Expelled: The first numbers are in

| 627 Comments | 1 TrackBack

expelled movie exposedThe first Box Office numbers are in. Expelled opened in 8th place with $1.2M in revenues in 1,052 theatres resulting in a $1,141 per theatre revenue. You do the math. At an average of 5 showings this makes $220 per showing or 30-40 people. Expelled ranks 4th in the list of “new releases”

While the weekend has just started the movie will have to do some hard work to match the expectations of the PR people:

“He said they would consider the opening weekend successful if the movie sold 2 million tickets (earning $12-15 million).”

[Update: Source: Brad in Stranger Fruit Comment section]

In context, Fahrenheit 9/11’s opening weekend grossed $23.9 million in 868 theatres grossing $27,558 per theatre and $8,565,000 on it’s first day

Remember that the movie is also heavily subsidized and Churches etc will receive large discounts.

On April 17, the following prediction was made

Nathan Frankowski’s Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed is a documentary being released on more than 1,000 screens by Christian-friendly Rocky Mountain Pictures. Those who have seen it categorize it as anti-Darwinism propaganda, featuring right wing commentator Ben Stein. I’m sure that there’s an audience out there somewhere for this type of doc, but there has been very little “intelligent design” involved in marketing the movie. With a Total Aware of only 19 percent and a First Choice score of just 2 percent, Expelled will manage only $1 million-$3 million this weekend, and it will have a difficult time holding on to those screens. It’s doomed to $5 million domestic in its theatrical engagements (survival of the fittest?), although a fair number of DVD copies may be sold in evangelical bookstores in the future.

We shall see. Typically Friday and Saturday match eachother in box office revenues and Sunday shows a drop. In case of “Expelled” Sunday should be a low if its audience maintains the Sunday as a day of ‘rest’. Will “Expelled” flunk its first weekend?

How is Expelled doing compared to “Sexpelled”, the latter one has received 73,945 views

Since the Discovery Institute “salutes “Expelled””, one may wonder if the Box Office success is “Intelligently Designed”

1 TrackBack

Expelled will finish fifth this weekend, according to my analysis of Yahoo’s Weekend Box Office Estimates, earning nearly $3000/ theater. Comparisons: Expelled earned over $1000 more per theater than the the sixth place film, Sony Picture’... Read More

627 Comments

Well, at least we can’t accuse the movie of “selling out”!

That was sarcasm, of course!

“Expelled” website mentions

“Big Science Academy” is proud to have the support of the “Mainstream Press” in stifling the rise of freedom of speech in our science classrooms. In so many ways, “Big Science” and “Big Media” are on exactly the same page, when it comes to making sure that dissenters and troublemakers are properly expelled.

Accusing the mainstream press of stifling the rise of freedom in our science classrooms may indicate that the press does not believe that there is a case to be made for such. Indeed, I doubt myself that on the facts, “Expelled” could make a convincing case either.

The movie so far is being “Expelled” by the Mainstream Press because it ‘sucks’. Simple as that really.

That is still a lot of people who are just a little bit more ignorant than they were on Thursday.

Oh, they’ll be crowing about a “Top 10 Movie” come Monday, no matter how high their expectations were.

Hey, thanks for the tip– I guess I should run to the theater now to grab a seat for this evening ( if they haven’t already sold out, that is).

So it figures to make $3M in its first weekend. The way I see it, that is a success. The important thing is not how much this movie makes in relation to others, but how much the investors gain or loose.

I read that it cost $3.5M to make. That means the investors will probably break even by the end of its theatrical run. Then all the DVD sales will be profit. And don’t forget that this will probably be released internationally in at least a few countries–Australia, Great Britain, and Turkey spring to mind.

It looks like the investors will make a profit or at least not lose much. Since they are motivated more by ideology than profit, I think they will consider it a success and be looking for ways to reproduce it.

I can see that they have already succeeded with one goal. People are now using the term “Darwinism” in place of “evolution.”

(Regarding the money they are paying schools to take their students: I imagine that the donors consider this a cost they are willing to bear to propagate their message, and will budget it separately from the profit and loss of the movie.)

You live in a town with small theatres I presume :-)

Karen:

Hey, thanks for the tip– I guess I should run to the theater now to grab a seat for this evening ( if they haven’t already sold out, that is).

So it figures to make $3M in its first weekend. The way I see it, that is a success. The important thing is not how much this movie makes in relation to others, but how much the investors gain or loose.

You have to deduct the sponsorship costs and then the costs of the lawsuits and awards :-)

People are now using the term “Darwinism” in place of “evolution.”

Not in science, unless one is specifically discussing Darwin’s original ideas. They have helped solidify “Darwinism” as a creationist buzzword - if you see an article where the term is used seriously, it’s a safe bet that it will be devoid of actual scientific viewpoints.

I read that it cost $3.5M to make. That means the investors will probably break even by the end of its theatrical run.

Not seeing how that works. They spent a huge amount on internet, TV, and radio advertising. My wild guess it was in the mid millions of USD.

Then the movie theater takes its cut along with the distributors and so on. Plus the lawyers and the lawsuits. If a movie makes 3 million opening week, the studio doesn’t get all of that 3 million. Someone more knowledgeable than me could figure out the break even point.

It doesn’t matter. This was a propaganda film and they could care less about making a profit. Some big Xian Dominionist money is behind this and they want to rule destroy the USA, not sell tickets to a film. Next stop, late night Trinity Broadcasting TV and free DVDs everywhere.

Rocky:

I can see that they have already succeeded with one goal. People are now using the term “Darwinism” in place of “evolution.”

Creos have been trying to push that term for years. The only people using that term will be the ones who have used it before. If that was a goal, chalk it up as another failure for the movie.

My favorite review so far is on Halfway There. One quote. After noting that the Peperdine “students” were actually extras hired by the film company, HT says

Near the end of the movie, Stein tells his Pepperdine audience that “There are people out there who want to keep science in a little box, where it can’t possibly touch a higher power, cannot possibly touch God.” Perhaps Stein has it backward. It is God that is in a little box, and the box gets smaller all the time. His god-of-the-gaps used to be required to push the planets about in their orbits, to make the rain fall, and the sun shine, but that was all once upon a time. Science has deprived this god of most of his once-vital functions. Science cannot possibly touch God? Sorry, Ben. There’s been a lot of touching going on. God has the bruises and the gap-toothed smile to show for it, too.

If anything could boomerang on someone, this movie might do it. Their messages are:

1. We’re twisted Xians. We lie a lot. Then we lie a lot more. We are completely dishonest and not very bright.

2. Destroy science. Science is evil. Kill Science, Kill, Kill, Kill.

3. When we lie our way into power and set up a theocracy, then we can head back to the Dark Ages.

This message will resonate with the Nihilistic moron segment of the population. The rest of us will keep our computers, cheap food, good medical care, rising living standards, freedoms, and leadership in science.

Near the end of last year I received a forwarded e mail from a Christian friend of mine asking me to boycott a movie called “The Golden Compass” (because an atheist wrote those books). Also to send the e mail on to anyone I knew with kids (I did not, of course - not because I cared what the fate of the movie was, but because I refuse to send out shit like that.) The e mail originated from the Catholic League.

Anyhow, on a whim, I just checked to see how well the movie did…

I read several reviews that referred to it as a Box Office Disaster

It grossed 25 mil opening weekend - shown in theaters for 91 days.

What’s worse than a disaster? Anyone? Anyone?

That’s still shamefully high turnout - especially considering how many True Believers saw it for free in the preview screenings. (How many would feel a need to see it again?)

IMDB presently shows 3.3, after 402 votes. (And amusingly, came up with a racy Pink Patch ad.)

The mentality of some of these people is shown by one of the IMDB comments, where one paranoid whiner seems to think that the total lack of positive reviews (as of yesterday) indicates the extent to which we’ve gone to suppress the truth. Apparently Darwin’s Ghost controls the media as well as the academy.

I didn’t expect it to actually arrive in theaters. They would have been better to cancel it after the previews, and claim that the Darwinian Establishment suppressed it.

Rocky:

The important thing is not how much this movie makes in relation to others, but how much the investors gain or loose.

Propaganda isn’t generally distributed in hopes of profit. These con men are miles ahead by getting anyone at all to pay for it.

Is it intact?

Does it still have the Harvard animation and the John Lennon lyrics?

People like Rocky can spin all the want, but that doesn’t change the bottom line, and that’s going to be substantially negative in every way you can analyze this. They obvious spent a small fortune on PR, far more than they did on the actual project (sort of like they do with science), so they are going to lose money.

As for propogating the message, show me one positive review of the movie that came from someone who wasn’t already on their side in the first place? I can’t find one. The only positive things written about the movie come from the DI themselves, and partisan hacks like Brent Bozell and Matt Barber. No one on the pro science side budged, and even potential allies like Foxnews and Utah newspapers panned the film. Now even more people are convinced the ID crowd is a bunch of liars.

Any way you slice it, it’s a flop. Deal.

I don’t think “Expelled” is doing well here in New York City. Today I stopped by one theater (one of two which are screening it, the other is a Times Square multiplex) which is screening only “Expelled” and was told that there were only 21 suckers willing to lose their money to Ben Stein for the 2:30 PM screening (At approximately $10 per ticket, that’s not a lot.).

And so the spin about persecution begins! These people are worse than X-Files fans. They seem to have a burning desire to be downtrodden - if they really have that much of a martyr complex, they should try Saudi Arabia. I hear Christians get all the persecution they could ever want there.

I’m just happy to see the numbers are so low. I was afraid there would be a mass mobilization to the theaters, but no. Not so much. This warms my heart.

My favorite review so far is on Halfway There.

Thanks for the kind words, RBH, but your link doesn’t work. Perhaps this one will:

[Link]

he e mail originated from the Catholic League.

http://www.catholicleague.org/

IIRC, this thing is pretty much just a one-man show.

R Ward - Based on what Abbie had on her blog, ERV, the copy of the Harvard video had been removed. It will be interesting to see if that is the case. From what people have said, Part of “Imagine” is still in the film.

I think the numbers are amusing, consider some people might not have had any idea what they were going to see. All they knew it was a Ben Stein movie. None of my neighbors have even heard about “Expelled”

Raven, it would be nice if the film had that affect. But the people who refuse to see through the tactics of the producers, will not accept any part of the movie as being false.

I am not sure how it is doing in Texas, there were only about 5 theaters in the entire Dallas-Fort Worth area showing it.

An astonishing low number, for an area with a population of 6.5 million.

Regarding what the movie maker makes.…

CNN Money says:

“Most of the money from ticket sales goes back to the movie studio. A film booker leases a movie to a particular theater for a set period of weeks. The percentage of ticket sales that the studio takes decreases on each week that a movie is in the theater. If the screening was arranged by an independent middleman, he also takes a slice. So the movie has to pull in sizeable audiences for several weeks in order for theater owners to make any serious profits.

During the film’s opening week, the studio might take 70 to 80 percent of gross box office sales. By the fifth or sixth week, the percentage the studio takes will likely shrink to about 35 percent, said Steven Krams, president of International Cinema Equipment Co.”

Most theaters make there money from concessions, not the movie itself. So most of that 1.2 million does go to to the studio.

Thanks JJ.

This actually makes a certain twisted kind of sense.

The filmmakers knew that they had stolen the Harvard video and they knew that anyone knowledgable in such matters would immediately recognize it. That is apparently why they were so desperate to prevent certain people from seeing the movie in prerelease form. Once PZ blew the whistle, they had no choice but to remove the offending footage, because they knew that they would be sued.

When someone pointed out at the last minute that they had also stolen the Imagine music, it was probably already too late to make a new version and distribute it before opening day. They were probably just hoping that ticket sales would be so low after all of the free showings that no one would bother to sue over that little gem.

The cost issues are unimportant compared to getting the message out there that they are being so censored that they couldn’t possibly make a movie for everyone to see. Oh yea, and they don’t have enough money to do any real research of their own.

I notice the Movie Review Query Engine has never heard of this movie. Strange - they usually find every the most minor or local releases…

Ham’s made an appeal on his blog today for Christians to go and see the film , along with a special offer of: incredibly low-priced value pack of Creator-affirming materials

http://blogs.answersingenesis.org/a[…]tion-museum/

SPECIAL EXPELLED OUTREACH OFFER

I trust you have seen Ben Stein’s new movie, Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed. If not, click here to find the nearest theater showing the movie. Then, take a friend (or better yet, a whole group of friends!) to watch then discuss it together over dessert! Do this as soon as possible to help ensure that this amazing, much-discredited (by evolutionists!) documentary stays in theaters as long as possible.

We urge you to use Expelled as a tool for outreach. We’ve agree that it will be a very popular “evolution-busting” tool to expose the lack of academic freedom in America’s schools today. Once you’ve seen Ben Stein you’ll want to equip yourself and help your friends. That’s why we’ve assembled an incredibly low-priced value pack of Creator-affirming materials shown above, plus you’ll even receive an exclusive coupon good for $5 off Expelled at AnswersBookstore.com as soon as the film is available to us on DVD!

This valuable action kit—with 2 of our top-selling books, 2 excellent DVDs, an 11×17 full-color poster, and the special edition issue of Answers magazine which includes an exposé of government education—plus our exclusive $5 savings coupon—is only $19.99! (that’s a $57 value, and it’s a limited-time offer specially designed to help you and your church to “get the word out” about the evolutionary stranglehold on education in today’s schools. The lie of evolution must be exposed! Order several kits now, while the fervor and interest created by Ben Stein and Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed is much in the news!)

Email this special offer to your pastor, youth pastor, friends and others. Click this link for the offer: http://www.answersingenesis.org/store/90-7-436

Let’s get the word out!

This kit includes;

Evolution Exposed – BOOK ($15.99) War of the Worldviews – BOOK ($12.99) Creation: Science Confirms the Bible is True – DVD ($12.99) Answers magazine 2.3 – MAGAZINE ($7.00) Artificial Authority – DVD ($12.99) Popular Origins Beliefs – POSTER ($1.99) Exposed DVD $5 OFF Coupon ($5.00)

($57 retail value / $19.99 special)

A MOST THOROUGH REVIEW

If you haven’t read AiG’s lead article for Friday reviewing the Expelled movie, I urge you to do that now: Dr. Dawkins, Tear down This Wall!

One of AiG’s supporters wrote:

I want to commend you for one of the most excellent reviews I’ve have EVER read, and this one pertaining to the film Expelled. It is one of the most thorough, well-written, concise, and objective reviews that would stand alone as completely acceptable as well as Christ-honoring pieces I have seen. Thank you. Well done, good and faithful servant of him

From my lmiited understanding about the film industry, the big money is in DVD sales. I can almost bet that the producers is going use a phrase like “MAJOR MOTION PICTURE” as a marketing tool to boost the sales.

Since DVD sales can last for years after the theater run ends, we’re not going to see the last of this by a long shot.

Since DVD sales can last for years after the theater run ends, we’re not going to see the last of this by a long shot.

DVD sales? Surely you jest. DVDs are cheap to make. They will be giving them away for years.

Steveroni,

I personally could give a flip whether you read the paper or not. My role is to give equal time to the arguments of evolanders who claim to explain the entire biological world yet can’t present a scintilla of evidence for either abiogenesis or the first replicator and claim that its LOGICAL to consider it unnecessary to explain such because of an arbitrary definitional line drawn to conveniently exclude these two critical events that are the pillars of such a train of thought.

Your and others continued intellectual dishonesty is appalling. The authors of that paper are incapable of “ignoring the natural evidence” and ID is absolutely dependent on all observations and only admits to an alternative interpretive construct devised under strictly scientific methods but open to, in the case of biologic life, intellectually inspired and enabled designs where the methodology so indicates under the laws of probability and statistics, etc.

Apparently, the trolls are touchy today.

But still no actual evidence, Kieth.

You can yammer all you want, but there is still nothing on the table from your team, other than “Gee whiz, this is just toooooo complicated to understand”. Hardly a persuasive argument, considering the demonstrable limits of ID “understanding”.

keith said: My role is to give equal time to the arguments of evolanders who claim to explain the entire biological world yet can’t present a scintilla of evidence for either abiogenesis or the first replicator and claim that its LOGICAL to consider it unnecessary to explain such because of an arbitrary definitional line drawn to conveniently exclude these two critical events that are the pillars of such a train of thought.

Not sure what “evolanders” is. But since this is a science blog: science in any area doesn’t claim to explain its entire field. “We don’t know” is a legible scientific answer.

As regards abiogenesis there are several hypotheses pursued, along with several methods of obtaining data. It is however by it’s nature different from, say, evolution.

Evolution logically doesn’t need to predict abiogenesis any more than a theory of gravity needs to predict sources of matter. That you continue to claim so is your continued intellectual dishonesty.

Obviously no such dishonesty is expected or found in science due to its open and fresh nature of competitive market of ideas. Compare that with creationist cults, with their pestilent swamp of ideas with 2 ky+ dead ideas as its origins.

Keith said:

My role is to give equal time to the arguments of evolanders who claim to explain the entire biological world yet can’t present a scintilla of evidence for either abiogenesis or the first replicator and claim that its LOGICAL to consider it unnecessary to explain such because of an arbitrary definitional line drawn to conveniently exclude these two critical events that are the pillars of such a train of thought.

All you do is reveal your ignorance (again) by making such statements. The line is not arbitrary, nor is it definitional. You are projecting again, since playing definitional games is what cranks do.

It’s the same sort of line that exists between the explanation of how a row of dominoes falls once one is falling, and the explanation of how the very first one fell. Evolution is, at a basic level, simply one huge chain reaction, so it should only take a moment’s reflection to understand why that which begins a chain reaction is likely to be very different from what sustains it, AND that the theory of how a chain reaction is sustained is not in any way dependent on how it got started in the first place.

Oh, and Expelled is really doing great, isn’t it? The day of reckoning and all that. BWAHAHAHAHAHA!

keith said:

Steveroni,

I personally could give a flip whether you read the paper or not. My role is to give equal time to the arguments of evolanders who claim to explain the entire biological world yet can’t present a scintilla of evidence for either abiogenesis or the first replicator and claim that its LOGICAL to consider it unnecessary to explain such because of an arbitrary definitional line drawn to conveniently exclude these two critical events that are the pillars of such a train of thought.

Your and others continued intellectual dishonesty is appalling. The authors of that paper are incapable of “ignoring the natural evidence” and ID is absolutely dependent on all observations and only admits to an alternative interpretive construct devised under strictly scientific methods but open to, in the case of biologic life, intellectually inspired and enabled designs where the methodology so indicates under the laws of probability and statistics, etc.

There is no theory of ID, Keith. That’s the bottom line. ID is an argument from ignorance, wrapped up in fancy language by dishonest theists.

Sorry to burst your bubble-gum, and all that.

It’s the same sort of line that exists between the explanation of how a row of dominoes falls once one is falling, and the explanation of how the very first one fell. Evolution is, at a basic level, simply one huge chain reaction, so it should only take a moment’s reflection to understand why that which begins a chain reaction is likely to be very different from what sustains it, AND that the theory of how a chain reaction is sustained is not in any way dependent on how it got started in the first place.

Permit me to disagree, or at least suggest that it would be helpful to be more specific. I should think it’s quite plausible that what matters is self-replicating molecules. Because once that process starts, it will soon encounter scarcities - of space, raw materials, or whatever. Scarcities in turn imply some level of selection. Even if every molecule starts out identical, errors in replication should be unavoidable, and *some* errors will be beneficial.

So what I’m arguing is that evolution is a feedback process that doesn’t necessarily require “life” as we know it, it only requires imperfect replication, the ability to inherit replication errors, and at least one scarce resource. And these minimum requirements can be met LONG before the eventual outcome of a living cell.

As for how the first domino fell, analogous to the first self-replicating molecule, this seems to lie in the realm of organic chemistry.

I think Keith is essentially accurate in saying that we don’t know exactly what path this pre-life feedback process took, and also correct in implying that it was nonetheless a basically evolutionary process. Where Kieth errs is in trying to argue that because we don’t know, “goddidit” becomes a suitable way to fill this gap in our knowledge. But of course, Kieth did not conclude that a magical invisible all-powerful nonexistent Great Juju must have dunnit; he assumes this, and then searches for gaps in our knowledge to stick his faith. He has cause to be nervous: biogenesis research is both active and productive; pretty soon this gap will close. Then magical POOF will have to relocate over to magical floods, where the evidence is genuine and must be denied directly.

Hi there Keith!

You’ve not been around for a while. Have you been applying your intellect to the question people have repeatedly asked but that so far you have been unable to answer? What is your explanation for the tremendous variety of life we see on earth?

There is no magic poof involved in my post. It’s called being open to a non-materialist explanation for the origin of life and its diversity through the full force of all scientific inquiry including the paradigm of ID which does exist, has been illuminated, and contains techniques and approaches toward detecting design already in existence in forensics, pattern recognition, and such.

The arguments of wait until next year, we’re almost there, etc. have been coming out for 75 years without a single result of consequence.

The thing that puzzles me is that I don’t see ID as replacing evolution but rather modifying its reach and method.

The work of Shapiro and his many peers on the leading edge of studying the genome and the cell in great detail in the bacteriological level have demonstrated abilities to effect rapid, significant, functional change that virtually ignores RM and NS and is effected by genetic engineering, mobile elements, sensory driven reconstruction of the entire genomic and cellular apparatus. It is a view dominated by information systems of a most sophisticated nature and the full range of capabilities exposed when coupled with the manufacturing and quality control aspects of the DNA and cellular apparatus.

Since bacteria are plausibly the most primitive and earliest life forms we have significant data on and about it seems these capabilities could have been built into the first life by intelligent design.

It must be stressed that your insults have absolutely zero impact on me as the weakness of your dogmatic and unsupported position is simply laughable.

There is no magic poof involved in my post. It’s called being open to a non-materialist explanation for the origin of life and its diversity through the full force of all scientific inquiry including the paradigm of ID which does exist, has been illuminated, and contains techniques and approaches toward detecting design already in existence in forensics, pattern recognition, and such.

And the “non-materialist explanation” is? If design has been detected, it got in there by means of? Do you have any suggestions other than POOF?

The thing that puzzles me is that I don’t see ID as replacing evolution but rather modifying its reach and method.

But since the “reach and method” consist of forming hypotheses based on evidence, deriving tests, and verifying hypothesis with more evidence, what modification would you suggest? So far, ID has suggested NO methods. On the stand, Behe testified that the “mechanism” for design was, well, just LOOK. It’s obviously designed. Therefore it’s designed! So the modification seems to consist solely of Making Stuff Up to fit a priori preference. Can you offer anything better than Behe?

Since bacteria are plausibly the most primitive and earliest life forms

According to whom, and on what basis? Bacteria have been evolving as long as any other organisms.

it seems these capabilities could have been built into the first life by intelligent design.

Well, to some it seems that way, and to others it does NOT seem that way. Now, how is this conflict to be resolved? Through scientific inquiry, or through “non-materialist explanations”? So far, materialist explanations seem to do a very good job of both explaining and predicting. If you have something that does better, please tell someone.

It must be stressed that your insults have absolutely zero impact on me as the weakness of your dogmatic and unsupported position is simply laughable.

You will make few converts by supporting your preferences with lies, unfortunately. My position, like that of anyone who bases tentative conclusions on the best-fit to available evidence, is neither unsupported nor dogmatic. The evidence is both vast and consistent. And it doesn’t go away, no matter how desperately you dislike it or wish some “ID scientist” could replicate the Designer in the lab.

At the risk of being “off topic”, I just checked the Box Office returns through Tuesday.

Expelled has made $5,617,447 in 12 days out. It is ranked as 11th. Of the 10 films ranked ahead, only one, Deception, has grossed less, but has been out less than half the number of days of Expelled.

Again, I realize that mere money is not the important point, but the number of people seeing the film is the point. In this, you have to conclude that Expelled is a failure and up to this point won’t accomplish the tremendous societal effects predicted by its supporters.

dpr

Kieth- there’s a very easy way to shut up all the “evolanders.” All it requires is a simple two step process:

Step 1- Describe an actual ID hypothesis.

Step 2- Describe how this hypothesis could be tested by the scientific method.

Until someone- ANYONE- in the ID movement comes up with a way to do this, ID will continue to be ridiculed as what it is- just so much rhetorical hot air.

So here and now Keith, take your shot at immortality. Do what Behe, Dembski, and all the rest have been unable to do. Bring ID into the realm of science. Give us a hypothesis, and a test. Come on, do it. Just one.

keith said: There is no magic poof involved in my post.

Of course there is, that is the whole point of a creationist designer. Else a designer naturally needs its designer and so on ad infinitum.

keith said: the paradigm of ID which does exist, has been illuminated, and contains techniques and approaches toward detecting design already in existence in forensics, pattern recognition, and such.

Sciences researching design are based on an observable definition of their designers. For example, forensics predicts human agents with motives, means and opportunities.

No such description exist for an ID, on account that the scammers don’t want a testable theory.

keith said: The arguments of wait until next year, we’re almost there, etc. have been coming out for 75 years without a single result of consequence.

Wrong. Creationism have been “coming out” for over 2000 years old without a single “result”.

keith said: have demonstrated abilities to effect rapid, significant, functional change that virtually ignores RM and NS

Those abilities are hereditary, thus acquired by evolution. What is your point?

keith said: Since bacteria are plausibly the most primitive and earliest life forms we have significant data on and about it seems these capabilities could have been built into the first life by intelligent design.

Some recent papers suggests that Archaea is the ancestral form, and that bacterias are derived simplified forms.

In any case, there is scant data on the earliest life forms. Other papers suggest some Virus are ancient as well, with capabilities that differs drastically from cellular life forms.

keith said: the weakness of your dogmatic and unsupported position is simply laughable.

Unfortunately for you most people know that sciences are neither dogmatic nor unsupported, which means your claim isn’t even weak, it is non-existent. You are the laughing stock of blogs - and because of this, as PvM uses to say, you are very valuable for the science side.

Well it has taken me a few days to read the 21 pages of posts and I’ve seen the same creationist crap and have been thinking that I need to make some analogies to help the lurkers, because it is useless to try to educate the trolls.

I have seen many good analogies on why evolution does not have to explain abiogenesis to work. The analogy of weathermen not having to know how the atmosphere formed is a good one. On the complaint that you can extrapolate evolution back to pre-biotic chemistry is irrelevant. The domino analogy is also great. The falling of the dominos is independent of the first one falling though they may share the same effects, ie a strong breeze that blows over the first one may still slightly effect the falling of all the others…but the falling of all the dominos is not dependant on it.

I laugh at creationist when they get into useless techno babble. I thought the whole thermodynamics argument was put to rest but we have creationist that try to chime in with big words that they either don’t understand or wilfully ignore the real world situations with. Another tried and true tactic is to scream “No evidence has ever been presented…”, let me use the exact quote “yet can’t present a scintilla of evidence for either abiogenesis or the first replicator” shows the creationist wilful ignorance/out right lying. In the great words of Rev Dr Lenny Flank “You are a liar. A bare, bald-faced, deceptive, deceitful, deliberate liar, with malice aforethought.”

You rely on other creationists and lurkers to take your word for it and not actually follow any of the links provided by others here that shows the work being done in the field of abiogenesis.

Will we ever know what the first replicators where? No. Will we ever have a plausible model that can be demonstrated on what they first replicators might have been? I believe yes and we are making good progress in this field. Even if we figure out a way to get a form of “life” to form it doesn’t mean this is the way it happened. There are multiple paths that early life probably took. We’ll probably never know what happened here on earth exactly but we can get a good idea of what happened.

Yelling at the top of your lungs that there is no evidence does not make the evidence go away. It only makes the educated people know you are a stupid immature individual. While it might attract other ignorant people, wilful or not, to you it doesn’t change the fact that you are only a group of ignorant people.

In the end it doesn’t matter if this movie makes 50 million dollars. Complaints here shouldn’t care much about this movie making money. The movie will fail no mater how many people go see it as long as enough of those people understand that the whole movie is nothing but trash propaganda.

It’s real simple Keith. If you want your pet idea considered as science, present a positive, testable ID hypothesis and the means whereby it might, even in principle, be tested and falsified. If you can’t or don’t want to, your idea isn’t science. That is fine; think whatever you want, just don’t try to convince people it’s science.

As it is, your side is like a winless little league baseball team trying to convince everyone that you should be considered the football World Cup champions because the Italian team has never scored a single touchdown. You’re not trying to play the sport, your arguments reveal that you don’t know how it is really played, and your on-field performance at the sport you actually do play (religious apologetics) pretty much sucks. Please, stick to baseball.

Flint wrote:

Bacteria have been evolving as long as any other organisms.

While your statement is true in terms of time, it’s false in terms of generations, which is the fundamental chronometer of evolutionary change. Since most bacteria reproduce multiple times a day, one could say that bacteria have undergone far more evolution than most other oganisms on the planet.

Since most bacteria reproduce multiple times a day, one could say that bacteria have undergone far more evolution than most other oganisms on the planet.

A good point. If we wanted to know what the earliest and most primitive organisms looked like, we’d probably want to find the path with the minimum number of generations. Certainly humans would come closer than bacteria!

Since most bacteria reproduce multiple times a day, one could say that bacteria have undergone far more evolution than most other oganisms on the planet.

A good point. If we wanted to know what the earliest and most primitive organisms looked like, we’d probably want to find the path with the minimum number of generations. Certainly humans would come closer than bacteria!

we’d probably want to find the path with the minimum number of generations.

Our ancestors looked like bristle cone pines?

That would explain why I’ve always been fond of squirrels.

The problem is that there is no theory of ID and that any request for a detailed description of how ID explains something is considered to be a ‘pathetic’ request.

The conclusion is simple: ID is and remains a scientifically vacuous concept. That so many Christians are misled to believe otherwise is tragic as they end up looking foolish.

Boo said:

Kieth- there’s a very easy way to shut up all the “evolanders.” All it requires is a simple two step process:

Step 1- Describe an actual ID hypothesis.

Step 2- Describe how this hypothesis could be tested by the scientific method.

Until someone- ANYONE- in the ID movement comes up with a way to do this, ID will continue to be ridiculed as what it is- just so much rhetorical hot air.

So here and now Keith, take your shot at immortality. Do what Behe, Dembski, and all the rest have been unable to do. Bring ID into the realm of science. Give us a hypothesis, and a test. Come on, do it. Just one.

stevaroni said: Our ancestors looked like bristle cone pines?

It is with some satisfaction that I note that this year the prize for the oldest living organism has been taken back by the Old World - research has been released on a 9,550 years old spruce in Sweden where the root maintains new stems. Even the next to oldest spruces found were older than the US “Methuselah” bristle cone pine at around 5-6 ky.

You can argue how different this is from clonal organisms IMHO. But the good thing is that spruces are great habitats for squirrels too.

Btw, I may have passed them when I back packed in Fulu fjället where I believe they found them. It’s the solitary remains of an old volcanic core, flat, dry and mostly non forested, considered to be Sweden’s southern most fjäll (mountain reaching above the tree line). Or used to be considered such as the AGW means a lot of real estate is currently becoming forested and IIRC Fulu fjället barely made it over the tree line earlier.

Speaking of clonal organisms, considering their ages it really should be “oldest living individual” above.

There are some funguses found in Michigan that appear to be essentially immortal, challenging the definition of what it means to be “an individual”. These have been genetic individuals (clones) since forever. They weigh many tons and cover acres. Certainly they are alive. Are they organisms? Not exactly. Well, are they colonies? Well, not exactly. Things be different in the fungus world, see.

Just saw excerpts from an interesting film on the subject that quoted Einstein, a physicist, Rabbi’s, a reverend, a Muslim group, Hindus, and personal experience. Some was about creationism and evolution not being mutually exclusive. http://www.vesselfilms.us/whatmean.htm

PvM said:

The problem is that there is no theory of ID and that any request for a detailed description of how ID explains something is considered to be a ‘pathetic’ request.

The conclusion is simple: ID is and remains a scientifically vacuous concept. That so many Christians are misled to believe otherwise is tragic as they end up looking foolish.

Don’t you need hypotheses before you come up with a theory? Forgive my possible ignorance of the process, I’m a social worker.

Maybe someone should do a science version of that old schoolhouse rock “How a Bill Becomes a Law” song explaining the relationship between facts, hypotheses, theories, and laws.

Don’t you need hypotheses before you come up with a theory?

Boo, at this point, I’d settle for two clear, concise sentences that start with “Intelligent Design says.…” and “The supporting evidence should be found.…. “.

I suspect that I’ll be waiting a long time before I get my “pathetic level of sentences.”

Again, to return to the topic, I see that Expelled is only showing in 6 theaters in my area, down from 8. Also, while last week it was being shown 5-6 times a day, it is now being shown no more than 3 times a day, except for one theater that is showing 6 times.

My guess is that it’ll be down to 1-2 theaters next week, and then relegated to “dollar theaters” thereafter.

dpr

Expelled theatre counts (according to BoxOfficMojo) are now down to 402 (-254 on last week). With takings around the $110 mark per screen, I’d doubt that it’s going to be around for to much longer … except on DVD that is, unfortunately.

About this Entry

This page contains a single entry by PvM published on April 19, 2008 2:25 PM.

Expelled in context at Rotten Tomatoes was the previous entry in this blog.

Who made the “Beware the Believers” video? 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