Expulsion From 'Expelled'

[Hobbit]

Looks like the upcoming Ben Stein documentary "Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed," (http://expelledthemovie.com/) is drawing quite a bit of attention. In March as private screening of the film was shown in Minnesota. On the same weekend, there was an atheists' convention in the same place. Due to a computer glitch, you could RSVP for the private screening without actually being invited, leading some people to think that this was a 'registration' and that anybody who signed up could go in. Most of these people were turned away at the door. Two such people were avowed atheists and Darwin torch-bearers Richard Dawkins and Paul Zachary "PZ" Myers. Producer Mike Mathis saw the two on the RSVP list. Realizing Dawkins had flown all the way in from England, Mathis went ahead and let him into the screening, despite his having signed in under a false name, 'Clinton' Dawkins. Myers, however, lives in Minnesota and was told he wasn't invited, at which point he got belligerent and was threatened with arrest before he backed off.

Fast forward a bit. When the news hits, it's a hellstorm. Some bloggers portrayed Dawkins and Myers as gate crashers. Others portrayed Mathis as an intellectually dishonest hack who wanted to expel everyone who doesn't agree with him and only let Dawkins in because either his incompetence or Dawkins' cleverness (depending on who you ask) caused him not to notice that Dawkins was attending. And that includes Dawkins himself.

Here's the story on CNS that is linked to straight from the Expelled web site.

http://www.cnsnews.com/news/viewstory.asp?Page=/Culture/archive/200804/CUL20080402a.html

And here's an erupting, uncorked, angry, venomous tirade by Dawkins that pretty much proves the point of the movie, as he tries to portray everyone involved as anti-science, religious zealots without a scientific or logical bone in their bodies. He also questions whether the movie will actually be released when everybody finds out how poorly he and his colleague were treated (get over yourself) and were 'conned' into appearing in the film.

Note: Unlike Michael Moore documentaries, the interviews with atheists are not victim to the cut-and-paste jobs to make them look like something other than what they were. They are presented in their entirety. Below is the rant, revealingly entitled 'Lying for Jesus?'

http://www.richarddawkins.net/article,2394,Lying-for-Jesus,Richard-Dawkins

As for the movie itself, I think I'll make a thread down in the movies section if I haven't been beaten to it.

[theHawk]

I've always liked Ben Stein, he's got a great sense of humor.

[avatar4321]

Is Dawkins serious about the "Lying for Jesus" thing? it seems rather odd to me that Ben Stein, a Jewish man, is lying for Jesus.

[Hagbard Celine]

It's true, extremists do exist in the world. But only on the left side of the political spectrum of course ;)

[Hobbit]

It's true, extremists do exist in the world. But only on the left side of the political spectrum of course ;)

You may have noticed me pointing out the fact that a lot of bloggers supportive of the film portrayed Dawkins and Myers as gate-crashers, though that is not accurate, as best as I can tell. Your attempt to portray me as a partisan hack who can't see extremists unless they first disagree with me is childish, pointless, and patently false. Grow up and learn to have an intelligent conversation every once in a while.

[Hagbard Celine]

You may have noticed me pointing out the fact that a lot of bloggers supportive of the film portrayed Dawkins and Myers as gate-crashers, though that is not accurate, as best as I can tell. Your attempt to portray me as a partisan hack who can't see extremists unless they first disagree with me is childish, pointless, and patently false. Grow up and learn to have an intelligent conversation every once in a while.

(To be read in a patronizingly pretentious voice meant to mock the target recipient's own doubtless equally self-important post tone.)
Your portrayal of me as childish, pointless and a purveyor of falseties is reactionary and patently misguided. Also, I don't base my opinions of people on a single episode. Rather, I form them over a period of time so they end up as amalgams pieced together from multiple interactions. My opinion of you as a partisan hack who can't see extremists unless they first disagree with you is based on a relatively long history of doing just that.


:dance:

[Hobbit]

(To be read in a patronizingly pretentious voice meant to mock the target recipient's own doubtless equally self-important post tone.)
Your portrayal of me as childish, pointless and a purveyor of falseties is reactionary and patently misguided. Also, I don't base my opinions of people on a single episode. Rather, I form them over a period of time so they end up as amalgams pieced together from multiple interactions. My opinion of you as a partisan hack who can't see extremists unless they first disagree with you is based on a relatively long history of doing just that.


:dance:

So, basically, a rather wordy 'uh huh.' Only when politicians speak do I normally see so many words that say so little, or so little of value. If you think I don't see extremists on both sides of the issue, then you don't know me, which doesn't surprise me, as you're usually too busy with your flawless arguments of 'uh uh,' and 'I'm too busy trying to get laid to worry about such things,' to see past the end of your own nose. What you are, sir, is an immature, shallow hack who thinks mocking the messenger is debate.

[Hagbard Celine]

So, basically, a rather wordy 'uh huh.' Only when politicians speak do I normally see so many words that say so little, or so little of value. If you think I don't see extremists on both sides of the issue, then you don't know me, which doesn't surprise me, as you're usually too busy with your flawless arguments of 'uh uh,' and 'I'm too busy trying to get laid to worry about such things,' to see past the end of your own nose. What you are, sir, is an immature, shallow hack who thinks mocking the messenger is debate.

Sorry living life to the fullest is more important to me than sitting in front a computer "debating" when I don't have to. I'm also sorry you get a wicked case of timid-peter when girls talk to you.
I guess if calling-out partisan crapola and skipping over issues that are completely unimportant makes me "immature" and a "shallow hack" then I guess I'm the embodiment of those words. Color me immature! Because I could care less if gays get married, if women abort their fetuses or if Obama decided to wear a flag pin.
What I do care about is teaching falseties as if they are truth. And that's exactly what the aim of the Creationism camp is.

[Hobbit]

Sorry living life to the fullest is more important to me than sitting in front a computer "debating" when I don't have to. I'm also sorry you get a wicked case of timid-peter when girls talk to you.

Thank you for proving my point.


I guess if calling-out partisan crapola and skipping over issues that are completely unimportant makes me "immature" and a "shallow hack" then I guess I'm the embodiment of those words. Color me immature! Because I could care less if gays get married, if women abort their fetuses or if Obama decided to wear a flag pin.
What I do care about is teaching falseties as if they are truth. And that's exactly what the aim of the Creationism camp is.

Then let people talk about it every once in a while. If you're so confident that Darwinism is true, then let it stand up under criticism. The movie isn't about ID being right or wrong. It's about the fact that it cannot even be discussed intelligently, as the other side of the issue has demagogued it so far that they might as well start throwing around the word 'heretic.' If there's conclusive proof, then show it. If there's not conclusive truth, then let people with alternate theories speak their peace. Laugh at it if you feel it's necessary, but the outright discrimination against those who think that Darwinism might not be what it's cracked up to be is downright criminal.

[Hagbard Celine]

Then let people talk about it every once in a while. If you're so confident that Darwinism is true, then let it stand up under criticism. The movie isn't about ID being right or wrong. It's about the fact that it cannot even be discussed intelligently, as the other side of the issue has demagogued it so far that they might as well start throwing around the word 'heretic.' If there's conclusive proof, then show it. If there's not conclusive truth, then let people with alternate theories speak their peace. Laugh at it if you feel it's necessary, but the outright discrimination against those who think that Darwinism might not be what it's cracked up to be is downright criminal.

Puh-leeze. "Criminal?" Hardworking scientists have every right in the book to laugh these guys out of the lab. If you want a serious discussion about Creationism, bring something to the table besides half-baked philosophical arguments.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/id/

[Hobbit]

Puh-leeze. "Criminal?" Hardworking scientists have every right in the book to laugh these guys out of the lab. If you want a serious discussion about Creationism, bring something to the table besides half-baked philosophical arguments.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/id/

You mean 'half-baked philosophical' arguments like:

The Cambrian Explosion, a well-documented phenomenon that flies in the face of Darwinistic theory?
Irreducible Complexity, a principle acknowledged by many atheists to be valid?
The Origin of Life itself, a mystery that modern science doesn't even pretend to know the answer to, other than a vague conjecture about lightning striking mud?
The fact that nowhere in nature has a distinct species emerged through natural selection at a time or place where it could be observed?

I'd also like to know what it is about the idea of God that offends people so much that they feel the need to force all scientists to either disavow such a belief or promise that they'll pretend He doesn't exist every time they put on a lab coat. What scares you about an honest debate on God so much that you'd rather smear and discredit anybody who suggests the idea than actually discuss the subject intelligently.

I also wouldn't trust PBS further than I could throw them. Frontline is one of the most one-sided pieces of trash ever aired, and I trust their opinions and fact-checking no further than I would trust those of Ann Coulter or Al Franken.

[Hagbard Celine]

You mean 'half-baked philosophical' arguments like:

The Cambrian Explosion, a well-documented phenomenon that flies in the face of Darwinistic theory?
"Flies in the face of?" Please turn the drama down a notch Hobbie. There are multiple theories on why the Cambrian explosion took place. In keeping with normal scientific processes, it is correct that the supernatural is not a variable that has been considered to explain this mystery.


Irreducible Complexity, a principle acknowledged by many atheists to be valid?
Wrong. "Irreducible Complexity" is philosophy and has been disproven over and over again. There are tons of biological structures that function without all their parts and can even carry-out new tasks when "reduced" from their complex state.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/programs/ht/wm/3416_08_220.html


The Origin of Life itself, a mystery that modern science doesn't even pretend to know the answer to, other than a vague conjecture about lightning striking mud?
You're attacking evolution for not immediately having all the answers? Discovery takes time man. Creationism has had 2000 years (and has offered absolutely nothing conclusive btw). Evolution is only 100 or 200 years old. Give it some time before you make accusations based on the fact that we don't know everything yet.


The fact that nowhere in nature has a distinct species emerged through natural selection at a time or place where it could be observed?
Again, the theory is only a century or two old and new, previously-unknown species are discovered all the time. The Cambrian period is a period of approximately 80 million years. All the other "epochs" are as long or longer. The adjective "short-sighted" comes to mind Hobbit. Tut-tut.


I'd also like to know what it is about the idea of God that offends people so much that they feel the need to force all scientists to either disavow such a belief or promise that they'll pretend He doesn't exist every time they put on a lab coat. What scares you about an honest debate on God so much that you'd rather smear and discredit anybody who suggests the idea than actually discuss the subject intelligently.
Nobody is "offended" by God, though I'm sure this would delight and affirm you to no end. Scientific knowledge is gained through the observation and testing of corporeal evidence. Until you can sit your "creator" down and interview it then I'm afraid the argument formerly known as "Creationism" is going to continue to be forced out of the lab and kept in the halls of the philosophy department.


I also wouldn't trust PBS further than I could throw them. Frontline is one of the most one-sided pieces of trash ever aired, and I trust their opinions and fact-checking no further than I would trust those of Ann Coulter or Al Franken.
It's too bad that you are unwilling to learn from and/or listen to sources you disagree with. How "partisan" and "immature." :poke:

[Gaffer]

Creationism uses pseudo-science to explain something that is purely faith based. Why do they feel it is necessary to back up their faith with flawed experiments. To do so is a lie. ID has never been proven, neither has random evolution. It's all part of the ongoing search.

I really don't believe the creationist would believe any facts, no matter how much proof is presented, if it disagrees with their belief system. ON the other hand science, presented with proof of a divine being would accept it and move on.

Science wants to explain things and understand why they happen. Creationists want to use science to justify their own causes. That's how I see the conflict.

[Hobbit]

"Flies in the face of?" Please turn the drama down a notch Hobbie. There are multiple theories on why the Cambrian explosion took place. In keeping with normal scientific processes, it is correct that the supernatural is not a variable that has been considered to explain this mystery.

Then why do scientists and teachers get fired when they talk about it?


Wrong. "Irreducible Complexity" is philosophy and has been disproven over and over again. There are tons of biological structures that function without all their parts and can even carry-out new tasks when "reduced" from their complex state.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/programs/ht/wm/3416_08_220.html

A) I already told I don't trust PBS. B) Why is this hardly ever mentioned or backed up instead of Darwinists simply shouting 'zealot' and dismissing it without justification.


You're attacking evolution for not immediately having all the answers? Discovery takes time man. Creationism has had 2000 years (and has offered absolutely nothing conclusive btw). Evolution is only 100 or 200 years old. Give it some time before you make accusations based on the fact that we don't know everything yet.

Now, I'm attacking evolution for claiming to be the ONLY answer. If you want to believe that lightning struck mud and created life and that life as we know it is nothing more than the result of a bunch of randomized chemical reactions, then so be it, but I'm sick and tired of seeing teachers and scientists discredited and excommunicated for stating that maybe, just maybe, we should re-examine this whole Darwinism thing and see if maybe it's not as absolutely true as we thought.


Again, the theory is only a century or two old and new, previously-unknown species are discovered all the time. The Cambrian period is a period of approximately 80 million years. All the other "epochs" are as long or longer. The adjective "short-sighted" comes to mind Hobbit. Tut-tut.

This is what I don't get. When I ask why you don't tolerate alternate theories, you tell me it's because all alternate theories are stupid and invalid because Darwinism is absolutely true, yet when I cry 'habeas corpus,' you tell me that the theory is so new that we haven't had the time to gather sufficient evidence. Either it's true or it's shaky. It can't be both.


Nobody is "offended" by God, though I'm sure this would delight and affirm you to no end. Scientific knowledge is gained through the observation and testing of corporeal evidence. Until you can sit your "creator" down and interview it then I'm afraid the argument formerly known as "Creationism" is going to continue to be forced out of the lab and kept in the halls of the philosophy department.

For decades, the Easter Island statues had no creator. They were just kind of sitting there and we had no idea who built them. There was no 'creator' to sit down in a lab and talk to. Does that mean that we should have concluded that it was an amazingly coincidental erosion pattern until such time that we found out who made them? If, thousands or millions of years from now, all evidence of humans is removed and some other civilization finds Mt. Rushmore, must they conclude that it was the result of random chance until they find evidence of our civilization? Of course not. For eons, structures have been found with no evidence of who built them, but because they appeared constructed, rather than random, we concluded, scientifically, that they were, in fact, constructed and began looking for the constructor. Why is it so heretical to look at the DNA molecule and the biological perfection of life and conclude that it couldn't be a product of random chance.


It's too bad that you are unwilling to learn from and/or listen to sources you disagree with. How "partisan" and "immature." :poke:

Nice deflection. You wanna pull in somebody credible, I'll give it a whirl, and I've been hearing these arguments for years. I even used to believe them until I looked at all the evidence and concluded that Darwinism just didn't add up.

I find it very telling that after telling me how you're absolutely right and I'm just a hack who doesn't know anything, you proceed to lecture me on being open minded. As I said before, I'm not looking to have creationism or the more general intelligent design accepted as truth. I'm just looking for scientists to tolerate people who think that maybe Darwin was wrong. If we never question our science, then we'll never progress. It was questioning science that led to germ theory, the discovery of how maggots actually got on meat, modern astronomy, and many other things. What makes you so different from those before you who observed the world, drew conclusions based on their observations, then persecuted those who suggested an alternate theory? Even Richard Dawkins, the pride of the evolutionary community, admits that it's possible we were designed by a higher intelligence, but that he believes that higher being or the one that designed it or on up the line would have to have evolved. Making assumptions you can't prove is what is bad science.


Creationism uses pseudo-science to explain something that is purely faith based. Why do they feel it is necessary to back up their faith with flawed experiments. To do so is a lie. ID has never been proven, neither has random evolution. It's all part of the ongoing search.

I really don't believe the creationist would believe any facts, no matter how much proof is presented, if it disagrees with their belief system. ON the other hand science, presented with proof of a divine being would accept it and move on.

Science wants to explain things and understand why they happen. Creationists want to use science to justify their own causes. That's how I see the conflict.

As I've said many times before, if I see proof of evolution, such as the emergence of a new species or a random mutation that results in a complex, useful feature, just as a couple of examples, then I will accept evolution as probability, if not fact. My view of God is not so tiny as to rule out the use of such a mechanic in the creation of the world and I'm not so shallow and petty as to dismiss evolution right out. I think the base science behind it (natural selection and the perpetuation of favorable genes) is quite valid and has led to many good discoveries that explain the world around us. I just don't think it adequately explains the origins of the diversity of life. However, that's just me, and I don't doubt that there are swarms of people who are so petty as to cram the world into a 6000 year old, *BOOM* creation that even the most direct evidence wouldn't convince them.

I also somehow doubt that even the most direct evidence of God would satisfy atheists. After all, he came to Earth once, performed a bunch of miracles, and told us straight up who he was, as confirmed by the sky opening and a voice calling down from Heaven. In response to this overwhelming evidence, we killed him. Great plan.

It's also condescending to call ID something that was invented to back up somebody's faith. While I don't have the paper or article at my fingertips right now (because I know you'll ask for a link), there were two avowed atheists who were also highly esteemed biologists who decided to analyze the evidence and show, once and for all, that Darwinism must be true. Well, after their re-examination, they concluded that at some point, there had to be an intelligent designer. As atheists, they theorized and advanced species of alien that, itself, evolved created life on Earth, but that random chance simply couldn't account for everything.