Expelled pseudo-documentary bombs in Gonzalez’s backyard

| 76 Comments

I am posting this as a courtesy to Professor Hector Avalos. I did not add a single word to Avalos’s message, nor made any change in his text.

The Discovery Institute has written a glowing account of the debut of Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed in Ames, Iowa, the home of Dr. Guillermo Gonzalez, the pro-ID astronomer at Iowa State University. Prof. Hector Avalos, also of Iowa State University, tells a different story based on his eyewitnes account, and it does not bode well for Expelled nationwide. Continue reading Expelled pseudo-documentary bombs in Gonzalez’s backyard in TalkReason.

76 Comments

The local TV station had a completely one-side story about the showing featuring GG. The intro talked about the controversy–but basically they let GG make claims about discrimination that went unchallenged. They didn’t even get a different point a view (like Avalos). Then again, it’s the “present the controversy” approach favored by DI.

You could not get anyone more obscure to comment on the movie.

You could not get anyone more obscure to comment on the movie

This is a very interesting observation. Mark Perakh (even though he’s in the movie) is qualified only to comment on the merits of the movie. But of course, we’re not dealing with merits here (Robert is quite correct), we’re dealing with public relations, impressions, and emotional appeals.

So Robert’s implication is important - the way to get the point across is to get commentary from the most famous people possible. These folks need not have watched it, or know anything about the topic; they need only be famous. Maybe Robert could go solicit a glowing review from Charlton Heston - imagine how impressed the target audience would be with THAT testimonial!

And all that he’d need to do is to SAY it’s from Heston. Anyone who’ll believe anything in Expelled would believe that too. SAYING things are true are how things COME true in Robert’s world.

Robert O’Brien:

You could not get anyone more obscure to comment on the movie.

You?

A local TV station in my area also ran a story on the news about the movie. Since they interviewed only people who were coming out of the movie, surprise, all of those interviewed thought there was some kind of scientific conspiracy. The report seemed balanced, they even mentioned Dover. Still, despite the free publicity, there were very few cars at the theater, even though seven other movies were also showing.

Obscurity-schmurity. Facts are the focus and he had access to them. As soon as it is a matter of ‘the one with the higher profile wins the argument’ God is something of a trump card for the religious majority.

It would have been nice if Avalos had been able to work in a link for Expelled Exposed.

The article said that the overall weekend total was $1.3 million, but I believe that was just for Friday. The website the author linked to lists the weekend total as $2.9 million.

FPS:

The article said that the overall weekend total was $1.3 million, but I believe that was just for Friday. The website the author linked to lists the weekend total as $2.9 million.

I think that was a legit error on the author’s part - Expelled did make $2.9 million its first weekend. Note that number is roughly 1/4 of the predicted “success” value of $12 million as espoused by the movie’s producers. So even by their own standards it bombed - not that they’ll admit it.

Oh certainly. I apologize if that came across as an accusation. I did not mean to imply that he was being untruthful. As you said, his point remains because $2.9 million is a very low number.

Also, it seems telling that the total for the entire weekend is barely more than twice the total for Friday itself. I wonder if it’s normal for attendance to drop off that sharply on Sat/Sun.

Also, it seems telling that the total for the entire weekend is barely more than twice the total for Friday itself. I wonder if it’s normal for attendance to drop off that sharply on Sat/Sun.

Typically, numbers rise on Saturday, indeed, of the movies listed by box office mojo, expelled was the only one to see a drop on saturday vs. friday.

The reason for this should be quite clear - friday night’s a big movie going night, but saturday matinees, as well as saturday night, are big, so the total tends to be more than friday, ‘cause friday’s a work/school day for most.

The reason for this should be quite clear - friday night’s a big movie going night, but saturday matinees, as well as saturday night, are big, so the total tends to be more than friday, ‘cause friday’s a work/school day for most.

Expelled is a great date movie ; )

I think that was a legit error on the author’s part - Expelled did make $2.9 million its first weekend. Note that number is roughly 1/4 of the predicted “success” value of $12 million as espoused by the movie’s producers. So even by their own standards it bombed - not that they’ll admit it.

Mobile goalposts–no problem!

“FPS said: The article said that the overall weekend total was $1.3 million, but I believe that was just for Friday. The website the author linked to lists the weekend total as $2.9 million.”

Yes, that is my honest mistake. Thanks for pointing it out. The argument about the overall trend, however, remains the same.

Robert O’Brien:

You could not get anyone more obscure to comment on the movie.

Now I know why Ed Brayton’s “Robert O’Brien” award is thus named…

Back when GG was getting his tenure denied, the DI was making a big stink because Hector Avalos was granted tenure and they tried to spin a whole-cloth story about the christian GG was denied but the anti-theist Avalos was granted, proving the whole anti-christian bias of Big Science… They dropped his name quite a bit, actually. So, no, he wasn’t ‘obscure’.

Prof. Avalos,

Thank you for helping to combat the usual Discovery Institute spin. They ought to hire this guy for PR.

Good to see my predictions verified once again.

As I explained in a previous thread, every crackpot who would accept orders to go see the movie was mobilized for the first weekend. That’s mainly where the 2.9 million dollar gross came from.

I estimate that about 0.1-0.2% of the population of the US was so mobilized, from that figure, depending on what movie tickets cost around the country these days (I’m guestimating ten bucks; the percentage is higher if the price is lower). Please note that every right wing anti-science church and organization that is within the bounds of the “movement” pushed hard to have all followers attend on the opening weekend.

But also note that there had to be some other people who went to it by accident, not really knowing what it was and wrongly expecting something along the lines of “Win Ben Stein’s Money”.

Altogether, the base of order-taking nutjobs and die-hard Ben Stein fans seems to be about 0.1-0.2% of the total population. To be fair, maybe we should talk only about the “adult population”. Double that figure, perhaps.

Now that’s done. All the order-taking nuts and die-hard Ben Stein fan club members have seen it. Of course, some few zealots will go to it multiple times in an effort to bump the numbers, but even most of these people won’t. Future ticket sales will rely on convincing members of the general population to go see an extremely poorly reviewed documentary.

Movie theaters are mainly reality-based, profit motive institutions. “Expelled” will soon live up to its name.

For those people in the Ames area, Dr. Avalos will be giving a lecture tonight (Thursday) at 7:30 pm in 2432 Food Science titled “Did Darwinism Lead to the Holocaust.”

How long until the Expelled merchandising?: the Ben Stein action figure, DI lego set, …

Vic:

Robert O’Brien:

You could not get anyone more obscure to comment on the movie.

Now I know why Ed Brayton’s “Robert O’Brien” award is thus named…

I just posted on that topic, actually.

Vic:Back when GG was getting his tenure denied, the DI was making a big stink because Hector Avalos was granted tenure and they tried to spin a whole-cloth story about the christian GG was denied but the anti-theist Avalos was granted, proving the whole anti-christian bias of Big Science… They dropped his name quite a bit, actually. So, no, he wasn’t ‘obscure’.

That is the only reason Avalos has appeared on anyone’s radar.

Mr. Perakh, my apologies if I am mistaken. Are you an emigrant from the former Soviet Union? If so, what was it like? How much influence did that world famous ‘Father of the Russian Nuclear Industry’ (was his name, Sakharov?) exert? Coming to the matter in hand - this good old media circus re. Darwinism - is it true that Darwinism was an enforced doctrine in the old USSR? How strictly was it enforced? What was it like?

Incidentally, I note that the woes that beset that unfortunate country stemmed from the embracing of occultism and false religion, not Darwinism as such. I also observe that Darwinism in a mild form need not be inherently atheistic. But it is noteworthy that an administration built on lies and persecution seems to have fully embraced atheistic Darwinism. I would value any comments you might wish to make.

Heywood -

Your comments are irrelevant. The subject here was the objective commercial failure of “Expelled”. For the benefit of possible lurkers, however, I’ll show how divorced from reality your comment is.

Mr. Perakh, my apologies if I am mistaken. Are you an emigrant from the former Soviet Union? If so, what was it like? How much influence did that world famous ‘Father of the Russian Nuclear Industry’ (was his name, Sakharov?) exert? Coming to the matter in hand - this good old media circus re. Darwinism - is it true that Darwinism was an enforced doctrine in the old USSR? How strictly was it enforced? What was it like?

Your pompous tone contrasts amusingly with your apparent ignorance. The Soviet Union, officially atheist, is the only major nation state to have ever successfully censored and distorted the theory of evolution in its educational system.

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

Furthermore, your absurd comment implies that former emigrees from the Soviet Union to the US would be advocates of Soviet policies, which is almost never the case.

Incidentally, I note that the woes that beset that unfortunate country stemmed from the embracing of occultism and false religion, not Darwinism as such.

Are you seriously so ignorant that you don’t know that the Soviet Union was an officially atheist communist country? Occultism and religion in any forms were discouraged, to say the least.

I also observe that Darwinism in a mild form need not be inherently atheistic.

The theory of evolution is not “inherently atheistic” in any form, as is easily documented by the fair number of religious biologists who embrace it, the fact that is has been accepted by most mainstream religious denominations, etc.

But it is noteworthy that an administration built on lies and persecution seems to have fully embraced atheistic Darwinism. I would value any comments you might wish to make.

Again, my comments are for the benefit of lurkers. To express statements so divorced from reality demonstrates that you reject reality.

Once again, the Soviet Union did not embrace the theory of evolution; it was the exact opposite. Your comment is the exact opposite of the truth.

To deal with the hypothetical, it would mean nothing if an oppressive government accepted the theory of evolution. Some probably do. Repressive governments often accept scientific reality.

There is, however, an association between science-denial and repression. Not all repressive governments deny science, but science-deniers are, for some reason, nearly always authoritarian in slant.

harold: Your pompous tone contrasts amusingly with your apparent ignorance. The Soviet Union, officially atheist, is the only major nation state to have ever successfully censored and distorted the theory of evolution in its educational system.

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

Furthermore, your absurd comment implies that former emigrees from the Soviet Union to the US would be advocates of Soviet policies, which is almost never the case.

I believe that if I recall my history correctly, this was largely one of the reasons why the old Soviet agricultural system collapsed. They kept insisting that Darwin was wrong and Lysenko was right - sucks when you try to deny reality, doesn’t it?

Are you seriously so ignorant that you don’t know that the Soviet Union was an officially atheist communist country? Occultism and religion in any forms were discouraged, to say the least.

To many creationists and hardcore Christian fundamentalists, they think that “atheism” is synonymous with “Satanism” or “occultism”. The notion that atheists reject anything supernatural (from unicorns to fairies to Satan) is a concept beyond them - I think it is partly ignorance speaking, but I also think it is a lie oft repeated as a way of demonizing atheists. You know, just like how in the past Jews have been demonized by the claim that they suck the blood of children.

The theory of evolution is not “inherently atheistic” in any form, as is easily documented by the fair number of religious biologists who embrace it, the fact that is has been accepted by most mainstream religious denominations, etc.

Francis Collins, Ken Miller, Father Coyne, and PvM are just a few who come to mind. And then there’s the Clergy Letter Project as well.

Thanks for the report, Prof. Avalos!

The film showed once per day in a theatre with two screens while in every major market it was in a multi-screen, popular location. Hmmmmm!

Blake Stacey: Thanks for the kind words, and for your many other insightful blog posts.

From a review posted on the “Mid-Iowa News:”

“Gonzalez said he was finally offered a position last month at Grove City College, a small Christian school in Pennsylvania, which he has accepted.

“If (professors) value their careers, they should keep quiet about their intelligent design views,” he said in the film.”

No, ‘DOCTOR’ Gonzalez, they should do real scientific research rather than sit around with their thumbs up their behinds and whining to the DI. You’re free to believe whatever you want, but you failed your students, your colleagues, and you wasted your time getting your wallpaper degree through your deceptive practices.

You could not get anyone more obscure to comment on the movie.

says the person whose only claim to fame is having an award for stupidity named after him.

Dr Gonzales HAS BEEN DENIED TENURE AT GROVE CITY COLLEGE.

This Christian college has provocatively denied tenure to this superbly qualified scientist of Newtonian calibre. A college spokesman said that many Professors at Grove City are denied tenure and it was in no way because Dr Gonzales holds some materialistic science views.

“Grove City has a long history of denying tenure to its professors and refusing to renew contracts. It’s simply the best way to manage issues of academic freedom.”

Someone should make a film.

How could he be denied tenure at GCC if he just accepted a position, according to his own statement?

many Professors at Grove City are denied tenure and it was in no way because Dr Gonzales holds some materialistic science views

If there is in fact a high correlation between denying tenure and materialistic science, this parody might have some teeth! After all, you wouldn’t catch anyone being granted tenure at BIOLA, Liberty, or Bob Jones who committed the sin of respecting evidence.

In 1958, the Chinese central planners adopted Lysenkoism.

The resulting famine killed an estimated 20 to 40 million people.

And that is just what you get out of politically mandated biology based on teleology.

Interesting. I hadn’t heard that. It would make an interesting blog post, the effect of “politically mandated biology based on mythology.”

I’ve known Chinese who grew up during that period. They tend to be stunted, look a lot older than they are, and have suffered health problems ever since.

Wesley R. Elsberry:

An even clearer demonstration was provided by communist China. During the early 1950s, they collectivized their agriculture, but continued to use standard agricultural practices informed by evolutionary science. During that pperiod, they exported large amounts of surplus grain, sold on the world market.

In 1958, the Chinese central planners adopted Lysenkoism.

The resulting famine killed an estimated 20 to 40 million people.

And that is just what you get out of politically mandated biology based on teleology.

Interesting point there - as a counter to the fabricated claims of darwinism leading to Hitler’s extermination camps; could it be argued that rejecting mainstream science has killed millions of people ?,

Albeit less spectacularly and less widely known than the European Holocoust, but equally permanently for the unfortunate people involved.

Any chance of a link to more information on the Chinese experiments with Lysenkoism ?

We’d been speculating how much their theft would cost them, but it’s official now.

Yoko is suing.

http://www.reuters.com/article/ente[…]158220080423

Yoko is suing.

It was absolutely predictable.

I happen to have some experience in the field (I’m an engineer, but I spend most of my professional time these days designing digital technology for the entertainment industry, so I’m around the production and post process a lot.)

I cannot tell you how many times I’ve heard some film student or first-time low budget producer whine “But I only used four bars” of a popular song. Any competent lawyer will tell you there’s only one answer; “It doesn’t matter. If you can recognize a copyrighted song, you have to get permission to use it.”

The concept of fair use is real, but only allows for very narrow exceptions. Examples would be if Exposed was interviewing a man on the street and someone drove by and you could briefly hear “Imagine” playing on their car radio, or if a musical documentary on Lennon was trying to illustrate that Lennon had based “Imagine” on a previous song.

In the first case, it truly is a peripheral element, and in the second case, it’s an honest illustration of a real academic issue.

As described, the use of “Imagine” in Exposed fits neither of these narrow exceptions. It’s just pretty music, chosen specifically for its easily recognized melody and message. The industry even has a name (and a copyright clearance category) for this – thematic underscore.

A lot of people screwed up here.

Every producer has at least one person on staff whose job it is to secure rights and clearances. This isn’t just good practice; when a film is sold to a distributor, one of the “deliverables” is the “rights book”, documentation that everyone who could conceivably make a claim against the film has sold off on it.

That includes anyone with a recognizable image, all the film locations, anybody who is in a position to levy a mechanics lien, and, of course, any recognizable music or artwork.

Music clearances can be fairly convoluted. Sometimes they’re a single-time buyout, but for a popular (ie valuable) song clearances are individually negotiated based on screen time, prominence (Is it underscore? Is actor someone performing it onstage? etc) and geographic distribution of the work (a short playing at Sundance pays a lot less for music than a major feature released worldwide).

Music rights fall into two broad categories, the song and the actual performance. The songwriter has copyright interest, and the performer has “mechanical” rights – rights to be paid to have his performance duplicated. (In this case, the Lennon estate may still have either of these rights or may have assigned them to some other company, like Apple records)

Heck, for the film “Moulin Rouge” The producers had to get clearance for the old Sweet song “Love is Like Oxygen” because one of the principal actors refereed to the songs title.

Distributors, once they buy the film and start planning a release, have their own staffs who should double check the clearances, and make sure that the scope of the release is covered.

Distributors are neurotic about this, because one slip can be incredibly expensive for them. (A disgruntled copyright holder can block a release or even have a film pulled from theaters, as almost happened on “Batman Returns”, because it featured some uncleared public sculpture in a few scenes)

It sounds complicated, and it is, but music clearance is such an established procedure that there are entire companies that do nothing else. Distributors usually hire one because a) they’re good at it and b) they provide a legal buffer, like having a CPA do your corporate books. On many feature films, you’ll see a line in the credits in the music section that says “clearance by XYZ corp”. This is what that credit line is all about.

It’s barely conceivable that any reputable distributor would release on 1000 screens and not have someone double check clearances. It’s absolutely inconceivable that a reputable clearance firm would blow it on something this big.

On a more personal level - and I may be painting with a broad brush here - It’s particularly galling that the same ID crowd that sends cease-and desist copyright notices to U-Tube whenever some critic posts a snippet of ID lecture decides that they can simply “borrow” somebody else’s material whenever it suits their purposes.

Oh wait – I almost overlooked one thing.

There is one more exception to copyright law – parody.

Now then, that could work! Given the level of logical argument in “Expelled” as a whole, that does certainly seem like a viable defense.

Reginald: We’d been speculating how much their theft would cost them, but it’s official now.

Yoko is suing.

http://www.reuters.com/article/ente[…]158220080423

Ah, the first lawsuit… I wonder how long until the other shoe (Harvard/XVIVO’s suit) drops?

Of course, this just means that Yoko Ono is just another branch of the vast, evil “Darwinist conspiracy” - nah, it couldn’t be that the makers of Expelled are just a bunch of dishonest, thieving bastards.

I can’t wait to see how this plays out in court.

I hadn’t encountered ‘Lysenkoism’ before and what Mark says about the science-personal power tie-up in the old USSR makes sense. Quite interesting, although the suffering under that regime must have been anything but interesting.

It looks like some of their propaganda dept. got seconded to subscribe at PANDA’S THUMB, going on one or two of the entries above. Designate anyone who takes the word of God seriously to a mental asylum. That was one of the kinder ‘solutions’. Of course, anyone, christian or otherwise, but especially any honest person, is in some sort of danger under those regimes.

I take the liberty of making a comment on what could perhaps be categorized as western religious nonconformists. I know nothing of Jonathon Wells - other than what I have just read - nor do I take the part of those who say that Darwin had nothing to offer other than harm. But let us not confuse the western non-conformist with totalitarian practices or with, say, heavy-handed administration. The reverse is more likely. Generally speaking, the bible-minded anti-evolutionist is totally committed to democracy. But let me quote Oliver Cromwell. After finally getting his own personally trained army into action and terminating the English Civil War, in favour of democracy, Cromwell was faced with a parliament over-endowed with nonconformists. All on his side, all for democracy and the new order, all non conforming nonconformists. In the end, he dismissed them with words something like this: “Gentlemen. In the bowels of Jesus Christ. Did it ever occur to you that you might be mistaken?” Some nonconformists are too nonconformist. England and ultimately the USA are free countries because of nonconformists. Well, perhaps it’s because of the grace of God - but he certainly doesn’t overthrow tyranny through mindless conformism.

Kindly take this as it is meant - I am not passing an opinion on your specific encounter with an ID exponent. Those people don’t talk to me, anyway.

The problem with science that must be addressed and now with advancing technology can be addressed: The peculiar evolutionary theory variously known as Darwinism, Neo-Darwinism, Common Descent Evolution, or whatever name it goes under - if it relies on gradually accumulated change through selective breeding as the total engine of speciation; contradicts the geologic record (there are clearly defined fossil species), contradicts everyday observation (the species as a generality are genetically distinct) and no attempt is made by those propounding it to show the energy pathway by which the species transformations occur. As a geologist, if I was to say that here we have a beautiful crystalline mineral that gradually just happened by heat and pressure and rearrangement of atoms, I would be robbing the public of certain fundamental truths - especially, that all processes of nature are quantifiable and all chemical reactions happen according to the dictates of enthalpy and entropy - measured in kilojoules or whatever. A chemist theoretically can explain the origin of every known compound in those terms, utilizing mathematical quantities. The Common Descent Theory of evolution (other evolutionary theories exist and have existed in the past) has no measurable energy pathway to allow for the chemical processes. Unless it shows the energy pathways in terms of hard, cold, physical chemistry, it has no claim to being anything but imaginary. It has no right to say how a process occurred, if it cannot come up with the measurable, hence, possible, chain of events. Is what I am saying systematic science? The answer to the conundrum is straightforward and becomes more so, every day. The technical publications are pointing us to it.

The Soviet Union, officially atheist, is the only major nation state to have ever successfully censored and distorted the theory of evolution in its educational system.

USSR was officially secular, as all other nations except Albania who actually declared itself atheistic for a period of 45 years.

Stalin used realpolitik, he took support from the churches through WWII, after which he repressed them again.

PBH wrote:

“Some nonconformists are too nonconformist.”

Truer words were never spoken Phil and you yourself are the prime example. There is a vast difference between becoming an expert in a field and then challenging the basic assumptions of that filed and being a self-proclaimed expert in another field and still presuming to know more than anyone else in a differnt field.

Now you want a reaction by reaction account of speciation or you refuse to accept that it could occur. You know full well that energy is not the issue. There is plenty of energy available to biological systems. Speciation in it’s simplest form only involves some form of reproductive isolation and divergence will automatically follow. Now, if you don’t believe that speciation can occur, how do you account for observed instances of speciation?

Oh well, at least he didn’t use the therm “entropy barrier” or try to claim that photons are processed by a magnetic field.

Philip Bruce Heywood:

But let me quote Oliver Cromwell. After finally getting his own personally trained army into action and terminating the English Civil War, in favour of democracy, Cromwell was faced with a parliament over-endowed with nonconformists. All on his side, all for democracy and the new order, all non conforming nonconformists.

In this context, all that “nonconformist” means is “not conforming to the rules of the English state religion c1630”. The most commonly repeated “fact” about the Commonwealth is that the “Puritans” abolished Christmas, and imposed vigorous penalties for anyone who dared to celebrate it, in nonconformance with their point of view.

The Common Descent Theory of evolution (other evolutionary theories exist and have existed in the past) has no measurable energy pathway to allow for the chemical processes. Unless it shows the energy pathways in terms of hard, cold, physical chemistry, it has no claim to being anything but imaginary. It has no right to say how a process occurred, if it cannot come up with the measurable, hence, possible, chain of events. Is what I am saying systematic science?

No. Your position can be demolished by a simple existence proof. Common Descent merely requires that there be an unbroken “begat” chain from the common ancestor to each of the descendents in question. The existence of maternity hospitals is sufficient to prove that there are no thermodynamic barriers in the “energy pathways”. Since evolution is merely about variations induced in the “begat” process, there can be no extra energy barrier.

PBH sez…

The peculiar evolutionary theory variously known as Darwinism, Neo-Darwinism, Common Descent Evolution, or whatever name it goes under…

Um, we call that particular theory “evolution”, pretty much what we’ve called it for about 120 years.

… contradicts the geologic record (there are clearly defined fossil species)…

Um, yeah, especially all those clearly defined transitional fossil species buried in the geological record; like Archaeopteryx, Tiktaalik, and, most tellingly, just about every hominid ever dug up.

(evolution) has no measurable energy pathway to allow for the chemical processes. Unless it shows the energy pathways in terms of hard, cold, physical chemistry, it has no claim to being anything but imaginary.

PBH, you’ve got me totally confused. I’ve been listening to creationist science parody for years and even with that, um ,background, I have absolutely no idea just what the hell kind of argument you’re attempting here.

Somebody help me with this - just what is the troll arguing about here?

Philip Bruce Heywood Wrote:

The Common Descent Theory of evolution (other evolutionary theories exist and have existed in the past) has no measurable energy pathway to allow for the chemical processes. Unless it shows the energy pathways in terms of hard, cold, physical chemistry, it has no claim to being anything but imaginary. It has no right to say how a process occurred, if it cannot come up with the measurable, hence, possible, chain of events. Is what I am saying systematic science? The answer to the conundrum is straightforward and becomes more so, every day.

And your pseudo-science that “superconduction” plus the “Sun-Earth-Moon gravitational system” imparts “information to DNA” which thereby “overcomes the entropy barrier” does this?

Nowhere in your pseudo-science do you elucidate the nature and mechanisms of superconductivity or what this has to do with anything. Nor do you show how your “theory” solves the “problems” of evolution.

You want details from scientists that you yourself refuse to provide in your own “theory”.

Here is further deconstruction of your pseudo-science on the other thread.

We suspect you are smoking crack and blowing smoke.

M. Elzinga, thanks for the talk-up of my stuff: you know why people were laughing at Copernicus and Kepler, don’t you? (Kepler even mentioned Space travel, back in the early-post medieval era.) Don’t be stupid, they said: what holds the planets in orbit? Show us what holds the planets in orbit!

You wouldn’t be suggesting that science has to wait for EVERY fact to be uncovered, before making an hypothesis?

Philip Bruce Heywood Wrote:

You wouldn’t be suggesting that science has to wait for EVERY fact to be uncovered, before making an hypothesis?

No, but we do expect that people who make hypotheses have a clear understanding of the basic science and are not making up and tossing around bullshit as science. Making up explanations to scientists about science you clearly don’t comprehend looks incredibly stupid and addled. Why do you persist? Are you no longer capable of learning?

I left you some references on the other thread.

Philip Bruce Heywood Wrote:

Designate anyone who takes the word of God seriously to a mental asylum.

No, PBH - only those who consider that the word of their god trumps reality as we find it.

Why do you have such a problem with reality being the way it is?

Philip Bruce Heywood Wrote:

I hadn’t encountered ‘Lysenkoism’ before and what Mark says about the science-personal power tie-up in the old USSR makes sense.

And yet you seemed quite happy to make pronouncements about “Darwinism” in Stalinist Russia:

PBH Wrote:

But it is noteworthy that an administration built on lies and persecution seems to have fully embraced atheistic Darwinism.

PBH, just go away and learn some biology before you make any more pronouncements. You really have not the slightest idea what you are talking about, and it shows very obviously to anyone who does know.

About this Entry

This page contains a single entry by Mark Perakh published on April 22, 2008 9:39 AM.

Who made the “Beware the Believers” video? was the previous entry in this blog.

Richard Dawkins: The cost of “Expelled” 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