The Expelled movie producers are, as we know from copious evidence, lying and evil.
Nefarious even. They placed ads for their antiscience propaganda piece on The Science Channel and NPR.
Evil does as evil is, so I’m not surprised they would try that. But I am really shocked that TSC and NPR would take their money. This movie is totally 100% against the missions of both The Science Channel and National Public Radio. It is seriously like taking the KKK’s money for ads, or from NAMBLA. Why would you do that?
I have not seen the TSC ads, but I was pretty surprised when I was poking around the NPR site and an ad for the movie popped up in a media player (I was looking for a podcast about the LHC, a scientific triumph, making the ad that much more appalling). PZ mentions it as well.
What they heck were they thinking?
I am too busy right now to draft up appropriate letters, but feel free to do so yourselves (after due diligence if you so desire). If I get a chance I’ll be taking care of that when I get back from Europe.
Hat tip to BABLoggee Randall Wald.
April 17th, 2008 at 9:11 am
I caught an add in my NPR stream of “Wait Wait” this weekend. I wrote an email to NPR about it a couple of days ago, but I haven’t gotten a response yet. (Well, OK, it’s been ~1 business day, so it’s too soon to assume that it’s being ignored.)
April 17th, 2008 at 9:19 am
I will confirm that this ad has been aired on the Science Channel. I have also seen the same ad on the History Channel as well.
April 17th, 2008 at 9:21 am
So, are the ads blanketing all media, or are they perversely targetting science-minded people?
Could it be that they actually believe their own propaganda? I see lots of their followers over on Pharyngula posting delusional comments about how this movie will “undermine materialism”.
April 17th, 2008 at 9:22 am
Saw it on History Channel last night during Monsterquest, where they were looking for Orang Pendek (”the real hobbit”). Very brief commercial. I almost missed it except for Stein’s unmistakable voice.
April 17th, 2008 at 9:22 am
Yeah, it’s bad, but really: as bad as the KKK? As bad as NAMBLA?
April 17th, 2008 at 9:37 am
Somebody call Ira Flatow, stat! I’m sure it would be great for a TOTN Science Friday bit…
April 17th, 2008 at 9:42 am
@Nemo
They might be trying to bait science minded people. They already know they’re going to get a strong showing from creationists and other Design proponents, they may be trying to get other science minded people who aren’t all that well versed in Evolution and don’t know all the lies and distortions present in the movie.
April 17th, 2008 at 9:46 am
In “Broca’s Brain” Dr. Sagan talked about Immanuel Velikovsky in relation to real science. Dr. Velikovsky proposed, among other things, that a comet was generated from Jupiter and made a bunch of orbits around the solar system helping to make those wonderful bible miracles (such as spewing manna).
Dr. Sagan wrote that he disliked that the scientific community tried to suppress Velikovsky’s work saying that this ran counter to science.
Perhaps, the same is true with “Expelled”. If the film stays in the light, it can be dealt with as the idiocy it is. If it is denied advertising on TSC, it would only bolster Stein’s absurd arguments for the existence of ‘Big Science”.
Besides, let them advertise on TSC and NPR, who cares; TSC gets their money and Stein gets no converts.
April 17th, 2008 at 9:47 am
I like the Science Channel, but it has credulous shows on UFOs and Bigfoot, so I don’t think advertising Expelled is really that out of character for them.
April 17th, 2008 at 9:53 am
I would be glad to take anyone’s money. I don’t see why NPR and TSC wouldn’t either.
Creationism isn’t quite as bad as advocating genocide against black people and jews or child molestation by men.
April 17th, 2008 at 9:56 am
I’ve seen some Google Ads for it on skeptical websites.
Maybe it’ll even show up here.
April 17th, 2008 at 10:02 am
@Robbie
True. Money is money is money. Why else do shows like UFO Hunters, Ghost Hunters, and all the other mumbo-jumbo end up on channels like the History Channel or the Science Channel? Or Deepak Chopra on PBS? Because, to network executives who are more concerned with making money, rather than the integrity of the channel, the source of the money doesn’t really matter much.
Now, there may be some out there with enough integrity to refuse to air commercials that run contrary to their channel’s message, but integrity is a flexible, bendy, fuzzy thing.
April 17th, 2008 at 10:04 am
@Arkonbey
Good point about claims of suppression. If science-oriented channels refuse to run the commercials, claims can be made of censorship and suppression of free thought.
April 17th, 2008 at 10:08 am
My Tivo allows me to skip all commercials, so I briefly see those ads on th e Science channel.
The problem is that if they refuse, then the ID proponents will again scream how “Big Science” is persecuting them.
So let them take the money. No problem here. I would like to think that most people watching the Science Channel are already aware of this movie.
I wish, however, that the Science Channel (and NPR too in interest of “balanced” reporting) would put PSA ads for ExpellExposed.com.
April 17th, 2008 at 10:13 am
I’ve seen the ad on Comedy Central, but perhaps that’s more appropriate.
April 17th, 2008 at 10:14 am
I say let these silly ideas be propagated everywhere and destroy them. Then, destroy them again when they come back a few years later. Don’t whine about the fact that you already destroyed an idea and it came back. It always will as long as there are uneducated people in the world, which there always will be.
To paraphrase Wendell Phillips, eternal vigilance is the price of science.
April 17th, 2008 at 10:16 am
I have even seen commercials for it on Comedy Central.
Sad day.
April 17th, 2008 at 10:21 am
This is where you see the true beauty of Expelled’s strategy. If scientists take the time to publicly debunk the claims it makes, that generates publicity and helps sell the idea that there is a real controversy. If everyone ignores the rubbish the film is spreading, these claims are allowed to stand, and furthermore the ID people can point to this silence as an effort to suppress their evidence.
This is a very nasty strategy. I wish I could think of a neat way to short-circuit it. The best answer I can come up with is to continue to debunk and just accept the fact that this runs the risk of validating the manufactroversy.
April 17th, 2008 at 10:22 am
Freakin’ Wooziers are taking over. I can’t watch a single show on any channel nowadays without being blasted with ads for creationism movies, homeopathic remedies, or shows “proving” the supernatural with such proofs as “Because I say so”.
… sounds like a job for the Skeptologists. Turn on the skepti-signal!
April 17th, 2008 at 10:25 am
Evil is a very strong and emotive word. Are these people knowingly and deliberately spreading misinformation for their own purposes or are they just incredibly deluded and ignorant of the world we live in?
Hard to believe but it might be the second option. Either way, they’re an interesting product of US education and society, and they’re getting a lot of media. Just what the blazes is going on over there?
April 17th, 2008 at 10:26 am
SpiderBrigade: “If scientists take the time to publicly debunk the claims it makes, that generates publicity and helps sell the idea that there is a real controversy.”
I don’t agree. I give the average person more credit than that (being one). Average people will buy the good arguments that are delivered confidently and with evidence. The more times you debunk ID and creationism, the easier it gets.
April 17th, 2008 at 10:28 am
I used to have a high opinion of Ben Stein, not any more.
Anyway the commercials have given me the chance to discuss the conflict (good enough word for it I guess) with my kids, whom (Who?) I am trying to raise with open, yet optomistic, minds.
JT
April 17th, 2008 at 10:39 am
More misrepresentations by BA about this film. Evil? Puhlease. Evil is snuffing out millions of Jews. Evil is late term abortion. Evil is flying a plane into a building killing 3,000 innocent people.
Making a movie is just making a movie. And ONCE AGAIN I will point out that the movie is about how people who believe in Intelligent Design are fired for teaching it in class.
This is as much an anti Science movie as Roots is a mini series that is anti-farming.
You really should stick to what you’re good at, B.A..
April 17th, 2008 at 10:47 am
A typical case of “pecunia non olet” I guess.
April 17th, 2008 at 10:49 am
Matt:
Stein and his cohorts are using arguments that have been proven demonstrably false many times over. Don’t you guys still have that commandment against lying?
April 17th, 2008 at 11:04 am
I think many of these channels simply take the revenue when they can and do not really care about what is being advertised unless it is obviously offensive. You had me agreeing with you though until you compared Creationists with racist lynchers of innocents and child molesters. Do you really believe that is a fair comparison?
April 17th, 2008 at 11:12 am
“You really should stick to what you’re good at, B.A..”
He is, Matt - he writes about what interests him.
April 17th, 2008 at 11:14 am
“Making a movie is just making a movie. And ONCE AGAIN I will point out that the movie is about how people who believe in Intelligent Design are fired for teaching it in class.”
And no, that isn’t the case. The movie falsely represents people who were fired for a number of reasons (e.g. failure to perform their job adequately) as being fired because of their beliefs.
April 17th, 2008 at 11:14 am
I also saw the ad on the Science channel. It was sort of funny. I liked Ben Stein before he hooked with these madmen. When I realized it was for THIS movie, I almost vomited. The ad gives the impression it’s a comedy, and nothing about creationism as I can recall. Hopefully it will bomb hard at the theaters.
April 17th, 2008 at 11:18 am
I would have to agree that I am a bit disappointed to. I realize this is his site and he can do what he wants when he wants and does not have to listen to anyone’s complaints. I just remember coming to this site to see pretty pictures of space objects and learning things about astronomy. Now I see a great deal of rhetoric about politics and anti-science.
Bummer, I believe is the appropriate word here.
April 17th, 2008 at 11:18 am
@Matt
At first, I thought you might be approaching this issue with a more open mind and were simply misinformed. Now, I think you are being wilfully ignorant of the facts. Expelled claims to be about how people are being suppressed because of their support for ID, however, there is more to the story than is being depicted. Please take some time to read through some of the information available at this link:
http://www.expelledexposed.com/index.php/the-truth
If you still have problems with the manner in which the BA is portraying the makers of this movie after reading through the information at that site (in addition to the single link I provided), then come back here and make your claims, supported by whatever evidence you feel justifies your opinions.
April 17th, 2008 at 11:21 am
It seems the producers may be taken to legal task for not seeking permisssion for featured copywritten music as well. That’s not very Christian, is it?
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/james-boyce/ben-stein-yoko-ono-on-lin_b_97174.html
John Lennon specifically
April 17th, 2008 at 11:22 am
Please keep in mind that ad space is sold by sales reps.
The people making decisions about content on “NPR” or “The History Channel” don’t have a role in gatekeeping what ads get on the air, especially when it’s ads for a movie.
April 17th, 2008 at 11:23 am
“More misrepresentations by BA about this film. Evil? Puhlease. Evil is snuffing out millions of Jews. Evil is late term abortion. Evil is flying a plane into a building killing 3,000 innocent people.
Making a movie is just making a movie. And ONCE AGAIN I will point out that the movie is about how people who believe in Intelligent Design are fired for teaching it in class.
This is as much an anti Science movie as Roots is a mini series that is anti-farming.
You really should stick to what you’re good at, B.A..”
There are degrees of evil. This is certianly not as eveil is the examples you brought up, not even in the same league, but it’s evil none the less.
Attacking and trying to suppress or destroy one of the backbones of modern science and human progress? That’s evil. Lying to do it? Even more evil. Tricking people under false pretenses and then quoting them out of context? Evil.
Doesn’t matter if they believe their own B.S. or not. You don’t get a pass for evil behavior because you’re an ignorant git with an underhanded religious agenda.
April 17th, 2008 at 11:26 am
“I would have to agree that I am a bit disappointed to. I realize this is his site and he can do what he wants when he wants and does not have to listen to anyone’s complaints. I just remember coming to this site to see pretty pictures of space objects and learning things about astronomy. Now I see a great deal of rhetoric about politics and anti-science.
Bummer, I believe is the appropriate word here.”
…
The only ‘bummer’ here is that people aren’t more outraged by the systematic assault on science and human progress by religious zealots and opportunists of all types and faiths.
April 17th, 2008 at 11:30 am
Matt Garrett -
In the last post you showed up in, I erroneously tried to give you credit for being a potentially critically thinking person.
I was wrong. Dreadfully.
So, it’s time to address you properly.
First, it’s not for YOU to determine Phil’s or anyone else’s definition of “evil”. For my money, any group that intentionally mis-represents itself in an attempt to deceptively con people into being interviewed for a documentary that initially presents itself as a two sided look at a topic but later reveals itself as one-sided propoganda for the purposes of political positioning, is… well… evil. Period. Any group that will intentionally make a knowingly erroneous connection between the holocaust and evolution merely for the sake of garnishing sympathy for its cause is… well… evil.
Second, making a movie is NOT just making a movie when your movie is a “documentary” with a political agenda. Michael Moore’s movies are not “just movies” and Al Gore’s movie was “not just a movie”, and were not marketed as such. They are not meant to be simple entertainment. They have an agenda and a message. And this film is no different… so don’t try to brush it off by classifying it in the same group as “War of the Worlds”. That’s missing the point.
And ONCE AGAIN I will point out that despite numerous invitations to do so, it is clear that you have not bothered to look at the “Expelled Exposed” website, where it CLEARLY states the facts that NONE of the people “Expelled” in “Expelled” were ever fired. Not one. Either their contracts ran out and were not renewed (Crocker), or were denied tenure (Gonzalez), or were simply roundly criticized for introducing anti-science into a science publication by side-stepping the process (Sternberg)… so, based on your extensive research and clear knowledge of the facts here, that you had to ONCE AGAIN point out, please tell me who was fired for teaching ID in class? I’ll wait while you search in vain for the answer.
Ugh… how do I even address this fine example of completely non-relevent and non-sequitor comparison. OK… try this: The purpose of “Expelled” is to push an agenda that allows anti-science to be taught in science classes. I’d call that a pretty direct link between the movie’s anti-science stand and it’s opposition to accepted scientific theory. How in the heck is that in any way like comparing Roots to farming? Seriously?
The leeway I had given you prior, Matt, has been used up. From this point forward, I will go on with the assumtpion that you have no interest in educating yourself about the issue, and are only concerned with defending ID and this movie in particular. And in that case, I will be more than happy to go toe to toe with you on any topic this covers. I will come at you with logic, reason, and facts that I will back up with peer-reviewed research and multiple sources… so if you want to continue to argue a position in favor of defending this movie and its premise… then I’m all for it.
Let’s dance.
April 17th, 2008 at 11:37 am
I’m not a fan of the movie or its message, but they have the right to their opinion. I think religion is dying a slow and very loud death, the few that remain are getting louder and more bold/desperate. Religion can be more dangerous that any “weapon” humans have created. People have killed millions of other people in the name of religion. Nevertheless, as people of science we have to keep an open mind to people’s beliefs even if the science, logic, and commonsense point elsewhere.
The commercials are just another advertisement for just another movie. Similar to when CBS buys a commercial on NBC, they are competitors but still advertise on each other’s channel. I see that all the time.
April 17th, 2008 at 11:42 am
BA:
Sometime flip through the ads in Scientific American, Discovery, Popular Science, and Popular Mechanics. Not all of them reflect the tone of the magazines. Most likely TSC and NPR took the ad because it’s money and because it’s not so odious as to turn away droves of viewers/listeners - or at least their advertising revenue departments see things that way.
Just a suggestion: The very *last* thing I think anyone wants to do is pressure media outlets not to take “Expelled” ads. Why? Because this plays right into their hands. The central premise of the movie is that there’s a concerted effort to promote evolution by excluding ID. They would point to an effort to remove their ads as more of the same.
April 17th, 2008 at 11:43 am
The science channel lost me when i saw a commercial for “Dr. Frank’s” homeopathic pain spray.
April 17th, 2008 at 11:44 am
@Matt Garrett:
While I haven’t seen “Expelled”, there’s been quite a few reports surfacing on how “Expelled” tries to paint evolution theory as an indirect cause for the Holocaust. If what I’m reading on the intertubes is correct, that’s pretty much how the film’s second half progresses.
I’m wondering if categorizing the film as being about persecuted ID proponents kind of glosses over some of the more, shall we say, “unique” messages of the film.
@everyone complaining about who is taking “Expelled” advertising:
I do agree that an organization called “The Science Channel” may want to think twice about taking ads for the film. Then again, it’s not like a federal Republican judge ever ruled that ID is simply creationism with a few words changed.
Oh, wait…
I’m not getting why it’s wrong for NPR to take “Expelled” advertising bucks. As far as I know, they don’t have any specific mission statement that would conflict with the themes of this film.
The cynic in me says they’re doing it partly to deflect the whole “godless librul radio” epithets thrown their way.
Commence yelling at me now
Matt A
April 17th, 2008 at 11:47 am
The problem with most of you is that you can’t separate various aspects of faith, ID, Christian, or whatever else you choose to call “them.” The fact is, it’s not one group of people. There are people of faith who are not Christian, Christians who don’t believe the Earth was created 6,000 years ago, and ID people who aren’t Christian. Yet, many of you continue to lump all of these groups together, call them names, put them down, etc. It’s the same argument heard a thousand times over on this board and others elsewhere. When you have the ability to truly understand all walks, then come back and have an intelligent conversation about something. Until then, most of you are just regurgitating the same argument over and over.
April 17th, 2008 at 11:48 am
Matt, whereas I do not like the word “evil” in general (it suggests a simplistic notion of morality), it is clear that you have not looked at the Expelled Exposed website. You keep repeating the same line of argument, even though you could have easily found the facts. They are only a click away!
April 17th, 2008 at 11:48 am
I will throw an addendum in though, I don’t actually blame the science channel, advertisements are a lot of times decided by people not directly affiliated with the channel, either the owning corporation has an agency that handles ad’s for all their channels, or often local cable companies sell the commercial time.
April 17th, 2008 at 11:49 am
The KKK? Nambla?
Ok, Phil, unlike Matt I am a friend of this site and its mission, but I think you have jumped the shark with these analogies. Foolish and dishonest the creationists are, criminals and terrorists they are not.
I have been an outspoken opponent of their schemes and lies for decades and I have done this in West Texas, which is not the friendliest environment for this kind of activism.
Believe me, I understand the temptation to lash out but we are supposed to the reality based community here. It would be a travesty if we were seen as the kooks in this struggle simply because we cannot keep our rhetoric within an order of magnitude of reality.
April 17th, 2008 at 11:49 am
KC -
I was just thinking the same thing. I’m often surprised by the ads that show up in magazines that seem to contradict the magazine’s stated goals or purpose. I find cigarette ads in fitness and sports magazines, for example.
Sales and marketing departments are almost never tied directly to programming and public relations departments.. .and especially with companies like Discovery Communications, LLC, the parent company for the Science Channel. Often the advertising is sold to the parent company and then distributed throughout all its networks. I think that is the case with the Expelled ads as well. You’ll likely see the add on all of the Discovery Network’s channels. And I’m sure that’s exactly what the parent marketing company intended.
I for one, will do my part to express my displeasure with schilling for this particular product, however, to Discovery Communications, LLC.
April 17th, 2008 at 11:49 am
I think that a better example of cases where you’d expect a lot of media outlets not to take ads is a hypothetical remake of “Birth of a Nation” (assuming the theme is kept the same). I suspect we’d all agree that most media outlets would be both well within their rights to pass on playing ads for such a piece and probably morally obligated to do so. It’s not “just a movie”, it’s espousing a very real (and wrong) ideology. Running ads for it implicitly (at least to some degree) condones and/or endorses the movie.
April 17th, 2008 at 11:54 am
Yeah, what Celtic_Evolution said. Squared.
April 17th, 2008 at 11:55 am
Phobos! I trusted NPR!
April 17th, 2008 at 11:58 am
I’ve seen it on the Dilbert blog, and just this morning someone put up a makeshift sign for it on a freeway overpass, just like the Ron Paul Revolution signs. It looked like stenciled spray paint on fabric, just like the RPR signs a few months ago. They’re clearly trying to play up some kind of grassroots/underground/revolution mystique.
April 17th, 2008 at 12:16 pm
Astroturfing. How dishonest. Who’d have expected dishonesty from the producers of Expelled?
Oh, right. Anyone who’s paying attention.
April 17th, 2008 at 12:19 pm
Wow! Scientific American’s Six Things in Expelled That Ben Stein Doesn’t Want You to Know is the top link at uber-conservative website Free Republic right now. The comments are an idiot-fest even by creationist standards.
It reminds me of a local school board meeting when evolution is on the agenda. Some of these people would defeat any effort at parody. They really do refer to evolution advocates as “godless libruls” pushing some sort of evil communist agenda.
I remember one bearded savant trying to persuade the school board that evolutionary theory should be banned because its ultimate purpose was “the promotion of illicit sex.” This left me wondering what I had missed (I was younger then) but his time ran out before I could ask.
April 17th, 2008 at 12:40 pm
Geez, Phil… I think I’ve shown here I am 100% pro evolution and thing Expelled is crap, but comparing them to KKK or NAMBLA is just the sort of histrionics that works *counter* to our purposes.
Oh, I give up… the skeptical community is never going to learn. Hopefully I can retire overseas before the USA becomes the Republic of Gilead.
Go ahead, folks. Keep trying to insult and swear and bully you way into prominence. Have fun with that.
April 17th, 2008 at 12:45 pm
And the Google ads on this site are sometimes quite inappropriate too!
April 17th, 2008 at 12:48 pm
Ok, Phil, unlike Matt I am a friend of this site and its mission, but I think you have jumped the shark with these analogies. Foolish and dishonest the creationists are, criminals and terrorists they are not.
I’m with you, Ad Hominid. How is it all that different than what the film does with it’s intercutting of evolutionists with Nazi death camps?
HYPERBOLE WILL GAIN OUR SIDE ***NOTHING***!
It is the side of the woo woos that can use hyperbole to great success because they don’t care about reality. The side of truth has to adhere to the truth and not make hysterical comparisons and claims. To do so is to become what we have beheld and it will not work.
April 17th, 2008 at 12:52 pm
KaiYveson: Phobos! I trusted NPR!
And that was your undoing.
Trust no one. Did you people learn nothing from the X-Files?
April 17th, 2008 at 12:55 pm
I remember one bearded savant trying to persuade the school board that evolutionary theory should be banned because its ultimate purpose was “the promotion of illicit sex.”
If only it really had that power.
A better line would be “the promotion of monkey sex.”
Yeah… hot, hot monkey sex… especially after an argument or tiff of some sort
Then it’s hot, hot, ANGRY monkey sex, and it doesn’t get any better than that, people.
April 17th, 2008 at 12:56 pm
It is quite obvious that Matt Garrett will not accept ANY criticism of his belief, whether about his Christian opinions or anything else that challenges them. Since the movie is a now-cherished part of that fantasy he holds dear, it is useless to attempt to change him or his “mind.” And this is the problem with many of these folk; there is NO reasoning with them. Agree with their positions and you’ll not have a problem; disagree and run up against a brick wall. It is best to save energy and ignore them.
I do think that to deny advertising to such quackery is a mistake; it is a good source of revenue, for one thing, and I think most of the rest of us can discern the difference between chicanery, dishonesty, lies and deceit and what isn’t. However, we are a minority in a horde of the uninformed and ignorant, and we need to change that.
If you really want to get your knickers in a bunch, try getting mad about what has become of the use of our public airwaves by the few media giants that now use those airwaves to foist off drivel like the “reality” shows and the crapola which ABC, CBS and NBC call “news” programs. If you watched the “debate” moderated by ABC “reporters” last night, you will find a serious reason to be upset. The behavior of the “moderators” was shameful: the topics were trite, regurgitated sound bites from the newest “gotcha du jour.”
One reason why it is so difficult to get anything resembling honest discourse or rational thought on television is that the entertainment giants which now own the few media outlets also control the FCC and the congress. Your public airwaves are now controlled by these folks who have no other reason to exist except the bottom line.
If science wants to make a dent in the brick wall of disinformation, misinformation, and flat out stupidity which is the mainstay of much of the media today, we will have to find a way to fund the programs. The religious programming aired nationally by Christians and others is PAID for. And that is the criterion; there isn’t any checks or regulations which take precedent other than the bottom line. So get out your checkbooks; hire some skeptics to come up with a program which will counter the drivel from the true believers, the righteously sure of themselves and their ideas. One show at a time.
April 17th, 2008 at 12:57 pm
Hate to do it, Phil… but I have to agree a bit with Quiet_Desperation and others on this one… I’m willing to defend, to a degree, your use of calling the film-makers “evil”, as it is a subjective term and one can make a case for using it, whether you agree or disagree.
But whether intentional or not, your use of KKK and NAMBLA as a comparison does seem over the top, although I’m willing to allow you to explain your decision to use that analogy before writing it off totally as unnecessary hyperbole.
April 17th, 2008 at 1:10 pm
J Jones:
True; Christianity (and faith in general) are NOT a monolith. True, there are (I suspect quite large number of) faith-holders who agree that evolution is the best description going for the diversity/diversification of species. BUT, they aren’t speaking up. By inaction, they are allowing the ID/Fundementalist factions to be their default “voice”.
I could be wrong. I wouldn’t mind being proven wrong. But I haven’t seen any evidence of the religious moderates calling shenanigans on the makers of Expelled.
April 17th, 2008 at 1:11 pm
Will M.: “If you really want to get your knickers in a bunch, try getting mad about what has become of the use of our public airwaves by the few media giants that now use those airwaves to foist off drivel like the “reality” shows and the crapola which ABC, CBS and NBC call “news” programs. If you watched the “debate” moderated by ABC “reporters” last night, you will find a serious reason to be upset. The behavior of the “moderators” was shameful: the topics were trite, regurgitated sound bites from the newest “gotcha du jour.””
I think they forgot they were moderating a Democratic debate, not a Republican one.
April 17th, 2008 at 1:19 pm
They are TROLLING. They are targeting people who disagree with the movie in hopes that those people will pay to see it, since they have a strong interest in the claims and conclusions of the movie.
You are TROLLING. You are comparing irrational people (awful as they may be) to child molesters and violent racist terrorists. You are hoping to engender anger and controversy - probably with the explicit or subconscious hope that more people will read your blog and you’ll make more money.
It’s working on me, I kind of want to see the movie to see how outrageous it is, and I keep reading your blog.
So kudos to both of you.
April 17th, 2008 at 1:59 pm
I think it is funny that as I read this blog, you are so normal. Then as soon as someone wants to have a different belief than the “Always right scientists”, you get all mad and start calling names and step back from grown up language. It seems an educated man would not get so angry and be able to conrol emotion.
April 17th, 2008 at 2:06 pm
Well, Nate, perhaps being called communists, fools, devils, perverts, and heathen conspirators in half the school board meetings and church bulletins in the country has tempted some of us to respond in kind.
I admonished Phil for his rhetorical excesses, and so have others here, but I seldom see the advocates of creationism doing the same with their own foaming-at-the-mouth hysterics. In fact, it seems to be the norm for them.
April 17th, 2008 at 2:11 pm
@Nate
Rule… please allow me to introduce you to the exception…
That point has already been made… several times. And while I agree in principal, it’s a little tiring hearing that complaint in pretty much every controversial topic, when the large percentage of the conversation is generally on topic. It’s an old and trite diversionary tactic. All a post like that does is deflects the issue and derails the discussion.
Name calling=bad. Got it. Moving on.
April 17th, 2008 at 2:51 pm
Am I the only one who was shocked to discover Ben Stein was a religious zealot? Maybe that seems a bit harsh, but he /is/ lending his name to an anti-evolution movie, so it seems accurate to me…
April 17th, 2008 at 2:54 pm
ID on par with pedophilia… hm, hyperbole much? It’s that kind of finger-pointing and exaggerated name-calling that make the rational side seem… well, irrational. You’re becoming what you hate.
April 17th, 2008 at 3:01 pm
I was a little steamed at first. Now that I’ve considered it, won’t NPR and TSC be the least effective places for Expelled to advertise? Aren’t they totally missing their target audience there? Isn’t it like they’re pissing money away? Let them give money to NPR. It’s a good cause and they aren’t actually getting much in return. The discovery network of channels is in it for the money and we all know that anyway.
In my opinion, it’s just more proof that there was no intelligence to expel in the first place.
April 17th, 2008 at 3:59 pm
I have returned for a short time! Good to see Quiet_Desperation and Ad Hominid keeping up the good fight for fair representation.
Yeah, they can be argued to be evil, but they’re not seriously arguing for stoning adulterers in the streets (yet). They’ve got plenty enough sins that we don’t need to hyperbolize…
That being said, free marketplace of ideas. You can’t save everyone from stupid ideas, much like you can’t save everyone from alcohol or tobacco or driving or marijuana or unprotected sex or not eating bran or eating too much bran or not going outside or going outside, but that’s life. Generally, you can’t save people from themselves, so make your argument the best you can and if they won’t see reason… well, that’s the consequences for you.
Of course, this gives me a thought. Strong-atheist private schools where, like at religious private schools people MUST pray, any mention of a God not put in a negative form is strictly forbidden? Sauce for the goose…
April 17th, 2008 at 4:33 pm
NAMBLA = “National Assembly for Molesting and Besetting Little Americans”?
April 17th, 2008 at 4:45 pm
@AgnosticOracle
You know, confused though they may be, even UFO and Bigfoot believers should be on the side of evolution. Bigfoot would presumably be an unknown or believed-extinct hominid, while flying saucers would presumably be piloted by beings who evolved independently from life on Earth. Neither seems compatible with creationism’s cramped universe.
April 17th, 2008 at 5:15 pm
Pieter Kok you said
NAMBLA = “National Assembly for Molesting and Besetting Little Americans”?
How dare you sir! This is an offense to those of us that are proud members!
NAMBLA
North American Marlon Brando Lookalike Assn.!
April 17th, 2008 at 5:20 pm
I just saw the preview (Discovery Channel, how could you?) and it is obvious to me that they are playing up the Ferris Bueller angle, making it seem like a wacky teen comedy. Man, are there going to be some pissed moviegoers tomorrow!
April 17th, 2008 at 5:25 pm
I find it rather disappointing that someone who is cursorily an advocate of science would recommend the censorship of dissenting points of view. Yes, creationism is absurd. Yes, this movie is propaganda. Yes, it is trying to brainwash people. But might I remind you that the hallmark of true science is it’s absolute openness to discussion and free criticism. Evolution is an admirable scientific theory precisely because it has been criticized since its conception, and has withstood those criticisms and proven them to be false or groundless. If you start to silence all dissenting voices, no matter how misinformed or malicious they may be, science devolves into dogma and becomes useless to us all.
Not to mention the practical consequences of sending letters or whatnot to have these ads pulled would be counterproductive. It would only publicize this movie more.
I am not religious, and I find most religious people and creationists quite absurd. But the separation of church and state in this country, and by extension the freedom of the press and media, implies no interference in religion or what crazy religious people try to propagate, not a calculated silencing of religion just because you happen to think it’s crazy, or that science is the ultimate truth.
April 17th, 2008 at 5:49 pm
For “science” advocates, there certainly are some incredibly narrow minded views in this particular set of comments!
Just one question: How many of you have actually seen the movie?
Yeah. That’s what I thought…
April 17th, 2008 at 5:50 pm
Cicely -
You’ve fallen into J Jones’ trap. You’ve accepted his premise that all Christians/religious believers are being lumped together with fundie YECs and IDots. This is generally false. A few posters may do that, but BA and most of us don’t. Unlike many of the YEC and ID blogs, BA never deletes posts just because they disagree with him, so everything is right here to see. J Jones’ complaint has been made many times, and has never been valid.
April 17th, 2008 at 5:57 pm
Ewe said:
For the record, Phil isn’t recommending censorship. Not letting a group use one’s own media is not the same as silencing the group. I am perfectly willing to let people say their piece, but I don’t have to put it on my website or bumper of my car and that’s the heart of what’s happening here.
For media outlets, there are many choices in what ads to take and they can’t take all of them. There’s always a choice, then, and some get left out for various reasons. Choosing to to not run an ad because you don’t like the product it promotes isn’t censorship and more than Phil rejecting ads for pornography or, say, one of Hogland’s books on this site would be.
April 17th, 2008 at 6:02 pm
Calm Down. Get over it. Move on.
April 17th, 2008 at 6:59 pm
You guys are helping their cause, the movie is suppose to show the stonewalling of “scientists” that believe in intelligent design. Just let it go. Let them make their case, and be done with it. I don’t personally believe it but hey, there was a time when everyone though sea monsters sunk ships and naked half chick half fish people lived in the sea. Be open to new ideas and let the people make up their own minds.
If you had your way this movie wouldn’t be made, if I had my way, the rock of love on VH1 wouldn’t exist. But I guess neither of us is getting what they want.
April 17th, 2008 at 7:19 pm
Nothing wrong with a bit of hyperbole. I’ve used it millions of times. If we aren’t going to compare the movie to big evil like the KKK and NAMBLA (either the North American Man Boy Love Association or the Brando one). So how far can we take the hyperbole?
It is as evil as…?
BTW, you can find out just how evil you are here
April 17th, 2008 at 7:27 pm
@ Matt:
EVEN if your assertion was correct, that these fine educators and scientists were fired for their belief in ID WAS correct (it isn’t), the educational institutions and the Smithsonian would STILL have complete justification in firing them, for the same reason that the Smithsonian, or any college would fire someone who was actively teaching Flat Earth, Phlogiston Chemistry, (as fact), or any of the other universally recognized false teachings that have been tossed on the dustbin of history.
April 17th, 2008 at 7:30 pm
@ Shane: Oh bugger, I just took your survey and it said that I am good.
I’m gonna have to cultivate my evilness more assiduously, I can see.
April 17th, 2008 at 7:38 pm
I wouldn’t be as shocked… If you check your listings, you’ll see that The Discovery Channel (No relation to the Disco’Tute, I thought) airs most mornings an infomercial by Joel Osteen… I haven’t had the gumption to wake up at such uncivilized hour to see whatever garbage he may be peddling, but it cannot possibly be a Pocket Skeptic-izer…
April 17th, 2008 at 7:50 pm
did anyone take fareinhiet911 seriosly, well a few did, but most people ignored it
April 17th, 2008 at 7:55 pm
Seeing the ad on Discovery doesn’t bother me anywhere near as much as the ads for those Kinoki foot pads. Expelled! is idiotic propaganda on the same level as the ouvre of Bart Sibrel, but the Kinoki foot pads are straight-up con jobs.
April 17th, 2008 at 8:08 pm
@Calli
I actually reported the Kinoki pads to the FDA. I recommend doing the same. Next time you see it, note the channel/network and the day and time it was aired, then contact the FDA’s Center for Devices and Radiological Health. The more reports there are, the more likely they’ll take action.
April 17th, 2008 at 8:46 pm
Buzz -
Nope; J Jones’ trap snapped shut on empty air. My post was largely for the benefit of passers-by, who might be ensnared. The part I was hoping Jones might respond to, was where I pointed out that the more moderate voices seem to be mute on the subject; maybe even post links to any place where they ARE speaking up. So far, I’ve never gotten a nibble on any site when I’ve invited the “moderates” to prove me wrong.
Maybe I’m being too subtle?
April 17th, 2008 at 8:51 pm
i am begining to think that phil’s ranting in his blogs are ment for us (his readers) to act and think in the rational and skeptical way, like a kind of skeptical conditioning. it seems that most people commenting here are pointing out the error in phil’s skeptical thinking, and noting Sagan is a good point, we as scientists, as skeptics cant supress knowlegde. we must encouage dialoge and debate. though i dont think i would do well in a debate with a fundie. and as Ann Druyan said we as a society will go through our usuall growing pains in tryin to keep up with this excedingly changing world, we will have our fits and starts.
April 17th, 2008 at 9:24 pm
Todd W. — my faith in the FDA’s ability to stop the Kinoki peddlers is pretty low these days. And I think there was already action against them a few years ago. Just like Zicam, the homeopathic cold remedy which is neither homeopathic nor a cold remedy. The FDA came down on them as hard as it could, but all it did was slow them down for a little bit. They’re back stronger than ever now.
April 17th, 2008 at 10:00 pm
@Carl
Intelligent Design is not a damn new idea. It’s an extremely old idea… pre-scientific, in fact. How many times do we have to debunk it?
@Blu-Ray-Ven
Are you kidding? I remember what it was like in the U.S. shortly before that movie came out: an atmosphere of political terror. And we went from that, to Kerry almost winning… largely, I believe, thanks to that movie. It reopened the door to widespread public dissent.
Do I think that Expelled will have that kind of impact? No. Do I think it will have any real impact? Probably not. It’s a minor motion picture — and, unfortunately, polls indicate that the U.S. public is already on the side of creationism, and pretty much always has been. Fortunately, the courts and the Constitution are holding it back. Meanwhile, to scientists, evolution is about as plain as heliocentrism, so it’s not going to have any effect there either.
April 17th, 2008 at 10:27 pm
This is why I love visiting this site…It never, ever has anything to do with “Bad Astronomy” (or bad science explained), It’s just becoming a ‘venting platform’ for narrow-minded, belief-bashing, suppressionists, who are afraid of IDEAS, that don’t conform to theirs…Freedom of speech, be damned !
Instead of rationally discussing differing “points-of-view”, They’ll just throw around a few KKK or NAMBLA analogues, and “run” like cowards. A credit to their ’so-called’ scientific community !
April 17th, 2008 at 10:50 pm
Please stop disgracing the good name of Phillip J. Fry. He wouldn’t be on your side.
April 17th, 2008 at 11:09 pm
Good to see Quiet_Desperation and Ad Hominid keeping up the good fight for fair representation.
Buh? I’m not sure what that even means. I just don’t want to see the side of truth stoop to the same tactics as those on the other side.
April 17th, 2008 at 11:52 pm
QD wrote:
Love it QD. Excellent backhander. Of course you’re going to be accused of calling people names because you implied that the other side are liars of questionable integrity or ethics.
April 18th, 2008 at 12:44 am
PJF, A very poor effort at trolling there. The majority of subjects covered recently have been about astronomy. Yet you couldn’t be bothered to post in any of them. You could at least get your facts straight.
April 18th, 2008 at 1:58 am
Just to clarify, IMHO. Phil wasn’t actually comparing Expelled to the KKK, et al. I think he was just saying that advertisers need to draw the line somewhere.
I haven’t seen the movie (is it actually even out yet?) but I’ve perused the Exposed website and I feel like I have the gist.
One question I have: Even if the holocaust WAS inspired by evolution (of course, it wasn’t), how does that make evolution false, or prove in any way the truth of ID? Even if The Origin of Species caused people to become serial killers, that doesn’t mean the science is flawed. I don’t get that particular angle for the IDists. We could likewise look at the Crusades or the Spanish Inquisition (quiet, you Python fanboys!) as reasons why Christianity should not be taught.
April 18th, 2008 at 2:01 am
*sigh* found an ad for Expelled here too:
(i saved a screen shot on my own site)
www.identity4.com/geeky_stuff/wtf_not_here_boo.png
…of all places…*grumble grumble*
April 18th, 2008 at 3:29 am
“Spanish Inquisition (quiet, you Python fanboys!) ”
Actually, I thought of Mel Brooks
The Inquistion (Let’s Begin)
The Inquisition (Look out sin)
We have a mission
To convert the Jew (Jew Jew Jew Jew Jew Jew Jew)
We’re gonna teach them (Wrong from right)
We’re gonna help them (See the light)
And make an offer that they can’t refuse.
(That the Jews just can’t refuse)
Confess…Don’t be boring
Say yes… Don’t be dull
A fact… You’re ignoring
It’s better to lose your skullcap than your skull (Or your gavalt)
The Inquisition (What a show)
The Inquisition (Here we go)
We know you’re wishing that we’d go away
But the inquisition’s here and it’s here to stay
The inquisition (Oh boy)
The inquisition (What joy)
The inquisition (Oi oi)
…and so on.
April 18th, 2008 at 4:24 am
But I am really shocked that TSC and NPR would take their money. This movie is totally 100% against the missions of both The Science Channel and National Public Radio. […] Why would you do that?
Well, I dunno exactly what the funding deal is with NPR, but The Science Channel is a commercial operation. Their mission is not to educate, but to make money. Therefore, taking the money is totally 100% congruent with their actual mission. For them not to take it would be insane.
April 18th, 2008 at 4:58 am
Based on the comments in this thread, and without having seen the movie, my impression is that science must be worried about something, because you guys are yourselves making the case that science expels from consideration anything contradictory to scientific dogma.
You guys should step back and read these comments from an objective point of view:
Is it really? What is the “mission” anyway?
And if you have yet to see the movie, how do you know it violates the alleged mission?
In fact, how many of the responses above are from people who have seen the movie?
If you have not seen the movie, any criticisms are entirely manufactured FOR you,with less than zero critical thought invested in your “opinion” (self-righteous indignation notwithstanding).
Good luck with that - the reason this movie exists is because of the fear expressed in the hostility of any posts which dares to disagree with the great Bad Astronomer?
While my mother and I are both willing to endure any foul ad-hominem attacks anger compels, remember that sort of aggressive, emotional, irrational reactions will make their case, hurt your science and illustrate the point of the movie far more than it helps you discredit. On the contrary, ad hominem adds credibility.
“Not everything that counts, can be counted;
not everything that can be counted, counts.”
~ Who said that? (most definitely a scientist!)
April 18th, 2008 at 5:30 am
cicely: True, there are (I suspect quite large number of) faith-holders who agree that evolution is the best description going for the diversity/diversification of species. BUT, they aren’t speaking up. By inaction, they are allowing the ID/Fundementalist factions to be their default “voice”.
Some of us are. Some of us take on young-Earth creationists when we see them ringing in to post comments after online science articles. Some of us write to legislators in our own state and others. Some of us attend local YECist meetings with the intent of refuting the assertions of the speaker. Some of us are trying to present the facts honestly whenever they come up in conversation.
But we also want to have some integrity. I’d say I know a decent amount about evolution, for example, but I am by no means qualified to run around the country giving lectures on the subject. I also need to take time out of my week to work and feed a family.
By contrast, there are no qualifications for going on tour spouting the rhetoric of young-Earth creationism. And, as evidenced by the likes of Kent Hovind and Ken Ham, you can make a career out of that alone.
We would also like to exhibit a necessary Christian quality sadly lacking in American Christianity generally, but especially in movements like the young-Earth creationism camp: humility.
Do you understand the uphill fight we face? Can you see why it’s difficult to be as loud or as noticeable as those who spout nonsense and are showered with money, praise, and attention for their efforts by those devoted to the same cause?
Can you see why it’s a gross insult to say that Christians who accept evolution “aren’t speaking up”?
April 18th, 2008 at 6:05 am
I am shocked that you would call this movie evil and compare it to NAMBLA or the KKK. I am a strong Christian and believe in Creation, and guess what I am a Geology Major and intend to either work for NASA or go into teaching.
I loved coming to this site because I love astronomy and science and love to learn whenever I can. I am sure I will get into a ton of trouble once I enter my Master’s Program and submit my thesis for approval, however me believing in God in no way changes whether or not I hold to the idea of plate tectonics or the geological column, or any other scientific theory.
You are doing a great disservice using Ad hominem attacks when it comes to creation and is extremely offensive to those who have suffered from true evil like racists or pedophiles.
April 18th, 2008 at 6:50 am
Some “integrity” is . . . “know a decent amount about evolution” ???
Integrity is as it is; or not. In other words,
1. What is a decent amount of knowledge?
2. How does science measure knowledge?
3. Is there a known quantity for “decent?”
4. If so, in what unit quantity and for what purpose?
5. What is the scientific hypothesis for “decent?”
6. How will “decent” knowledge be replicated?
7. How does the quantity “decent” relate to comprehension and understanding “knowledge?”
April 18th, 2008 at 7:11 am
drew terry: Some “integrity” is . . . “know a decent amount about evolution” ???
No. Integrity, in this case, is admitting that your knowledge on the matter of evolution is rather limited, and that you have no qualifications to be deemed an authority on the subject. Pretending to be an authority on the matter — as many young-Earth creationist teachers do — would be a lack of integrity.
The quote you gave from Yogi Berra ignores the fact that honesty is also something to strive for, not merely something one already has. One can always be more honest than one is. (Anyone who says differently is lying to you.)
drew terry: What is a decent amount of knowledge?
It’s a comparative term, not a quantitative one. One might ask, in many contexts, how tall a hill must be before it is a mountain. And many times, there is no exact answer. (It may just be a mountain because the guy who named it called it a mountain, even though it’s shorter than that thing that other guy called a hill.)
As for appeals to science when it comes to “decent”, you’re barking up the wrong tree. I said, “I’d say I know a decent amount…”, making me the source of information, not science or any appeal to any scientific method or measurement.
April 18th, 2008 at 7:20 am
Now that I think about it (sorry), it was just a few centuries ago that Galileo was taking some heat for his heliocentric model of the solar system, and he still believed.
The comments on this blog are priceless.
Whoever else mentioned PP
Phil:
1. Have you seen the movie? (Y or N)
2. If Y, did you see the entire film? (Y or N)
3. Are you being compensated, either directly or indirectly, in any way to promote or malign, as the case may be, for surreptitious covert opinion propaganda? (Y or N)
4. If N, then please identify the alleged perpetrators of such revolting, heinous and brutally violent acts, whom you would accuse of what to equate to a rape victim or a victim and/or of violent and deadly force, in the oppression of former slaves and their descendants?
Thanks, Phil. I look forward to your response.
April 18th, 2008 at 8:15 am
One might be tilting at windmills; one might be alice in wonderland; one might be wondering what it is about science that appeals to your natural talents? I’m having a hard time understanding all of this. . .
Only an idiot compares a mountain and molehill over the definition and use of the word ‘integrity.’ Are you an idiot? I didn’t think so, and I am guessing you would agree with me. Let’s take a look and see what you wrote about integrity:
It is called a dictionary, and no, you don’t get to make up your own definitions - at least not if you aspire to be scientific. First, honest -
Don’t worry, I assume no one will actually read this, but this is the way I do it to do it right.
That is my personal integrity. Principles do not change because you think you can ‘get away’ with it.
Integrity is how do your principles compare, from what your principles are when no one is looking, to what your principles are when everyone is looking. To have integrity is to consistently over time apply self-regulated principles.
What is the dictionary definition of integrity?
To admit that you know nothing about a subject is being honest; if you admit it consistently, any time you know nothing, and are asked if “you know something about nothing you know” and you say, “I know nothing about anything -”
- that, is integrity.
Integrity is lacking whole; integrity is whether or not you admit to the lack of being honest, consistently; being honest, honestly, is integrity.
April 18th, 2008 at 8:20 am
One might be tilting at windmills; one might be alice in wonderland; one might be wondering what it is about science that appeals to your natural talents? I’m having a hard time understanding all of this. . .
Only an idiot compares a mountain and molehill over the definition and use of the word ‘integrity.’ Are you an idiot? I didn’t think so, and I am guessing you would agree with me. Let’s take a look and see what you wrote about integrity:
It is called a dictionary, and no, you don’t get to make up your own definitions - at least not if you aspire to be scientific. First, honest -
What is integrity?
To admit that you know nothing about a subject is being honest; if you admit it consistently, any time you know nothing, and are asked if “you know something about nothing you know” and you say, “I know nothing about anything -”
- that, is integrity.
Integrity is lacking whole; integrity is whether or not you admit to the lack of being honest, consistently; being honest, honestly, is integrity.
April 18th, 2008 at 8:27 am
@Calli
I know that it is sometimes disenchanting when thinking about how the FDA is doing, but that should not discourage you from reporting fraudulent drugs or medical devices.
I’m currently in school to become a member of the regulatory force (on the corporate side), so I’m learning about all the good and bad that both companies and the FDA can do. Yes, the Agency drops the ball on some things, but also bear in mind that they are sorely underfunded and understaffed, and that the volume of legitimate products is overwhelming, to say nothing of the plethora of quack products out there. They have their work cut out for them, and it’s just as much an uphill climb as it is to stem the tide of irrationalism.
April 18th, 2008 at 8:37 am
MattFunke -
Okay, let me try again.
What I’m seeing on the ‘net, on the issue of evolution (and Expelled: the Movie) is deep polarization; on the one hand, the evolution supporting, non-faithholding community, who are sometimes less than tactful in telling the “faith-heads” (NOT my phrase, there’s no need to jump me for it; I’m using it to illustrate my point) that they are wrong, and perhaps not the sharpest tacks on the wall. On the other hand, we have the extremist ID/YEC/”goddidit” camp, who are generally way less than tactful in telling the “evilutionists”/Darwin-worshippers (also not my phrase, ditto) that they are wrong, and going straight to hell, at which point they personally will find it a morally-acceptable time to laugh gloatingly at the sufferings of the “d*mned”.
I DO see the scientifically-minded non-religious trying to explain, sometimes with considerable patience, where the extremist-ID take on evolution, and the scientific APPROACH to evolution (hint: Darwin is NOT a god-replacement, and the Origin of Species is NOT the “received word”, or even the FINAL word on the subject), is mistaken (whether deliberately or otherwise). I see a FEW religious people complaining that they are being unfairly tarred with the same brush (and they are not wholely wrong). What I DON’T see is the scientifically-minded religious people (who I know to exist; I’ve spoken to several) taking much of a stand for the science, maybe pointing out that evolution isn’t even about the origin of LIFE (which is a separate matter), but a means by which species may alter over time. (And, oh, maybe telling them to get a grip. That would be nice, too.) And I would SO like to see it, if only in the interest of NOT tarring reasonable people unfairly.
I’m a big fan of integrity; I try to have some, myself. I know that I, like you, am not qualified to give knowledgable lectures on the subject. But I can Google like a maniac, and there are plenty of people on the ‘net who ARE qualified to do so, and who ARE doing so. And I do not feel that my integrity is in any way lessened by my referencing (with proper attribution, where appropriate) the points made by these people.
I also favor humility; I’d like to see more of it, in ALL camps. This is an uphill battle for everybody.
Lastly, I certainly wasn’t trying to grossly insult anybody. I try hard to choose my wording so as to not grossly insult anybody. Obviously, I missed the mark, this time. But I’m willing to tilt with this windmill as long as it takes.
April 18th, 2008 at 8:39 am
drew terry: Only an idiot compares a mountain and molehill over the definition and use of the word ‘integrity.’
I wasn’t. I was comparing mountains and hills over the definition and use of the word “decent”.
drew terry: It is called a dictionary, and no, you don’t get to make up your own definitions - at least not if you aspire to be scientific.
I never aspired to make a definition. That should have been apparent from the qualifying phrase “in this case”; I was trying to give a functional example.
Why you would criticize me for trying to create a definition (for “integrity”) and then use the dictionary’s definition of a different word (”honest”) is beyond me. What point are you trying to make?
drew terry: Principles do not change because you think you can ‘get away’ with it.
Agreed. As I do not think I can “get away with” pretending to be an expert on evolution. I’m an engineer, not a biologist.
Nor, for that matter, am I a grammarian. If your point was that the phrase “some integrity” is not strictly correct (since integrity refers to something complete), or that “decent” is not (except in slang) an adjective that refers to an amount of something… I understand your points, but aren’t they tangential to the subject matter here? If my post communicated the meaning I intended to everyone but the most particular about definitions, and the purpose of language is to communicate thought, didn’t I accomplish what I set out to do?
April 18th, 2008 at 8:47 am
Any idea that does not tolerate scrutiny is probably wrong.
There are those that are here that certainly is playing that game, but artfully hiding behind his rhetoric in order to distract people from that simple fact. It’s rather reminiscent of the “Emperor Who Wore No Clothes.”
April 18th, 2008 at 8:56 am
@ drew terry
Before you start demanding answers from Phil about whether or not he’s seen the movie, or whether he’s being compensated for his commentary (a very transparent and ignorant attempt at discrediting him without even the hint of proof as a premise for your question, by the way), please READ THE POST CLEARLY. Phil needs not to have seen one minute of the movie to be able to comment on the queezyness of seeing it advertised on mediums that are ostensibly interested in truth and science. The movie’s premise is not a secret and does not require viewing to be understood. And there is MORE than enough information from people who have seen the movie to be able to comment on the tactics used in producing, creating and marketing the movie, as already discussed in another thread here about the Expelled Exposed website (which I’m sure you’ve yet to visit)… so commenting on those facts does not require seeing the movie as a pre-requisite… at all. So you can climb down off your high horse now.
And as far as you commenting on Phil’s use of the KKK and NAMBLA in his post, well… frankly you’re just piling on, as most of us here including his regulars and supporters (myself included) have already questioned the wisdom of that choice.
This gem might have some merit if Galileo’s heliocentric model was based on BELIEF. But since it was based on scientific method and direct observation, we’ll just toss that reference into the bin of ignorance where it belongs.
Funny… I was thinking the same thing when I came across your post…
As for quoting Yogi Berra… not exactly the place I’d be getting my gems of wisdom from, there, drew… this is the same guy who said “nobody goes there anymore… it’s too crowded.”
So, ok… you’ve given us dictionary definitions of “honest” and “integrity”… great. So what’s your point? You want to take a look at those two definitions and apply them to the tactics used by the producers of this film? Be careful when you choose to use such terms to defend your position… they might be turned back around on the very thing you’d use them to defend.
April 18th, 2008 at 8:59 am
Of course you’re going to be accused of calling people names because you implied that the other side are liars of questionable integrity or ethics.
All I implied was that “the other side” does not have a hold of the truth. That does not preclude that they honestly believe in their version of reality. In fact, I think we generally agree that’s the whole problem- faith & belief.
Sometimes when you read between the lines you should only find white space.
A cigar is just a cigar, you know?
April 18th, 2008 at 9:00 am
cicely: What I DON’T see is the scientifically-minded religious people (who I know to exist; I’ve spoken to several) taking much of a stand for the science, maybe pointing out that evolution isn’t even about the origin of LIFE (which is a separate matter), but a means by which species may alter over time. (And, oh, maybe telling them to get a grip. That would be nice, too.) And I would SO like to see it, if only in the interest of NOT tarring reasonable people unfairly.
I’d like to see more of it, too. I’ll admit that those of us who are trying to engage the matter as people of faith with the ruthless application of the tools of science seem quite rare.
Some of us think it’s a good fight, though. Some, like myself, even remember a time when our brains were addled by deliberate deception, and the ensuing heartache when we were finally presented with the facts and the difficult decisions they imply. We want to help people out of their ignorance, but we also know it will hurt; we also know it’s worthwhile fighting those who want to teach more people that this creationist nonsense is scientific. Unfortunately for us, being gentle with those we talk to is tough, time-consuming, and quiet.
In that vein, please accept my apologies for jumping down your throat. I, too, lament the fact that the number of Christians willing to do something about this deliberate deception seem few. Please be assured that there are those of us who are trying to do something.
cicely: I’m a big fan of integrity; I try to have some, myself. I know that I, like you, am not qualified to give knowledgable lectures on the subject. But I can Google like a maniac, and there are plenty of people on the ‘net who ARE qualified to do so, and who ARE doing so. And I do not feel that my integrity is in any way lessened by my referencing (with proper attribution, where appropriate) the points made by these people.
Sure. I do the same. Or even refer to some excellent books written on the topics of evolution and, especially, speciation (since even creationists are reluctantly admitting that evolution happens — just not beyond a certain point).
April 18th, 2008 at 9:00 am
@MattFunke
I got what you were trying to say. So, your message came across. That’s the glorious thing about going beyond mere definitions and looking at the semantics and pragmatics of the language.
@drew terry
I can see that you are a prescriptivist, when it comes to language, rather than a descriptivist. Just FYI, dictionaries describe how language is used in writing. It does not dictate what should be used. As language changes, so, too, do dictionaries.
In your tirade about MattFunke using the wrong words or supposedly making up definitions, you are missing the point of what he was trying to say and ignoring the pragmatics (in the linguistic sense of the word).
What exactly are you trying to achieve by taking a rather aggressive tone and implying that he is an idiot? What point are you trying to make and how does it relate to his comments or the thread as a whole?
April 18th, 2008 at 9:07 am
Believe it or not, the vast majority of “people of faith” are not evil. They honestly believe that they are helping people by offering them a system of belief that offers them some level of comfort and support in a world that is often a pretty scary place.
However, the producers of “Expelled” seem to be in that minority that wants to crush any alternative way of thinking. To deliberately delude people away from provable facts, and instead keep them stupid so as to control them better.
Are they as bad as the KKK or NAMBLA? I’d say yes, simply because all of those organizations are dedicated to spreaking ignorrance, hatred and general chaos in thought.
April 18th, 2008 at 9:09 am
@Celtic_Evolution
I was going to say the same thing about quoting Yogi Berra. I mean:
“Half the lies you hear won’t be true, and half the things you say, you won’t ever say.”
So, the other half of the lies you hear will be true? And if you dont’ say half the things you say, then what do you do? I suppose that could be construed to be things you say with body language, or things you say in writing. But, according to the dictionary, that use of “say” isn’t really allowed:
“to utter or pronounce; speak”
Oh, wait…no, here’s a different definition:
“to express in words; state; declare; word”
Hmm…but that only takes care of the writing part, not the body language. Oh! Maybe this will work:
“to indicate or show”
Yes. I think that does nicely. Wow. So many different definitions on what “say” means! Wonder how that came about? Shouldn’t there only be one definition? Ah, yes. That’s right. Language changes as people use words in different ways! How could I forget?
April 18th, 2008 at 9:17 am
@ drew terry
And that’s just what you are doing… right?
Would you like a dictionary definition of hypocrisy?
April 18th, 2008 at 9:20 am
@CE
Now, now. Let’s be charitable. Perhaps by “you guys” he only meant some of the more vitriolic posters here, not those of us who also question the BA’s comparisons to KKK and NAMBLA. I have my doubts, though, and think that he may have meant everyone here (or rather, those who support evolution), regardless of their opinion of the BA’s post, but let’s at least give him the opportunity to explain himself.
April 18th, 2008 at 9:26 am
@Joe Meils
I agree… and I certainly don’t see most “people of faith” as evil. And I would say that there are people devoid of faith who are “evil”. It’s a people thing, really… but when people of faith use tactics of an “evil” nature to try to direct social or political policy… well, that’s when it goes too far for me, and it happens more and more these days. Hence the disdain for this movie on this and other websites.
That may be true to an extent, and that was probably Phil’s intent here… to make that parallel… but there’s a level that organizations like the KKK attain that takes it beyond simple “igonrance and hatred”, and makes the statement in this case more inflammatory than I am confortable with.
April 18th, 2008 at 9:29 am
@Todd W.
I guess I’m basing my response on the tone of his post… but you could be right, and perhaps my last post at drew was too vitriolic. I will concede that.
I still believe, however, based on his tone and content of his posts, that he is being no more objective in his reading of the posts than any of us, and to call us out for it is hypocritical.
April 18th, 2008 at 9:45 am
@CE
Quite true. His tone was rather, hmm, judgmental, I believe would be a good word for it. And I, too, think that he was being rather subjective in his reading of the thread as evidenced by this line:
“you guys are yourselves making the case that science expels from consideration anything contradictory to scientific dogma”
In reality, many people are stating that science considers and weighs, with scientific tools, contradictory things. Those that actually have some measure of validity to them are tentatively accepted and subjected to further review. Those that are outright shoddy get tossed. After all, why waste any more time on something that has no merit to it from the beginning? Why waste more time answering the same questions over and over again?
April 18th, 2008 at 9:50 am
It would might be helpful to head to