A new website titled Expelled Exposed was mentioned at the Amused Muse’s blog.
Keep checking this space for the National Center for Science Education’s official response to the Ben Stein movie Expelled; for now, we hope you will find this collection of resources helpful
This page contains a single entry by PvM published on March 25, 2008 6:36 PM.
Expelled!: A spoiler was the previous entry in this blog.
Intelligent Design Deployed in Kentucky is the next entry in this blog.
Find recent content on the main index or look in the archives to find all content.
From the Colorado cnfidential review of the film:
Not again. It’s the first time has Richard Dawkins been lampooned by creationists:
http://youtube.com/watch?v=zaKryi36[…]ture=related
This has been used to great effect by YEC’s for over ten years now.
I don’t know. I suspect, Richard Dawkins is a thoroughly nice person but seems , at least initially , that he was somewhat naive about the YEC’s. I thought he would have learnt his lesson by now i.e. not to appear in creationist films.
Ten bucks says Expelled’s producers will send a cease-and-desist order. “Get your filthy intartubes off of our intellectual property!”
Dawkins was LIED to about the purpose of the “Expelled” film. He was told at first that he was being interviewed for a film called “Crossroads” and only found out the truth after he was interviewed.
That YouTube video shows Dawkins realizing he’d been lied to by another Creationist interviewer. He was smart enough to know that an angry reaction would make him look bad, so he asked the taping to be stopped first. The next shot of that video was actually recorded BEFORE the segment showing Dawkins being “stumped” by a question he had already addressed in his own books! In short, the entire video taping was a sham.
What “intellectual property”? They don’t own the sites the reviews linked to are hosted on, I don’t imagine.
I do realise this Dale (I’ve read Barry Williams’ report in the Australian Skeptic by the way) .
I have actually viewed “From a frog to a prince” and seen how it’s being used by YEC’s in churches. It was shown in my own church a few years ago. YEC minister to audience on supposed silence: “Just wait until you see this bit”. I’ve often wondered if Richard Dawkins has grounds for suing Keziah productions ?
Expelled seems to be a very similar situation. Surely if he (Dawkins) was duped into appearing in this under false pretences he should be able to take them (the producers of expelled) to court ? and PZ Myers likewise of course.
Another living fossil has turned up without any morphological or expressed trait changing ,of any kind, in some supposed millions of years.
This “fastest evolving lifeform” is evolving at the molecular level where all those selective pressures like weather, predation, geography, alturism, etc. barf, barf are known to reside in packets of super quarks.
“The team found that although tuatara have remained largely unchanged physically over very long periods of evolution, they are evolving - at a DNA level - faster than any other animal yet examined”
Thus without sex, without generations of populations, without selective pressures, without morphological change, with no new features or traits, evolution is occuring at a rapid pace just without any effect whatsoever.
Is there any stupidity and laughable ignorance this crowd won’t posture?
If science is not rescued from these evo dopeheads the world will see progress grind to a halt in the next decade.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iPuKoEYCs2o
I wonder, would a public school teacher in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, be allowed to say the following:
“It is interesting to contemplate … [all the many forms of life on earth] … so different from each other, have all been produced by laws acting around us. … There is grandeur in this view of life, HAVING BEEN ORIGINALLY BREATHED BY THE CREATOR INTO A FEW FORMS OR INTO ONE; and that from so simple a beginning, endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being evolved.”
Just imagine a public school teacher who says those words: that God creates life and places it on the earth in a few forms, and then that life evolves according to the physical and natural laws that God put into place in the universe.
Would that be allowed?
Actually, it should be REQUIRED FOR THE TEACHER TO SAY THAT.
Why? Because the quote is from: On the Origin of the Species, Chapter XV, Recapitulation and Conclusion, By Charles Darwin.
If you are going to teach Darwin’s theory of evolution in public schools, you should teach what Darwin actually wrote about it.
Michael S. Class Author
Anthony and the Magic Picture Frame: The History Book with a Message for Today’s Young Americans
Read the book. Remember the truth. Share it with your children.
Web Site: www.MagicPictureFrame.com
———————–
That is a direct misquote from “The Origin of the Species” and taken out of context. Read the book yourself before spouting lies and assumptions about Darwin and evolution.
Regardless, the theory of evolution still stands and it makes no difference whether he believed in god or not(he didn’t) as the science stands on its own.
Peace
That is a direct misquote from “The Origin of the Species” and taken out of context. Read the book yourself before spouting lies and assumptions about Darwin and evolution.
Regardless, the theory of evolution still stands and it makes no difference whether he believed in god or not(he didn’t) as the science stands on its own.
Peace
Rather than wagging a finger at our misinformed visitor, I personally prefer to cite the proper quote, which is actually CD at his most eloquent:
Again, slowly.
We don’t teach “Darwin” in public schools.
Back in 1850, the field was very young, and Darwin actually knew very little. Most of his work was informed speculation “Hey guys - i think I might see how this works…”.
Although much of his speculation was eventually found to be correct, significant portions were wrong. That’s how it was with all the early scientists. Newton thought angels moved the planets, and Maxwell went to his death believing in the eather. Shrug.
It’s called “Darwinian Evolution” simply as an honorific, Darwin being a pioneer in the field. This is common, and science is awash with units like volts, amps, henries, and kelvins, and concepts like “Van Allen” belts and “Hawking radiation”.
But Van Allen didn’t control his belts and Darwin certainly isn’t the defining word in evolution.
True, Darwin, being an ordained minister, was tormented to the end of his days by his inability to reconcile biblical creation with observable nature. And I suppose, in context, it would be germane in certain types of classes, say, those concerning the interplay of science and society.
But that’s history or philosophy and should be taught accordingly.
Darwin’s private demons aren’t taught in science classes because 1) they’re not science and 2) he was dead and cold half a century before the real underpinnings of evolution were fully explained.
The empirically verified facts of biology as verified by 150 years of careful observation are taught. And if you can find, somewhere, some verifiable evidence that mother nature involves God in any way, I’d be happy to admit that to any classroom in the land, because it would be germane.
So, um, got any actual evidence, Michael, or do you really not know the difference between Darwin and evolution?
Michael’s comment was 5 1/2 months old, I doubt he’ll be back to see any of this…
Update