If you’re not in the habit of picking up a copy of the Daily Papers, then you may have missed the Thursday, September 27th front-page “news.”
“EXPELLED: No Intelligence Allowed” made the grade. A picture of the movie poster with the film’s host, Ben Stein, was included with a story line in the article, which is exactly what we expected.
Included in the story are quotes from the ostensibly lamb-like Atheists, Richard Dawkins and PZ Myers. Also included is a photograph purporting to be the aggressive dispenser of anti-theism himself – Oxford’s Doctor Dawkins.
Unfortunately for the paper, but typical of the misinformation embedded throughout the article, the photograph is not Richard Dawkins at all, but another scientist entirely.
Par for the course…and since No one has even seen the film yet, how do they know that they are actually miscast?
Actually, the authentic victims in this story are those scientists who have been “expelled” for the offense of merely acknowledging that intelligent design exists within nature.
Our worldwide investigation over the last eighteen months revealed the real “miscasting.” Namely, to the role of “the unemployed,” or “discredited,” that the cadre of elite antitheists assigns any scientist or educator dissenting from the party line. The party line being the “explanation” that random mutation is responsible for the extrusion of every living thing on earth, and in record time.
That said - we do apologize to the supposed “victims” showcased by the article, for hiding our true identity as a mere “front” for the hairy, unwashed mass of knuckle dragging misanthropes who are allegedly behind this film – or in other words, for not identifying ourselves as the caricature of those who do not agree with their particular views on evolution or life’s origins.
Personally, we are amazed that a regressive troop such as ours could have pulled off such a remarkable feat against a highly evolved group of “experts.”!
Random mutation never ceases to amaze, though. One just can’t predict what will happen!
Just in case there is any concern, though, and notwithstanding the low down, yellow-bellied “deception” that the article implies we may have used to get interviews for the film…here is the TRUTH:
The interviewees were informed that the interviews were for the purpose of addressing important conflicts or debates within science, or between, science and religion – and specifically the controversy over evolution. If you want to see more, go to the website on the Premise production subsidiary Rampant Films at:
http://www.rampantfilms.com/rampantfilms.swf
We think that the information is very clear. Do we need to provide a course in English grammar before conducting an interview?
Oh, and by the way, all of the interviewees appearing on the film, signed releases that grants Rampant Films, or anyone that they assign, to do whatever, whenever, and however it so determines - with the footage from the interviews. Got any questions?
The release references “Crossroads,” as a “tentative” title, if that’s OK? So just to set the record straight, the film was titled EXPELLED only after we began to see the disturbing pattern and shocking information that the footage reveals! So, thanks for the title guys, we couldn’t have done it without you! And we’re still considering using “Crossroads” for something else! Watch out.
Finally, all of the interviewees cited by the article have made frequent and very public or published statements on the same information or viewpoints that they shared with our film team. So what’s the big hubbub about?
Well, we think that they only want to play in their own sandbox – regardless of any “after the fact” comments to the contrary.
Party-time on protected turf only, though, is…over. We’re sorry, but this is America, and our constitution also guarantees the rest of us the same freedom to present the public with important ideas and controversies – just don’t tell the Neo-Darwinists that.
Sincerely yours,
The Producers: EXPELLED, No Intelligence Allowed
September 28th, 2007 at 6:47 pm
Learn how to write a rebuttal. That rambling, incoherent blather in response to yesterday’s press reads like a Tedd Kaczynski diary. No one believes you actually intended to call the film “Crossroads,” unless you were going to market it to Sunday schools. No one believes that “Rampant Films” is a “production company” large enough to warrant a subsidiary. Curiously your rebuttal left out the comments from acclaimed geneticist Dr. Francis S. Collins who called the premise of your film “ludicrous.” This is after Ruloff cited her as a source for the oppression of creationists. Ruloff never spoke to her and refused to put her in the film. I wonder why?
September 28th, 2007 at 7:18 pm
Thanks for sharing, yes, I missed this article. I agree, this is America, and our constitution does guarantee the same freedom to be presented with important ideas and controversies. (I’ll keep it under my hat…lol)
I have news as well. Locally, a Creationism Museum in coming to the area. A gentleman had stumbled upon some info about 4 years ago on the Web. So, this gentleman did some deeper digging. He then showed the material to his son-in-law, who was an atheist.
Excerpt from article; Quote “We watched a few videos and then gave them to him and he says, ‘I never heard anything about this before,’” the gentleman recalls. “And he completely did a flip-around and I saw the value in this stuff.”
The gentleman commented in this article, “You still have people holding on to their beliefs,” he said. “Some people just can’t accept deity so they choose believe (in evolution), whether there’s any proof or not.”
~M
Darwinism evolution is being torn down little by little with natural selection of the public, and will continue to evolve in a downward spiral, and mutation will not be able to develop any new information to save it’s deceptive reputation.
September 28th, 2007 at 7:22 pm
I’m just wondering if you guys are going to be completely honest in your portrayal of these “victims”.
For instance, will you mention that:
1. Rick Sternberg violated the Proceeding’s rules of peer review.
2. Gonzalez, while at ISU for 7 years, brought no research grants, generated unoriginal research, and didn’t graduate a single PhD candidate. And yet he expected tenure?
September 28th, 2007 at 7:52 pm
I find it ‘intellectually satisfying” to know that the censorship and intellectual dishonestly being conducted by the evolutionary scientists is finally being exposed for the psuedo-science its been conducting for the last century.
September 28th, 2007 at 8:40 pm
Fine retort. The whining from Dr. Myers and Dr. Dawkins is entertaining. It would be one thing if the producers tried to make it look like these scientists support creationism. If that were the case, the whining would be justified complaint. But if the movie simply gives more publicity to the bigotry of these scientists, why are they and others whining? Since they hate religion so much, let the world see their hate in all its odious splendor. Dr. Myers and Dr. Dawkins can blubber all they want, but in the end, the words they spoke are the words they came up with.
September 28th, 2007 at 9:49 pm
It’s truly astounding to see so many proponents of evolutionary theory hiding under their desks when actually challenged by competent scholarship. I’m not necessarily referring to this documentary as it obviously has not been released, but in general. They simply do not have any meaningful answers. All we see is hateful drivel as seen in the majority of the responses from the first blog entry. When I have attempted to interact with atheists and ask for documentation that backs up many of their prejudicial conjectures, or inane assertions regarding creationism, I simply get the response that I am not worthy of a response. That is called intellectual laziness and in my estimation, a simple fear of being shown that the great gods of atheistic materialism collapse upon examination. I look forward to this film, although I expect ad-hominem argumentation and more logical fallacies to pour in when no documented, rational response can be given to the refutation of hateful ignorance.
September 28th, 2007 at 10:29 pm
Darwinists, the only reasonable complaint would be if the producers perform deceptive editing, which has yet to be determined. Giving an accurate soapbox to such as P.Z. Meyers is simply a public service. Wouldn’t you want his wisdom to be better known? Or is giving more publicity to the opinions of Meyers, et al violating some sort of private cosa nostra? Shouldn’t his heartfelt opinions, accurately conveyed, only help your side? If not, why not? You seem mighty afraid of something. Perhaps Meyers should simply take the brave step of stifling his opinions if he thinks they will not be well received. But that seems kind of dishonorable. Really, where is the problem here?
September 29th, 2007 at 12:25 am
lemans3427 Says:
“This is after Ruloff cited her as a source for the oppression of creationists. Ruloff never spoke to her and refused to put her in the film. I wonder why?”
Was there a random mutation that occurred in Francis Collins that turned HIM into a HER??? He is a man!
Sounds like lemans3427 writes for the New York Times
September 29th, 2007 at 3:47 am
Ha ha ha.
Very funny. Nothing more fun than acing a blowhard.
As for being fair about some of scientists who were denied tenure, no one who thinks believes that there isn’t great prejudice against ID and creationists. I think the point in the academic community is that it is deserved, so it doesn’t count as prejudice. Pretty funny. Can you say “Duke Lacrosse?”
September 29th, 2007 at 6:13 am
What a childish rambling rant that was. I wasn’t sure if I was reading a statement released by the producers of a documentary or a blog entry by an angry teenager. It’s not shocking at all though that once you were caught in your duplicity you’d react in such a petulent manner.
Marylin, that’s a great anecdote and typical of Creationists who love to spread them. No location. No names. No details except how some videos fixed the atheist. Sorry if I am skeptical.
lemans, Francis Collins is a man by the way.
September 29th, 2007 at 9:57 am
Mr. Stein,
I would like to personally thank you for your shocking expose into the dark underbelly of atheistic science. I hope you will do a sequel covering the same antireligion bias in medical schools. A member of my church was kicked out of medical school just because he didn’t buy into the whole God-denying “germ theory of disease”. Sickness is cured by prayers and repentance and laying-on-of-hands and anointing with oil (James 5:14), not so-called antibiotics. But anyone who affirms this basic fact is not allowed to practice medicine. I thought we lived in America, not Stalinist Russia!
Pastor Billy-Reuben
September 29th, 2007 at 10:30 am
This is embarrassingly bad. “Intelligent design” is rigorously unscientific drivel; perhaps once these “victims” follow the scientific method and propose a way to test such a theory, it will have a place in the scientific community.
Ironically, Dawkins, quite correctly, supports allowing science to “touch god,” as it were.
September 29th, 2007 at 11:25 am
As a teacher I tell my students that once we stop asking questions we are doomed as a society. We must be allowed to ask questions, yet the name calling and anger just sap the integrity of your argument. Stick to the facts and don’t make it personal, that is how you defeat big science. We are pulling for you Walt!!
September 29th, 2007 at 4:18 pm
“Pastor Billy-Reuben” is obviously a troll. It is common for atheists for impersonate religious people, invent religious personas, and create hoax sites that pose as churches or religious organizations to serve the secular cause or simply to create trouble. In other words, the same people who are upset with the producers routinely engage in deception.
September 29th, 2007 at 6:30 pm
EyeInTheSky, it’s called satire. Look it up.
September 29th, 2007 at 7:55 pm
@14 EyeInTheSky
Friend, I must take issue with your unsubstantiated charge against me. I wish you wouldn’t resort to calling me HATEFUL names such as “atheist” or “troll”.
I notice you didn’t respond the content of my message. You stooped to childish name calling and left it at that.
Microbism is just as full of holes as Darwinism. How do you Microbists explain cancer? What about Alzheimers? Did you know that Robert Koch, the patron saint of Microbism, recanted on his deathbed and accepted Christ?
There are many alternatives to Microbism. Why aren’t any of them taught in medical schools? The Center for Unhindered Living believes that imbalances in the body’s pH is the cause of disease. Christian Scientists believe that all medical conditions are best treated by prayer. Why are our medical students taught only one theory? I can’t prove it, but I suspect it is the stranglehold that the powerful drug companies have on the medical profession.
Pastor Billy-Reuben
September 29th, 2007 at 8:45 pm
Kevin Meines says: “Stick to the facts and don’t make it personal, that is how you defeat big science.” Ironically, what is this movie about? The *persons* who make ID look like martyrs in the face of aggressive Darwinist bullies - or the *facts* that show that ID simply can’t explain half of what evolution explains?
Stick to keeping it personal and emotional and don’t mention the biological facts, that is how you produce propaganda. We are pulling for you Walt - it’s always good to have something to laugh at the Americans about.
September 29th, 2007 at 9:57 pm
–Actually, the authentic victims in this story are those scientists who have been “expelled” for the offense of merely acknowledging that intelligent design exists within nature.–
Does it ever occur to you that you need to back up your claims? Or are you just too IDist to care about truth, and evidence?
Yes, we’ve heard that extremely tiresome and extremely well-answered claim extremely many times before now. The mere fact that you’ve never come up with the slightest bit of solid evidence for it indicates that you’re not only uninterested in science, but also that you’re uninterested in telling the truth.
You want to know what I think about the complaints over the interviews? I think they’re legit, but not very important. What? Someone’s making a film about religion and science, and it ended up having a viewpoint, particularly one in favor of theocracy? What a shock! The name change is almost to be expected with films, and Crossroads should have been considered to be a working title by the participants.
Greater honesty from theists might be expected, if these weren’t intellectually dishonest proponents of ID. But the ellipses in their answers, in their “science,” and in their dealings with others should be expected when they’re opposed to the modern science that was worked out mainly within Christian societies (hardly only by Christians, or even theists, however).
Fine, I’ve taken care of that, from my perspective.
Now back to the gross dishonesty of the film’s producers and writers. Here’s Ruloff’s defamation of what is, as far as anybody knows, an honest man and scientist whose work Ruloff couldn’t hope to understand, Francis Collins:
–Mr. Ruloff also cited Dr. Francis S. Collins, a geneticist who directs the National Human Genome Research Institute and whose book, “The Language of God: A Scientist Presents Evidence for Belief” (Simon & Schuster, 2006), explains how he came to embrace his Christian faith. Dr. Collins separates his religious beliefs from his scientific work only because “he is toeing the party line,” Mr. Ruloff said.
That’s “just ludicrous,” Dr. Collins said in a telephone interview.–
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/27/science/27expelled.html?_r=3&pagewanted=1&ref=us&oref=slogin&oref=slogin
And this is supposed to be an honest film? Not a chance. Francis Collins, who is attacked by the likes of PZ Myers and other “new atheists” who are intent on faulting religion and not just pseudoscience, does his work of gene sequencing well within the evolutionary paradigm (how could anybody do otherwise and be intellectually honest?), writes books on how he finds faith and science compatible, and sticks up solidly in favor of modern evolutionary theory, and all we get from Ruloff is this slander of the good man.
By the way, Francis Collins does speak out in favor of cosmological ID and for a mind behind human morality, neither of which is exactly welcome in the scientific community–and for good reason, I might add. He apparently is willing to buck the “Establishment” in some areas (areas where his competency does not lie, I might add), yet Ruloff acts as if his agreement with modern evolutionary theory is just some slimy suck-up to the powers that be. These IDists have no shame, much like Joe McCarthy who knew the “communists” without taking the trouble to bring forward any evidence, or even intelligent argumentation.
Of course, Ruloff probably knows about as much about the history of the acceptance of science among religious folk in the Catholic and mainline Protestant traditions as he knows about science itself. Tell me, Ruloff, why Father Coyne writes in favor of science and against pseudoscience? Why do Catholic biology departments all across the country oppose “Intelligent Design,” when clearly they rely on their Church to shield them from the faux persecution trumped up in this film?
Indeed, why do many biologists in fundamentalist schools chafe under the restrictions of their religious leaders? Wouldn’t they simply accept ID without concern, if there was anything to it? I know about at least one of these, because I went to a religious college (Walla Walla University, was Walla Walla College when I attended) for my undergraduate degree. A number of your better scientists there were frankly evolutionist, from biologists to physicists, for all of the reasons that we’ve laid out at this blog and elsewhere.
Indeed, if Ruloff, Miller, and Ben Stein were able to show any kind of illegitimate suppression of their unevidenced pseudoscience, they’d be answering the questions I asked in the other thread, namely, why do the taxonomy and phylogeny of prokaryotes and of eukaryotes differ considerably and according to what would be expected from the known “naturalistic” evolutionary mechanisms, if indeed they were “designed”? And why were pterosaur, bird, and bat wings were all derived from legs, and not from first principles or from extant (in the case of birds and bats) wings? To say that it makes design sense to make wings out of legs is merely ridiculous.
None of you can answer those questions. None of you has the slightest evidence FOR design at all. Yet you demand that we treat ID as science, thus revealing your autocratic tendencies and desires to force unscientific beliefs into the science of Newton, Galileo, and Einstein.
Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/2kxyc7
September 29th, 2007 at 10:40 pm
I just now found out about this movie and a good movement to finally put creation or ID in classrooms. It’s something that’s needed to be done for YEARS!!! I also think we need to find another way to promote this movie because i just now heard of it from someone telling me about it. We need to find a way to GET PEOPLES ATTENTION!!!!! Because it’s kindof hard to do that these days.
September 29th, 2007 at 10:59 pm
As it happens, Ben Stein doesn’t seem particularly impressed by the ID nonsense either. Not that it really should matter, given that he neither has expertise in science, nor has sense enough to recognize the importance of keeping pseudoscience from being forced into the university science departments. Nevertheless, this is what NY Times reports of Stein’s response:
–…said in a telephone interview that he [Ben] accepted the producers’ invitation to participate in the film not because he disavows the theory of evolution — he said there was a “very high likelihood” that Darwin was on to something — but because he does not accept that evolution alone can explain life on earth.
He said he also believed the theory of evolution leads to racism and ultimately genocide, an idea common among creationist thinkers. If it were up to him, he said, the film would be called “From Darwin to Hitler.–
http://www.reason.com/blog/printer/122721.html
Now this is a bizarre notion, though one pushed by IDists often enough.
Ben needs to study the history of Germany versus that of England and the United States. Both of the latter have had and continue to have their faults, but they were the Enlightenment countries (the US in particular was founded on Enlightenment principles), and thus were not fertile ground for the nonsense of the Nazis (it is believed that occult beliefs played a large role in fostering Nazi anti-Semitism, for instance). Germany was open to such ideas, for a number of reasons, naturally (WWI, depression, etc.), but especially because the Enlightenment hadn’t really taken hold in Germany.
From Germany came Hegel, Marx, and Heidegger (actually, Kant, too, but Kant’s pro-enlightenment notions had been quickly turned into Romantic thought by people like Hegel and Heidegger). Of course great scientists came from Germany as well, but the overall attitude of Germany was Romantic, and favored “spirit” over theories about hard evidence.
Darwin, by contrast, was in the tradition of Hume, Newton, and a tradition that in both the judiciary and in science favored evidence over “feelings” and vague notions like ID or, indeed, the German Haeckel’s magical notions. Among the intellectuals of the Anglo world, Darwinism was taken up almost as a matter of course (most religious people in power did not oppose it), and despite a fair amount of Victorian notions in Darwin’s writings, including racist ideas, evolutionary theory was part of far saner societies than what appeared in Germany and in Italy.
Evolutionary theory needed to move on from Darwin, in part because he included Victorian prejudices, and it most certainly did (one reason we don’t like yahoos like Ruloff calling today’s evolution “Darwinism”), for it was evidence-based science and thus became well-integrated with other science, like Mendelism. Meanwhile, the non-Enlightenment societies of Germany and the USSR largely rejected the “materialistic” ideas of Mendel and of Darwin. Did this itself make them the totalitarian nightmares that they were? No, of course not, however, bad ideas in science frequently are associated with bad ideas in government, and Nazi Germany and Stalinist USSR were no exceptions.
In spite of all their faults, the UK and the US remained beacons of Englightenment, as the rejectors of the Enlightenment brought us war and genocides.
Stein really ought to know about all of this much better than he does, for he ought to know a little about Jews and the improvement of their lot as the Enlightenment took hold. Medieval theocracies were cruel to Jews, and actually, to many many Christians as well. The Enlightenment brought relief to most everybody, other than that we had to fight and oppose the anti-Enlightenment societies of Germany and the USSR.
So now what does Ben do? He attacks the Enlightenment itself through this movie, claiming that those who have no evidence and only desires to impose their will onto science, have been persecuted. You want Hitler, or at least theocratic dominance over what should be free science? Then keep this up, Ben.
The Enlightenment is what demanded evidence before one is determined to be guilty, and the Enlightenment is what demands that science remain based in evidence and not in the wishes of Romantics and of atavistic theocrats. As ID’s Wedge Document points out, ID is really only a way of getting rid of Enlightenment ideas (it doesn’t call them that, but it is what they are), and hence the way to attack both our Constitution and the science that America needs to compete.
If you don’t know science, Ben, at least try boning up some on history. Attacking the Enlightenment is the way to Hitler, as well as to other less odious but still objectionable impositions upon humanity. Force science to accept “standards” that reject the need for legitimate evidence, and not only have you destroyed the First Amendment, you have destroyed the Declaration of Indepence as well, and all that gave rise to freedom of thought and of science.
There you go. You’re free, of course, to oppose the Allies and their anti-fascist standards, but if you succeed in your gambit, you had better not count on having freedom for much longer.
Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/2kxyc7
This might be a double posting, but I thought it should have posted already if it had gone through. If it’s a double, well, that’s why.
September 29th, 2007 at 11:38 pm
>Of course, Ruloff probably knows about as much about the Tell me, Ruloff, why Father Coyne writes in favor of science and against pseudoscience? Why do Catholic biology departments all across the country oppose “Intelligent Design,” when clearly they rely on their Church to shield them from the faux persecution trumped up in this film?
I’m an orthodox Catholic & I’m not a Fiat Creationist. I’ll take a run at it.
ID is a broad catagory. Some IDers may believe in the “God of the Gaps” approch to ID. That is they point to phenomena in nature science can’t as of yet explain & postulate this can only be explained by God. Of course the problem with that is it makes proofs for the existence of God beholden to scientific progress. It would seem not every IDer takes that philosophically & scientifically flawed approch but some Catholic & Protestant institutions wrongly precieve they do.
Anyway in the 19th century science proved conclusively Geocentracism couldn’t be true so Catholic institutions changed. Current Catholic intitutions teach evolution & theistic evolution but I suspect if IDer’s get their act together and challenge the establishment Catholics will follow suit. We are open to science inspite of anti-Catholic propoganda to the contrary.
September 30th, 2007 at 1:56 am
Caerloen writes:
“It’s truly astounding to see so many proponents of evolutionary theory hiding under their desks when actually challenged by competent scholarship”
and adds
“When I have attempted to interact with atheists and ask for documentation that backs up many of their prejudicial conjectures, or inane assertions regarding creationism, I simply get the response that I am not worthy of a response.”
In the almost 10 years I’ve been debating Crevo on-line I have never come across a Creationist (who wasn’t a loonie or instransigent) that could stand up to the fussilade of evidence for evolution. This evolution proponent will gladly provide any documentation supporting the theory or showing how Creationism has been falsified in any forum or venue you wish (here, a message board, e-mail, whatever).
Becca writes:
“EyeInTheSky, it’s called satire. Look it up.”
I hate to see a perfectly good pun go unappreciated by folks like eyeinthesky.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bilirubin
September 30th, 2007 at 7:58 am
If you believe in God, then you better pray that evolution is also true, because if the Bible is literally true, then that means that God is not only malicious, but also incredibly incompetent. Malicious, because he has deliberately denied his word to most of the world’s population for much of time. Incompetent, because his creation is so error prone, he has been forced to resort to extreme measures, such as the expulsion from Eden, the great flood and the infliction of many languages for the tower of Babel. I have had much pleasure reading the postings of the IDists. my favourite is from the Rev. Paul T Hippie (posting 109), who writes that he wouldn’t be surprised if Rep. Tom Tancredo (who?) closes all liberal universities by the 96th day of his presidency (there is a good link to his website in his posting, which I have just looked at; I tried to look at it in Istanbul, but it was blocked-sensibly- by some agency, the name of which I have forgotten). Have a look at it; it is hilarious.
September 30th, 2007 at 11:37 am
“a Fiat Creationist”?
I know what you mean, but too funny. Are there round, square and rectangular creationists too? Tall ones? Short ones? A flat creationists, that’s good.
No where does it says in the Bible that the world is flat?
So, where do ppl get off saying “flat”? I just recently learned that there actually is a flat earth society, but come on peeps … just because someone believes in creation, doesn’t mean they think the world is flat!
Bret Cantwell Says:
September 30th, 2007 at 1:56 am
“I have never come across a Creationist (who wasn’t a loonie or instransigent)”
Are all you Darwinians good for is name calling and putting down those that don’t believe in your religion?
Grow up, please.
And I suppose I could have posted the location of the new creation museum. It will be in Wis Dells.
And what’s typical of Darwinians, is their behavior. A 10 year old acts better, and doesn’t call ppl liars, loonies, and idiots for what a person believes in. I can have more of an adult conversation with 10 yr olds where I am, than some of you Darwinism evolutionists here.
~M
September 30th, 2007 at 1:24 pm
All this venom,anger, and refusal to allow anyone else to even consider the possibility of thinking different thoughts is why I chose not to go into an academic career. It is easy to see how many would choose to suppress other people’s ideas at the drop of a hat, such as was demonstrated by the film Borat where “throw the Jew down the well” was sung by people who supposedly favor freedom. It’s just intellectual fscism.
September 30th, 2007 at 1:26 pm
Spin.
This is all that this film amounts to. The Creationism/Evolution debate is far more complex than that which is accounted for here. I mean, reread the above post by the producers: there is not a single argument made, and it amounts to nothing more than rhetoric and propaganda. This is a strong indication that the film itself will prove to be nothing more (although I’ll have to watch it to affirm this).
What should be understood is that any important questions we have about the universe will not be answered by a movie. And this goes for both creationists and evolutionists. What we need to do is come to a serious, coherent dialogue about the evidence and information (but mainly evidence) that each side has to present. This is effectively going on in the world of academia, but of course not perfectly. Are there some evolutionary scientists who are as dogmatic as creationists? Yes. Are there some creationist scientists who are scorned by their colleagues and in some cases ostracized? Probably. But this is by NO means grounds for such a sweeping generalization that science is in reality “tainted” and that science is purposefully excluding certain research. The notion that there are scientists out there with the “real” truth who are persecuted for their religious convictions is nothing more than messianic rhetoric.
Projects like “Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed”, or conversely “The God Who Wasn’t There”, are created to tug at the emotional strings of creationists and evolutionists in an attempt to fuel the fire, to strengthen fervor, and to recruit those with similar beliefs into the ARGUMENT (as opposed to the discussion). As an atheist, it is disheartening to see some of my fellow atheists/agnostics acting on their initial emotional reactions, thus adding fodder for the creationists notion of suppression and discrimination. While I strongly disagree with creationist ideology, I am open to fostering cooperative discussion as a means to refute it.
So for all those who are interested in seeing where the REAL discussion between science and religion is being held, and to hear the testimony of respected creationist scientists (ex. Joan Roughgarden), I invite you to view the sessions from the 2006 Beyond Belief convention held at the Salk Institute:
http://beyondbelief2006.org/watch/
If you are not prepared to sit through these sessions, or are not prepared to make yourself aware of the current literature that exists on both sides of the creationism/evolution debate, then I would suggest that your opinion is not informed enough to participate in this discussion (this includes the producers of this film, as well as Ben Stein).
If we reduce the discussion to childish finger pointing, media driven propaganda, and ill-informed rhetoric, we are undermining the importance of these deep seeded questions that both creationists and evolutionists have about the universe. In so doing, we will render ourselves unable to form any meaningful conclusions.
Thank you for reading my post.
Dave
September 30th, 2007 at 1:39 pm
I have a suggestion for your next movie. The suppression of stem cell research.
I have seen evidence that there is a conspiracy at the very highest levels of our government to suppress evidence that stem cell research can cure many debilitating diseases.
September 30th, 2007 at 1:55 pm
Glen Davidson,
I’ve noticed you like to spend a lot of time on this movie blog. I’m curious. Do you think that any scientist who accepts ID should be denied tenure?
September 30th, 2007 at 3:36 pm
High school biology textbooks are completely one-sided for macro-evolution. What we need is a website where students can go and download rebuttals to the evolution arguments presenting in their specific textbook page by page. Fortunately, such a website exists. It is called
http://www.textbookaccuracy.org
My wife and I have this movie on the “must see” list.
September 30th, 2007 at 6:55 pm
Marylin trolled:
>>Bret Cantwell Says:
September 30th, 2007 at 1:56 am
“I have never come across a Creationist (who wasn’t a loonie or instransigent)”
>”Are all you Darwinians good for is name calling and putting down those that don’t believe in your religion?
Grow up, please.”
and accidently gave everyone a perfect example of a typical Creationist tactic - quoting people out of context - followed immidiately by whining about how impolite and supposeldy immature evolution advocates are. I guess she didn’t realize that the full text of what I wrote would be visible to anyone who scrolled up 2 messages. Such dishonest tactics are typical.
You’re a great Creationist Marylin.
September 30th, 2007 at 7:07 pm
I’ve been perplexed by many of the comments submitted by supporters of this film, but I have just realised that most of them are very clever parodies of logic submitted by proponents of evolution.
September 30th, 2007 at 7:24 pm
Axisofjared Says: I’m just wondering if you guys are going to be completely honest in your portrayal of these “victims”.
By victims do you mean mainstream America and all the kids in the entire school system? It is truly absurd to think that origin science has been “honest” with all of us for all these years.This is something that definitely needs to be out in the open and discussed. God bless you Ben for taking the reins and getting the word out. This has been so one sided for too long and I am elated for this film. One of the main reasons why we are homeschooling our children is for the lies that is being forced into our kids minds. I was also taught that we all came from animals and pond scum in school. Only later when I finally read the Bible at age 23, and a little research, I found out that my entire education from the public school system was just conjured up with no evidence. My Mom used to tell me a fairytale about a princess kissing a frog which turned that frog into a prince. The only difference from that fairytale and evolution is the injection of perceived time.
To clarify there are two types of science, one we benefit from.
1. Operation science uses the so-called “scientific method” to attempt to discover truth, performing observable, repeatable experiments in a controlled environment to find patterns of recurring behavior in the present physical universe. For example, we can test gravity, study the spread of disease, or observe speciation in the lab or in the wild. Both creationists and evolutionists use this kind of science, which has given rise to computers, space shuttles, and cures for diseases.
2. Origin science attempts to discover truth by examining reliable eyewitness testimony (if available); and circumstantial evidence, such as pottery, fossils, and canyons. Because the past cannot be observed directly, assumptions greatly affect how these scientists interpret what they see.
So, for example, how was the Grand Canyon formed? Was it formed gradually over long periods of time by a little bit of water, or was it formed rapidly by a lot of water? The first interpretation is based on secular assumptions of slow change over millions of years, while the second interpretation is based on biblical assumptions about rapid change during Noah’s Flood. (answersingenesis.org)
Thanks for your witness for the Lord and cheers to Ben and the crew. Way to go! You have my ticket and DVD money.
For Him +†+,
Dan
September 30th, 2007 at 7:52 pm
Dave A, thank you for posting that link; it appears most interesting. I agree about the need for real discussion between the opposing views.
Andy, which type of stem cell research are you referring to?
September 30th, 2007 at 10:16 pm
Expelled! Producers Gloat: Claim that the “From Darwin to Hitler” evolved organically!
Gloating about the coverage they’ve been receiving, the producers of Expelled! have finally updated their blog with a rambling defense of their production tactics. If you had any doubts at all whether this film would be honest or evenhanded, I t…
September 30th, 2007 at 11:03 pm
“Steve Harris: I’ve noticed you like to spend a lot of time on this movie blog. I’m curious. Do you think that any scientist who accepts ID should be denied tenure?”
And do you think that when someone is denied tenure, the ONLY reason could be because they support ID? People can make false claims about Gonzales research output all they want (by, say, listing publications he was included on from before his time at the university), but the bottom line is that he didn’t bring in any grants or start much in the way of new work: that’s the lifeblood of university work, and he didn’t show any inclination to be a leader in that respect. They had no reason to think he was going to bring in money and students, and every reason to think that he’d spend considerable amounts of time writing books and making movies promoting ID instead of actually working in the department. That’s a perfectly legitimate reason to deny tenure.
Of course, if “Expelled!” bothers to tell you about any of that, I’ll be stunned.
October 1st, 2007 at 12:54 am
I like Evolutionist…They are like a five year child taking apart a toy to find out how it made itself…
October 1st, 2007 at 5:25 am
I’ve been slogging through the 1600+ responses to Ben’s opening blog entry and I’ve noticed a few patterns I wanted to cover here before the static to music ratio got too high.
Many of the critics of evolution appear not to know what it is they’re criticizing nor the evidences that support it. There’s nothing wrong with that since most Americans don’t know much about evolution, but if one expects to be taken seriously one should familiarize oneself with what actually is in the theory. This website is readable for a high schooler while being interesting enough for a grad student.
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/
I also noticed discussion of the Coelacanth. There’s an excellent site dedicated to that family.
http://www.dinofish.com/
Please read the entire biology/behavior section, but I’d note this excerpt:
“The living coelacanths, Latimeria chalumnae,and Latimeria menadoensis are possibly the sole remaining representatives of a once widespread family of Sarcopterygian (fleshy-finned) coelacanth fishes (more than 120 species are known from fossils)all but one of which disappeared at the end of the Cretaceous, 65 million years ago.”
As far as claims that there are ‘no transitional fossils’, then what are all these?
http://www.mnh.si.edu/anthro/humanorigins/ha/ances_start.html
and what are they discussing here?
http://anthro.palomar.edu/earlyprimates/early_2.htm
and is this Wikipedia entry a lie, a hoax or what?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_transitional_fossils
October 1st, 2007 at 5:48 am
Dan Marvin writes:
“To clarify there are two types of science, one we benefit from.
1. Operation science…
2. Origin science…”
The distinction is purely an invention of Creationists to obfuscate. Just as there really isn’t macroevolution and microevolution (except in colloquial terms) there is only evolution; there is no operational or historical (the usual term Creationists use) science, there is only science.
Dan Marvin writes further:
“So, for example, how was the Grand Canyon formed?”
It wasn’t by the Noachian Flood.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geology_of_the_Grand_Canyon_area
http://www.durangobill.com/Paleorivers_preface.html
http://3dparks.wr.usgs.gov/coloradoplateau/index.html
October 1st, 2007 at 6:43 am
For me its really very simple.
There is no god, yahweh, allah, buddha, whatever.
I am looking forward to the film though, comedy is my favorite genre.
October 1st, 2007 at 8:15 am
Hmm, it didn’t get posted, but I pointed out that the producers are flat out lying about their implication that the title and theme “expelled” was developed after filming the interviews with the mainstream scientists. They registered the domain name for the “expelledthemovie” movie site a full month before even scheduling those interviews.
In fact, I can’t fully confirm it yet, but there doesn’t seem to be any record of “Crossroads” prior to this: perhaps the producers can provide some evidence of it ever existing at all prior to a month or two before the deceptive interviews were scheduled? If it ever existed as a production or still does exist, how come crossroadsthemovie.com isn’t registered? That name currently belongs to a domain squatter and has since 2002.
October 1st, 2007 at 10:00 am
Pastor Billy-Reuben Says:
“I would like to personally thank you for your shocking expose into the dark underbelly of atheistic science.”
If you think that the enlightenment that science brings to the world is that dark, sir pot, I suggest you bring some truth and understanding into your life. It begins with no assumptions (including God) and asking some questions. Your religion creates barriers and spawns suffering in many forms for many people.
“I hope you will do a sequel covering the same antireligion bias in medical schools. A member of my church was kicked out of medical school just because he didn’t buy into the whole God-denying “germ theory of disease”.
I’m sorry the member of your church could not deal with the rigors of medical study. New information is hard to accept sometimes, especially the cold hard facts that micro-organisms cause diseases, not Satan.
“Sickness is cured by prayers and repentance and laying-on-of-hands and anointing with oil (James 5:14), not so-called antibiotics. But anyone who affirms this basic fact is not allowed to practice medicine. I thought we lived in America, not Stalinist Russia!”
Unfortunately, double-blind studies of prayer have turned out to consistently have placebo, if not harmful, effects. Why would your “basic fact” yield these results? I would petition to have your fellow’s medical license revoked if he told me he’d would merely pray for me rather than give me antibiotics for a serious infection.
“Pastor Billy-Reuben”
Are you sure it’s not “pasture?” - because you are full of something unreconciled with any prestige your title implies.
October 1st, 2007 at 10:31 am
That’s an egregious mischaracterization. (Ie, a fib, a lie, a falsehood.) They are being expelled for insisting on a conclusion without any evidence other than, “Well look at it! Obviously it’s designed.”
October 1st, 2007 at 10:38 am
You’re very welcome Joy.
I was pleased to read your post and to know that you also take the matter seriously. I must say, it was a breath of fresh air considering that the six posts that followed mine were extensions of arguments and emotive attacks (Save for Wayne Robinson’s post) that seem to have completely glossed over my commentary. Enjoy the sessions, they are stimulating and informative.
It is apparent that people here are more interested in proving that they’re right, rather than rationally discussing what IS right (or in the least, reflecting in a critical way on their own beliefs).
I urge my fellow evolutionists to stop trolling and responding with snide commentary (no matter how salient you think your arguments are) and to start investing that time in promoting evolution. You can’t expect to gain any ground by using negative language. Invite the creationists and the fundies (or Supers) to an honest discussion where they may submit their information and evidence to scrutiny, and where you can offer pertinent counter-evidence thus opening the door for them to use reason (no matter how many times they may slam it back in your face). If you must attack, do so in a way that respects your fellow evolutionists (or Atheists, or Agnostics, etc.).
I invite any creationist at this point to submit a list of articles or books that provide conclusive evidence of intelligent design or creationism with both the understanding that they will be examined and responded to, and the willingness to consider any such refutations that may result (with the invitation to rebuttal).
Concerned Atheist,
Dave A
October 1st, 2007 at 10:50 am
I would just like to add that I think Bret Cantwell’s posts (especially no.37) are along the vein of discourse I’m hoping to promote. Thanks for your posts Bret!
October 1st, 2007 at 12:26 pm
Dan Marvin Says:
“By victims do you mean mainstream America and all the kids in the entire school system? It is truly absurd to think that origin science has been “honest” with all of us for all these years.This is something that definitely needs to be out in the open and discussed. God bless you Ben for taking the reins and getting the word out. This has been so one sided for too long and I am elated for this film. One of the main reasons why we are homeschooling our children is for the lies that is being forced into our kids minds. I was also taught that we all came from animals and pond scum in school. Only later when I finally read the Bible at age 23, and a little research, I found out that my entire education from the public school system was just conjured up with no evidence. My Mom used to tell me a fairytale about a princess kissing a frog which turned that frog into a prince. The only difference from that fairytale and evolution is the injection of perceived time.
Dismissed as laughable rhetoric.
“To clarify there are two types of science, one we benefit from.”
I understand the religious are hard-of-thinking. To clarify, there is one scientific approach with many branches of study.
“1. Operation science uses the so-called “scientific method” to attempt to discover truth, performing observable, repeatable experiments in a controlled environment to find patterns of recurring behavior in the present physical universe.”
Using the phrase ’so-called’ only illustrates your contempt for this process, not any valid skepticism. Otherwise, no problem.
“For example, we can test gravity, study the spread of disease, or observe speciation in the lab or in the wild. Both creationists and evolutionists use this kind of science, which has given rise to computers, space shuttles, and cures for diseases.”
This is not the case. Creationists perform no research based on the scientific method. Nearly every case, paraphrased: “I believe, based on reglion/no evidence that creationism is true, therefore I shall aim my high-powered self-righteousness at legitimate scientists in hopes of gaining credibility from controversy, all while performing no research of my own. I realize this is my only hope to perpetuate creationism, due to said foundationless nature of approach.”
If creationism is so legitimate, please, please, PLEASE answer these simple questions regarding the nature of its “research”:
Give a comprehensive statement about what ID is. What does it mean?
What predictions does ID theory make?
What principles and standards are used to evaluate evidence?
What recent discoveries have ID researchers made?
What features of ID theory are subject to modification? What kind of observation, if it were seen, would change ID theory? What criteria is there for accepting a change?
How does ID explain the evidence produced by conventional science?
(Questions by Rob)
“2. Origin science attempts to discover truth by examining reliable eyewitness testimony (if available); and circumstantial evidence, such as pottery, fossils, and canyons. Because the past cannot be observed directly, assumptions greatly affect how these scientists interpret what they see.”
This does not reflect the scientific method nor any branch of science. No one would fund a scientist to study the relationship between fossils, pottery and canyons. I take that back, perhaps someone who was out to prove something…such as their religion. Reconcile yourself with the discord between fact and fiction somewhere else.
“So, for example, how was the Grand Canyon formed? Was it formed gradually over long periods of time by a little bit of water, or was it formed rapidly by a lot of water? The first interpretation is based on secular assumptions of slow change over millions of years, while the second interpretation is based on biblical assumptions about rapid change during Noah’s Flood. (answersingenesis.org)”
It is little surprise you suckle such buffoonery from AIG’s teat. I invite you to back up this absurdity with evidence.
“Thanks for your witness for the Lord and cheers to Ben and the crew. Way to go! You have my ticket and DVD money.”
Please don’t flatter your deity; there was no witness to anything save your flagrant imbecilic tendency for sheepdom. They want your DVD money, but they prefer it minus the drool you left on your movie tickets.
“For Him +†+,
Dan”
For jeebus or Dan? Please clarify.
October 1st, 2007 at 12:43 pm
The argument here frustrates and saddens me. I am a biological anthropologist, and I am agnostic.
I was raised Christian. I attended church every Sunday, I sang in the choir, I volunteered at church events. What ultimately repelled me from organized religion was the realization that every individual’s beliefs and spiritual experiences are unique and different, and all belief systems (including atheism) require some Leap of Faith. The existence of God is unproven, as is the non-existence of God.
I very much enjoyed studying human evolution at two very liberal universities. Never in my academic pursuits did I encounter a professor that asserted, “God does not exist.” We anthropologists study the most solid evidence we can find: fossils, DNA, languages and excavated sites. We seek to explain variation, movement, evolution and development by finding commonalities among studied subjects we believe to be related. Our explanations neither support nor deny the possibility that an intelligent Creator had a hand in guiding the processes we study; we prefer to ignore the question altogether.
You want to know, “Why would you ignore the question altogether?” We ignore the question because science is linear, cumulative and constructive, and we feel that if we allow ourselves to entertain discussions of different faiths and beliefs, we will cease to work together and begin to splinter along ideological/theological fault lines (apparently we are already doing that), which would greatly hinder our ability to work together in a constructive manner.
Yes, scientists are often threatened by religion. But the vast majority of us are not threatened by it because we have no respect for believers. We are threatened by religion because we think that the integrity of our field requires that discussions of religion take place outside the scientific arena.
Matters of faith absolutely ought to be addressed! Please, tell me more about Intelligent Design and how it may have guided the beautiful history of life! But please do not address these issues and questions in scientific journals and institutions.
October 1st, 2007 at 1:43 pm
Marilyn said:
“No where does it says in the Bible that the world is flat?”
He said Fiat Creationist.
fi·at (fē’ət, -ăt’, -ät’, fī’ăt’, -ət) pronunciation
n.
1. An arbitrary order or decree.
Meaning he believes that god created the world in eight divine acts, or “fiats”.
Word is Bond
~Atomic Chimp
October 1st, 2007 at 3:19 pm
“As far as claims that there are ‘no transitional fossils’, then what are all these?
http://www.mnh.si.edu/anthro/humanorigins/ha/ances_start.html”
As far as I can see, they are just skulls pieced together and filled in certain spots. Where are the rest of the skeletal remains? The body, legs, arms, hands, feet? Skulls don’t prove a thing. A good humor site anyhow.
“and what are they discussing here?
http://anthro.palomar.edu/earlyprimates/early_2.htm”
That would be man’s imagination … conjuring up history that is unknown.
”and is this Wikipedia entry a lie, a hoax or what?”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_transitional_fossils
Actually a lie and a hoax … just a list made up by imagination. An evolutionists dream.
October 1st, 2007 at 3:42 pm
I am a practicing scientist with a Ph.D. in chemistry from a world-class chemistry dept (UW-Madison), and I am very concerned about the types of arguments being used by the anti-ID folks contributing to this blog. I believe science is a noble, rigorous pursuit that gives us an ability to explore the universe, fight disease, and relieve suffering. But I also have friends and a spouse who study philosophy and have exposed me to prominent thinkers in the philosophy and history of science. My brief but substantial exposure to these writers has been nothing short of mind-boggling. It is unnerving to say the least to come to a mature point in one’s scientific career before becoming aware that virtually no one outside of science sees it the way scientists do – to find yourself firmly convinced of foundational principles that have been dismissed entirely or shown to be highly suspect by those who have examined them critically from outside of the field. What is most disturbing of all is that the vast majority of scientists seem unaware that these criticisms exist.
Dawkins and his cohort paint a compelling picture of science as philosophically neutral; as based on falsifiable data, objective observation, and cold hard reason; as antithetical to faith and dogma; and as a field whose theories are accepted or dismissed depending on how well they fit the data. Furthermore, they claim that the theories that arise from the scientific endeavor are simply the way the world works. One may refuse to accept them, but in doing so, one becomes a fool, for only a fool (or a lunatic) will not accept obvious truth when confronted with it. This is the image of science presented by every major public science advocate of our time, from Sagan to Dawkins and the criticism of ID derives from these beliefs about science: ID lacks many of the fundamental characteristics of a genuine scientific theory and, therefore, is not science. ID is overtly religious, is not falsifiable, and has not been “proven” by experiment. It is, therefore, pseudo-science, and cannot be allowed into a properly scientific education.
This line of reasoning demonstrates a breathtaking ignorance of the last 50-60 years of the philosophy and history of science and of philosophical trends in general. The history of science demonstrates that it is never philosophically neutral; need not be falsifiable; almost always requires a deep commitment to a set of principles, laws, and practices in the absence of conclusive “proof” (i.e. faith); and cannot operate without dogma. Furthermore, how well a theory fits the data is often not the main reason for its acceptance or dismissal. Darwinian evolution took root despite a fundamental deficiency (the lack of any evidence for hereditary material). It took another century to discover the structure of DNA, but that didn’t stop scientists from holding to the theory. They believed the hereditary material would eventually be discovered, and their faith was eventually rewarded. Newton postulated a universal gravitational constant, and his theory of gravity gained rapid acceptance, but it took another century before the constant was measured for the first time. Einstein’s first paper on general relativity took the science world by storm despite the fact that it contained no data whatsoever. And the list goes on.
The vast majority of scientists have not come to terms with these realities because they are not even aware of them. And that demonstrates that science has become, in the last half-century, the least willing of all the academic disciplines to examine itself. I’m afraid that science does, in fact, look like a group of the “faithful” battling off the ”pagans” who want to destroy what the believers have worked so hard to create. Until the scientific community is willing to engage the aforementioned analyses more openly, we will be subject to the charge of close-mindedness and rightfully so. This is not an easy task. But reflecting upon the history of science in the light of my own experiences in science has led me to believe that the philosophers and historians have much to teach us about the nature of our noble endeavor. Interested parties can begin their education along these lines with a book Science magazine called, “a landmark in intellectual history”, Thomas Kuhn’s “The Structure of Scientific Revolutions”.
In anticipation of those who would claim that such conclusions would spell the end of science, allow me to strongly disagree. The Dawkins’s of the world warn us that there are only two choices: Objective science or the dark ages of superstition. That is a false dichotomy. Despite holding to some unconventional views of science, I am a practicing scientist with publications in the most prestigious journals in the world. I make my living discovering new medicines for lethal diseases. There is no incompatibility between knowing the undistorted history of science and its successful practice. It is indeed possible to reject the simplistic, textbook-style vision of science trumpeted by Dawkins and his kind and still be a world-class scientist. And it makes the world a much more interesting place, too.
October 1st, 2007 at 3:55 pm
Hammurabi Says “What principles and standards (of ID) are used to evaluate evidence? How does ID explain the evidence produced by conventional science?”
Your presuppositions will not allow you to examine without bias the evidence that I present to you for God’s existence.
Your presupposition is that there is no God; therefore, no matter what I might present to you to show His existence, you must interpret it in a manner consistent with your presupposition: namely, that there is no God.
Your religion of naturalism is so flawed. Let’s start with Big Bang and how come no scientist in the world can answer the logical questions posed. You want to force feed us illogical theories. Big Bang, like evolution, has no evidence just assertions based on ignorance.
Lets see of this is true for big bang theory:
big bang problem #1: Missing antimatter problem. (Baryon number) How much in the universe, ZERO. One fluke exception is not an answer either.
big bang problem #2: Monopoles problem. Batteries have +/- and at high temperatures greater then the core of a star can create singular poles and the big bang started at infinite temperature and that would be hot enough. Guess how many we find ZERO.
big bang problem #3: Singularity point problem. The Big Bang DOES NOT even explain the origin of the universe. How did that singular point get there?
big bang problem #4:Known physics breaks down in this situation. General relativity (powerful gravitational fields) and quantum mechanics (very small situation) exists separately but there is NO
physics currently that can explain both situations at the same time which is what the Big Bang requires. Known physics cannot describe that (big bang) situation so big banger’s take it on BLIND FAITH that if such physics is ever discovered that it would even allow for the theory of the big bang.
big bang problem #5: Population 3 stars there should be these type of first stars everywhere all over the universe. Any guess to how many are out there…ZERO! All stars have trace amounts of the heaver
elements.
Now I will admit I had help (like Dr. Jason Lisle) for these points but science cannot explain there theories they try to teach the kids. Not mine because we are homeschooling our kids. These are things with no evidence, just assertions based on ignorance.
It all starts with a scientist’s presupposition and that is why most are mislead into wrong assertions.
For Him +†+,
Dan
October 1st, 2007 at 3:59 pm
http://riseagainstreligion.blogspot.com/
October 1st, 2007 at 10:01 pm
My gods! The aliens that made off with Mel Gibson and Tom Cruise have replaced Ben Stein as well!
When will the horror end? o.o
October 1st, 2007 at 10:46 pm
@41 Hammurabi
> Unfortunately, double-blind studies of prayer have turned out to
> consistently have placebo, if not harmful, effects. Why would
> your “basic fact” yield these results?”
The LORD always answers prayer, but sometimes the answer is no.
> I would petition to have your fellow’s medical license revoked
> if he told me he’d would merely pray for me rather than give me
> antibiotics for a serious infection.”
Thank you for proving the premise of Expelled right. You science believers will do anything to stifle the introduction of religious faith into the “realm of science”.
I would expect an attack like this from a Germunist like yourself. That’s what the Expelled movie is about — highlighting this sort anti-religion bias in Science.
Since you are so convinced that Germunism is a fact, maybe you could earn a little money. There is a standing $250,000,000 challenge to ANYONE who can provide any empirical evidence for the Germ Theory of Disease. Please click on the my name, above, for terms and conditions. This challenge is void where prohibited.
Pastor Billy-Reuben
October 1st, 2007 at 11:53 pm
It’s nice of the philosophically ignorant “Post-secular PhD” to tell us all about science and philosophy. Of course it really has almost nothing to do with actual philosophy, science, or the bases for our judicial system. Indeed, with his disregard for the “intersubjective” soundness of science, we could hardly do anything in science, and we may as well forget about “proving” anyone guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.
Here’s some of his “wisdom”:
–[Science] almost always requires a deep commitment to a set of principles, laws, and practices in the absence of conclusive “proof” (i.e. faith);–
What a bizarre term for the well-honed understandings of mind worked out in philosophy and in science–faith. Science, like the related forensics, exists in order to be able to decide matters on something other than faith, which was too much relied-upon in medieval times.
Anyone who’s actually read what the more prolific pro-science posters have written, instead of just assuming something that isn’t true based on his unwarranted faith like “PhD” did, would recognize that we do not claim that science is based upon “conclusive proof” (not completely true, since mathematical proofs are used, but these rely on “postulates” and “axioms” which cannot be proven). We rely on the best evidence, and yes, we also rely on the best principles, laws, and practices which have been subjected to skepticism and scrutiny. They are not “proved” as such, however they have been demonstrated, something that a scientist worth his salt would mention.
–and cannot operate without dogma.–
No, we cannot operate with dogma. This is why I have no reason to believe the claims you make of being a scientist. Everything is at least theoretically in doubt, although some principles and “laws” have been very well demonstrated in the areas where they can be tested. If scientists often reveal their biases, it is completely wrong to say of science as a whole that it operates with dogma. It uses whatever has proven to be sound after being subjected to tests and questioning, the only legitimate way in which to proceed. Dogma would totally undermine science because it would destroy the necessary questions of our “intersubjective” agreements and evidentiary processes.
–Furthermore, how well a theory fits the data is often not the main reason for its acceptance or dismissal.–
How well the theory fits the data is indeed the main reason for its acceptance or dismissal, so long as “fit” is understood in scientific terms of causality (in classical science) and the principles that have been shown to work.
–Darwinian evolution took root despite a fundamental deficiency (the lack of any evidence for hereditary material).–
That wasn’t a “fundamental deficiency,” which you’d know if you were any kind of competent scientist. First of all, there was indeed evidence for hereditary material, in that parents produced offspring much like themselves. Darwin utilized the empirical processes of artificial selection as an analogy with natural selection. The chemical, and what we now call the “genetic”, bases for the known hereditary effects were not known, but that something was transmitted was indubitable.
–It took another century to discover the structure of DNA, but that didn’t stop scientists from holding to the theory.–
You totally shifted the issue at stake from what you first wrote to these non sequiturs. You made the illegitimate claim that scientists accept theories not because of their fit with the data, but for other reasons. Then you complain about the deficiencies of genetic knowledge (incompetently, I might add) in Darwin’s day, as if that meant that “Darwinism” wasn’t the best fit to the data. That doesn’t follow in the least.
The point of “Darwinism” (in that time the term was fairly appropriate, but I use scare quotes because we’ve moved so far beyond Darwin’s original theory) was to fit the data as well as was possible at the time. Which it did. For your claim about “Darwinism” being accepted without it fitting the data best to have any kind of legitimacy, you’d have to show that there was another scientific theory which fit the data better. And you seem even to be unaware of this necessity in science.
The fact is that “Darwinism” was a theory of change based upon obvious, yet poorly understood, processes of hereditary. It fit the data because it explained life without resort to a teleology which cannot be shown in life the life we see, which has no apparent or demonstrable purpose. “Darwinism” explains how organisms are adapted without any sort of rational planning in evidence (as we’d expect from “design”), and with “competing purposes” evident in organisms (hence no overall “purposes” beyond reproduction). Evolutionary theory explains why Linnaeus and Aristotle felt compelled to treat organisms with homologies as if they were related–the reason being because they are!
In a way, “Darwinism” predicted that discrete hereditary information exists in organisms, for evolution by natural selection (plus other processes) couldn’t occur (in life’s context, that is) otherwise. In that sense, and not in the sense of giving us any of the details, Mendel’s findings were predicted by “Darwinism”. Instead of “PhD” being impressed that “Darwinism” would rely upon the kind of conservative yet “randomly” alterable molecule such as DNA turned out to be, he tries to claim that the theory’s prescience was actually a liability.
Well, it wasn’t, as anyone with a smattering of knowledge of the philosophy of science knows. Many theories begin without having some of their core requirements fulfilled by observation, and later data fills these in. Did Einstein’s theory of relativity have the necessary evidence of light-bending by gravity when he proposed it? Of course not, and the evidence that light is bent by gravity showed that his already explanatory theory was likely the proper one.
Darwin actually did have a good deal more evidence in hand when he wrote Origin of Species than Einstein did. Hence the acceptance of his theory did not need to wait on further observations (to tell the truth, Darwin’s mechanism wasn’t fully accepted until the 20th century, but it probably should have been, and was accepted in part by much of biology even earlier).
DNA and its associated mechanisms (including repair) turned out to be exactly the kind of molecule needed for “Darwinian” evolution to work. As such, it ought to be considered as vindication of the mechanisms of evolution elucidated by Darwin and others. And thus, far from being a reason to fault those who were intelligent enough to recognize the importance of natural selection, it indicates that those who insisted on cause and effect processes in biology were correct, and that the people who relied on magic and “vitalism” were as wrong as all who prefer wish-fulfillment to the processes of science. Or those who can’t understand the proper relationship between evidence, science, and philosophy (philosophy must be based on evidence as well, ultimately, and not to dictate the equalities that some neo-scholastics assume).
Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/2kxyc7
October 2nd, 2007 at 3:25 am
on human evolution ‘responded’:
“It’s just a flesh wound.”
The Black Knight tactic is another typical of Creationists. It’s really hard to have an honest debate when the exchange is something like this:
A - Here are examples of transitional fossils.
B - Those aren’t transitionals.
A - Could you explain why?
B - Because there are no transitionals and those lies and frauds.
————————————
Dave A, Thanks. I hope these are profitable too.
Not every C/IDer is a YEC but a lot are so I thought it would be helpful to show the Earth and the Universe are very old. The U.S. Geological Survey publication “This Dynamic Earth” explores the evidences for Plate Tectonics and convincingly explains why the Earth is unquestionably old.
http://pubs.usgs.gov/gip/dynamic/dynamic.html
Out in space Supernova 1987 A lets us know that light we see coming to us is at least 168,000 years old.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SN_1987A
One of the more fascinating fossil finds and evidence of the predictive power of evolution was Tiktaalik roseae. The theory predicted we would find ancestors to terrestrial tetrapods in Devonian strata. There was Devonian strata in Greenland. It was searched and…
http://tiktaalik.uchicago.edu/
High profile transitionals like Turkana Boy and Tiktaalik are sexy, but some of the best examples of transitions come from microfossils like the Orbulina.
http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/creation/orbulina_pic.html
See also this article on Foraminiferidia.
http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/creation/foram_article.html
The tree of life or phylogeny is availible in an easily navigated website called, appropriately enough, The Tree of Life Web. If you check the various taxa, note that they aren’t just pulled out of thin air, but are based on study of characteristics.
http://www.tolweb.org/tree/
October 2nd, 2007 at 9:19 am
The subtext of this debate is about spiritual blindness vs. spiritual insight. Anyone with the least bit of spiritual discernment has the ability to ponder the complexity of the universe and realize that only a fool with blind eyes will categorically deny the possibility of a creator. I challenge those who believe so strongly in the idea that we arrived at our present state from a pond of slime via roulette wheel, to not rely on personal effort the next time they wish to compose an “intellectual” paper on evolution or any other subject. What I suggest that you do, is merely wait for “it” (the paper) to happen by chance. Afterall, if things only happen by chance, could it be that arrogant intellectualism is not needed when it comes to composing tripe. Again, it is not a matter of intelligence or the lack of intelligence, nor does it have anything to do concerning the debate on evolution vs. creationism. It is about spiritual blindness as opposed to spiritual insight, the latter which you can only get from the one that created you, you poor souls. Yes, you do have a soul, so deal with it. Although I’m sure including a verse from Scripture will bring howls of laughter from the elite, I’ll do it anyway. At the very least you can thank me for an endorphin rush. Proverbs 14:6 “A scoffer seeks wisdom an does not find it. But knowledge is easy to him who understands.”
October 2nd, 2007 at 9:35 am
Being born, raised and educated in a former communist country I considered myself a solid atheist. And even more. I had never had a thought about the possibility of ” the other side.” Until one day, in the same country, I was literally standing in the Presence of my Creator. His name is Jesus Christ. I did not need words or any scientific evidence. When you meet Him you know He is real. That night I opened the Bible and this was the first thing I read:
NAS 1 Timothy 1:12 I thank Christ Jesus our Lord, who has strengthened me, because He considered me faithful, putting me into service; 13 even though I was formerly a blasphemer and a persecutor and a violent aggressor. And yet I was shown mercy, because I acted ignorantly in unbelief; 14 and the grace of our Lord was more than abundant, with the faith and love which are found in Christ Jesus.
This is not about theories. It’s about our souls. Heaven and hell are real. Here, on the earth, we feel the influence of both. Hell is the place of absolute evil, hatred, separation from Him. Heaven is the place of ultimate, eternal good and love in His Presence.
NAS James 1:17 Every good thing bestowed and every perfect gift is from above, coming down from the Father of lights, with whom there is no variation, or shifting shadow.
If you love good, peace, joy, beauty and hate fear, pain, sorrow, hatred, violence etc. choose heaven now. I love you and beg you all. Put your own ideas aside just for a moment and give Him at least a chance to reveal Himself to you. Humble yourself- I know it is humbling to admit that I might be wrong- but what can you loose? If you are right, then you will come out even stronger in your belief after this “experiment.” If the opposite… An other child will return home to the Father.
NAS James 4:6 But He gives a greater grace. Therefore it says, “God is opposed to the proud, but gives grace to the humble.”
NAS Matthew 7:7 “Ask, and it shall be given to you; seek, and you shall find; knock, and it shall be opened to you.
NAS Jeremiah 29:13 ‘And you will seek Me and find Me, when you search for Me with all your heart.
I know you might want some evidence. Here are some names of people through whom God works mightily with signs, wonders and miracles. They don’t make the news usually. Please, have enough courage to check them out. And ask for evidences! They can provide it! So here they are: Bill Johnson ( Bethel Church in Reading CA ), Heidi Baker in Mozambique ( Iris Ministries ), Todd Bentley ( Fresh Fire Ministries ), Reinhard Bonnke, David Hogan, etc. Go there, call them, talk to them. Watch the blind see, the deaf hear, the lame walk, the dead raised.
NAS Mark 16:17 “And these signs will accompany those who have believed: in My name they will cast out demons, they will speak with new tongues;18 they will pick up serpents, and if they drink any deadly poison, it shall not hurt them; they will lay hands on the sick, and they will recover.”
There is only one thing that can prevent us from seeing these evidences of the living God: unbelief.
NAS Matthew 13:58 And He did not do many miracles there because of their unbelief.
And you, those who believe. Just love! With words, with actions, with all of your beings.
NAS Colossians 4:5 Conduct yourselves with wisdom toward outsiders, making the most of the opportunity. 6 Let your speech always be with grace, seasoned, as it were, with salt, so that you may know how you should respond to each person.
My husband is a particle physicist. He has not met his Creator yet. We have been happily married for 16 years now and raising our two beautiful children. He is the most wonderful husband and father. Do I want to convince him, do I argue? No. Do I pray? Yes.
NAS James 5:16 The effective prayer of a righteous man can accomplish much.
And this is my prayer for each and every one of us:
NAS Ephesians 1:16 do not cease giving thanks for you, while making mention of you in my prayers; 17 that the God of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of glory, may give to you a spirit of wisdom and of revelation in the knowledge of Him. 18 I pray that the eyes of your heart may be enlightened, so that you may know what is the hope of His calling, what are the riches of the glory of His inheritance in the saints, 19 and what is the surpassing greatness of His power toward us who believe. …that you … NAS Ephesians 3:18 may be able to comprehend with all the saints what is the breadth and length and height and depth, 19 and to know the love of Christ which surpasses knowledge, that you may be filled up to all the fulness of God.
With blessing and love in Him
October 2nd, 2007 at 10:49 am
Look. It is simple. Science is a brutal unforgiving free marketplace of ideas.
New ideas always face an upward struggle and you have to have a thick skin if
you do anything really new. That is the reason we have the notion of academic
freedom and why we have tenure to protect that freedom. Tenure is not
a free pass, but a license to practise. If you can get tenure then you have shown
you are capable of doing real work.
Anybody who whines about having “lost” their academic freedom because they went
of the deep end before getting tenure fails to recognize that academic freedom is a privelege that is earned. It is not a right.
In laymans’ terms: get tenure first, then go nuts.
October 2nd, 2007 at 11:14 am
This movie is pretty much a laugh-fest. For years now, the ID movement has been trying to pretend that Intelligent Design is a theory based on evidence, not something that depends crucially on religious belief or that identifies as designer as the God of a particular religious tradition. And yet here we see pretty plainly that this is all a ruse: ID is a very thin veil over traditional creationist arguments. In fact, there is very little in ID that’s actually new: virtually every ID argument is just a more technicalized version of a long-debunked creationist theme.
Most of the posters here seem not to have gotten the message that they are supposed to lie and pretend that ID isn’t just a front for pushing secretarian religious beliefs onto science. Expelled! would be better titled “Exposed!”
To be clear, real science, mainstream science, includes scientists who believe in god and those who don’t, all of whom follow the same scientific method and evidence. Real scientists often personally bicker about religion, but even very religious scientists like Francis Collins agrees that the claims of this movie are ridiculous and dishonest.
I’ve also shown that the producers flat out lied on this blog: they claim that the expelled theme developed organically from their footage, and that crossroads was not a false-front production meant to deceive. But the “Expelled” name and theme were clearly invented long before the interview footage, and so far the producers seem to have no evidence at all that “Crossroads” was ever a real production or title for anything: they were spending money on “Expelled” domains and trademarks even while claiming to be making Crossroads, and they did not and still have not bought any properties based on the “Crossroads” name or trademark that I’ve been able to find.
That pretty much destroys their credibility as filmakers. If they lie to their interviewees and lie to their audience, why would anyone think that they are going to tell the truth in their film?
October 2nd, 2007 at 12:58 pm
Bret Cantwell Says:
October 2nd, 2007 at 3:25 am
on human evolution ‘responded’:
“It’s just a flesh wound.”
The Black Knight tactic is another typical of Creationists. It’s really hard to have an honest debate when the exchange is something like this:
A - Here are examples of transitional fossils.
B - Those aren’t transitionals.
A - Could you explain why?
B - Because there are no transitionals and those lies and frauds.
***************************************************
Actually with evolutionist it goes something like this…
A. There are no transitional fossils! In fact An August 2007 Harvard University announced that H. Hablis is no longer considered transitional. In addition, according to HARVARD UNIVERSITY… 12 of 15 former transitional fossil groups are now NOT considered transitional when speculation is removed from the research!
http://www.fas.harvard.edu/~skeleton/pdfs/2001e.pdf
SEE FIGURE 2
B. Evolution is a fact, so one day they will reconnect those fossil groups to reform the evolutionary tree again! They just need to “remodify” the theory to match the findings!
A. Remodify it Again?… I just showed you that research from Harvard which states that they dont know how to reconnect them today….But evolution is still a fact?
B. Yeah, just go to a museum and see that all fossils are transitional.
October 2nd, 2007 at 2:12 pm
I took on this debate in school which went from a friendly classroom exercise, to an all out brawl between the “believers” and “non-believers”. My point in the debate was only to identify that the possibility of Darwinism could exist, not to preach evolution or to challenge creation.
At the end of the debate, by a raise of hands I asked the audience to pick the embryo they thought to be human - using Ernst Haeckel’s Vertebrate Embryo Ontogeny Figure. The majority choose the chicken embryo, turtle was second and human was last behind cow and salamander. The shock rippled through the audience.
It was only meant to be an exercise that the possibility merely may exist. Not preaching, proving or disproving anyone’s personal beliefs.
I do find it intriguing that this subject induces some very negative and hostile comments from those who are taught to “love thy neighbor” every Sunday.
And what about this one. James 4:11 says “Brothers do not slander one another,” and James 4:12 continues: “But you - who are you to judge your neighbor?”
On the flip side, I was limited in my school on the amount of religious music I could play and sing - State school rules. Considering the majority of all pre 20th Century classical music is religious in nature - I missed out on what could have been a much better musical education.
I’ll invite you over for a BBQ anytime and I don’t care what you believe in, just as long as you’re a good conversationalist.
October 2nd, 2007 at 3:52 pm
‘There is a standing $250,000,000 challenge to ANYONE who can provide any empirical evidence for the Germ Theory of Disease.’
Really?
If you believe that , then you would believe that Jesus really did need to spit on somebody’s eyes to cure blindness (Mark 23).
Either the Creator of the Universe really does need spit to cure people of blindness, or Jesus was having a laugh.
I know which my money is on!
October 2nd, 2007 at 3:59 pm
Glen Davison ‘He said he also believed the theory of evolution leads to racism and ultimately genocide, an idea common among creationist thinkers. If it were up to him, he said, the film would be called “From Darwin to Hitler…..’
CARR
Hitler, of course, was a creationist who denied that man had evolved from an ape-like state.
From Mein Kampf - Volume 2
“Thus for the first time a high inner purpose is accredited to the State. In face of the ridiculous phrase that the State should do no more than act as the guardian of public order and tranquillity, so that everybody can peacefully dupe everybody else, it is given a very high mission indeed to preserve and encourage the highest type of humanity which a beneficent Creator has bestowed on this earth.
“And, further, they ought to be brought to realize that it is their bounden duty to give to the Almighty Creator beings such as He himself made to His own image.”
“From Hitler’s Tischgespraeche (Table Talk) for 1942 ‘Woher nehmen wir das Recht zu glauben, der Mensch sei nicht von Uranfaengen das gewesen , was er heute ist? Der Blick in die Natur zeigt uns, dass im Bereich der Pflanzen und Tiere Veraenderungen und Weiterbildungen vorkommen. Aber nirgends zeigt sich innherhalb einer Gattung eine Entwicklung von der Weite des Sprungs, den der Mensch gemacht haben muesste, sollte er sich aus einem affenartigen Zustand zu dem, was er ist, fortgebildet haben.’
I shall translate Hitler’s words, as recorded by the stenographer.
‘From where do we get the right to believe that man was not from the very beginning what he is today.
A glance in Nature shows us , that changes and developments happen in the realm of plants and animals. But nowhere do we see inside a kind, a development of the size of the leap that Man must have made, if he supposedly has advanced from an ape-like condition to what he is now.
October 2nd, 2007 at 4:44 pm
two things: 1st. Andrea Danko. would you tell me more about your relationship w/ your husband? were you saved before you got married or after? know a friend who’s going through some concerns marrying a non-believer. curios. thanks.
2nd. this is in response to Glen Davidson who will no doubt pounce on my primitive remarks. hey, call me reckless. i do apologize to everyone else for this because it is way off topic but could prove to be entertaining to some so get your popcorn and that stale diet dr. pepper and read on.
Seriously though, you are a fantastic spokesperson for Darwinian evolution…and unresolved rage my man, but what a wealth of knowledge! WOW! I’d love to have an evolution party with you sometime. We could talk Darwin and you could unpack the mysteries of the universe to me and chop a few heads off in the process. woo hoo! you seem to get around the blog sites too so i’m sure we could go over your “Davidson’s Top 5 Slams” and boast about all the idiots you exposed. do you have them taped on your wall or just saved on your hard drive?
i know you believe you’re fine and you’re only upset at the stupidity of that scientist who must be a liar and an idiot savant who happens to help cure lethal diseases but seriously, man. you act like he attacked your belief system or something…weird. What do you do, cowboy? something noble i’m sure. something that helps and doesn’t hurt which is why you have to take all your aggression out on people you’ll never meet. what are you so afraid of boss? why do you have to belittle? that’s not exactly the best way to educate or inspire, but i’m sure you know that. you do want to educate and inspire right? that’s why you’re standing for something right? its not like you’re learning all this just to justify your rightness and be better than others or anything. i mean that would be lame and you don’t have to time for that you have a difference to make.
after all, anyone arrogant enough to tell another scientist whom he doesn’t know from Adam (or grandaddy rock - presludge you know ;)), who obviously has well thought out arguments and ideas, that he isn’t “worth his salt” as a scientist and doesn’t have “a smattering of knowledge” about science or philosophy must be on the brink of an enormous breakthrough in science or medicine. no? maybe just the head professor at a well respected college changing his community? oh, well i’m sure it’s something worth while.
by the way, thanks for proving that idiot “Phd”’s argument for him since he couldn’t do it on his own. you really hit those points home about science having to believe before it knows and all that. don’t get me wrong. i had to work through all your hate toward your mom, society and that girl that dumped you in highschool that you never got over but seriously, thanks. you really helped use that reverse psychology to drive the point home. did you do that on purpose? genius. congratulations again for defeating your own argument and actually supporting the other guys. nice work man.
From Carnegie to Lincoln, its pretty common knowledge that the more you have to cut down someone else the less confident you are in yourself and your decisions. You don’t have to be a scientist to know that. but you don’t care what other people think do you? least off all a lesser mortal like me. all i do is make people millionaires. i don’t really know a lot about science. speaking of, got a client so have to go. u get clients Dr Glen? oh, and before you call me out for belittling you and therefore defeating my whole “confidence” vamp. remember this. i did it with style. that’s the difference. take notes, cowboy. ciao.
October 2nd, 2007 at 8:04 pm
Dear Galactic Zoo Dossier,
It was the in the second year of our marriage that I met the Lord. It is VERY hard to not have a spiritual relationship with the one I love the most on this earth. This was God’s choice for me. If your friend is a believer I would earnestly recommend her/him to carefully consider her/his choice.
October 2nd, 2007 at 9:25 pm
Nah, ignorant and incompetent will do.
–i do apologize to everyone else for this because it is way off topic but could prove to be entertaining to some so get your popcorn and that stale diet dr. pepper and read on.–
Yeah, that’s right, it’s way off topic, and you’re too incapable of any insight to actually address anything I wrote. Hence a long ad hominem attack, none of it honest or substantive.
–Seriously though, you are a fantastic spokesperson for Darwinian evolution…and unresolved rage my man,–
I deal with the emotionally committed who can’t make an intellectual case on their own level, at the level of emotion. Of course you wouldn’t understand me, you know nothing about me and are intent only on trying to defame whatever you cannot comprehend.
–but what a wealth of knowledge! WOW!–
Yes, quite unlike yourself, I don’t ramble on stupidly about what I don’t know.
–I’d love to have an evolution party with you sometime. We could talk Darwin and you could unpack the mysteries of the universe to me and chop a few heads off in the process. woo hoo!–
Wow, clever. Who’d think to imply that we who defend the Enlightenment are axe murderers. Oh, except for the rest of the herd who has no capacity for making substantive comments.
–you seem to get around the blog sites too so i’m sure we could go over your “Davidson’s Top 5 Slams” and boast about all the idiots you exposed.–
You’d be on it. No, not really, you’re pretty weak as substanceless maligners go. I’d put you in the top 50, though, if I cared to document biting gnats.
–do you have them taped on your wall or just saved on your hard drive?–
Actually, I rarely start any of these brawls. You missed that, didn’t you? True, I hit the “Prof”, because he’s claiming expertise in an area where he is so clearly lacking. But I don’t do ad homs, I just have to respond often enough to people like you who hate not being able to provide the sorts of evidence that we do.
–i know you believe you’re fine and you’re only upset at the stupidity of that scientist who must be a liar and an idiot savant who happens to help cure lethal diseases but seriously, man. you act like he attacked your belief system or something…weird.–
Oh yes, we know the game. The creo or IDist attacks scientists, implying that they are liars for maintaining actual standards. Then when we realize that the snake oil is convincing enough people and we raise the alarm, you attack us for actually responding to a boatload of defamatory comments and attempts to impose theocracy upon the nation. Tragically, such an obvious and dishonest ploy works on enough people.
–What do you do, cowboy? something noble i’m sure. something that helps and doesn’t hurt which is why you have to take all your aggression out on people you’ll never meet.–
Here’s the dolt who can do nothing but attack me for responding to the anti-Enlightenment push, ascribing his own ill tendencies to me. The fact is that I haven’t used particularly strong language, rather less strong than many on both sides have used, you’re merely trying to put down what you find impossible to answer.
–what are you so afraid of boss? why do you have to belittle?–
Because you harm people. Can you get that? I fear those who would use power to overcome free inquiry, freedom of religion, and the freedom of speech. In fact just now you are effecting a de facto attempt to curtail my freedom of speech (legal, but immoral), by making a whole lot of dishonest claims in your ad hominem attack. If you were concerned about honest dialog, you’d engage me on the substance.
–that’s not exactly the best way to educate or inspire, but i’m sure you know that. you do want to educate and inspire right? that’s why you’re standing for something right? its not like you’re learning all this just to justify your rightness and be better than others or anything.–
What education do you bring to this thread? I don’t employ the slimy tactics that you do, I keep it honest. And no, I do not try to educate people such as yourself, whose hatred of competence combines with your unwarranted egoism to try to put down whatever you can’t counter with legitimate arguments.
I do educate. But I also know how to fight those who will use whatever tactics they can to undermine the integrity of science.
–i mean that would be lame and you don’t have to time for that you have a difference to make. –
Apparently you’re really addressing yourself, whatever the pronouns you misuse.
–after all, anyone arrogant enough to tell another scientist whom he doesn’t know from Adam (or grandaddy rock - presludge you know ;)), who obviously has well thought out arguments and ideas, that he isn’t “worth his salt” as a scientist and doesn’t have “a smattering of knowledge” about science or philosophy must be on the brink of an enormous breakthrough in science or medicine.–
Yeah, I knew it was “Prof” again, not willing to show himself, and completely unable to back up his erroneous claims. Sorry, I studied philosophy a great deal, and I have no business treating some ignorant claptrap as if they were “well-thought out” arguments. They’re not, they’re pop philosophy, and the call of every honest scientist to actually look at the evidence remains the only proper response to such post-modernist nihilism.
–no? maybe just the head professor at a well respected college changing his community? oh, well i’m sure it’s something worth while.–
And it is a distraction from the issues you’re trying to avoid. You haven’t even given your name. Plus, the issues are laid bare on their own, and it is all too apparent that you wish to avoid the actual issues by bringing in irrelevancies–again because you lack the ability to deal with substance.
–by the way, thanks for proving that idiot “Phd”’s argument for him since he couldn’t do it on his own. you really hit those points home about science having to believe before it knows and all that.–
I guess when you run out of ad hominem attacks you resort to complete fictionalization of the exchange. Well, you could hardly answer me, now could you? After all, science is about questioning and skepticism, while your formulation is exactly the opposite, the falsehood that it is about dogma.
–don’t get me wrong. i had to work through all your hate toward your mom, society and that girl that dumped you in highschool that you never got over but seriously,–
Wow, that’s really a new one. Gee pop psychology when your pop philosophy fails you. Make up a few lies, throw them out, hope that your flung feces work where your wits obviously do not.
–thanks. you really helped use that reverse psychology to drive the point home. did you do that on purpose?–
Even better, the old “reverse psychology” ploy. Nice to have someone from the ’70s visit me with his “profound insights”.
–genius. congratulations again for defeating your own argument and actually supporting the other guys.–
Since you’re apparently not too bright, I’ll have to figure that you came up with that standard little feint by recognizing your own tactics here. The whole mom and girlfriend thing, while standard empty rhetoric for witless drones, are more than likely to be your own story.
–nice work man.–
You’d mean that, if you were capable of understanding the issues.
–From Carnegie to Lincoln, its pretty common knowledge that the more you have to cut down someone else the less confident you are in yourself and your decisions.–
Gee, I bet you think that hate isn’t the opposite of love, only apathy is, also. Where’d you learn your “psychology”, out of Playboys?
Anyway, if your pop psychology is correct, it clearly cuts against you far more than myself, since I discussed issues and called the “Prof” as I saw him. It really goes against the intelligence you claim when you suggest that somehow calling out an arrogant guy blabbing on about things he doesn’t understand actually exhibits some kind of “need” to cut people down. From Lincoln to Carnegie, competent people have used the proper words to describe the pompous and substanceless, people like yourself.
–You don’t have to be a scientist to know that. but you don’t care what other people think do you? least off all a lesser mortal like me. all i do is make people millionaires.–
The plaint of the truly pathetic. ‘Why yes, I know how to make money, so my opinion about Darwin and DNA is worth something.’ Try that out on the truly stupid. Come to think of it, I’d guess you do that a lot. Well then, learn enough to differentiate between the stupid and those who see immediately through your ad hominem attacks.
–i don’t really know a lot about science. speaking of, got a client so have to go. u get clients Dr Glen?–
Gee, I wish I were a suckup to the bourgeoisie like you. I thought you had no substance, but by God, you have clients (so you say). That changes everything.
–oh, and before you call me out for belittling you and therefore defeating my whole “confidence” vamp. remember this. i did it with style.–
Thanks for telling me, since I thought that was a collection of inane pop psychology and lame repetitions by the truly uncreative. Hm, so that’s style. How could I have been so wrong as to think that T.S. Eliot had style, when it is really the babblings of a dull troll are what really counts as style?
–that’s the difference. take notes, cowboy. ciao.–
Write that down.
Gee, you’re turning into JAD (John A. Davison, who attacks the person instead of the substance because he has none of the latter–like you “Galactic”) right before our eyes, with the same clicheed patter, the desperate attempts to claim “style” or some such thing for crude and derivative attacks, and of course, a total lack of substance coupled with the projection of your own failings onto others.
I bet you’re going to try to claim some triumph for this sad little attempt at a slam, since you reveal yourself in your tired little attacks. I, naturally, don’t do anything like that, since responding to someone like you is too easy. The only things I remember are the opportunities I have for discussing science and the philosophy of science in depth, while these feces-flingers are answered and quickly forgotten (unless they haunt the forums with their raging impotence).
Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/2kxyc7
October 2nd, 2007 at 9:37 pm
Bad,
I said nothing about Gonzales. I ask a simple question. If a junior scientist accepts ID, should he or she be denied tenure?