But of course, we know that. That puts the lie to everything Ben Stein says in his craptacular movie Expelled, too, since it’s illegal to teach religion in schools. And why doesn’t Ben ever mention Chris Comer in the movie? She really was expelled due to creationism… but maybe Stein would rather you didn’t know about her. Hmmmm.
The heroes at NCSE put out this video, which drives home the point about just how deceptive creationist promulgators can be, showing yet again that they are hypocrites, ignoring the Ninth Commandment.
April 29th, 2008 at 3:23 pm
For some reason, everything I say here gets shunted into the spam bucket (honest, I’m not representing the royal family of Nigeria! I’ve been a BABlog fan since 2005! I own the book!), but I figure this is worth commenting on anyway. The Anti-Defamation League has issued a statement about the Expelled movie:
Thought you’d like to hear.
April 29th, 2008 at 3:27 pm
As soon as the Edwards v. Aguillard ruling came down, they got a new textbook. Pandas v 1.0 (Creationism) became Pandas v 2.0 (Intelligent Design). Now after Dover, Pandas 2.0 wasn’t even good enough, so they’ve yet again “evolved” to their new book “Exploring Evolution.”
Why are creationists so stupid that they think that if they just keep changing the dust jacket that we won’t be following the paper trail?
Shame that most people are too lazy to do that extra bit of research. That’s why I love the NCSE; They help remind the courts of the real story.
April 29th, 2008 at 3:47 pm
Well, we are talking about the same people who got interviews with Dawkins et al. under false pretenses. The wonderful thing about religious zealots is that everything they do for God is right by dint of it being for God, therefore, logically, it is impossible for them to do wrong.
Crazy people are not necessarily irrational; what’s more likely is they’re operating off of x-logic based off of assumptions that are not necessarily grounded in reality.
Now what’s really hilarious about the whole thing is the production company behind Expelled is being sued by Yoko Ono for using a snippet of “Imagine” without permission. She’s looking for damages, of course, but more importantly, also looking to shut down showing/spread/other such promulgation of the film. While I find it dirty pool, and it goes against my ideals concerning the free marketplace of ideas, that doesn’t keep me from finding it funny.
April 29th, 2008 at 3:50 pm
I was going to write more but I think the following statement sums everything up nicely:
In their own minds, this is their jihad.
April 29th, 2008 at 4:14 pm
“since it’s illegal to teach religion in schools”
Ooops, perhaps a Freudian slip showing there. I think you meant to say “public schools”. Actually I’m pretty sure that’s not even true since public schools can cover religion in social studies classes. So I guess what you meant to say is:
“it’s illegal for public schools to teach religion in science classes”
I’m assuming that’s what the ruling in the Dover case was which was based on a prior Supreme Court ruling from the 1980’s if I’m not mistaken.
April 29th, 2008 at 4:28 pm
Concerning Expelled, shouldn’t Dawkins and Meyers have done a little due diligence before agreeing to appear in the film? If they had done even a modicum of research concerning Ben Stein they should have realized that the guy’s a nutjob. Here is some publicly available information that anyone can get from Wikipedia concerning Stein and it has been public knowledge for quite some time:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ben_Stein
“In the May 14–21, 1998, edition of the Philadelphia City Paper Stein is quoted saying, “Oh, I don’t think there was a Deep Throat. That was a fake. I think there were several different sources and some they just made up”. After Mark Felt’s identity as Deep Throat was revealed, Stein stated that Richard Nixon would have prevented the rise to power of the Khmer Rouge if he had not been forced to resign. For his actions leading to that resignation, Stein said:
If there is such a thing as kharma, if there is such a thing as justice in this life or the next, Mark Felt has bought himself the worst future of any man on this earth. And Bob Woodward is right behind him, with Ben Bradlee bringing up the rear. Out of their smug arrogance and contempt, they hatched the worst nightmare imaginable: genocide.”
So he was saying goofy things about genocide ten years ago. How come Dawkins and Meyers didn’t know about it?
“In 2007, Stein chastised the police and the GOP leadership for their response to the Larry Craig scandal. Stein said that Craig’s sexuality should be a non-issue: “A party that believes in individual rights should be rallying to his defense, not making him walk the plank”.
So apparently he thinks that U.S. Senators propositioning guys in bathroom stalls is appropriate behavior. So the guy’s a complete nutjob.
April 29th, 2008 at 4:50 pm
Liars for Jesus!
April 29th, 2008 at 5:14 pm
I read some comments on expelled about poor methods to make documentaries. One method (I don’t remember the name of the technique) is to use emotions by stating something, then immediately show a clip of it to provoke an emotional response (like a warzone for instance)
I did notice that the makers of this short film did what I would consider the same thing with a judge’s gavel. Is this the same technique…keeping in mind that I did really enjoy the film? Have I even clearly stated what I was trying to say?
Pete
April 29th, 2008 at 5:16 pm
Tom Marking: “Concerning Expelled, shouldn’t Dawkins and Meyers have done a little due diligence before agreeing to appear in the film?”
Dawkins and Myers were not interviewed by Stein, and all information regarding the film was clouded to make it hard for them to learn anything about it. See http://www.expelledexposed.com/index.php/background/interview-tactics
April 29th, 2008 at 5:18 pm
Oops, I got it mixed up. Dawkins was interviewed by Stein. Myers and Scott were not.
April 29th, 2008 at 5:24 pm
You’re absolutely right Phil. Children should not be encouraged to think outside the box. Ever.
April 29th, 2008 at 5:39 pm
Actually Phil, here’s how I calibrate my irony meters: Turn on meter. Push “Calibrate” button. Speak the sentence, “One of the Commandments of the Judeo-Christian religions is that ‘Thou shalt not bear false witness,’” clearly into the mic. Meter registers the irony from the fact that a made-up belief system tells its followers not to lie and sets that to 5.0 Morissettes. Calibration is complete.
April 29th, 2008 at 5:53 pm
Indeed, children should be encouraged to think outside the box.
For example, if an adult makes a movie that says Darwin is indirectly responsible for the Holocaust, children should question if that adult has the science education to understand what evolution is actually about.
April 29th, 2008 at 5:53 pm
Damon, nice try, but trolling is clearly not your strong suit.
I never said children shouldn’t think outside the box. I said religion shouldn’t be taught in school.
April 29th, 2008 at 6:18 pm
With all due respect, BA, now you’re just plain distorting things. The movie isn’t about whether ID is right or Evolution is right. It’s not about if ID is creationism. It’s about whether teachers who mention alternative theories other than your sacred ToE should be fired for mentioning it. It’s about silencing opposition rather than embracing alternate ideas AND LEARNING FROM THEM.
Why are you so afraid of people learning another concept and deciding for themselves? If evolution has the evidence behind it you state it does, then certainly you have nothing to fear, do you?
Unless, of course, you’re more insecure about it than you’re willing to admit. Because all I see here is a campaign to discredit the film and it’s producers AT ALL COSTS.
That sounds a hell of alot like censorship to me.
April 29th, 2008 at 6:19 pm
I would also question counterpoints that only offer ONE SOURCE as evidence. ExpelledExposed is only ONE source. And that makes it nothing more than agenda driven attempts to discredit it. Give us more sourcees. PROVE to us you’re more interested in TRUTH and FACT and less interested in an AGENDA.
April 29th, 2008 at 6:21 pm
I think the theme song from the Billy Jack series of movies says it best:
“Go ahead and hate your neighbour, go ahead and cheat a friend.
Do it in the name of Heaven, you can justify it in the end.”
April 29th, 2008 at 6:48 pm
Perhaps Mr. Garrett needs to actually read Expelled Exposed. In doing so, he will note that most of the information is presented with links to other primary and secondary sources. Nothing on the site needs to be taken on faith alone.
April 29th, 2008 at 6:56 pm
@Matt Garrett:
Every time I see one of your posts about “Expelled” you keep insisting that the movie is just about people being persecuted for having a differing opinion.
Admittedly I haven’t seen the movie, but just about every review and online account from people who have seen the movie has mentioned the second half of the film tries to tie Darwin and evolution to the Holocaust.
To be honest, the fact that you keep driving home the whole “persecuted ID proponent” plot while ignoring the movie’s other theme(s) is becoming a bit tiresome. There’s enough evidence to indicate that the film is not about these supposed science martyrs.
As far the BA and the rest of the Evil Big Science Cabal (TM) censoring ID: dude, INTELLIGENT DESIGN IS NOT SCIENCE. A Bush-appointed Republican judge was able to figure that out. Based on facts and evidence. What’s not to get?
On another note: why do you keep posting here, anyway?
April 29th, 2008 at 6:57 pm
Matt, I think you have the distortion accusation backwards.
The people mentioned in Expelled were not fired for disagreeing with evolution. ExpelledExposed is not “ONE source” (if I capitalize every other word, does it make me right?). ExpelledExposed is a site that gathers information from many sources and your description is disingenuous at best. Your claim of censorship is bizarre. The movie is in theaters and everyone is discussing it all over the net. How is that censorship?
Science is not a popularity contest - we don’t vote on which theories make us feel good. ID is not science and asking non-scientists to decide that it is science is ridiculous.
April 29th, 2008 at 6:59 pm
@ Matt Garrett
wow… if only we’d managed to have this EXACT discussion with you before… Oh wait! We have! And you’ve learned nothing.
http://www.badastronomy.com/bablog/2008/04/17/npr-science-channel-and-expelled/#comments
http://www.badastronomy.com/bablog/2008/04/15/expelled-exposed/#comments
So… here we go again…
The biggest problem with this isn’t that you are clearly unaware of what the REST of us already know… namely that your ENTIRE PREMISE is a lie (not one single person named in this film has ever been fired, released, dismissed, or otherwise “Expelled”)… no… the problem is that in a subsequent post, you mention ExpelledExposed, while clearly demonstrating that you refuse to look at the site’s contents, where you would have learned that this premise was a lie. So how are we to take you seriously when you clearly show that you are unwilling to even review the very sources you refer to?
So… moving on…
Matt, do you read anything else on this blog before you decide to spout off? If you did, you’d know that this topic was well covered in another thread just a few posts down. But I’ll say it for you again. And please pay attention this time: No-one here is either afraid of nor against ANYONE learning ANYTHING… what we are against, for like the billionth time, is presenting non-science in a science class. I will say this to you, Matt Garrett, only one more time, so please listen: ID / Creationism is NOT science… therefor it does not belong in a science curriculum. Period.
Please gain some understanding of why some things are taught in a science class and why some things are not acceptible for a science class before you continue to spout off about what science is “afraid of”.
Is there an actual point or argument in here? Which “costs” would those be? Didn’t cost me a thing to rip this movie apart… nor did it cost any of the dozens and dozens of movie critics who’ve done the same. I think we’re getting a little dramatic with the “AT ALL COSTS” statement, don’t you?
Ugh… Matt… please actually VISIT the site. Seriously. oh… and actually read stuff on it while you’re there. The site itself is not a source… it’s more of a source aggregator. The whole site is dedicated to providing OTHER SOURCES. In fact, if you go to the “Resources” page on that site, you’ll see dozens of them. You should do that… and please read the reviews from places like MSNBC and NYTimes… I think it would do you some good to see that it’s not just us hethens at this site on a crusade to discredit the movie.
Once you’ve done that, do yourself a favor Matt… stop defending this movie… you’re going to end up looking really silly.
April 29th, 2008 at 7:10 pm
Excellent work.
April 29th, 2008 at 7:21 pm
Damon,
That’s very funny. ID is precisely about teaching kids to only think inside the box. Or perhaps only think inside The Book.
April 29th, 2008 at 7:34 pm
# Matt Garretton 29 Apr 2008 at 6:19 pm
Matt,
The ExpelledExposed site is a collection of references to other sources. It is not, in fact, a single source. It is a good jumping off point so that one does not need to spend an unreasonable amount of time doing due diligence. Go look at the site. Look it up. Do YOUR research.
The movie directly and without remorse attacks sciences, lies about sciences, creatively edits interviews so as to misrepresent those interviewed, lies about it’s purpose, and generally, lies about everything it comes in contact with. So, as a person on the side of science, should I lie back and take it? Should I let the one chance humanity has to make a better tomorrow be slandered and libeled? Do I allow a transgression go unchallenged? Absolutely not!
The movie Expelled is about the people whom science supposedly expelled unjustly. I knew about several of these people even before the movie was made, and followed many of the stories closely. They are completely misrepresented in the movie as some sort of Christian Martyrs, above reproach and completely innocent in their situations. This is complete fabrication on a grand scale. The authors of the movie, had they performed their due diligence, would have known this. They presented these stories even so. Check out the background stories, look it up. Do your own research.
The movie also conflates the Theory of Evolution with the Nazi party of Adolf Hitler. That is pure bunk. While Hitler may have had some base knowledge that Darwin wrote something about Natural Selection, his pogroms against the Jewish People were based on the more time honored and well understood Martin Luther treatise against the Jews and a little thing called Artificial Selection (google it to see how long humans have practiced this). Look it up. Don’t take Ben Stein’s word for it!
Quotes by the atheist Evolutionary Biologists (why didn’t they choose any theists?) were mangled and edited to make them look as silly as possible. For instance, Dr. Dawkins was asked if there were any possible situation he would entertain that could be equated with Intelligent Design. He may or may not have answered right away. The editing makes it seem he jumped right into explaining about alien overlords seeding the Earth as if that was any better than “Goddidit” - but he was entertaining a fancy that he, in fact, does not hold.
If you investigate the hypothesis that the first life was created on the backs of crystals, you might find a thing based on catalytic reactions. These are real, and works just like the theory about the clays of ancient Earth providing a scaffolding for the first proteins to be build on - so it is science and not silly - even if it turns out this isn’t how it happened. Look it up.
If you don’t do your research, how can you have any pudding…. er, um. Or something like that.
(Oh, and Blake Stacey - I get spam blocked all the time too - I think the BA has to approve my posts. My be my ISP or my IP address range, or something).
JBS
April 29th, 2008 at 10:28 pm
I remember in my school we did talk about the “controversy” over evolution, but it basically came down to: there is no controversy in the scientific community, evolution DID happen regardless of what you believe, and intelligent design isn’t scientific. I’m glad my (public) school never bowed to political or religious ideology (yet).
April 29th, 2008 at 11:09 pm
What worries me far more about this bunch isn’t their violation of the 9th Commandment. Being a liar is pretty much par for the course for anyone involved in politics (and believe me, this is a matter of religious politics, not science).
What bothers me is that they continually violate the “11th Commandment” :
Thou shalt not believe thine own BS.
The scary thing about people like Stein is that they’ve been spouting this kind of hateful BS for so long that they no longer possess the capacity to see reality, and so in their minds they aren’t lying. Which makes them credible in the eyes of people who just don’t know any better.
April 30th, 2008 at 4:30 am
I don’t understand why people can’t just go to school and learn science there, and learn their religious beliefs (which includes all their creation beliefs) at that other place they were originally meant to learn from called Church. It’s a no brainer. I just don’t see what the argument is here. It’s two distinct and separate subjects. Keep science and all it brings us based in discovered fact aside from any faith based system of beliefs which at most times cannot be scrutinized by the scientific method, and there is little issue. It’s like keeping ‘Drama class’ separate to ‘Advanced Physics’. Just two different subjects. Keep science at school, and religion at church.
Most creation belief systems are based on vague and often poetic descriptions of the account, like the ‘Genesis’ account for example. Every time science makes it plainly clear that something is fact, like a certain facet of evolution, rather than be dogmatic about the creation belief, why not just let science fill in the gaps. Being dogmatic about some bible text, either way, is a little bit silly if it is open to interpretation due to its lack of detail regarding science. Would it not be more probable, form the point of view of the religious person, that fallible humans just, read it wrong? People make mistakes, even religious people interpreting religious text. Look at the example of Galileo and the ‘moving moons around Jupiter’ saga vs. the Church at that time. The Church was wrong, and he was right. But all they had to do, (which eventually they did) was admit, they read it wrong, and reinterpret the text. Easy.
April 30th, 2008 at 5:29 am
Matt (and anyone else who thinks “evolutionists” are “censoring” other scientific views) if you have any SCIENTIFIC alternatives to the ToE to propose, by all means, please PRESENT THEM. The floor’s all yours…
(crickets chirping)
April 30th, 2008 at 7:39 am
What bothers me most about Creationism and IDiocy isn’t so much that it’s bad science — because bad science is straightforward to refute, there are rules for how that game is played — nor even that it’s bad civics — the legal system may grind slowly, but it grinds finely, and it’s doing OK at keeping religion out of public school teaching.
What bothers me most is that it’s bad THEOLOGY.
In fact, it’s /such/ bad theology, Christian theologians even have a name for it. They call it “the God of the Gaps”, and its been around ever since science began its progress in explaining the natural world.* Creationists have been reduced from claiming all of the creation, the heavens and the earth and the seas, for God’s handiwork, to conceding the entirety of the natural world /except for a short sequence of proteins that make up the eubacterial flagellum/.** That’s a pretty mighty God you’ve got there, son.
Personally, I have a hard time reconciling my faith with the idea of a God who is content to let the entire natural world develop and evolve according to its own laws and contingencies, but intervenes to make sure that the eubacterium gets it’s tail.
Sadly, I fear that the fight for Truth In Teaching ™ and against the lies of IDiocy will only be won when more /religious/ leaders are willing to stand up and tell these people: you are demeaning our religion and our faith and our God.
*Throughout the history of science, people with a limited grasp of Christianity have clung to ideas of the form of “Science can’t explain X, so God must have done it. OK, so gravity is what keeps the planets in their orbits, not angels pushing them along, but how do you explain the Sun’s heat? Huh? Huh?”. Of course, the nature of science is to constantly explain more of the natural world, leaving ever smaller Gaps for the creationists to cling to as their “proof”.
**And yes, I know that even that supposed example of ID has been debunked.
April 30th, 2008 at 8:02 am
I agree with you on that, quasidog.
I have had people at my church spout astonishingly bone-headed stuff at me of the “science is a lie” variety. They do seem to be a minority, at least. They seem to be the same people who regularly watch televangelists on TV, and are part of a “fundamentalist” anti-”anything that doesn’t involve selective quotation from (an inaccurate English language translation of) the Bible” group.
They seem to fear that science will somehow “disprove” their beliefs, so they actively seek out anything that purports to discredit science. Fear is very effective at killing thought. (*cough* Bush administration *cough*)
The USA either has a lot more of these people or they’re a lot louder over there. Perhaps the recent climate of fear (”the terr’ists are comin’ fer ya!”) is a big factor, too.
My suggestion is that you start to push back with “medicine is science”. I have yet to find a “fundamentalist” who will turn down medical treatment.
April 30th, 2008 at 8:53 am
[…] Artigo inspirado neste post […]
April 30th, 2008 at 9:08 am
The young lad who stood up in a court room to argue against the ID nonsense showed great courage and commitment. Inspirational.
Erec Hillis, my hat’s off to you.
April 30th, 2008 at 4:30 pm
@Tyler Durden,
Just to be pedantic, the 11th commandment is usually taken to be;
If thou by an Hebrew servant, six years he shall serve and in the seventh he shall go out free (Exodus 21:2, with the caveat that that there are 3 competing sets of “10″ commandments in the Torah)
@Quasidog,
Because it’s about politics, not church. It’s about trying to end the separation of church/state, thereby ending democracy, forming a republic and, to many, triggering violent ‘end times’.
May 2nd, 2008 at 6:05 pm
@Jeffersonian,
I’m sure that’s how many people, with certain agendas, political or otherwise, view the issue. Myself and many other people however do not. To myself, it’s just simple. Keep the subjects separate. Let science do it’s science (based on observable fact). Let religion do it’s religion (based on reasonable faith). It works for me, and many other people I know.
May 2nd, 2008 at 11:21 pm
Ultimately, the point is moot.
No evolutionist will be convinced of what the movie is about without seeing the movie.
May 4th, 2008 at 9:09 pm
Uh, drew, Ben Stein has been very open in TELLING us all what it’s about…
May 22nd, 2008 at 2:29 pm
[…] Plait of Bad Astronomy presents a video produced by the NCSE which shows the hypocrisy and lies of those who would teach their religious […]