Expelled: No Intelligence Evident

| 78 Comments

The Expelled movie isn’t yet out so we can’t make fun of it in its entirety, but as everyone knows by now, the filmmakers started things off rather badly by lying to the pro-science people they interviewed, making them think that it was an entirely different film with a different name and a different premise. That’s a good taste of the kind of sleaze we’re dealing with.

Another taste can be found on the movie’s official website, complete with press release and a blog post by Ben Stein. Although they say you can’t judge a book by its cover, one has to assume that the claims being made in the press release and by Stein, who stars in the film, were actually made in all seriousness and truly reflect the content of the movie. I’m going to critique what I’ve seen so far based on these materials. The film could always surprise us of course by avoiding the insane rhetoric and untruthful claims found in its own promotional materials, but that seems unlikely to me. Also, I’m not going into detail about the specific cases mentioned in the press release, which have already been discussed at length and will be discussed in much more detail once the film is out. Instead I’m going to talk more generally about the persecution claims being made.

Continue reading at Sunbeams from Cucumbers

78 Comments

Steve Reuland’s commentary on the repercussions of ID activity by erstwhile “scientists” reminds me of a student I once had who I busted for cheating. After all of the formal proceedings (which he had demanded) were finished, he “anonymously” sent me a threatening email via a University terminal that the IT people were easily able to track down. When he was called in (again) to Student Judicial Affairs, he whined that I shouldn’t have taken it seriously. I responded, “That’s what you wanted, wasn’t it, to be taken seriously?”

ID proponents want to be taken seriously. When they attack the very basis of the science that they claim to want to be a part of, there will be conclusions made about them. They shouldn’t (but apparently do) expect that this won’t affect their professional careers. To use a sports metaphor, if I’m a football player who consistently claims that all of my team mates don’t know what they’re doing (and that I do), I’d better expect them to have a low opinion of me, especially if in the context of the game, it can be demonstrated that I’m wrong and they’re right. IDiots apparently think that their activities will be ignored by fellow scientists when their competence is evaluated.

When Expelled is released and actually appears in commercial public theaters—something I doubt will happen (*see below)—Panda’s Thumb regulars should be prepared to offer their services as reviewers. Or at minimum be prepared to bombard local papers with letters to the editor about the movie’s pretensions, false premises, and thin gruel as a serious flick. The movie and its makers need to be “outed” in the general press, not just on Panda’s Thumb and TalkOrigins.

*I no expert on film distribution but I seriously doubt that Expelled will be shown on many commercial screens. It’s not the Passion of Christ with blood, thunder, violence and Christ. It’s only got Ben Stein (and PZ and Eugenie) and he’ll not fill many seats at our local multiplexes. Most of the distribution will be to churches and other places where it will be shown to the faithful with each church paying a non-profit rental for the night. As much as it appears to be commercial, this is not a commercial venture in my view, but one undertaken for religious zeal, the very thing with which ID says it has nothing to do! I seriously doubt its backers expect to get their money back.

People on Ben Stein’s page at IMDb are already posting about what a work of genius it is.

http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0825401/board (I believe registration is required to view message board.)

The movie itself apparently isn’t significant enough to merit an entry.

Well done

Do you realize that some of the leading lights of “anti-intelligent design” would not allow a scientist who merely believed in the possibility of an intelligent designer/creator to work for him… EVEN IF HE NEVER MENTIONED the possibility of intelligent design in the universe? EVEN FOR HIS VERY THOUGHTS… HE WOULD BE BANNED.

OK, now. All you “leading lights of ‘anti-intelligent design’” who would never hire Kenneth Miller because of his (very vocal) belief in an intelligent designer, please identify yourself. And Dr. Miller, if you are reading, please tell us if your career has suffered in any way because of that.

Move along now. Nothing to see here. No scientist, teacher or anyone else has been harrassed by the Darwinian priesthood into submission, by voicing views that contradict with unguided evolutionism.

Man, there is a “Darwinian priesthood”! Where can I join? I bet that celibacy isn’t one of the requirements.

As for “voicing views that contradict unguided evolution” that’s just fine. Trying to force the government into financing the teaching of views contrary to the evidence is where the “Darwinian priesthood” draws the liine.

Move along now. Nothing to see here. No teacher, school board or anyone else has been harrassed by the creationist priesthood into submission, by voicing views that contradict with biblical creationism.

Oh, wait.…

Stanton wrote:

Man, there is a “Darwinian priesthood”! Where can I join? I bet that celibacy isn’t one of the requirements.

Heresy! There is no reason to bet, polygamy would be the way of the Darwinian priesthood. No one is going to let those sniveling K selectionists into the priesthood, besides they’d soon be out competed anyway.

Ron,

Depends on the sex ratio and whether N is near K or not. I guess we better take a vote at the next meeting of the priesthood.

Considering the large number of children Mrs. Darwin gave birth to, Darwinian celibacy would be a shocking scandal.

Man, there is a “Darwinian priesthood”! Where can I join? I bet that celibacy isn’t one of the requirements.

Remember, celibacy is not hereditary… ;-)

Re “Remember, celibacy is not hereditary… ;-)”

Are you sure about that?

Seems to me that if somebody doesn’t have any children, their descendants won’t have any, either. :)

Tourettist, I checked the message at IMDb. Most of the postings are by one person. Does not seem to be much of an outcry one way or the other. But it is still early here. I guess I fear a ‘Passion Of The Christ’ type of marketing.

The film could always surprise us of course by avoiding the insane rhetoric and untruthful claims found in its own promotional materials, but that seems unlikely to me.

I don’t see why not. To help generated buzz for the movie, the most controversial aspects of it will be promoted. Being optimistic here, but it’s possible that the film itself is uncorrelated to the pre-release material.

GvlGeologist, FCD Wrote:

Steve Reuland’s commentary on the repercussions of ID activity by erstwhile “scientists”…

Please look up “erstwhile” and find out what it means.

Steve Reuland Wrote:

…making them think that it was an entirely different film with a different name and a different premise.

Now, now, nobody made you think anything. In a world with Michael More and Sacha Baron Cohen, shouldn’t scientists and defenders of science take more responsibility for their actions? Or is this all part of a counter publicity stunt–feigning not reading or understanding the “fine print”?

Sounds like some 20-something whining about a 2 year provision on their mobile phone contract is ruining their credit report.

Caveat emptor.

Ben Stein Wrote:

In today’s world, at least in America, an Einstein or a Newton or a Galileo would probably not be allowed to receive grants to study or to publish his research.

I for one am glad that my governmental granting agencies are reluctant to give money to dead people.

Posted by Mickey Bitsko on August 27, 2007 1:50 PM (e)

GvlGeologist, FCD wrote: Steve Reuland’s commentary on the repercussions of ID activity by erstwhile “scientists”…

Please look up “erstwhile” and find out what it means.

Picky, picky, picky.… I stand corrected. I’m not sure what to call them. Sternberg certainly is working in a scientific field. According to my Mirriam-Webster’s (abridged), erstwhile means, “FORMER, PREVIOUS”. I might argue that if they’re working on ID, they’re no longer using the scientific method, and they’re no longer scientists, despite their titles. Would you accept the term “purported”? Or “so-called”? In fact, that’s what I was meaning to imply.

Seems to me that if somebody doesn’t have any children, their descendants won’t have any, either. :)

“Always go to other people’s funerals, otherwise they won’t come to yours.” Yogi Berra

QuestionAndBeSkeptical Wrote:

Now, now, nobody made you think anything. In a world with Michael More and Sacha Baron Cohen, shouldn’t scientists and defenders of science take more responsibility for their actions? Or is this all part of a counter publicity stunt–feigning not reading or understanding the “fine print”?

Here is what the fine print actually said:

My release says they can use “…footage and materials in and in connection with the development, production, distribution and/or exploitation of the feature length documentary tentatively entitled Crossroads…and/or any other production….”

There’s nothing in there that would inform the interviewee that they were taking part in a creationist hit piece. Assuming that the filmmakers knew at that point what the true subject of the film was going to be, they obtained the interviews under false pretenses.

Now it’s possible that the filmmakers did not intentionally lie to the interviewees, that they simply changed their minds about what kind of movie they were going to make after the interviews were conducted. I don’t think that’s the case, but if it were, then the ethical thing to do would have been to contact the interviewees and give them a chance to add their thoughts about the new subject and address the creationists’ claims directly. This not having been done, it’s quite clear that they were engaged in an act of deception.

This not having been done, it’s quite clear that they were engaged in an act of deception.

Not to mention that the M.O. is applied with grinding repetition. Consider Leonard’s attempt (along with a couple creationist professors) to sleaze an inappropriate thesis out of Ohio State, to mendaciously leverage that school’s reputation to pimp creationist political goals. False representation is the essential hallmark of creationist tactics.

I would go so far as to say that IF someone is being honest and playing straight, this is prima facie proof that they are not creationists. It’s an ironclad guarantee, all by itself.

QABS:

Now, now, nobody made you think anything. In a world with Michael More and Sacha Baron Cohen, shouldn’t scientists and defenders of science take more responsibility for their actions?

Yes that is a good point.

It was extremely foolish for Myers and Dawkins to not to realize that creos would lie. Their entire mythology is a mountain of lies proven for centuries by research into geology, astronomy, biology, and paleontology. Science is the search for truth whereas creationism is the attempt to cram a square block of bronze age mythology into the round hole of reality.

Their film looks to be another pile of lies. Fundie cultists only have 8 commandments having tossed the ones about murder and lying.

OTOH, since they were lying creos they didn’t even tell the interviewees where they were from and what they were going to do. Pretty sneaky in the usual cultist dishonest ways. Satan would love it.

It is Myers, Dawkins, and Scotts own fault that they didn’t realize that poisonous serpents with god and the 8 commandments on their side are not nice and bite, but only when they can.

Being optimistic here, but it’s possible that the film itself is uncorrelated to the pre-release material.

Optimism is not the proper word for irrationally anti-inferential speculation. To reiterate a point I’ve made before, when it comes to empirical matters there is nothing so stupid as “it’s possible” – the antithesis of science.

Now, now, nobody made you think anything. In a world with Michael More and Sacha Baron Cohen, shouldn’t scientists and defenders of science take more responsibility for their actions?

So are you justifying deception by Moore and Cohen? Or are you, perchance, applying a double standard when it suits you because you’re a despicable morally bereft slime patch?

“creationism is the attempt to cram a square block of bronze age mythology into the round hole of reality.”

Raven, i think that’s the most beautiful thing I’ve ever read.

fnxtr on August 27, 2007 9:00 PM (e)

“creationism is the attempt to cram a square block of bronze age mythology into the round hole of reality.”

Raven, i think that’s the most beautiful thing I’ve ever read.

Have to give credit where credit is due. I borrowed this from a comment on PZs blog and didn’t think to note the author. I only steal from the best. LOL

“Science is the search for truth whereas creationism is the attempt to cram a square block of bronze age mythology into the round hole of reality.”

raven, I was going to steal this from you but suddenly I learn that I must steal it from someone else. OK, I’ll do that instead.

It is a very visual, even tactile, analogy. Shan’t be forgotten. Thank you.

Optimism is not the proper word for irrationally anti-inferential speculation. To reiterate a point I’ve made before, when it comes to empirical matters there is nothing so stupid as “it’s possible” – the antithesis of science.

And to further make the point, consider the probability “that the film itself is uncorrelated to the pre-release material” given

http://www.idthefuture.com/2007/08/[…]ve_prod.html

And to further make the point, consider the probability “that the film itself is uncorrelated to the pre-release material” given [link]

Does there exist material about the film from an unbiased source?

Your comment that the movie “did far more than merely state their disagreement with current science” proves to me that you don’t even know what the movie is about!

First of all, Ben Stien NEVER ONCE stated in the movie that the current science is wrong - he does not even debate that! The movie is strictly about those people who have supposedly been either ridiculed. pushed out or otherwise been stripped of their position because they questioned evolution in favor of creation.

It is quite obvcious to me that I am debating someone who has NOT EVEN SEEN THE FILM YET!!! Sheesh!

How can you make assumptions and state “facts” aboout something you know nothing about (I am speaking only of the Film Expelled here)?

As a matter of fact Ben Stein states not once, but SIX TIMES (that I counted anyway, it may even be more) in the film that evolutionists may be 100% correct!!! Did you not hear that part? His ONLY beef throughout the entire film is that the creationists are not allowed to voice their opinion (or in your words spew their propoganda).

Maybe before you assume (and you know what happens when you assume don’t you?) something, you should actually see the film (or read the book or meet the person) before forming an opinion and declare your uninformed opinion as fact. Just a suggestion.

As a matter of fact Ben Stein states not once, but SIX TIMES (that I counted anyway, it may even be more) in the film that evolutionists may be 100% correct!!!

I haven’t seen the film either. Let’s for the sake of argument grant that he’s not saying that ideas that he apparently links to Nazism and the Holocaust are incorrect.

Laurel,

Given the fact that you ARE stating your opinion, I don’t see how you can claim that people aren’t allowed to do so.

Anyway, when the opinion being stated is contrary to the relevant evidence, then people familiar with the evidence are going to state their opinions, too. That’s what those on this blog who have seen it have been doing.

If the comments from those here who have seen it are inaccurate, then you can provide a more accurate description. For instance, were any of the people mentioned in the film actually expelled from a job because of their opinions regarding evolution? (i.e., from a job that they were qualified to hold?)

Henry

Laurel:

So Richard, what I believe is decietful? When did it become decietful to say “this is just my opinion?”

Don’t put words into my mouth. I never said that what you believe is deceitful. I said that the creationists/IDers whole argument is a tissue of lies and deceit with no evidence to support it. In other words, you are the victim. You have been deceived.

If you disagree, I challenge you to come up with one piece of evidence in favour of either creationism or ‘Intelligent Design’. Let’s make it easier. Produce one criticism of the theory of evolution that is not based on a lie, a misrepresentation or a misunderstanding of the theory.

Richard, Henry and Bill. How about you guys first SEE the film and then we can all come back and have a friendly debate over how crazy Ben Stein is or isn’t, what he is actually trying to state and what you think of the film in it’s entirety (total “bull c**p”, “some good points but mostly bologna”, or wow, “now we are a creationist too!”).

I find that we are debating something that has nothing to do with Expelled. The movie IS NOT about whether we are here because of God or Evolution (Ben states clearly that he is not even debating that because he doesn’t know himself).

I saw the film again last night and brought my neighbor, who is an Atheist and evolutionist with me. I asked her to come because I really wanted her take on the film. She graciously humored me (I had to purchase the tickets and popcorn!)and in we went. When the film was over I asked her for her honest assessment (she can be brutally honest - we have had more than one “debate” about our differing beliefs -though we love each other dearly).

Her very first comment was “That’s not at all what I expected.” She had gone on the website before we left and thought the film was going to be an argument about the proof of creation (as do the three of you guys) or a put down of evolutionists (it is not). The second thing she said is that she understands fully where Ben is coming from (although she does not agree with much) and third, she did not feel the film personally attacked her beliefs - just that she felt that he was exaggerating his claims that all creationists are being silenced.

Also, there were 6 interviews with scientists that were supposedly either fired or stripped of their funding or told to keep their ideas to themselves when they questioned some of the science pointing towards the evolutionary theory and pointed towards (in their minds) creation by a creator. I plan on researching these men myself over the next few days.

Linda (my neighbor) said that IF it is TRUE that those men were treated the way they stated in the film (and it seems they were because they also interviewed some former co-scientists who admitted this did occur) that Ben Stein has the right to expose this practice without being silenced or ridiculed. She also stated that she was expecting Ben himself to give his opinion on the subject, but he does not. As a matter of fact Stein never actually gives his opinion on anything! He just interviews people from both sides and let’s them tell their story. It’s not exactly the “propaganda” film that Richard has made it out to be in his mind!

In addition, to answer you Bill about the Nazism issue you brought up - again - if you see the film Ben DOES NOT say ANYWHERE in the film that HE believes that Hitler was a Darwinist! He states that SOME CHRISTIANS (Ben is a Jew by the way) believe that and then shows why THEY feel that way. Again, your comments do not apply to the film at all.

I think if you do see the film you will all be a little embarrassed by your “assessment’ of the film prior to seeing it. You will see that the evolutionists are turning this into something it is not out of ignorance and anger.

After you see the film, your assessment of it won’t be a waste of every one’s time. And you will actually have a leg to stand on if you hate it and still think it is “evil, deceitful propaganda.”

But, I have the feeling that you guys wont see the film. That would take too much effort and thought. You will make some bogus excuse about “not being seen watching a Ben Stein movie” or that you don’t want to pay $9.00 to see the film or some other lamo excuse so you can keep bashing something you know nothing about.

I will confess I probably will not see the film, at least not any time soon. I think you are splitting hairs by saying that Ben Stein does not come out and say thus-and-so in the film. I will grant that such a statement, in and of itself, is correct. However, I would refer you to the promotional material for the film, including interviews with Mr. Stein, which may give you a larger frame of reference. Regardless of what words he personally does or does not utter in the film, it seems plain that he has intentionally given the impression that he supports the message of the film in virtually all its particulars. He does not say, in the film, that he believes that Hitler was a Darwinist, but his film presents only one side of that argument when refutation of that misconception (as has been demonstrated on this very blog by, for example, text searching for “Darwin” in “Mein Kampf”) is a rather trivial exercise.

I would refer you to “www.expelledexposed.com” as part of your research.

Laurel,

Okay then, I’ll leave it to the others around here who have seen it to assess your take on the film’s content and accuracy.

Well, that’s if many of them notice additional replies on an old thread that hasn’t been on the main page for months. Replying on a current thread would be more likely to get a wider range of responses.

Henry

I viewed this movie yesterday and thought it was excellent. The theater was packed with people which I was surprised to see. The audience actually stood up clapped and cheered at the end. I have only been to one other movie where people did that. It’s funny how the article above exemplifies exactly what they pointed out in the movie. Suppression of open intelligent dialog through mockery, intimidation, and close mindedness. Thanks for further revealing the quality of Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed. Definitely worth viewing

Nice try Mike, but you’re about a week too late. P.Z. Myers (yes, THAT P.Z. Myers) just received this email…

http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/[…]email_18.php

I wonder how many sympathetic fundies wanted to go, but with the economy in the toilet and gas at $3.50 a gallon (thanks to their wunderkind GWB), just couldn’t afford a night out at the movies?

Mike Lagosz said:

I viewed this movie yesterday and thought it was excellent. The theater was packed with people which I was surprised to see. The audience actually stood up clapped and cheered at the end. I have only been to one other movie where people did that. It’s funny how the article above exemplifies exactly what they pointed out in the movie. Suppression of open intelligent dialog through mockery, intimidation, and close mindedness. Thanks for further revealing the quality of Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed. Definitely worth viewing

So, what sort of positive contribution to science did Ben Stein say Intelligent Design proponents would make if they were allowed to do whatever it is they do for Intelligent Design unmolested?

What evidence did Ben Stein give to show that Adolf Hitler and Josef Stalin were both inspired by Charles Darwin, even though the memoirs, speeches and writings of the former (as well as all of the former’s aides, subordinates and servants) suggested that he never so much as touched any of Charles Darwin’s writings, and that the latter rejected Evolutionary Theory in favor of the Lamarckian nonsense of his pet scientist, Trofim Lysenko?

Did Ben Stein even state what Intelligent Design “theory” was about?

Mike Lagosz said: It’s funny how the article above exemplifies exactly what they pointed out in the movie. Suppression of open intelligent dialog through mockery, intimidation, and close mindedness.

Sorry, but you don’t support your claim.

Certainly the post is mocking. What isn’t to mock about an antiscientific movement posing as science? Sometimes the answer is to laugh. But how is ridicule and laughter suppression?

As for intimidation, where is it? Pointing out obvious (acquiring interviews under false pretenses) or not so obvious lies isn’t intimidation. Nor is pointing out that activities such as pushing religion into science education will naturally engender a reaction intimidation.

And obviously “close mindedness” isn’t an appropriate characteristic of the open inquiry of science, nor can I find any point where the article itself is closed in character. Perhaps you can object to particular scientific facts turning out as they do, but there is nothing one can do about that - you can’t argue with facts.

Actually, “mockery, intimidation, and close mindedness” is a much more appropriate characterization of the movie. It makes a mockery out of science and its process, it uses intimidation by argumentum ad Nazium, and it is based on and acting through the close mindedness of fundamentalist creationists.

So sorry, it wasn’t even a try. But please, feel free to not make any more efforts on our behalf. The sanctimonious tone of creationists don’t wear well in public.

After reading your comments I can see that many of you are all just as narrow minded as the movie portrays. Ben Stein doesn’t need to prove this point. Any one who is an educator or student knows that to question macro-evolution in college is a big no-no. Whoever wrote the comment to ban the movie from the theater and to out any press from the media is obviously prejudice. In America no one should be “outed” no matter how much you disagree, after all we allow soft porn to be shown before our children which is far more damaging. Furthermore there is more than enough evidence for intelligent design, and there are many scholars and scientists who have researched and have found evidence. There are plenty of serious scientist who hold to intelligent design. If anyone can read The Privileged Planet and not question their beliefs than we are no different than those who refused to listen to Galileo. Marco-evolution is a hypothesis and so is intelligent design, if you guys are so secure on your own beliefs, (after all, darwinianism is a belief system) then why are you so threatened? I fear for the day when the education system no longer allows open discussion and political correctness takes over.

Robert Gianserra dithered:

After reading your comments I can see that many of you are all just as narrow minded as the movie portrays. Ben Stein doesn’t need to prove this point. Any one who is an educator or student knows that to question macro-evolution in college is a big no-no. Whoever wrote the comment to ban the movie from the theater and to out any press from the media is obviously prejudice. In America no one should be “outed” no matter how much you disagree, after all we allow soft porn to be shown before our children which is far more damaging. Furthermore there is more than enough evidence for intelligent design, and there are many scholars and scientists who have researched and have found evidence. There are plenty of serious scientist who hold to intelligent design. If anyone can read The Privileged Planet and not question their beliefs than we are no different than those who refused to listen to Galileo. Marco-evolution is a hypothesis and so is intelligent design, if you guys are so secure on your own beliefs, (after all, darwinianism is a belief system) then why are you so threatened? I fear for the day when the education system no longer allows open discussion and political correctness takes over.

Stanton previously asked:

So, what sort of positive contribution to science did Ben Stein say Intelligent Design proponents would make if they were allowed to do whatever it is they do for Intelligent Design unmolested?

What evidence did Ben Stein give to show that Adolf Hitler and Josef Stalin were both inspired by Charles Darwin, even though the memoirs, speeches and writings of the former (as well as all of the former’s aides, subordinates and servants) suggested that he never so much as touched any of Charles Darwin’s writings, and that the latter rejected Evolutionary Theory in favor of the Lamarckian nonsense of his pet scientist, Trofim Lysenko?

Did Ben Stein even state what Intelligent Design “theory” was about?

It is funny that you would comment about the movie so vehemently. It supports the claims Ben makes in the movie. In effect you are endorsing the movie by action.

To discredit another belief without evidence solely out of spite because it differs from your own is … (fill in the blank - stupid, fascist, Nazism, …). I haven’t seen anything but the trailer yet, but if arrogant goons like you don’t repress freedom of expression and it comes to a theater near me that would be money well spent to see it. I would spend the money just to spite those who feel their pompous blabbering and ‘high school mentality,’ self-accolading, pubescent, back-slapping, “hey dude we really came up with some righteous knocks against that guy” sort of attitude. Really this website is reminiscent of the high school locker room. Anyone with an opinion different from the ‘norm’ is chastised. I mean what does this quote prove;

fnxtr on August 27, 2007 9:00 PM (e)

“creationism is the attempt to cram a square block of bronze age mythology into the round hole of reality.”

It proves you know how to come up with colorful metaphors that could equally apply to discredit Darwinism. Quit patting each other on the back for a moment and notice how you are arrogant bastards who do not know how life began and have your own ‘theories’ (which you can’t even agree on the specifics) and let others have their own theories.

I know if you recognize a ‘God’ you would have to recognize an intelligence superior to your own and that may hurt the pride a bit but … you don’t have to acknowledge it. Just let others come to their own conclusions based on the evidence.

All right, let the mocking, character assassination, and all other pathetic attempts to make dissident views go away begin.

Enjoy, Troy

Troy Gariepy blithered:

It is funny that you would comment about the movie so vehemently. It supports the claims Ben makes in the movie. In effect you are endorsing the movie by action.

To discredit another belief without evidence solely out of spite because it differs from your own is … (fill in the blank - stupid, fascist, Nazism, …). I haven’t seen anything but the trailer yet, but if arrogant goons like you don’t repress freedom of expression and it comes to a theater near me that would be money well spent to see it. I would spend the money just to spite those who feel their pompous blabbering and ‘high school mentality,’ self-accolading, pubescent, back-slapping, “hey dude we really came up with some righteous knocks against that guy” sort of attitude. Really this website is reminiscent of the high school locker room. Anyone with an opinion different from the ‘norm’ is chastised. I mean what does this quote prove;

fnxtr on August 27, 2007 9:00 PM (e)

“creationism is the attempt to cram a square block of bronze age mythology into the round hole of reality.”

It proves you know how to come up with colorful metaphors that could equally apply to discredit Darwinism. Quit patting each other on the back for a moment and notice how you are arrogant bastards who do not know how life began and have your own ‘theories’ (which you can’t even agree on the specifics) and let others have their own theories.

I know if you recognize a ‘God’ you would have to recognize an intelligence superior to your own and that may hurt the pride a bit but … you don’t have to acknowledge it. Just let others come to their own conclusions based on the evidence.

All right, let the mocking, character assassination, and all other pathetic attempts to make dissident views go away begin.

Enjoy, Troy

Stanton’s question that Troy did not bother to answer:

So, what sort of positive contribution to science did Ben Stein say Intelligent Design proponents would make if they were allowed to do whatever it is they do for Intelligent Design unmolested?

What evidence did Ben Stein give to show that Adolf Hitler and Josef Stalin were both inspired by Charles Darwin, even though the memoirs, speeches and writings of the former (as well as all of the former’s aides, subordinates and servants) suggested that he never so much as touched any of Charles Darwin’s writings, and that the latter rejected Evolutionary Theory in favor of the Lamarckian nonsense of his pet scientist, Trofim Lysenko?

Did Ben Stein even state what Intelligent Design “theory” was about?

Troy Gariepy said:

fnxtr said:

“creationism is the attempt to cram a square block of bronze age mythology into the round hole of reality.”

It proves you know how to come up with colorful metaphors that could equally apply to discredit Darwinism.

Darwinism is the attempt to cram a square block of scienctific evidence into the round hole of.…Mary?

I guess we will just have to take your word for it.

I was quoting Raven.

XI: Pay attention.

Um, no Troy, anyone who repeats same discredited, empty arguments from authority, arguments from incredulity, and phony math again and again, after being shown time after time how non-scientific these arguments are, is rightly treated like a fool.

And Ben Stein is, quite simply, a liar.

There are lots of people smarter than me; these are the people I like to learn from. There’s no fear of a greater intelligence here.

Maybe there’s a god, maybe there isn’t, can’t be proven either way. Neither scenario should have any effect science, which is based on evidence. Get a grip.

About this Entry

This page contains a single entry by Steve Reuland published on August 26, 2007 6:26 PM.

Answers in Genesis Corrupts Kentucky’s Government was the previous entry in this blog.

Antievolutionists Messin’ with Texas Textbooks… Again is the next entry in this blog.

Find recent content on the main index or look in the archives to find all content.

Categories

Archives

Author Archives

Powered by Movable Type 4.361

Site Meter