he did. Get a few facts, cause right now you just sound like an ignorant, shrill, harpy for Jesus, and you're making your religion look bad. Really.
P.S. I was a good boy and mentioned expelledexposed.com in that very first review. You've trained us well, PZ.
What? But I was just about to make my Templeton Prize-worthy contribution to the totally-not-bullshit field of theology with the theory that bosons are created by the Holy Spirit when it's not otherwise engage possessing humans via dive-bombing doves and/or tongues of fire.
Oh, well. I guess I can always go back to working on my Magnum Opus: a treatise expanding on the theological ideas put forth by Al Jourgensen tentatively titled, "Jesus Built My Camry".
Brownian # 71
"Jesus built my Camry"
Wasn't that on Garth Brooks' 4th album?
"Jesus Built My Camry".
Jesus only builds Chevys!
Quoth Sandi:
This is what "science teaches us"?
No beginning and no end has to count as more than just "big," no? And not subject to the laws of nature, but still a "guy"?
I'm gonna try out my new greasemonkey killfile here...
...and voila! Sandi's out of my life forever!!
Oh, thank you killfile-maker...thank you.
I really think we should send the killfile maker some cookies or something. Maybe a bottle of scotch. He's done many people on this blog quite a service lately.
One of the reviewers who gave the film 5 stars has a web site, where he says he's got a book about to come out:
http://www.norbertsmith.com/adamcreation.html
Looks like standard creationist fare, plus the plot of expelled. All the Nazi nonsense repeated.
Look, you fools: I have a Camry, and since Sandi's Latin Logic course (actually a course in cultural sensitivity for Americans with business interests in Mexico, Central or South America, but don't tell her that), teaches us that something cannot come for nothing, even on approved credit (also that mole is a generic term for a variety of sauces in Latin American cuisine), Jesus must have built it. It's all right there in the bible, if you have the ability to see.
PZ, this is kind of OT and kind of not. It does have something to do with creationism. My 19-yr-old daughter said a few days ago that she thought she should read the Bible because it seemed to have had a lot of influence on literature and in other spheres. As an English professor, I said that I thought this was a good idea, and today we read the first five chapters of Genesis. Interesting example of a reaction to the Bible on the part of someone who hadn't been taught to think of it as the word of a god, let alone as a source of cosmological, astronomical, or biological information. My daughter came at the text as a total outsider--kind of like the thought experiment some people perform, asking how an alien would react if he/she/it landed on the planet and started reading the Bible. She had questions almost immediately, starting with the notion that a deity created an "expanse and separated the water under the expanse from the water above it." So, Mom, isn't that saying that there is water down here, and then there is the sky, and then there is something like an ocean above the sky? Um, yeah, something like that. Mom, that doesn't make sense. Um, honey, they didn't have telescopes. She wanted to know how the serpent got around before he was cursed, and she asked, "Why is he acting so angry" when the deity curses Adam and Eve. When we came to the section on the generations leading up to Noah, she commented that "it sounds like a math problem", which led to a great discussion about how some people tried to use recitations of genealogies to figure out the age of the earth. She was pretty amused when she learned that some people had concluded that the earth was 6,000 yrs old on the basis of those genealogies. Anyway, tomorrow we'll read the account of the flood. In World Lit, I teach Gilgamesh. My daughter has sat in on my class plenty of times, and if she remembers the lessons on Gilgamesh, the floodgates are going to open, metaphorically speaking.
One of the reviewers who gave the film 5 stars has a web site, where he says he's got a book about to come out:
http://www.norbertsmith.com/adamcreation.html
For the record, British comedian Harry Enfield once made a very funny spoof biopic of a man named Norbert Smith. I wonder whether they're related?
Sandi @ "Scientists should seek to find answers with an open mind, not eliminate possibilities because of a particular agenda."
That's hilarious; science should keep itself open to the possibility of an invisible desert tribe-king that no one can detect or measure doing it. You're too funny.
Sandi ponficated:
Does God do anal probing like that UFO aliens? Or does he leave that to the clergy?
Southi is back from the Red Sox game.
How charming.
I imagine this will end up like the reviews, and comments on those reviews, for Allen's book "Vaccines": you'll end up with most comments being rated either 5 or 1, with "strong" statements on both sides... :-)
My own 1-star review has been submitted.
Elf Eye, you ask a very good question. My own 14 year old daughter is clear where I understand regarding a spirit world, which includes Christianity. She knows I think it's just a big myth.
However, I don't mind if she opens a Bible. Why? So she knows how to handle things when she inevitably runs into kooks in high school (she starts in just a few weeks). I want her to be able to stand up from a position of strength.
I think my motives for encouraging her to read the bible are very different from yours... Sort of.
I'm one of the many, many unsaved who post comments on this blog. It makes it so much easier to defend yourself if you can ask your attackers, "Why is eating shellfish an abomination??". I have yet to see a satisfactory answer to that one.
My favorite: "Where's Heaven?". I mean, we know now there isn't really an "up", don't we? Oh, sure, we can move things away from or towards the earth's center, so that's sorta up and down... So where is Heaven? Up? Your "up" is someone else's "down."
#28
It might be relevant to the movie, it doesn't make you look less stupid. Keep it up! If God existed, God'd be an idiot for creating you.
i just posted the first review for the amazon.ca (canadian version). funny how there isnt any yet. I guess we don't really have these pro ID people here. I saw this movie, for free, opening weekend in my province and there was 5 people in the theatre. it was there for one week, where it has now been spit out the bottom of the $2 dollar theatre after one week. it lasted the same time as Catwoman and Gigli.
Some of the half-savvy will tell you that by avoiding shellfish and pork, God was helping us to avoid trichinosis and red tides, and such. These Bible-as-Almanac types inevitably tend to stretch this post-hoc prescriptive reasoning to pre-marital sex* and 'Man should be head of the home'-esque anti-feminism, though.
*Theological question: Does it count as pre-marital sex if I never had any intent to marry the person I was sleeping with?
Sandi says:
Scientists should seek to find answers with an open mind, not eliminate possibilities because of a particular agenda.
Are you a creationist? I'm just curious. 'Cuz this is really good advice but considering the source...
I need a new fuse for my ironymeter.
Tom at #58: I don't own a microscope, so I'm glad you decided to pass.
JoJo @#82:
"Does God do anal probing like that UFO aliens?"
You know, you really shouldn't joke about that kinda things. Anal probes are quite painful.
Yours truly,
Eric Cartman
Marcus at #89: I'm not a creationist at all. Just an intellectual with 21 years of education (including a law degree) who keeps an open mind and enjoys logical debate. I guess I happened upon the wrong site. Keep the faith, boys.
Expelled- Science Fiction?? Nooooo!! We could be VERY charitable and categorize it as Speculative Fiction. :}
Argument against Sandi's bastardized version of an old philosophical chestnut:
1. There's no need for a first-cause in the temporal sense.
This is shown by assuming that there was a first cause, and then asking "How long had THAT existed before causing the universe to exist?" and the answer, of course, must be that that thing had existed eternally (since that is part of the definition of God). If God has existed eternally, then there is at least one object in the set of all objects that needs no prior cause. Therefore a first cause is unnecessary (since, by definition, necessary truths are applicable universally).
2. Given that even if a God existed, there would be no need for a first cause for at least one object, why invoke God and not some OTHER arbitrary fact, like "E=MC^2", to say that energy, or matter is itself self-causing in the literal sense that the universe as a whole is infinite and eternal.
QED
I'm glad that its being released around Halloween. That seems only appropriate considering how monsterously awful it was.
The only thing better, was if it wasn't released at all (which I honestly was starting to think was the case).
You know, as much as ID proponents and other religious groups are against abortion, they sure do crank out a lot of them.
#92:
I appreciate your law degree, but I'm afraid that your arguments were ignorant of science and logic.
Understand, this is not a personal attack on your intelligence, but simply your lack of knowledge of science and critical thinking.
When I need help understanding the law, I call a lawyer, not fortune teller or a plumber. When you need help understanding reality, call a physicist or a chemist. To understand life, call a biologist. To understand your mind, call a psychiatrist or a psychologist.
It is not a question of "keeping an open mind". Science is not as simple as that. Specialists can give you the best knowledge of reality that exist. As a layperson you do not have the necessary knowledge to "make your own mind". The fact that IDiots (most of them not scientists) try to convince people otherwise - and to convince people that they have the required knowledge to make such a decision based on a few empty arguments - is terrible.
I really don't know... maybe law is different, being man made and constantly up for interpretation and debate.
Science is different - theories are up for debunking, if someone can prove them wrong with solid evidence and if that proof is reproducible by any other expert. It's not sociological, it's not a majority vote. Reality simply is what it is, and science describes it as best as we can.
Claiming that maybe religion - ancient myths and legends - could describe it better is completely absurd.
#92 "Marcus at #89: I'm not a creationist at all. Just an intellectual with 21 years of education (including a law degree) who keeps an open mind and enjoys logical debate. I guess I happened upon the wrong site. Keep the faith, boys."
You just sound like an uninformed weirdo with an inferiority complex.
Sandi:
I suppose that all may be true, Sandi, but you didn't exactly get off on the right foot:
The microscope line was pretty funny, though. Congratuations for narrowly avoiding Waste of Paint status.
Given the above, I ask you to graciously forgive the "boys" for mistaking you for the usual, garden-variety creationist clayhead.
Indeed. Perhaps you'd feel more comfortable over at Uh-Duh.
And you consider accepting fairy tales wholey unsupported by data, research and evidence on equal footing as actual evidence based science?
Well I can't comment on your law abilities but you plain old suck at science and logic.
I find it extremely amusing that somebody as woefully ignorant and filled with moronic superstition as our own Sanditroll has the gall to describe themselves as an "intellectual".
Sandi: "Me is smart 'cause me sez so!"
Bwah-hah-hah-HAAA!!!!
This is the first time i have ever heard of the member of a films cast promoting a poor review. That does not speek well for the film maker
Sandi:
So you have 21 years of education. Good for you. But what exactly do you mean by that? If you count from the first day you ever went to school, that isn't really much. If you count from the first day you entered college, that leaves me wondering how you can have missed so many facts.
Oh, and you have a law degree. Not that this would make you any more qualified for speaking about science and philosophy, but... are you trying to use your law degree as a not-so-subtle threat?
Hey, everyone stay away from Sandi! Do not, for the love of whoever, critizise her (or him). She's a lawyer, y'know.
@94: E=MC^2
If you have the time and the inclination, you can use the sup HTML tag for things like this.
E=MC2
I've learned a lot here, including how to write this sentence. Sorry if you already know this stuff. I'm just saying.
Also don't forget to mention To Hell with Expelled blog carnival. It has everything one must need to debunk every claim mentioned in the film.
I did enjoy reading those first few reviews on Amazon. Nice work kids.
Oh hell Kseniya, she's much stupider than your normal garden variety clayhead. She can't even figure out how to follow the rules of her own fucktard religion.
Egad Brownian, you get really cute when you use those naughty words. ;)
Sandi (#26): I find it mind-boggling that he won't even entertain the possibility that God could have created humans
Sandi (#92): I'm not a creationist at all.
I'm surprised that Sandi would dishonestly claim to not be a creationist after saying in the same thread "I find it mind-boggling that he won't even entertain the possibility that God could have created humans."
Is Sandi a compulsive liar, or is she so stupid she doesn't even know what a creationist is?
PZ: Nice use of Amazon Associates. Hats off to you, sir.
I suspect Sandi says whatever she needs to say to feel justified. She's spent a lot of time on the other posts re-spouting the same tired, old canards despite the refutations.
Needless to say she inspired a number of posters to install Greasemonkey/Killfile.
Now the reviews are overwhelmingly against the movie Expelled.
18 5-star reviews, 45 1-star reviews, nothing in between.
Average Customer review = 2 stars.
Let's get it lower than 2 stars!
@104
The <sup> tag messes with line spacing. If all you need is a superscript 2, then use ² = ² (there is also a ¹ and ³, but to get 0 and 4-9 you need to use unicode notation, and they might not be available in the font you're using.)
I liked this amazon.com review of Expelled from Michael Landon. I never saw a more negative movie review.
I should have known better when the Expelled theater consisted only of me, my girlfriend, and my friend on a busy Saturday night. Well, in all fairness there was another couple who walked out in the first 20 minutes, no doubt to get their money back and salvage the rest of their evening. Let me be brief because I already see many others have made very succinct arguments why you shouldn't part with your money to buy this tripe. First of all, you WILL be amazed at how bad the arguments are against evolution and how they use a red herring approach to claim all of society's ills on this theory. Second, you will find yourself bored as it drags on with each odd tanget it decides to pursue (maybe you should also order a book with this purchase to keep you entertained while watching the dvd). Third, you will want your money back. We got ours back after complaining at the theater. The manager just laughed and said how he had to do this more times than most for this particular movie.
Thanks, jpf.
once the "Christianity isn't a religion -- it's a personal relationship with an imaginary friend" meme caught hold, it opened quite a floodgate for apologists: don't like a given definition? just change it!
tired of being called a creationist? now you can assert, with a straight face, "I'm NOT a creationist -- I just think that evolution is bunk, and God simply *poofed* everything into existence."
Yeah, I just installed Greasemonkey/Killfile as well. I don't really like the idea of using it so I plan to be pretty strict about who I block. At least this way I can now deal with people who post huge amounts of text over and over to annoy me with extra scrolling.
Ha! I love people who refer to themselves as intellectuals. It's kind of like referring to yourself as a badass. Bestowing the title upon yourself just... doesn't work.
If you really are an intellectual (or a badass), you don't have to say so. People will figure it out on their own. If you have to say so, you almost certainly aren't.
Superscript: ?¹²³?????? (⁰ = 0 to ⁹ = 9 )
Subscript: ?????????? (₀ = 0 to ₉ = 9 )
All but 1,2,3,4 look unreadable on IE with whatever font is being used, YMMV.
I'm guessing Sandi's law degree comes from Regent University, the same place that managed to stick dozens of their most unqualified alumni into the Bush Attorney General's office.
Sandi isn't even a good parody of Miss Betty Bowers.
Is Sandi Casey Luskin in drag?
Eighteen 5 star comments, 57 1 star. Come on, let's drag this piece of crap down even further. I know there's more than 57 people on this blog with Amazon accounts.
I wonder if Sandi dots her "i" with a little heart drawn in skipping ballpoint ink.
... actually, this makes perfect sense to me - as long as he autographs the "read" side of the disc. I'd pay 20 bucks for a coaster signed by PZ!
It wouldn't surprise me. I went to high school with a 'Debbii' who put little love-hearts over both i's.
Dang, Sandi must be into reruns of Mister Ed by now. I was all set to watch Fr. J dodge the child molesting questions too.
This just proves they don't make trolls like Brenda anymore. The sissies.
Good night sweethearts!
Get on over to Netflix.com and weigh in. Expelled is enjoying relative success due to the contributions of a surprising number of IDiots.
http://www.netflix.com/Movie/Expelled_No_Intelligence_Allowed/70096749?…
Someone on there named adam is really kicking ass in those review comments
Sandi said she had a law degree, she didn't say she was a lawyer. Paralegal degree from the Sally Struthers school of distance learning, maybe? Maybe the "21 years of education" was her hopping from equivalent degrees in plumbing, medical transcription, and basket weaving? If she is a lawyer, good for her. Though that doesn't make her an expert in biology by a long shot.
I agree with her that no theory should be dismissed without consideration. However, her lack of knowledge on this issue shows that she's completely oblivious to the fact that ID HAS been considered (albeit for about five seconds) and dismissed in the face of OVERWHELMING EVIDENCE TO THE CONTRARY.
Ugh I meant hypothesis. Their willy-nilly use of the word "theory" is rubbing off on me. I need to go.
You people are pathetic. You can't even trust others to make up their own minds in case they might happen to disagree with you. So you go out and bomb Expelled with bad reviews. It's so, so pathetic. Sounds to me like you lot are afflicted with very low self-esteem. How else can you explain such an obsessive desire to make the rest of the world think as you do? Why not spend your time doing something positive instead, such as making your own damn movie? If Expelled is such a piece of shit, why not show the world how it's done? Obviously you're all experts in filmmaking and the topics of evolution and intelligent design, so you should be able to take Hollywood by storm. And yet, you haven't. Seems you'd rather just hang around places like Pharyngula all day and massage PZ's massively engorged ego. Whatever floats your boat, I guess. But from the outside looking in, you seem like a very sad lot.
Wow. Once again Kseniya leaves me at a loss for words. Great. It'll be a bumper crop of inadequacy with my therapy group this week.
And don't try to butter me up now, Patricia. I'm still jealous and pouting over your gift to PZ.
Ah, the great equivocation. Welcome to Idiot America.
Expelled is the hootchie-koo of the public's attitude to science. No matter how many experts who have and/or are now actively studying and researching biology and come to the conclusion that evolution is indeed the only theory currently that explains the evidence, everybody else feels they're entitled to equal time with their ill-informed opinions. Expelled is not "people thinking differently". ID is not "people thinking differently". It's people who haven't done the requisite work and thought, or have been lied to, or misled, and are just plain fucking wrong.
So, uh, thanks for your opinion, I guess. But if it's all the same to you, I'm gonna stick with the evidence.
Slammer@131:
I don't think it's "sad" to attempt to correct the mistaken notions of creationists. I think it's noble to educate people, explain science, and debunk myth. We're aren't "massaging PZ's massively engorged ego", this is simply a rallying point for promoting science and combating ignorant superstitions. For what it's worth, I explain evolutionary topics to interested parties and I argue with creationists wherever I meet them, and I'm sure many people here do as well. PZ will never know about these events, so how are we sucking up? We're just standing up for reason and facts. You see a tiny fraction of this and think you understand it all.
Slammer - get a dictionary... look up 'review'... make yourself a big steaming mug of STFU and sit back and ponder the definition.
Slammer wrote:
I'm so very glad you finished that with 'ego'. I thought I'd clicked on the link for Pharyngula fan-fiction by mistake.
Maybe that's why people keep referring to me as Wowbanger...
Slammer, Expelled is a turd. You don't deal with a turd by excreting your own and hoping it's sinks the first one - you just flush it away with whatever you have available. In this case a tide of negative reviews fortified with real science.
Someone should make an Expelled Exposed documentary. Even if it's a few biologists tearing it to shreds, MST3k style.
Like they'd ever get the rights, though.
There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there always has been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that "my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge."
Isaac Asimov, from a 1980 column in Newsweek
@#36:
"Bunk: Interesting reply, but we really don't know whether Dawkins continues to believe in "panspermia" or not. But it's very telling that he dodges one of the central questions posed in "Expelled"; that is, who or what was the creator of the elements in the Universe? As I said before, Science teaches us that "something cannot come from nothing." Something must come from something--so something created the first atoms, elements, etc. There must be a First Cause or creator. Until Dawkins can answer that question, he shouldn't categorically deny the existence of God and say that it's more likely that aliens created everything. Who created the aliens??? Scientists should seek to find answers with an open mind, not eliminate possibilities because of a particular agenda."
...God Delusion anyone? I mean, Dawkins goes in full detail there about those points. In addition, his site itself might be an interesting read for you.
Sandi, you draw too many conclusions, without having checked all the facts. Get the facts straight, then come and discuss them again.
Arno said:
Arno - haven't you heard? It's very bad manners to bring nasty little things like facts into scientific arguments! How are poor oppressed litle IDiots supposed to get a fair shout if we keep smashing their arguments to pieces with horrible, ugly facts all the time? ;-)
It never hurts to mention it. Maybe one of them, one day, will see the light and do some actual reading.
Then again, I believe human beings can be morally good without the belief that an invisible overlord is watching their every move and listening to every thought. I am clearly delusional ;)
@ Sandi :
//There have been reports of people seeing God.//
ARGUMENT FROM PERSONAL SANITY
(1) I've had religious experiences that can't be explained unless I'm insane or God exists.
(2) Therefore, God exists.
Side note:
The comments on Amazon are absolutely hilarious,it cleary has been pharyngulated LOL
And I thought what commenter No 4 quoted was spot on !
Hey "Wowbanger",gee I wish I was a girl....
#26 Sandi.
"Was Dawkins the idiot who thought aliens seeded life on earth, or was that some other atheist idiot? "
Perhaps you are thinking of William Dembski? Though I wouldn't call him an atheist.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6j_SD1EgcUI
around 2:00 mins Dembski says "It could be an alien intelligence"
Clinteas said:
Have you noticed that this type of argument tends to be heard most often from people who otherwise come across as the least sane or is it just me?
Arno said:
IIRC the prison statistics suggest you're doing fine regarding this, so I will try to share your optimism regarding the potential reading habits of IDiots!
I love how I gave a fair and knowledgeable (albeit very basic) response to Sandi's gibberish, essentially showing the absurdity of the "First Cause" being necessary... and all I got for it was a how-to about superscripts... lol
I just didn't want to type it all out, boys... ^ is an acceptable substitute. That level of nitpicking is beyond the pale of grammar Nazism, which I myself have no problem with.
Re: #140
The IDiots may well commiserate with the Duc de la Rochefoucald: "There goes another beautiful theory about to be murdered by a brutal gang of facts."
Although, in this case, "beauty" is in the eye(s) of the beholder.
As I said, those that can, do. Those that can't just sit around bitching and tearing down what the doers do. Put your time and money where your mouth is, folks. Quit sitting around cackling about how stupid everyone else is and do something spectacular that will demonstrate how smart all of you are.
#147- "Quit sitting around cackling about how stupid everyone else is and do something spectacular that will demonstrate how smart all of you are."
Y'know, Slammer, you're absolutely right.
{Killfile}
Slammer, do you need to have everything gift wrapped and dumped in your lap? Everything is out there if you just take the time to look it up. And many of the people here who you claim are just bitching and moaning, they are doing something about it. They are involved in research. They are involved in educating other people. And they are involved countering the people who put out dreck like this mockumentary.
As for these "doers", what have they done? What great edifice have Ben Stein and company provided. And I mean something more substantial than Ben Stein claiming that Darwinism does not explain gravity and causing the Holocaust.
@ Slumber: Tearing down that which cannot support itself is a good thing. Would you buy a house with obviously shoddy construction? Would you buy a car with a poor reliability record? Would you believe a story clearly demonstrated to be false? If this movie can't get past the most basic criticisms, then maybe it doesn't to be seen.
How else can you explain such an obsessive desire to make the rest of the world think as you do? - Slammer
The stupid and wicked lie at the heart of Expelled - that evolutionary science is in some way to blame for the Nazi holocaust - offends us greatly. It would offend you too if you had a shred of integrity or human decency.
Brownian - How about some nice red raspberry and lavender syrup to go with that butter? ;)
Well, we have. The 21st century looks a lot different from the 11th century. Life spans are 30 years longer than 100 years ago and modern agriculture feeds 6.7 billion people.
Your accomplishment seems to be anchoring the very lower end of the bell shaped IQ curve. I suppose for some people, being able to cross the street without getting run over is a notable achievement.
Okay, 2 things about cars:
cheeses only makes christlers
Cheeses Built My Hotrod
@ Sandi
"Bunk: Interesting reply, but we really don't know whether Dawkins continues to believe in "panspermia" or not. "
Actually, we do. He's explained himself on this several times in public forums. However, I don't think he's ever addressed whatever church thing you attend, so you've unlikely seen his take on panspermia (that life was seeded via natural means via an astronomical event) or directed panspermia (that an extraterrestrial intelligence seeded earth purposefully with the ingrdients of life.
Also: "If you've taken a course in logic, as I have...." That is just too rich.
Wait a minute... I thought every panspermia is sacred. :(
So, when will a torrent be out?
I need to rip a 'friend' a new one...she's seen it but im UK and I dont think itll come over here for a while...cant really argue against it till ive seen it, even if i know the script.
@72
>>>
"Jesus built my Camry"
Wasn't that on Garth Brooks' 4th album?>>>
Actually, it's included on *all* of Garth's releases - but you can't hear it unless you play it backwards.
@Sandi
The main reason I read these comments, is to see you get smacked around like a red-headed stepchild. Yet again, you did not fail to disappoint. Thanks for the lulz.
Everyone knows that Jesus drove a Honda, but didn't like to talk about it. "I do not speak of my own Accord." (John 12:49) His Dad, however, drove a Dodge, and was even known to give his friends rides in it, as Genesis notes that "God drove Adam and Eve from the Garden of Eden in a Fury."
"Just an intellectual with 21 years of education (including a law degree) who keeps an open mind and enjoys logical debate"
Sandi,
If you enjoy logical debate, why are you so *bad* at it?
Phentari,
WRT Sandi, same reason football fans aren't really good football players.
RE: Anne Holden, in Expelled Exposed. You're a cutie.
And brainy and all.
Sandi:
Harvey Birdman says "SIGH."
For someone who claims to have taken courses in logic, I haven't seen any yet.
A human being 'creates' a car. Is that person now beyond the same laws of physics that apply to the car? Of course not. There is not 1 example in the world where this applies. Except in your superstition.
(The mad scientist is ALWAYS shocked when his creation turns on him: "But...but...I CREATED you! You have to do my bidding!" Not the way the world works.)
As someone's noted before, this is special pleading. Google on it, read, be enlightened.
Unless of course, you learned this in your 'logic class', that I have a hard time believing you took. Unless it was someplace like Biola, in which case, it wasn't a class in logic @ all.
Anyone still following this? Amazon has "communities" for ID and Creationism. How much effort do you suppose it would take to sabotage these? We might suggest some more appropriate material, and bump up the tags.
Already have done...at NetFlix. 36 out of 72 people found it helpful. I think they were just offended. ;)
You guys are pathetic. WHY DON'T YOU FREAKING WATCH THE FILM BEFORE BOMBING IT WITH FAKE REVIEWS.
suck it.
I join. It was and with me. Let's discuss this question.