Time Magazine Reviews ‘Expelled’

| 43 Comments

expelled movie exposedTime Magazine’s Jeffrey Kluger critically reviews ‘Expelled’

I love the following ‘gap’ argument rebuttal

More dishonestly, Stein employs the common dodge of enumerating all the admittedly unanswered questions in evolutionary theory and using this to refute the whole idea. But all scientific knowledge is built this way. A fishnet is made up of a lot more holes than strings, but you can’t therefore argue that the net doesn’t exist. Just ask the fish.

43 Comments

“Expelled” has a significant advertising budget, but no reviews listed at rottentomatoes.

The film was not submitted for review, as noted at Pharyngula and at Darwincentral.

The fishnet analogy is good one!

But in fairness, we need to consider the last paragraph of the review. We can take the high road, can’t we? Let’s not let fundamentalism define faith.

Stein was on the Today show Saturday a.m. First the announcer asked his opinion of the economy, since he’s a well known economist.

Stein thinks scientist should keep an open mind on evolution, is not that sensible?

His opinion of the economy? It’s fine. I’m sure you’re relieved.

I’m please to see that the movie Expelled! is getting negative reviews in the mainstream press, but I fear that it may be irrelevent. The core demographic for this movie is conservative christians, who despise the the “liberal” media, so I don’t know if they will have any effect on the number of people who see or are influenced the film. In fact, the negative reviews from mainstream critics could have a negative effect, i.e. conservative christians could think, “Ah, if the ‘liberal’ media doesn’t like it, then it must be good!”

I’m not sure there’s anything we can do about propaganda marketed to the faithful. Creos will lie to their flocks, and the flocks will lap it up, no surprises or recourse there. The problem with “Expelled” is that it’s being deceptively marketed to the mainstream. I’m starting to see an ad for it running on the History channel, and that doesn’t really look like what the movie’s said to be really like. The only questions are, how many people will be duped into seeing it and disappointed, and how many will be duped into seeing it and sucked in?

Last paragraph reads

In fairness to Stein, his opponents have hardly covered themselves in glory. Evolutionary biologists and social commentators have lately taken to answering the claims of intelligent-design boosters not with clear-eyed scientific empiricism but with sneering, finger-in-the-eye atheism. Biologist P.Z. Myers, for example, tells Stein that religion ought to be seen as little more than a soothing pastime, a bit like knitting. Books such as Christopher Hitchens’ God Is Not Great and Richard Dawkins’ The God Delusion often read like pure taunting, as when Hitchens pettily and pointedly types God as lowercase god. Tautology as typography is not the stuff of deep thought. Neither, alas, is Expelled.

I find some validity in the paragraph but I object to the statement that evolutionary biologists etc have not taken to answering the claims of ID boosters with scientific empiricism. Sure, some have in addition chosen to ‘taunt’ ID who refuses to identify its ‘designer (wink wink)’.

rditmars:

The fishnet analogy is good one!

But in fairness, we need to consider the last paragraph of the review. We can take the high road, can’t we? Let’s not let fundamentalism define faith.

“In fairness to Stein, his opponents have hardly covered themselves in glory. Evolutionary biologists and social commentators have lately taken to answering the claims of intelligent-design boosters not with clear-eyed scientific empiricism but with sneering, finger-in-the-eye atheism. Biologist P.Z. Myers”

Myers’ rudeness has almost single handedly saved the movie from being a complete waste of the reviewer’s time. Just trying to look on the good side.

Myers’ rudeness has almost single handedly saved the movie from being a complete waste of the reviewer’s time. Just trying to look on the good side.

Myers can be hilarious and his articles are of high quality and yes he is ‘in your face’ when it comes to religious thought. Somehow I can handle PZ much better than the dishonesty of fellow Christians.

Expelled seems to have a huge advertising budget. I’m seeing ads for it all over the net, google, yahoo etc..People report a lot of ads on TV.

Advertising isn’t cheap, there is some big money behind this film. I doubt it will make much money. Doesn’t look like they care in the least either.

A convincing sign that this is just a propaganda film. Probably makes Coral Ridge’s From Darwin to Hitler look tame. And will suffer the same fate, being shown late at night on Xian Trinity Broadcasting Network TV.

Not even going to see it for free. The message is:

science=evolution=atheism=mass murder. Can read that on the net every day whether one wants to or not.

If Premise is banking on a ‘Passion’ type success - i.e. box office success without no reviews - they missed the important element. BLOOD. ‘Passion’ had buckets, pools, lakes of it. It was a brutal, bloody, violent film from start to finish**

Whether you enjoy it or not, seeing a man brutalized and beaten to a bloody pulp has a certain fascination. And there is a large segment of the population very willing to spend money to witness it. While Ben Stein will beat your brain with a liquorish whip, he has no equivalent fascination. I can’t help but look at a train wreck, I can easily not look at Stein.

Perhaps if Stein has shown Gonzalez being beaten to a bloody pulp by his tenure review committee there might have been a film to watch. It would have been just as factual too.

** Or so I’m told. I refuse to watch the entire film, although I have watched enough clips to get the gist.

“Stein nominally set out to make the case that academics who write about evolution are being muzzled or denied tenure if they so much as nod in the direction of intelligent design. It’s impossible to know from the handful of examples he cites how widespread the problem is, but if there’s anything to it at all, it’s a matter well worth exposing.”

One of the DI’s strong selling (propaganda) points is the academic muzzling of “free speech.” How widespread is the problem? That’s what people can easily focus on and identify with. Gosh, who would object to free speech and teach the controversy, however contrived and set up by the DI folks. That’s were the rub will come in, as in Florida and other states. But it’s clear even the Time reviewer has not made an effort to investigate the DI’s false claims, and that will be true for the majority of people who see this debacle, and so they tacitly if not fully accept the DI’s false claims.

. But it’s clear even the Time reviewer has not made an effort to investigate the DI’s false claims, and that will be true for the majority of people who see this debacle, and so they tacitly if not fully accept the DI’s false claims.

Thus the need for ExpelledExposed.com, coming to your neighbourhood soon.

One obstacle to public understanding of evolution is the inherent broadness of the subject. The average laymen probably doesn’t get how the major conclusions can be so firmly established when so many details are unknown.

What makes matters worse is when somebody offers speculative answers to difficult questions, like the origin of life. The proper answer should be “we don’t know, but that doesn’t affect other conclusions, like common ancestry”

“Somehow I can handle PZ much better than the dishonesty of fellow Christians.”

Agreed! But I’m not concerned about myself. A public education campaign supported by the scientific community has become necessary, (the courts can not be counted on for long) and an “in your face”, or, more precisely, “a finger in your eye”, teaching style isn’t going to produce success. Forget Myers. He’s made himself an archetype. He’s only useful now as an example to the rest of us of what not to do.

Books such as Christopher Hitchens’ God Is Not Great and Richard Dawkins’ The God Delusion often read like pure taunting, as when Hitchens pettily and pointedly types God as lowercase god.

Not really a fair criticism. Neither of those books is a biology book and Hitchens isn’t even a biologist. Dawkins has obviously written a number of books that deal only with the science behind evolution. I suspect the vast majority of books on evolution aren’t pushing atheism.

Forget Myers. He’s made himself an archetype. He’s only useful now as an example to the rest of us of what not to do.

Not buying that. Creationists, Xian fundies, Death Cultists have made more atheists and atheist supporters than Dawkins, Myers, et al.. ever did. By several orders of magnitude.

A lot of the creationist push is just political. Stein and Coulter are oblivious to the science because they flat out don’t care. The DI isn’t the least bit scientific. They aren’t all that religious either. The ruling classes are just using the fundies for their own ends.

I’ve no doubt that the fundies will do some serious damage to the Xian religion. Already seeing it. Attacking science, the basis of our civilization and the reason the US is the last (fading) superpower was a mistake. Even the moderate Xians are starting to wake up and realize that.

At some point, any fundies serious about their religion (there are a few but how many?) are going to have to deal with how counterproductive their recent attacks on science, our society, and their own religion have been.

” I suspect the vast majority of books on evolution aren’t pushing atheism.”

Irrelevant. Dawkins has made himself a prominent spokesman for the entire scientific communities’ work. His framing (yes, framing) of science as being linked to atheism has greatly increased the problem of the majority of the population accepting “alternatives” as legitimate science. His framing is unnecessary, unhelpful to education, and not altogether truthful.

Mike said:

being linked to atheism has greatly increased the problem of the majority of the population

That’s speculation only. I could make an argument that he could make the job of other educators easier: Dawkins creates a high level of cognitive dissonance in listeners, implying that the choice is atheism and evolution vs God and creationism, but other biologists, such as Ken Miller, offer a compromise, accepting evolution and keeping God.

Good cop, bad cop sort of thing.

“Good cop, bad cop sort of thing.”

Bad pedagogy. Reminds me of “teach the controversy”. The students will “critically analyze it” and come to the correct answer. Biology just has to be taken back from the culture war.

Bad pedagogy. Reminds me of “teach the controversy”. The students will “critically analyze it” and come to the correct answer. Biology just has to be taken back from the culture war.

Still speculation. Opinion without data.

DavidK:

“Stein nominally set out to make the case that academics who write about evolution are being muzzled or denied tenure if they so much as nod in the direction of intelligent design. It’s impossible to know from the handful of examples he cites how widespread the problem is, but if there’s anything to it at all, it’s a matter well worth exposing.”

One of the DI’s strong selling (propaganda) points is the academic muzzling of “free speech.” How widespread is the problem? That’s what people can easily focus on and identify with. Gosh, who would object to free speech and teach the controversy, however contrived and set up by the DI folks. That’s were the rub will come in, as in Florida and other states. But it’s clear even the Time reviewer has not made an effort to investigate the DI’s false claims, and that will be true for the majority of people who see this debacle, and so they tacitly if not fully accept the DI’s false claims.

Some media sources are biased towards uncritically accepting the story of the little guy who is oppressed by the establishment. If only they would actually DO THE STORY. That is what could burst the balloon of this ID film.

Coulter, Stein, Dembski, etc. have all latched on to a sweet gravy train. As with all Republicanites, it’s all about the money, all the time.

People recognise and are comfortable with familar narratives behind day to day life. So the story of the “little good guy vs the big evil guys who try to silence him” gives people a hook to base their understanding on.

The “rational good guys dealing firmly with a village idiot” - not a narrative embedded in peoples’ psyches, and so not useful for refuting Expelled. On the other hand “Villagers beset by bandits call in the magnificent seven expert gunfighters” made the Dover trial understandable.

I guess we need a better narrative for refuting Expelled…

It’s impossible to know from the handful of examples he cites how widespread the problem is, but if there’s anything to it at all, it’s a matter well worth exposing

But wait a minute. That handful of examples is RIGHT THERE for any reporter worthy of the title to spend maybe 10 minutes each checking out and finding that the film has misrepresented the truth in every single mentioned case. Another 15 minutes of effort will reveal that the “problem” is no more widespread than the handful of of examples the film misrepresents.

How much better might the review be if, instead of this “impossible to know” crap, there was a simple statement that Stein’s propaganda machine has found the only three cases worth misrepresenting, none of which on examination in fact IS a case of religious discrimination after all?

Anyone who relies on “Time” for information of any kind, on any subject, is a person whose knowledge on that subject is casually shallow and whose critical skills are non-existent. It isn’t even interesting as dishonesty propaganda.

In other words, you have nothing to say in defense of ‘Expelled’ and have chosen that ‘ad hominem’ approach.

No wonder ID remains scientifically vacuous

Tupelo:

Anyone who relies on “Time” for information of any kind, on any subject, is a person whose knowledge on that subject is casually shallow and whose critical skills are non-existent. It isn’t even interesting as dishonesty propaganda.

Quidam:

If Premise is banking on a ‘Passion’ type success - i.e. box office success without no reviews - they missed the important element. BLOOD. ‘Passion’ had buckets, pools, lakes of it. It was a brutal, bloody, violent film from start to finish**

Whether you enjoy it or not, seeing a man brutalized and beaten to a bloody pulp has a certain fascination. And there is a large segment of the population very willing to spend money to witness it. While Ben Stein will beat your brain with a liquorish whip, he has no equivalent fascination. I can’t help but look at a train wreck, I can easily not look at Stein.

Perhaps if Stein has shown Gonzalez being beaten to a bloody pulp by his tenure review committee there might have been a film to watch. It would have been just as factual too.

** Or so I’m told. I refuse to watch the entire film, although I have watched enough clips to get the gist.

Makes one wonder how many closet sadists there are in the conservative fundy ‘flock’.

Mike said:

A public education campaign supported by the scientific community has become necessary, (the courts can not be counted on for long) and an “in your face”, or, more precisely, “a finger in your eye”, teaching style isn’t going to produce success. Forget Myers. He’s made himself an archetype. He’s only useful now as an example to the rest of us of what not to do.

While I would agree that good science needs a much more prominent role in the public discourse, and that a “finger in your eye” approach is certainly not likely to achieve that for a great many people, you completely ignore several very important points, possibly blinded by your apparent dislike of PZ Myers, et al. PZ’s blog is not a teaching resource - it’s a blog, where he can express himself in whichever way he wishes to. Perhaps you would like to ask his students - both religious and not - what he is like as a teacher and a person, before you pass such a judgment? Certainly his science posts on his blog are among the best, anywhere.

The thing that always makes me smile when I read things like this, is that PZ’s blog has had over 25 million hits. However you look at it, PZ is Über-successful at what he does, and he is often mis-characterized, even if he doesn’t hold back where religion is concerned. He actually comes across to those who have met him (including people who don’t like what he has to say), as well as those who have frequented his site for a period of time, as a passionate defender of science and an all-round decent guy.

It’s amazing how so many people, after 2000 years of exclusive dominance by religion, can find it so offensive that more than 1 billion people in the world now have a few places that actually cater for their metaphysical beliefs. I would freely admit that, at times, things are said that I simply don’t agree with. I am not a particularly fierce critic of religion, but then, I appreciate that the world is a diverse place. I appreciate people like Ken Miller, PvM, James F.McGrath, Scott Hatfield, Ian Ramjohn, and many others - religious believers who defend science with gusto. For me at least, they are a both an inspiration, as well as a helpful reminder that religion, practiced in a way that values truth, can be a force for good, and I am happy that they are on my side. But that doesn’t mean that I shouldn’t be free to criticize. I would hope that they would all feel the same way, too. I value the individual, even if I disagree with some of their stances.

Mike said:

Dawkins has made himself a prominent spokesman for the entire scientific communities’ work. His framing (yes, framing) of science as being linked to atheism has greatly increased the problem of the majority of the population accepting “alternatives” as legitimate science. His framing is unnecessary, unhelpful to education, and not altogether truthful.

Dawkins hasn’t made himself a spokesperson for science, at all. I’d love to see the application for that. Granted, it is possible that some people see it that way, and perhaps a case could be made that there is an extra responsibility that comes with being well known, but that hasn’t prevented people like Ken Miller and Francis Collins producing books about biology and its implications for religious belief. Nor should it, might I add.

Let us not forget that the only reason that the likes of PZ and Dawkins are criticized is because there are so many people who either can’t understand the difference between a personal opinion and scientific evidence, or who actively abuse the personal opinions of others for their own gain. If I am honest, I’m fed up of the idea that everything has to appeal to the lowest common denominator - the least intelligent, the youngest, the most sensitive, etc, etc. I have no problem with attempting to cater for all people, but that also includes people like me. I don’t need anyone to hold my hand, thank you very much. I’m not in the least offended by Ken Miller discussing evolution and God, even if I disagree with some of the substance. We should be trying to foster a respect for robust discourse, as well as catering for people who seem to be offended by almost anything. I don’t want to live in a world where all that you have to do is claim that you are offended to get your own way. That is known as manipulation, and it is far too easy to be successful at it in the United States.

And thanks for considering the however many million non-believers, particularly in the US, who agree with many of Dawkins’ positions. I have lost count of the amount of people that I have come across that have spent up to 50 years of their life not being who they really are for fear of repercussions (upsetting family, friends, etc). I agree that linking science to atheism isn’t helpful in some contexts, or something that can be shown to be true, but as I have already mentioned, this is certainly not a one-way street, and it’s rather selfish to praise those who talk about science and God, and then chastise those who do the same but from another perspective, particularly in a country that is saturated by religion, in many areas.

I’ve also noticed that many of the people who criticize the likes of PZ and Dawkins also say things that are equally as offensive to (some) religious people. I just don’t think that they realize it.

With most IDers it’s not about money. In my case, I simply prefer to have science return to an open inquiry, freedom of speech, free marketplace of ideas construct integrated with ethics and philosophy so the how is balanced with the why, etc. as in the 2000 years preceeding Darwin.

Of course if after Expelled the majority of the quislings posting as evos under TO, PT, and pee wee’s site were accidently attacked by swarms of rabid tetse flys or trampled by hords of turd eating feral pigs, that would be a bonus and speed the desired process.

I plan to launch a campaign to get President Bush to award Ben Stein the Presidential Metal of Freedom before he leaves office. I urge all of the sane people to join this worthwhile effort to honor one of America’s great heros, thinkers, patriots, and the friend of truth loving people everywhere.

Keith Eaton Wrote:

I plan to launch a campaign to get President Bush to award Ben Stein the Presidential Metal of Freedom before he leaves office. I urge all of the sane people to join this worthwhile effort to honor one of America’s great heros, thinkers, patriots, and the friend of truth loving people everywhere.

Your are funny… Metal of Freedom indeed. And what or who are ‘heros’?

Surely you need to include ‘friends of spelling reform’ as part of your requirements…

ROTFL

C3PO is made of medal … or is it meddle … Gee I have no functioning brain cells! It must have been those whoreds of ceecee flye’s.

keith:

Of course if after Expelled the majority of IDiot quislings posting as nice smelling farts were accidently attacked by swarms of rabid tetse flys or trampled by hords of turd eating feral pigs, that would be a bonus and speed the desired process.

Anyone who relies on “Time” for information of any kind, on any subject, is a person whose knowledge on that subject is casually shallow and whose critical skills are non-existent. It isn’t even interesting as dishonesty propaganda.

I count over a dozen threads on PT about “Expelled” in just the last month or so, plus several others prior to that.

I don’t think anybody is relying on any one review for their information, or any one magazine, either.

Henry

One obstacle to public understanding of evolution is the inherent broadness of the subject. The average laymen probably doesn’t get how the major conclusions can be so firmly established when so many details are unknown.

Perhaps if one starts by describing overall patterns*, and conclusions derived from them, rather than going straight to specific examples of the evidence. After all, one piece of evidence, no matter how dramatic, does no by itself prove anything except its own existence.

*Some of the relevant patterns:

nested hierarchies;

lots of later species being but slightly different than some earlier species, which is slightly different than a still earlier species, etc., thus forming a series;

lots of cases in which the series mentioned above converge on the same predecessor as one traces them back in time;

geographic grouping of close relatives, especially among species that aren’t particularly mobile;

general lack of copying of specific details between distantly related species by other than inheritance from their common predecessor;

lack of convergence of non-adaptive traits in evolving species of distantly related groups (adaptive traits sometimes converge in species with similar needs, such as dolphins evolving fish-like shapes);

general agreement of nested hierarchies constructed from different types of data (fossil series, anatomical comparisons, DNA comparisons);

presence of a huge amount of neutral or near-neutral genetic differences among species;

lack of any described mechanism that would unilaterally prevent selection from occuring on variations caused by mutations and recombinations, or that would put some upper limit on accumulated change less than the diversity observed in nature today (note: an upper limit beyond that wouldn’t be an argument against the current theory);

apparent lack (in most cases) of any sharp boundary between closely related species (an exception to this would be successful hybrid species);

Henry

keith spewed:

I plan to launch a campaign to get President Bush to award Ben Stein the Presidential Metal of Freedom before he leaves office. I urge all of the sane people to join this worthwhile effort to honor one of America’s great heros, thinkers, patriots, and the friend of truth loving people everywhere.

“A wager a wager, I’ll lay you a wager, I’ll lay you my gold to your brass!”*

Here it goes Keith, a chance to step up. (For the record, your third now).I say that one or the other or both of the following will occur:

A. Expelled does not open April 18.

and/or

B. XVIVO sues Premise Media and wins.

I ask the crew to enforce the bet by banning the loser. (somehow perserving this bet on the main page until it is resolved would be nice).

Personally, Keith, I don’t think you have the stones to accept the bet, even though it would be easy enough for you to weasel out of it with another ID.

For my part, as a Christian and gentleman I will pledge both the letter and spirit of the wager.

So, what’s it to be, child? In your court now.

*Extra points for anyone who identifies the quote. ps.: As always, only the germaine section of your blather has been retained, to save bandwidth and to not offend the rest of us any more than neccessary. dpr

keith: In my case, I simply prefer to have science return to an open inquiry, freedom of speech, free marketplace of ideas construct integrated with ethics and philosophy so the how is balanced with the why, etc. as in the 2000 years preceeding Darwin.

Some people do also lack an education in history of science, not just in science itself…

Syntax Error: mismatched tag at line 6, column 153, byte 524 at /usr/local/lib/perl5/site_perl/5.12.3/mach/XML/Parser.pm line 187

Steven Fonken:

keith:

With most IDers it’s not about money. In my case, I simply prefer to have science return to an open inquiry, freedom of speech, free marketplace of ideas construct integrated with ethics and philosophy so the how is balanced with the why, etc. as in the 2000 years preceeding Darwin.

This is an amazing example of delusional mentation. How this does not cause severe cognitive dissonance and resulting psychiatric illness is beyond me.

Syntax fix: missing final </blockquote> (I’m hoping I put it in the right place, the attributions are correct, and the last paragraph is Steven not Keith…)

keith:

With most IDers it’s not about money.

-Riiiiiight

In my case, I simply prefer to have science return to an open inquiry, freedom of speech, free marketplace of ideas construct integrated with ethics and philosophy so the how is balanced with the why, etc. as in the 2000 years preceeding Darwin.

-There is so much wrong with this sentence, that I just can’t bother.

Of course if after Expelled the majority of the quislings posting as evos under TO, PT, and pee wee’s site were accidently attacked by swarms of rabid tetse flys or trampled by hords of turd eating feral pigs, that would be a bonus and speed the desired process.

-Tetse flys don’t get rabies

I plan to launch a campaign to get President Bush to award Ben Stein the Presidential Metal of Freedom before he leaves office. I urge all of the sane people to join this worthwhile effort to honor one of America’s great heros, thinkers, patriots, and the friend of truth loving people everywhere.

-By all means, do what you can to keep the Decider busy.

Magda:

keith: In my case, I simply prefer to have science return to an open inquiry, freedom of speech, free marketplace of ideas construct integrated with ethics and philosophy so the how is balanced with the why, etc. as in the 2000 years preceeding Darwin.

Some people do also lack an education in history of science, not just in science itself…

What’s the matter? Didn’t you know that jeebus was the first scientist in history and without him nothing in our modern world could have ever possibly existed? He discovered fire, agriculture, writing, geometry, riding stirrups, the law of falling bodies, magnetic induction, gravitational tensors; he invented the printing press, split the atom, and created transistors. All during cocktails at the last supper. But he was not responsible for evilution. Oh no. Only a vicious Nazi sympathizer like Chuck Darwin could have dreamed up such a hideous concept for the purpose of corrupting our children and brainwashing them to walk on all fours and barking when they want their supper.

-Tetse flys don’t get rabies

Tsetse flies can not contract rabies, nor can they spread it: they are the main vectors for Trypanosoma brucei, the protozoan parasite that causes Human Trypanosomaisis, better known as “Sleeping Sickness” in humans, and the disease “Nagana” in cattle.

for the purpose of corrupting our children and brainwashing them to walk on all fours and barking when they want their supper.

Wasn’t that Pavlov what did that? ;)

Henry

Proponents of Intelligent Design and Creationism do not dispute Micro-Evolution, only Macro-Evolution. I watched the film, and believe that it is very accurate. Atheists (Evolutionists) have a monopoly on the “facts” of science. The movie is not about agree with either, but allowing the freedom of debate. We are still in America .

Atheists (Evolutionists) have a monopoly on the “facts” of science.

Facts are not owned by a particular person or group.

but allowing the freedom of debate.

The reason that debate appears to be discouraged is simply because the debate being discussed here has already taken place.

In order to restart the debate, somebody would have to (1) detect pattern(s) in nature that would be expected if life was directly engineered but unexplainable otherwise, (2) formulate a hypothesis describing or explaining that pattern, (3) show that the hypothesis is consistent with the already known data, (4) use it to predict some new observations before they happen.

If somebody were to do those things, there would then be debate about it. Or more precisely, there would be scientists doing research regarding the new ideas. Show how something actually follows from the evidence, and it would not require political maneuvering or P.R. campaigns to get scientists to research it.

Henry

About this Entry

This page contains a single entry by PvM published on April 14, 2008 12:00 PM.

Flunked, Not Expelled: What’s the Difference Between Peppered Moths and Pepperdine Students? was the previous entry in this blog.

New Scientist review 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