Saturday, April 12, 2008

Expelled




I had the pleasure of catching comedian Ben Stein on the Bill Oreilly comedy show last night talking about the Intelligent Design propaganda piece "EXPELLED".

Stein claims (and I absolutely do NOT believe him) that they originally set out to make some sort of movie about the intelligent design versus evolution contraversy, and in the process of researching for the movie he was surprised at how little evidence there was for evolution, and how ideas of intelligent design were not given fair play. In the process, they were able to trick Dawkins and other notable quotables into participating in the movie (which was going under a different name with no apparent agenda at the time of the interviews).

For me, the statement that there is little evidence for evolution is hysterically absurd and impossible to take seriously. Being a former IDer myself who thought evolution may have been directed by a designer, I was very quickly persuaded by evidence to the contrary. I couldn't have been persuaded dragging kicking and screaming away from my faith by something with "very little evidence". Sorry. The evidence is overwhelming.

In my conversion process, I found time and again that the IDers made cases that were easily swatted away by the elite scientists (read "the best scientists in the world in the field"). Even while rooting for the IDers I eventually became embarrassed by them while I watched them get man-handled by people who clearly had better evidence on their side, and much greater numbers. Thus, I was initially persuaded and have since gone on to be solidly persuaded. And who cares about Ben Stein? Why do all these economics professors and lawyers think that *I* should give a hoot what their opinions are on evolution?

Stein gave the example that no species has ever been observed to have evolved. This is like planting grass seeds and staring at the ground for 5 minutes and stating "no grass has ever been observed to grow from grass seed, this is grounds for skepticism. We can see the lawns and the fields and we can see the grass that has been already attached to the seed, but we cannot observe the grass shoots actually coming from the seed after 5 minutes. Somebody MUST have glued them together somehow."

Amazingly he cited dogs and said that no new species of dog has been observed to have been formed. Every breed of dog from the miniature Doberman to the Mastiff are a recent variation of an animal almost identical to today's Wolf from around 12,000 years ago. In just that short amount of time, selective breeding has led to all these amazing variations. Does it take a rocket scientist to see that if you expanded that time period to a million years (100 times that much) or 10 million years (1,000 times that much) it would lead to different species? How stone cold visionless does a person have to be to make Stein's argument?

But the truly chunk blowing part of Steins spewage was the insinuation that Darwin's ideas led *directly* to the atrocities of the Nazis. This is morally and intellectually deplorable, and a silly argument to boot. This would be the equivalent of blaming Jesus' ideas for the Spanish Inquisition. I've never seen anyone dumb enough to do that. But Darwin gets the blame for making the Nazis what they were despite the fact that anti-Semitism was around long before Darwinism. And despite the fact that after all this time since Darwin, tomes upon tomes of new information about genetics and zoology have made the theory of evolution as solidly confirmed as a scientific theory could possibly be. A century and a half of hard work by thousands of people have confirmed that Darwin's basic ideas were correct time and time again. How can someone blame a man for discovering a truth about how nature works? Hitler's distortion of the ideas and atrocities have nothing to do with Charles Darwin's personal ethics (by all accounts he was a very conscientious and ethical man), and especially *nothing* to do with whether our current understanding of Darwinian evolution is true. It is an appeal to emotion, which people who don't have evidence on their side always seem to do.

I think many intelligent people who have little science education and sit on the fence will watch this movie and be particularly embarrassed by this sick tactic (which apparently is one of the main themes of the movie).

The desperation of the ID community is obvious. Losing doesn't phase them, and they prey on the willing ignorance of those they preach to.

15 comments:

C. David Parsons said...

"For me, the statement that there is little evidence for evolution is hysterically absurd and impossible to take seriously."

So you want evidence? Want to take ID science seriously? Be prepared for a shock!

The Quest for Right, a series of 7 textbooks created for the public schools, represents the ultimate marriage between an in-depth knowledge of biblical phenomena and natural and physical sciences. The several volumes have accomplished that which, heretofore, was deemed impossible: to level the playing field between those who desire a return to physical science in the classroom and those who embrace the theory of evolution. The Quest for Right turns the tide by providing an authoritative and enlightening scientific explanation of natural phenomena which will ultimately dethrone the unprofitable Darwinian view.

For more information:

http://questforright.com

Aaron said...

Praise the LORD on high! Now if we can just remove all that liberal faggotry from our schools, our children can grow up to be just like Ted Haggard.

upinVermont said...

So I Googled "Quest for Right", and came up with some interesting sites. The most intersting one comes from a blogger:

http://primordial-blog.blogspot.com/
2008/02/quest-for-wrong.html

The blogger sounds alot like you, Aaron, you should check him out. We should add him to our blog list.

Anyway, it seems that we have been spammed. Parsons and his wife, Linda (I presume), have been actively searching all blogs, among other sites, with keywords like "evolution". Parsons' note to you is an advertisement. It is, word for word, the same promotional copy he, along with his wife, have been cutting and pasting elsewhere.

They are spamming, simply put. One could complain to his ISP and possibly shut him down.

Aaron said...

I assumed that immediately. I get these once in awhile. They search and send automatically. The code letters remove the bots, but some people still find the time to do it by hand. I rarely give a meaningful response.

Anonymous said...

SHAME on public schools for even considering teaching ID! Everyone knows that educating children about anal sex and STD's is far more important than allowing their young minds to consider anything a universe of unlimited possibilities
may offer. Besides, there is that well known fossil record as solid gold proof of evolution, right? There IS such a fossil record, isn't there? And Darwin was all too aware of the mind boggling complexities of the cell when he proposed his theory, right? And finally, we all know that consensus translates to fact, so as long as enough academics agree on something, that's all we need to know about it. I'm glad science is so air tight. The same science also explains the Cambrian explosion, the genesis of life itself, what happens after we die, and what caused the big bang to happen. If it weren't for science, I'd probably have to rely on some kind of faith in order to deal with such mysteries.

Aaron said...

If it weren't for science, we'd be living in paradise right now! All those liberal phonies and their fake conviction about evolution, pah!. How can anyone look at the beauty of the night sky and say "we are decendents of other primates". How ludicrous. If science can't explain absolutely everything, then it must not be worth a crap explaining anything. If Darwin could have lived to see the accumulation of evidence in the fossil record, the discovery of DNA and heredity, and all the other pieces of evidence that PROVE that he was completely wrong (except to those fringe liberal science conspirators), He would have no choice whatsoever but to come to a full understanding that Jehovah sent his only begotten son to die for the sins of mankind.

Checkmate again liberals!
God, why are they so dumb?!?!

upinVermont said...

Ya know, he's right. What we need is a "Values Science" that respects conservative principles - family values, morals, and a recognition that our nation was founded on Christian principles.

If it weren't for science, we wouldn't have STDs, AIDs, Global Warming, or public schools - those bastions of Liberalism (otherwise known as "education").

Why, if it weren't for science, we wouldn't even have fossils - those relics of liberalism.

And "adademics"... don't get me started. Academics are at the root of elitism, relativism, communism, gayism, penguins...

When will liberals get it?

upinVermont said...

Mike,

Are you gay? Following the Haggard principle, it seems to me that anybody who obsesses over anal sex and pricks as much as you (and, yes, it pops up in your diatribes over and over) must be a closet homosexual.

Not that there's anything wrong with that...

...but I think you're a closet homosexual. Really.

Aaron said...

Maybe. Mike said he was no longer interested in sex. Steve said that also right before he told me that he wanted to have sex with me. So who knows, it could be a gay trait.

Anonymous said...

Oh, I'm sorry. I keep forgetting how Darwinism lines up with the scientific criterion of being a observable and repeatable experiment. Oh, and the fact the the Galapagos finches beaks have now returned to their normal size means nothing. The Peppered Moth hoax or the Piltdown scam must be what the scientific community considers "proof" of Darwinism. Look, it's fairly easy even for a dense neocon like me to see how things evolve; of how sons look like their fathers and so on, but the bigger question is who/what wound the evolutionary clock in the first place, and an even bigger question than that: is Mike a closet homo?!
I'm so busted:-( All I think about is genitalia. I can't help it when I read here. I have to wonder if you guys have any. Even the name "Pat" has no particular gender, and even though Aaron has a boys name, he carries on here like a petulant little girl, lashing out at anything which threatens his sacred box of fear laden conclusions about life, the afterlife, and the universe.
Anyone who disagrees with the dogmatic liberal hatefest here is branded "brainwashed by Limbaugh."
Gee whiz, going to college for several years and exposing ones brain to a team of liberal professors straight out of the drug hazed 1960's couldn't be called brainwashing in any manner. Nooooooo, that's something called "education." Yet regardless of how many lectures one attends, or how many books one reads, or how many interviews one listens to, if it's not liberal and or anti-America, it's merely rightwing brainwashing. That's so rational! I SO missed out on having slimebuckets like Ward Churchill fill my mind with his hatred of this great country. I'll never get it, and am sorry I am merely one of the millions of idiots in this world you two have to deal with. Ignorance is bliss, so maybe that's why I'm so happy all the time! Uh, one other thing. Calling someone a "prick" or "dickless" are not necessarily sexual references, anymore than is calling Aaron "numbnuts." Yet even if I was gay, that wouldn't change my perspective on this list.
Hey, on another note, did you hear what McCain said about Chelsea Clinton? He said the reason she's so ugly is because her real father is Janet Reno}:-

Aaron said...

Mike, your ignorance is astounding. I know that statement will be met with more accusations of my elitism, and I couldn't care less. In a room full of uninformed idiots it's not hard to be elite. Just the fact that you are trying to use a handful of aped observations to denounce evolution is embarrassingly stupid. I fully agree with Richard Dawkins- A person who denies evolution is either stupid, ignorant, or lying.
You will come back and say that you believe in evolution but not "macroevolution". This is not a good escape route for you either. "Macroevolution" is every bit as obvious and well proven as "microevolution".

Even the Christian biologists believe in evolution with a handful of exceptions. There are always a handful of exceptions to everything. But just like global warming, you take evolution and go far out on a flimsy limb against a massive concensus of people who are way more knowledgable than you are about the subject. Just like the aging hippy stoner that you are, you are still trying to defy the establishment.

upinVermont said...

Whatever Mike...

If it were up to me, and it's not, I would start deleting your comments, if not out and out preventing you from posting here. I don't know why you read what we write? I don't know why you care? You don't agree with any of it.

Not that you have to.

But you don't even bring any constructive criticism; your opinion is derived from ignorance. You spout, you fume, you posture. All you do is make snarky, caustive comments when you're challenged; and your comments, in general,have nothing to do with the blog posts.

For my part, I didn't join up with Aaron so that we could re-create another dysfunctional mailing list. I'm bored with you. If you haven't already, go start your own blog. Maybe somebody will take you seriously. I don't.

Anonymous said...

You just don't get it, and that doesn't surprise me. I have repeatedly said that anyone can see how evolution works, however there are some problems with it as well. As with all other subjects, you view any and all dissent with complete rejection and utter contempt, and this is so very typical of the radical left, er, excuse me, the "secular progressives." Of COURSE evolution is a fact, but it does not explain anything having to do with the bigger questions regarding the genesis of life itself, the incredible complexity of the cell, or where consciousness physically exists if it is indeed a byproduct of the brain.
It seems these questions are not worthy of the attention of our esteemed academics, yet they are always on my mind.

Al Gore refuses to debate even papered scientists regarding his outrageous predictions. Our computer models can't even predict weather for 10 days nevermind 100 years. It is funny to me that you would consider deleting me, not simply for disagreeing with many of your most absurd conclusions, but mostly since I am about the only one who even bothers to post here.

Hey Aaron, I guess it's too bad that your belief about how church is becoming a rundown back alley type institution as you posted a while back is proving to be yet another wrong call. The Pope packed Yankee stadium with 60,000 adoring fans, and rcvd. support of millions while he was here. I'm not even a Catholic and I like him. What's wrong with all of us millions of people that we would embrace him?
I'm sure you have it all figured out, right? Sorry, I keep forgetting how you live in a world of idiots}:-

Anonymous said...

Over 500 doctoral scientists have now signed a statement publicly
expressing their skepticism about the contemporary theory of
Darwinian evolution.

The Scientific Dissent From Darwinism statement reads: "We are
skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural
selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination
of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged."

The list of 514 signatories includes member scientists from the
prestigious US and Russian National Academy of Sciences. Signers
include 154 biologists, the largest single scientific discipline
represented on the list, as well as 76 chemists and 63 physicists.
Signers hold doctorates in biological sciences, physics, chemistry,
mathematics, medicine, computer science, and related disciplines.
Many are professors or researchers at major universities and
research institutions such as MIT, The Smithsonian, Cambridge
University, UCLA, UC Berkeley, Princeton, the University of
Pennsylvania, the Ohio State University, the University of Georgia,
and the University of Washington.

Discovery Institute first published its Scientific Dissent From
Darwinism list in 2001 to challenge false statements about Darwinian
evolution made in promoting PBS's "Evolution" series. At the time it
was claimed that "virtually every scientist in the world believes
the theory to be true."

"Darwinists continue to claim that no serious scientists doubt the
theory and yet here are 500 scientists who are willing to make
public their skepticism about the theory," said Dr. John G. West,
associate director of Discovery Institute's Center for Science &
Culture. "Darwinist efforts to use the courts, the media and
academic tenure committees to suppress dissent and stifle discussion
are in fact fueling even more dissent and inspiring more scientists
to ask to be added to the list."

According to West, it was the fast growing number of scientific
dissenters which encouraged the Institute to launch a website --
www.dissentfromdarwin.org -- to give the list a permanent home. The
website is the Institute's response to the demand for information
and access to the list both by the public, and by scientists who
want to add their name to list.

"Darwin's theory of evolution is the great white elephant of
contemporary thought," said Dr. David Berlinski, one of the original
signers, a mathematician and philosopher of science with Discovery
Institute's Center for Science and Culture (CSC). "It is large,
almost completely useless, and the object of superstitious awe."

Other prominent signatories include U.S. National Academy of
Sciences member Philip Skell; American Association for the
Advancement of Science Fellow Lyle Jensen; evolutionary biologist
and textbook author Stanley Salthe; Smithsonian Institution
evolutionary biologist and a researcher at the National Institutes
of Health's National Center for Biotechnology Information Richard
von Sternberg; Editor of Rivista di Biologia / Biology Forum --the
oldest still published biology journal in the world-- Giuseppe
Sermonti; and Russian Academy of Natural Sciences embryologist Lev
Beloussov.

If you have a Ph.D. in engineering, mathematics, computer science,
biology, chemistry, or one of the other natural sciences, and you
agree with the following statement, "We are skeptical of claims for
the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for
the complexity of life. Careful examination of the evidence for
Darwinian theory should be encouraged," then please contact us at

cscinfo@discovery.org.

David Mabus said...

http://www.rock-explosion.com/images/finger.jpg

the *MODEL* of mental health:

http://youtube.com/watch?v=zBEbfiaZTfc

"Look at the ANGLE OF THE KEY....see that, see that...."

what an idiot this Randi is.....a REAL CRITICAL THINKER.....

for all the victims of Randi's monstrous idea.......

Visit:

http://www.centerforinquiry.net/forums/viewthread/3283/P0/

to see how we stopped James Randi's fraudulent MILLION DOLLAR PARANORMAL challenge.....

watch carefully the consequences of Randi's *idea*…..

For over 40 years James Randi Zwigert (is this even a REAL NAME?) has had total control over who and how the testing was conducted, yet despite all this he has terminated the challenge.

The ONLY REASON why the challenge was stopped is because he lost and refused to pay.

Apparently, Randi likes to break the rules when it serves him:

"14. This prize will continue to be offered until it is awarded. Upon the death of James Randi, the administration of the prize will pass into other hands, and it is intended that it continue in force. "

Great force.....it's over......

where is my MILLION DOLLARS, you LITTLE *NO-NAME* FRAUD

PS: Almost Forgot: Love the IRONY of the *BULLSHIT* sign over Randi's ugly head....