Is Ben Stein a "rebel" for this "generation"? Will he tackle "Big Science" and its Darwinian claims? All will be made clear on Darwin's birthday, February 12, 2008. (If the filmmakers had waited one more year, they could have released the film on his bicentennial.)
The film is written by Ben Stein, Kevin Miller (local boy from Abbotsford, former reviewer for Hollywood Jesus and The Joy of Movies) and self-made millionaire software developer Walt Ruloff (also a local boy, from Bowen Island).
Links to threads on 'Evolution, 'a critique of Intelligent Design, 'Battle of the New Atheism', 'Intelligent Design 101' and 'The Daily Show's Schmevolution week'.
Full Version: Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed
Very interesting.
While I'm so tired of all the pointless debates surrounding I.D., creationism, evolutionism, etc that I no longer care how my species came into being... I thought I.D. got a pretty unfair thrashing in the court of public opinion. It will be good to see someone in the quasi-mainstream discuss it... um... intelligently.
The (pathetic) Dawkins quote on the film's webpage suggests that this film will simply be using I.D. as a jumping point to discuss the bigger question of God in science. Which should make it interesting and controversial. I'm hoping the intelligence of the discussion lives up to the film's marketing.
While I'm so tired of all the pointless debates surrounding I.D., creationism, evolutionism, etc that I no longer care how my species came into being... I thought I.D. got a pretty unfair thrashing in the court of public opinion. It will be good to see someone in the quasi-mainstream discuss it... um... intelligently.
The (pathetic) Dawkins quote on the film's webpage suggests that this film will simply be using I.D. as a jumping point to discuss the bigger question of God in science. Which should make it interesting and controversial. I'm hoping the intelligence of the discussion lives up to the film's marketing.
A few comments from PZ Meyers, one of the film's interviewees. He claims that the filmmakers misrepresented themselves when they asked to interview him:
QUOTE
Why were they so dishonest about it? If Mathis had said outright that he wants to interview an atheist and outspoken critic of Intelligent Design for a film he was making about how ID is unfairly excluded from academe, I would have said, "bring it on!" We would have had a good, pugnacious argument on tape that directly addresses the claims of his movie, and it would have been a better (at least, more honest and more relevant) sequence. He would have also been more likely to get that good ol' wild-haired, bulgy-eyed furious John Brown of the Godless vision than the usual mild-mannered professor that he did tape. And I probably would have been more aggressive with a plainly stated disagreement between us.
I certainly hope it's not the "creationist propaganda film" that PZ Meyers claims. Odd that he assumes that a film defending I.D.'s media rape is creationist propaganda.
(And, to be honest, I didn't see much misrepresenting done in the initial contact... except for the name of the project, which I assume was retitled after Ben Stein was added at some point. Mr. Meyers's judgment on this issue appears clouded by his pre-judging of this film as anti-science creationist propaganda.)
(And, to be honest, I didn't see much misrepresenting done in the initial contact... except for the name of the project, which I assume was retitled after Ben Stein was added at some point. Mr. Meyers's judgment on this issue appears clouded by his pre-judging of this film as anti-science creationist propaganda.)
QUOTE(Peter T Chattaway @ Aug 25 2007, 11:44 AM) 
Is Ben Stein a "rebel" for this "generation"? Will he tackle "Big Science" and its Darwinian claims? All will be made clear on Darwin's birthday, February 12, 2008. (If the filmmakers had waited one more year, they could have released the film on his bicentennial.)
No kidding? That would mean Darwin and Abraham Lincoln were born on the same day. Never realized that.
opus wrote:
: A few comments from PZ Meyers, one of the film's interviewees. He claims that the filmmakers misrepresented themselves when they asked to interview him . . .
Yeah, if he's correct in his description of what happened, then it's pretty lame that the film's promotional materials would claim that the film "confronts" scientists like him.
Incidentally, Meyers asks where the funds for this movie are coming from. To that, I say, look at the writing and producing credits. Walt Ruloff is a software developer and self-made millionaire who lives on Bowen Island, near Vancouver (and co-writer Kevin Miller is a freelance writer from Abbotsford, near Vancouver -- so there's a couple of local connections there). For example, a gossip column quoted at this website says: "According to my spies, the story began a long time ago when software developer Walt Ruloff sold a program to Microsoft for $120 million U.S. with his share being somewhere around 80%." There's a brief bio at the website for Premise Media, the company producing this film, too.
I'm not saying ALL the money is coming from Ruloff, but I don't think we have to look too far to speculate as to where this movie's budget is coming from.
mrmando wrote:
: No kidding? That would mean Darwin and Abraham Lincoln were born on the same day. Never realized that.
Wikipedia says you are correct. And when has it ever lied to us?
: A few comments from PZ Meyers, one of the film's interviewees. He claims that the filmmakers misrepresented themselves when they asked to interview him . . .
Yeah, if he's correct in his description of what happened, then it's pretty lame that the film's promotional materials would claim that the film "confronts" scientists like him.
Incidentally, Meyers asks where the funds for this movie are coming from. To that, I say, look at the writing and producing credits. Walt Ruloff is a software developer and self-made millionaire who lives on Bowen Island, near Vancouver (and co-writer Kevin Miller is a freelance writer from Abbotsford, near Vancouver -- so there's a couple of local connections there). For example, a gossip column quoted at this website says: "According to my spies, the story began a long time ago when software developer Walt Ruloff sold a program to Microsoft for $120 million U.S. with his share being somewhere around 80%." There's a brief bio at the website for Premise Media, the company producing this film, too.
I'm not saying ALL the money is coming from Ruloff, but I don't think we have to look too far to speculate as to where this movie's budget is coming from.
mrmando wrote:
: No kidding? That would mean Darwin and Abraham Lincoln were born on the same day. Never realized that.
Wikipedia says you are correct. And when has it ever lied to us?
QUOTE(Peter T Chattaway @ Aug 27 2007, 12:11 AM)
Yeah, if he's correct in his description of what happened, then it's pretty lame that the film's promotional materials would claim that the film "confronts" scientists like him.
I work in a similar industry, and I know it's fair to say that in the context I'm familiar with... marketing and production aren't always on the same page.
I don't recall reading anything on that blog post that made me think that the film's producers "lied" about their intentions, as Meyers stated. He may very well be right that there was some intentional deception, but I certainly hope he's more convincing in the film for the sake of his side of the argument.
That bit about Microsoft was interesting, but I couldn't find anything to substantiate it on the Internet other than various people repeating the rumor. Too bad, I was curious what specific software Ruloff sold to Microsoft. Sounds more like he deals in companies than software, though. (But where his money came from doesn't really matter to a discussion of the film... it's just a point of interest for me.)
theoddone33 wrote:
: That bit about Microsoft was interesting, but I couldn't find anything to substantiate it on the Internet other than various people repeating the rumor. Too bad, I was curious what specific software Ruloff sold to Microsoft. Sounds more like he deals in companies than software, though.
His bio at the Premise Media site is not copy-and-paste-able, or I would have done that in my earlier post, but in that bio, it says:
: That bit about Microsoft was interesting, but I couldn't find anything to substantiate it on the Internet other than various people repeating the rumor. Too bad, I was curious what specific software Ruloff sold to Microsoft. Sounds more like he deals in companies than software, though.
His bio at the Premise Media site is not copy-and-paste-able, or I would have done that in my earlier post, but in that bio, it says:
His most successful venture was a software company called ITLS which he founded at the age of 26 in 1991. It grew to become the worldwide de-facto standard in logistics operations for fortune 2000 companeis. The company was sold in 1998 with more than 350 employees.Maybe that's the sale in question?
QUOTE(Peter T Chattaway @ Aug 27 2007, 01:09 PM)
theoddone33 wrote:
: That bit about Microsoft was interesting, but I couldn't find anything to substantiate it on the Internet other than various people repeating the rumor. Too bad, I was curious what specific software Ruloff sold to Microsoft. Sounds more like he deals in companies than software, though.
His bio at the Premise Media site is not copy-and-paste-able, or I would have done that in my earlier post, but in that bio, it says:
: That bit about Microsoft was interesting, but I couldn't find anything to substantiate it on the Internet other than various people repeating the rumor. Too bad, I was curious what specific software Ruloff sold to Microsoft. Sounds more like he deals in companies than software, though.
His bio at the Premise Media site is not copy-and-paste-able, or I would have done that in my earlier post, but in that bio, it says:
His most successful venture was a software company called ITLS which he founded at the age of 26 in 1991. It grew to become the worldwide de-facto standard in logistics operations for fortune 2000 companeis. The company was sold in 1998 with more than 350 employees.Maybe that's the sale in question?
I think the best thing to do is to ask Ruloff himself who funded the film. As for PZ Myers and others who claim we used deceptive techniques to get the interviews, don't make up your mind until you've heard both sides of the story. As far as I'm concerned, such claims are an outright deception and an obvious attempt by these individuals to simply cover their butts and undermine the content of our film through a personal attack. While I was not present at PZ's interview, I was present at both of our interview with Richard Dawkins. And he was given every opportunity to grill us both before and afterwards on who we were and what the film was about. If he bothered to look at the film's description on the Rampant web site (which I know PZ Myers and Eugenie Scott did), it makes no bones about the film's content (and we told him and other interviewees that one of the main purposes of the film was to capitalize on the controversy of this topic, so it was not going to be a fluff piece). The only thing that is unclear from the description is the film's position on the topic. However, I can honestly say that the positions of many people on our team have changed throughout the filmmaking process as we met with dozens of interviewees in our struggle to find the story. I can say the same thing about the title of the film. That did not arise until quite late in the process. Films operate under working titles all the time, so no surprise there.
Moreover, unlike some of today’s documentary filmmakers, we are making every effort to ensure that everyone interviewed for this film is presented in a way that is entirely consistent with their public stance on the issue. It’s difficult for me to understand why anybody like PZ Myers who is so publicly outspoken about the topics this film covers would be concerned about appearing in a film that will give their views an even wider audience. Perhaps it may be that they don’t want the public to become aware of what happens to a scientist who dares to disagree with their views.
Interesting, Kevin. Thanks for posting that.
KevinMillerXI wrote:
: I think the best thing to do is to ask Ruloff himself who funded the film.
Sure -- got his number?
: However, I can honestly say that the positions of many people on our team have changed throughout the filmmaking process as we met with dozens of interviewees in our struggle to find the story. I can say the same thing about the title of the film. That did not arise until quite late in the process. Films operate under working titles all the time, so no surprise there.
One thing I'm wondering is when (and how) Ben Stein got involved in the film. I assume he doesn't conduct the interviews -- or at least some of the interviews -- since Myers seems to have been caught off guard by Stein's involvement in the movie. (And also since there is no footage in the trailer of Stein himself doing the "confronting".)
: I think the best thing to do is to ask Ruloff himself who funded the film.
Sure -- got his number?
: However, I can honestly say that the positions of many people on our team have changed throughout the filmmaking process as we met with dozens of interviewees in our struggle to find the story. I can say the same thing about the title of the film. That did not arise until quite late in the process. Films operate under working titles all the time, so no surprise there.
One thing I'm wondering is when (and how) Ben Stein got involved in the film. I assume he doesn't conduct the interviews -- or at least some of the interviews -- since Myers seems to have been caught off guard by Stein's involvement in the movie. (And also since there is no footage in the trailer of Stein himself doing the "confronting".)
QUOTE(Peter T Chattaway @ Aug 29 2007, 12:54 PM)
KevinMillerXI wrote:
: I think the best thing to do is to ask Ruloff himself who funded the film.
Sure -- got his number?
: However, I can honestly say that the positions of many people on our team have changed throughout the filmmaking process as we met with dozens of interviewees in our struggle to find the story. I can say the same thing about the title of the film. That did not arise until quite late in the process. Films operate under working titles all the time, so no surprise there.
One thing I'm wondering is when (and how) Ben Stein got involved in the film. I assume he doesn't conduct the interviews -- or at least some of the interviews -- since Myers seems to have been caught off guard by Stein's involvement in the movie. (And also since there is no footage in the trailer of Stein himself doing the "confronting".)
: I think the best thing to do is to ask Ruloff himself who funded the film.
Sure -- got his number?
: However, I can honestly say that the positions of many people on our team have changed throughout the filmmaking process as we met with dozens of interviewees in our struggle to find the story. I can say the same thing about the title of the film. That did not arise until quite late in the process. Films operate under working titles all the time, so no surprise there.
One thing I'm wondering is when (and how) Ben Stein got involved in the film. I assume he doesn't conduct the interviews -- or at least some of the interviews -- since Myers seems to have been caught off guard by Stein's involvement in the movie. (And also since there is no footage in the trailer of Stein himself doing the "confronting".)
If you really want Walt's number, I can e-mail it to you offline. However, it's easily available on whitepages.ca. Regarding Ben Stein, he actually conducted a number of the interviews for this film, traveling across the US and Europe to do so. As for how, when, and why Ben got involved, I'd rather have him speak to that when he issues a public statement in the near future.
It's always fun to see who pops up here to talk about films they've been involved with. Thanks for stopping by, Kevin.
I'm certainly looking forward to this film... hoping it will be a balanced, intellectual look at a topic which has had far too little of both balance and intellect put forth in its discussion.
And I do hope someone will keep this thread updated when Ben Stein's statement comes out... I'm interested in the extent of his involvement as well.
I'm certainly looking forward to this film... hoping it will be a balanced, intellectual look at a topic which has had far too little of both balance and intellect put forth in its discussion.
And I do hope someone will keep this thread updated when Ben Stein's statement comes out... I'm interested in the extent of his involvement as well.
KevinMillerXI wrote:
: As for how, when, and why Ben got involved, I'd rather have him speak to that when he issues a public statement in the near future.
Will this be one of his blog posts, or something different?
theoddone33 wrote:
: I'm certainly looking forward to this film... hoping it will be a balanced, intellectual look at a topic which has had far too little of both balance and intellect put forth in its discussion.
Intellectual, sure, but balanced? Is "balanced" an apt description of what we see in the trailer posted above?
I make no assumptions, BTW, regarding whether "balance" is what this or any other film ought to strive for. There is a place for polemics, and there is a place for neutrality. But this film does not seem to be coming at the subject from the "neutral" angle.
Then again, I suppose it is possible the film might be "neutral" with regard to the actual science while adopting a "non-neutral" approach to academic politics.
: As for how, when, and why Ben got involved, I'd rather have him speak to that when he issues a public statement in the near future.
Will this be one of his blog posts, or something different?
theoddone33 wrote:
: I'm certainly looking forward to this film... hoping it will be a balanced, intellectual look at a topic which has had far too little of both balance and intellect put forth in its discussion.
Intellectual, sure, but balanced? Is "balanced" an apt description of what we see in the trailer posted above?
I make no assumptions, BTW, regarding whether "balance" is what this or any other film ought to strive for. There is a place for polemics, and there is a place for neutrality. But this film does not seem to be coming at the subject from the "neutral" angle.
Then again, I suppose it is possible the film might be "neutral" with regard to the actual science while adopting a "non-neutral" approach to academic politics.
Balance is over-rated. And in any case, I expect most filmmakers to come at things from a certain point of view. Balance is best found in the general discussion, not necessarily in a single film. The issue is whether the film is reasonable and not shrill.
Well as I think I've mentioned above, I'm certainly hoping the film isn't a one-sided bit of "Creationist propaganda", as PZ Meyers seems to believe. Nevermind that he doesn't wish to distinguish between "person who lends I.D. intellectual credence" and "creationist". That's him not being balanced. I hope the film does not miss the parts of the issue I'm actually interested in hearing about beause it's full of one-sided tunnel vision.
That's what I mean by balanced. The opposite of what most other public discourse on this subject has been.
That's what I mean by balanced. The opposite of what most other public discourse on this subject has been.
QUOTE
Then again, I suppose it is possible the film might be "neutral" with regard to the actual science while adopting a "non-neutral" approach to academic politics.
That sounds pretty good, given what I'm hoping for out of the film.
theoddone33 wrote:
: Nevermind that he doesn't wish to distinguish between "person who lends I.D. intellectual credence" and "creationist".
Speaking as an evolutionary creationist and ID skeptic myself, I don't see why IDers should be offended by the term "creationist". If the shoe fits, wear it.
And the question, as I understand it, is not whether ID is "intellectual", but whether it is "scientific". Philosophy and religion have always had intellectual credibility. The question is whether ID belongs to the philosophy/religion department, or to the science department. And as far as I can tell, ID is generally more meta-scientific than scientific, per se.
But the fact that biologists have philosophical or religious opinions that go beyond their fields of expertise does not mean that they should be disqualified as biologists. If Richard Dawkins or Stephen Hawking can keep their science degrees despite their polemicizing and/or speculating about theological matters, then so could any IDer, it seems to me.
: Nevermind that he doesn't wish to distinguish between "person who lends I.D. intellectual credence" and "creationist".
Speaking as an evolutionary creationist and ID skeptic myself, I don't see why IDers should be offended by the term "creationist". If the shoe fits, wear it.
And the question, as I understand it, is not whether ID is "intellectual", but whether it is "scientific". Philosophy and religion have always had intellectual credibility. The question is whether ID belongs to the philosophy/religion department, or to the science department. And as far as I can tell, ID is generally more meta-scientific than scientific, per se.
But the fact that biologists have philosophical or religious opinions that go beyond their fields of expertise does not mean that they should be disqualified as biologists. If Richard Dawkins or Stephen Hawking can keep their science degrees despite their polemicizing and/or speculating about theological matters, then so could any IDer, it seems to me.
It's not just evolutionary biology; freedom of inquiry is under assault all over.
"I have read your book, and I do not think it is science." Sound familiar? But this time it's sex research.
"I have read your book, and I do not think it is science." Sound familiar? But this time it's sex research.
QUOTE(Peter T Chattaway @ Sep 1 2007, 03:00 PM)
Speaking as an evolutionary creationist and ID skeptic myself, I don't see why IDers should be offended by the term "creationist". If the shoe fits, wear it.
Then we're probably in similar camps on the issue. I take issue with the terminology because "creationist" tends to imply some sort of Judeo-Christian legend and I.D. does not make any specific claims of this nature beyond the claim that evolution is not sufficient to have produced life on this earth.
The linking of I.D. and Christianity is something that's been manufactured by Christians and latched on to by the media. It's led a gullible judge to determine that I.D. shouldn't be mentioned in schools, and led Pat Robertson to make some ridiculously stupid comments. The Kansas situation was one big circus, and I'm hoping this film goes some way to clearing up all the misconceptions surrounding and resulting from that mess... without explicitly backing I.D.
The worst thing that could happen is that this film muddies the waters more by linking I.D. to religion. Or indeed proves itself to be "creationist propaganda" as Meyers assumes. But since the film claims to be intelligent, I'm hopeful that it will not go down that road.
QUOTE(Alan Thomas @ Sep 1 2007, 07:34 PM)
"I have read your book, and I do not think it is science." Sound familiar? But this time it's sex research.
Mmm, that's a ridiculous situation. Character assassination is apparently a great way to defend your lifestyle from non-attacks. Those trangender women leading the charge are doing a much greater disservice to transgender women in general than Dr. Bailey, I conclude.
Alan Thomas wrote:
: It's not just evolutionary biology; freedom of inquiry is under assault all over.
: "I have read your book, and I do not think it is science." Sound familiar? But this time it's sex research.
Certainly the dismissal of IQ studies sounds familiar -- Steve Sailer and his buddies have gotten no small amount of disrespect for asserting that studies indicate a, shall we say, diverse concentration of mental and physical abilities along racial/ethnic lines. (So you see, it isn't only IDers who get treated like "intellectual terrorists"; committed Darwinists also have to deal with Big Science types who fear the full application of Darwinian science.)
theoddone33 wrote:
: Then we're probably in similar camps on the issue. I take issue with the terminology because "creationist" tends to imply some sort of Judeo-Christian legend and I.D. does not make any specific claims of this nature beyond the claim that evolution is not sufficient to have produced life on this earth.
Right, which is why I call it more meta-science than actual science. ID essentially says, "We can't figure out how we got from A to B, so we're going to give up inquiring and say that God, or an alien, or something else did it." And that's where mathematics, philosophy, religion, and other non-physical sciences kick in. And it's fine for scientists to ruminate on the implications of their science for philosophy and religion. But should "giving up" be taught as a discipline WITHIN a science class? Or should science students be encouraged to keep on gathering data and proposing theories that might fill those gaps in our knowledge?
: The worst thing that could happen is that this film muddies the waters more by linking I.D. to religion.
I haven't watched the trailer in a few days, but if memory serves, there's a bit where Ben Stein gives a lecture saying that Big Science wants to keep "God" out of the classroom. That seems like a link to religion, to me. (Even if the word "God" does not necessarily commit the speaker to a particular religion's understanding of God.)
: It's not just evolutionary biology; freedom of inquiry is under assault all over.
: "I have read your book, and I do not think it is science." Sound familiar? But this time it's sex research.
Certainly the dismissal of IQ studies sounds familiar -- Steve Sailer and his buddies have gotten no small amount of disrespect for asserting that studies indicate a, shall we say, diverse concentration of mental and physical abilities along racial/ethnic lines. (So you see, it isn't only IDers who get treated like "intellectual terrorists"; committed Darwinists also have to deal with Big Science types who fear the full application of Darwinian science.)
theoddone33 wrote:
: Then we're probably in similar camps on the issue. I take issue with the terminology because "creationist" tends to imply some sort of Judeo-Christian legend and I.D. does not make any specific claims of this nature beyond the claim that evolution is not sufficient to have produced life on this earth.
Right, which is why I call it more meta-science than actual science. ID essentially says, "We can't figure out how we got from A to B, so we're going to give up inquiring and say that God, or an alien, or something else did it." And that's where mathematics, philosophy, religion, and other non-physical sciences kick in. And it's fine for scientists to ruminate on the implications of their science for philosophy and religion. But should "giving up" be taught as a discipline WITHIN a science class? Or should science students be encouraged to keep on gathering data and proposing theories that might fill those gaps in our knowledge?
: The worst thing that could happen is that this film muddies the waters more by linking I.D. to religion.
I haven't watched the trailer in a few days, but if memory serves, there's a bit where Ben Stein gives a lecture saying that Big Science wants to keep "God" out of the classroom. That seems like a link to religion, to me. (Even if the word "God" does not necessarily commit the speaker to a particular religion's understanding of God.)
I know I'm probably just baying into the wind here, but I have never heard any ID proponent use the phrase "give up" or anything like it to describe their position. ID does not say, "let's not bother looking into this," ID says that when you've looked into it, design is a legitimate hypothesis.
Though I don't want to be too presumptuous, I think the problem Peter is describing with I.D. is that it ignores the possibility of a natural, non-evolutionary solution to the conflict it raises and goes straight for the supernatural, external influence. It's sort of an anti-science in that way, but it doesn't mean that their claims against evolution are invalid, just that it's a poor way to argue it, IMO.
It's not very wise to think that evolution is a closed book, and I appreciate the fact that I.D. reminds people of that, but too much is lost in the clutter. "Creation scientists" latched onto it as if it was something that could finally validate creation science... I think many people did so without really understanding that an inevitable hole in the theory of evolution doesn't validate 7-day creation beliefs... just like the existence of the theory of evolution doesn't invalidate them.
Evolution will never be proven... it's sort of an anti-science itself. (In the sense that science is about testing how things currently work... when you're taking a stab at trying to figure out what happened in the past based on currently existing evidence, you're really on thin ice.) It's at best a model that fits the evidence. I.D. suggests that there's some evidence that doesn't fit inside the model. The correct response for the scientific community is to amend the model or demonstrate that I.D.'s objections really do fit into the model, not to snarkily dismiss it as "religion". (Edit: And, in my opinion, it's *incorrect* for I.D. proponents to conclude external, supernatural involvement. Why not just raise the question instead of trying to answer it poorly and causing all this trouble?)
That's pretty much the ground I hope the film covers. But I doubt it will since they didn't interview me.
It's not very wise to think that evolution is a closed book, and I appreciate the fact that I.D. reminds people of that, but too much is lost in the clutter. "Creation scientists" latched onto it as if it was something that could finally validate creation science... I think many people did so without really understanding that an inevitable hole in the theory of evolution doesn't validate 7-day creation beliefs... just like the existence of the theory of evolution doesn't invalidate them.
Evolution will never be proven... it's sort of an anti-science itself. (In the sense that science is about testing how things currently work... when you're taking a stab at trying to figure out what happened in the past based on currently existing evidence, you're really on thin ice.) It's at best a model that fits the evidence. I.D. suggests that there's some evidence that doesn't fit inside the model. The correct response for the scientific community is to amend the model or demonstrate that I.D.'s objections really do fit into the model, not to snarkily dismiss it as "religion". (Edit: And, in my opinion, it's *incorrect* for I.D. proponents to conclude external, supernatural involvement. Why not just raise the question instead of trying to answer it poorly and causing all this trouble?)
That's pretty much the ground I hope the film covers. But I doubt it will since they didn't interview me.
QUOTE(Peter T Chattaway @ Sep 2 2007, 08:41 AM)
And it's fine for scientists to ruminate on the implications of their science for philosophy and religion. But should "giving up" be taught as a discipline WITHIN a science class? Or should science students be encouraged to keep on gathering data and proposing theories that might fill those gaps in our knowledge?
Well the question of whether or not I.D. should be taught in science classes has never actually been raised. I.D. was not being *taught* in Kansas... it was being *mentioned* with a two-sentence required recitation at the beginning of a class on evolution. This is one of the reasons that the media assassination of I.D. surrounding the Kansas school board trial was so completely ridiculous.
It should be perfectly valid to remind children that the theories they're about to learn about are still under examination in a science class. To do otherwise would be dishonest.
.. I'm sure at this point I've ventured into discussion that probably belongs in one of the other threads... I'll try to stay on topic from here on out.
First point: ID does not contradict evolution. Many IDers, like Michael Behe, believe in the evolution of new species from old species over long periods of time. And for that matter, Charles Darwin did not invent evolution; the concept was around for at least a century before his time.
What Darwin proposed was "natural selection" -- the idea that certain lifeforms are more likely to survive in some environments than others, and that species can adapt to environments over time through a natural process of mutation and selection, without the need for any miracles or supernatural interventions.
The effects of natural selection are all around us, for example in the diversity of human races. Human population groups have adapted to their environments in a variety of ways, with some of them being stastically better at digesting milk or alcohol than others, and some of them being statistically better at long-distance running than others, and so on, and so on.
And the process of natural selection continues all around us today, for example in the evolution of diseases that are resistant to the treatments that we created to combat their predecessors. Reportedly, we have even witnessed speciation -- the creation of new species that can no longer interbreed with their ancestor species -- though admittedly at pretty small levels.
It is therefore only, um, natural to look at the origin of existing species through the lens of "natural selection".
What IDers dispute is the idea that ALL of past evolution can be accounted for by "natural" means; where they see difficulties in reconstructing the evolutionary pathways, they eventually give up and say, like the scientist in that Far Side cartoon, "Then a miracle occurs." And like the OTHER scientist in that cartoon, non-IDers reply, "Maybe you could give us a little more detail on that middle section."
One of the reasons ID isn't really a science is that it doesn't "give us a little more detail"; it doesn't offer falsifiable or verifiable hypotheses on those "middle sections".
And again, I don't see why IDers should be offended that meta-scientific theories are regarded as something other than scientific. If someone is miraculously healed of cancer, you take that person to the doctor and have him tested and you listen to the doctor say, "We can't explain it," and once you've decided that the only possible explanation could be a miracle, you leave the doctor's office and forget all about any further tests. If science can only take you so far, then let it, and don't pretend that you are still doing science when you are actually going further than the science can possibly go.
Oh, and just for the record: When I referred to science classes, I was thinking primarily of university-level classes, not high-school or elementary-school classes.
CrimsonLine wrote:
: I know I'm probably just baying into the wind here, but I have never heard any ID proponent use the phrase "give up" or anything like it to describe their position. ID does not say, "let's not bother looking into this," ID says that when you've looked into it, design is a legitimate hypothesis.
But does ID keep looking for a non-design hypothesis AFTER it says that design is a legitimate hypothesis? If not, then how is that NOT giving up? And why would design not be a legitimate hypothesis BEFORE you have looked into it?
What Darwin proposed was "natural selection" -- the idea that certain lifeforms are more likely to survive in some environments than others, and that species can adapt to environments over time through a natural process of mutation and selection, without the need for any miracles or supernatural interventions.
The effects of natural selection are all around us, for example in the diversity of human races. Human population groups have adapted to their environments in a variety of ways, with some of them being stastically better at digesting milk or alcohol than others, and some of them being statistically better at long-distance running than others, and so on, and so on.
And the process of natural selection continues all around us today, for example in the evolution of diseases that are resistant to the treatments that we created to combat their predecessors. Reportedly, we have even witnessed speciation -- the creation of new species that can no longer interbreed with their ancestor species -- though admittedly at pretty small levels.
It is therefore only, um, natural to look at the origin of existing species through the lens of "natural selection".
What IDers dispute is the idea that ALL of past evolution can be accounted for by "natural" means; where they see difficulties in reconstructing the evolutionary pathways, they eventually give up and say, like the scientist in that Far Side cartoon, "Then a miracle occurs." And like the OTHER scientist in that cartoon, non-IDers reply, "Maybe you could give us a little more detail on that middle section."
One of the reasons ID isn't really a science is that it doesn't "give us a little more detail"; it doesn't offer falsifiable or verifiable hypotheses on those "middle sections".
And again, I don't see why IDers should be offended that meta-scientific theories are regarded as something other than scientific. If someone is miraculously healed of cancer, you take that person to the doctor and have him tested and you listen to the doctor say, "We can't explain it," and once you've decided that the only possible explanation could be a miracle, you leave the doctor's office and forget all about any further tests. If science can only take you so far, then let it, and don't pretend that you are still doing science when you are actually going further than the science can possibly go.
Oh, and just for the record: When I referred to science classes, I was thinking primarily of university-level classes, not high-school or elementary-school classes.
CrimsonLine wrote:
: I know I'm probably just baying into the wind here, but I have never heard any ID proponent use the phrase "give up" or anything like it to describe their position. ID does not say, "let's not bother looking into this," ID says that when you've looked into it, design is a legitimate hypothesis.
But does ID keep looking for a non-design hypothesis AFTER it says that design is a legitimate hypothesis? If not, then how is that NOT giving up? And why would design not be a legitimate hypothesis BEFORE you have looked into it?
QUOTE(theoddone33 @ Sep 2 2007, 02:58 AM) [snapback]156359[/snapback]
QUOTE(Peter T Chattaway @ Sep 1 2007, 03:00 PM) [snapback]156328[/snapback]
Speaking as an evolutionary creationist and ID skeptic myself, I don't see why IDers should be offended by the term "creationist". If the shoe fits, wear it.
Then we're probably in similar camps on the issue. I take issue with the terminology because "creationist" tends to imply some sort of Judeo-Christian legend and I.D. does not make any specific claims of this nature beyond the claim that evolution is not sufficient to have produced life on this earth.
The linking of I.D. and Christianity is something that's been manufactured by Christians and latched on to by the media. It's led a gullible judge to determine that I.D. shouldn't be mentioned in schools, and led Pat Robertson to make some ridiculously stupid comments. The Kansas situation was one big circus, and I'm hoping this film goes some way to clearing up all the misconceptions surrounding and resulting from that mess... without explicitly backing I.D.
The worst thing that could happen is that this film muddies the waters more by linking I.D. to religion. Or indeed proves itself to be "creationist propaganda" as Meyers assumes. But since the film claims to be intelligent, I'm hopeful that it will not go down that road.
The interesting thing about this debate, Peter, is that the Darwinists are the ones who are desperately trying to link religion to ID, not the IDers. The ID folks are merely saying that ID is friendly to religion in a way that classical Darwinism (a blind, mechanical, purposeless process driven by random mutations and natural selection) is not. Just witness how many Darwinists are writing books about religion while IDers are writing books about science. Of course, in this debate you also need to decouple what ID proponents are saying from what average people who support ID are saying. In many cases, ID has suffered from being hijacked by people who don't really understand their argument but who simply want to find a way to bring religion back into science. That's not what the IDers want at all.
It's my opinion that religion is a total red herring. The real issue is information. Information runs the show in biology. A complex biological code is necessary for both the origin and the propagation of life. So the question becomes, how did the information get there? Did it arise through the blind, mechanical processes of classical Darwinism? Or is something/someone else required? That's all the ID folks are really asking. Both answers carry religious implications, but that does not make this a religious debate.
QUOTE(theoddone33 @ Sep 2 2007, 02:06 PM) [snapback]156406[/snapback]
Though I don't want to be too presumptuous, I think the problem Peter is describing with I.D. is that it ignores the possibility of a natural, non-evolutionary solution to the conflict it raises and goes straight for the supernatural, external influence. It's sort of an anti-science in that way, but it doesn't mean that their claims against evolution are invalid, just that it's a poor way to argue it, IMO.
It's not very wise to think that evolution is a closed book, and I appreciate the fact that I.D. reminds people of that, but too much is lost in the clutter. "Creation scientists" latched onto it as if it was something that could finally validate creation science... I think many people did so without really understanding that an inevitable hole in the theory of evolution doesn't validate 7-day creation beliefs... just like the existence of the theory of evolution doesn't invalidate them.
Evolution will never be proven... it's sort of an anti-science itself. (In the sense that science is about testing how things currently work... when you're taking a stab at trying to figure out what happened in the past based on currently existing evidence, you're really on thin ice.) It's at best a model that fits the evidence. I.D. suggests that there's some evidence that doesn't fit inside the model. The correct response for the scientific community is to amend the model or demonstrate that I.D.'s objections really do fit into the model, not to snarkily dismiss it as "religion". (Edit: And, in my opinion, it's *incorrect* for I.D. proponents to conclude external, supernatural involvement. Why not just raise the question instead of trying to answer it poorly and causing all this trouble?)
That's pretty much the ground I hope the film covers. But I doubt it will since they didn't interview me.
It's not very wise to think that evolution is a closed book, and I appreciate the fact that I.D. reminds people of that, but too much is lost in the clutter. "Creation scientists" latched onto it as if it was something that could finally validate creation science... I think many people did so without really understanding that an inevitable hole in the theory of evolution doesn't validate 7-day creation beliefs... just like the existence of the theory of evolution doesn't invalidate them.
Evolution will never be proven... it's sort of an anti-science itself. (In the sense that science is about testing how things currently work... when you're taking a stab at trying to figure out what happened in the past based on currently existing evidence, you're really on thin ice.) It's at best a model that fits the evidence. I.D. suggests that there's some evidence that doesn't fit inside the model. The correct response for the scientific community is to amend the model or demonstrate that I.D.'s objections really do fit into the model, not to snarkily dismiss it as "religion". (Edit: And, in my opinion, it's *incorrect* for I.D. proponents to conclude external, supernatural involvement. Why not just raise the question instead of trying to answer it poorly and causing all this trouble?)
That's pretty much the ground I hope the film covers. But I doubt it will since they didn't interview me.
You're getting warmer...
KevinMillerXI wrote:
: The interesting thing about this debate, Peter, is that the Darwinists are the ones who are desperately trying to link religion to ID, not the IDers.
But isn't your film making it easy for them to do so? Your trailer certainly is. The very first words we hear coming out of Ben Stein's mouth are:
Anyway, the quote that immediately follows this sentence of Ben Stein's comes from a man who I assume is one of the anti-ID scientists:
(BTW, what evidence is there that scientists are not even allowed to "think" about an intelligent creator? What about that 1997 poll which indicated that 40% of scientists believe in a God who answers prayer -- a figure that presumably grows when you add other kinds of theists to the mix? Who, exactly, is policing their thoughts?)
: The ID folks are merely saying that ID is friendly to religion in a way that classical Darwinism (a blind, mechanical, purposeless process driven by random mutations and natural selection) is not.
The process that created you and me in our mothers' wombs is equally blind, mechanical and purposeless -- and I say that with the assumption that both of us had loving biological parents who wanted to have children; how much more blind, mechanical and purposeless must our gestations have been if we were the products of rape or whatever. (I say all this, BTW, as one who, upon learning the facts of life around the age of six, frequently wondered who he would have been if one of the gazillions of OTHER sperm had reached the egg first before the sperm that became part of ME reached the egg.) And yet, as a matter of faith, we believe that every individual is anticipated and loved by God, and we might even believe that God "has a plan for our lives".
If these two facts can co-exist when we contemplate our origins as persons, then I see no reason why they could not co-exist when we contemplate our origins as a species. If we can believe that God works through natural and seemingly random processes when we contemplate our origins as persons, then I see no reason why we cannot believe that God works through natural and seemingly random processes when we contemplate our origins as a species.
: It's my opinion that religion is a total red herring.
Why is it given such a central place in the trailer, then?
: The real issue is information.
Perhaps. Though, at the risk of playing devil's advocate, the word "information" implies all sorts of things, and assumes all sorts of things. It assumes or implies a higher set of intentions, a desire to communicate, a meeting of minds, when the committed materialist would say you're reading too much into the crystallization of bio-chemical processes. (Or, in the wonderful words of Rob Reiner in The Story of Us, "You see that? That's my ass, right? Wrong. There is no ass. Just a fatty part at the top of my legs. There just is no ass! And just as there is no ass, there is no true love. It's all an illusion." The point being, just because we see patterns and assign specific labels and meanings to the objective world, that does not mean the objective world has any interest in those meanings. Indeed, the objective world is, almost by definition, meaningless. It is only subjective entities such as you and I who can give it meaning. So to call the string of proteins in our DNA a "code" that contains "information" is essentially to assert, right from the get-go, that there is yet another subjective entity -- let's call it "God" -- who put that "information" there.)
Hoo boy. I'm getting flashbacks to the sorts of debates I used to have several years ago ...
: The interesting thing about this debate, Peter, is that the Darwinists are the ones who are desperately trying to link religion to ID, not the IDers.
But isn't your film making it easy for them to do so? Your trailer certainly is. The very first words we hear coming out of Ben Stein's mouth are:
There are people out there who want to keep science in a little box where it can't possibly touch God.So "God", whatever we mean by that, is already out there on the table -- whereas I thought the whole point of appealing to an "Intelligent Designer" was to prescind from necessarily theological hypotheses. (In other words, appeals to an "Intelligent Designer" were supposed to leave open the possibility that aliens had invented us, or something -- it didn't matter who or what the "Intelligent Designer" WAS, only that he/she/it was hypothesized.)
Anyway, the quote that immediately follows this sentence of Ben Stein's comes from a man who I assume is one of the anti-ID scientists:
Religion, I mean it's just fantasy, basically.Now wait a second: Many people believe in "God" without believing in "religion". But now the trailer creates an association between the two. So we have made a leap from "Intelligent Designer" to "God", and from "God" to "religion". I suppose you could always say that it was the anti-ID guy who brought up "religion", and not any of the IDers themselves, but that does not explain why the people who put this trailer together decided to sandwich this provocative soundbite between two Ben Stein lines, the second of which is this:
Scientists are not allowed to even THINK thoughts that involve an intelligent creator.So the word "creator" is added to the words "God" and "religion", and this creates an overall impression that all these terms are on the same side and mean more or less the same thing. Can anyone blame the anti-ID crowd if they think this movie amounts to an apology for "creationism", even of the not-so-sophisticated variety?
(BTW, what evidence is there that scientists are not even allowed to "think" about an intelligent creator? What about that 1997 poll which indicated that 40% of scientists believe in a God who answers prayer -- a figure that presumably grows when you add other kinds of theists to the mix? Who, exactly, is policing their thoughts?)
: The ID folks are merely saying that ID is friendly to religion in a way that classical Darwinism (a blind, mechanical, purposeless process driven by random mutations and natural selection) is not.
The process that created you and me in our mothers' wombs is equally blind, mechanical and purposeless -- and I say that with the assumption that both of us had loving biological parents who wanted to have children; how much more blind, mechanical and purposeless must our gestations have been if we were the products of rape or whatever. (I say all this, BTW, as one who, upon learning the facts of life around the age of six, frequently wondered who he would have been if one of the gazillions of OTHER sperm had reached the egg first before the sperm that became part of ME reached the egg.) And yet, as a matter of faith, we believe that every individual is anticipated and loved by God, and we might even believe that God "has a plan for our lives".
If these two facts can co-exist when we contemplate our origins as persons, then I see no reason why they could not co-exist when we contemplate our origins as a species. If we can believe that God works through natural and seemingly random processes when we contemplate our origins as persons, then I see no reason why we cannot believe that God works through natural and seemingly random processes when we contemplate our origins as a species.
: It's my opinion that religion is a total red herring.
Why is it given such a central place in the trailer, then?
: The real issue is information.
Perhaps. Though, at the risk of playing devil's advocate, the word "information" implies all sorts of things, and assumes all sorts of things. It assumes or implies a higher set of intentions, a desire to communicate, a meeting of minds, when the committed materialist would say you're reading too much into the crystallization of bio-chemical processes. (Or, in the wonderful words of Rob Reiner in The Story of Us, "You see that? That's my ass, right? Wrong. There is no ass. Just a fatty part at the top of my legs. There just is no ass! And just as there is no ass, there is no true love. It's all an illusion." The point being, just because we see patterns and assign specific labels and meanings to the objective world, that does not mean the objective world has any interest in those meanings. Indeed, the objective world is, almost by definition, meaningless. It is only subjective entities such as you and I who can give it meaning. So to call the string of proteins in our DNA a "code" that contains "information" is essentially to assert, right from the get-go, that there is yet another subjective entity -- let's call it "God" -- who put that "information" there.)
Hoo boy. I'm getting flashbacks to the sorts of debates I used to have several years ago ...
QUOTE(Peter T Chattaway @ Sep 3 2007, 03:23 AM)
So to call the string of proteins in our DNA a "code" that contains "information" is essentially to assert, right from the get-go, that there is yet another subjective entity -- let's call it "God" -- who put that "information" there.)
Peter: Contrary to what you've said here, to liken DNA to a code or to say that DNA contains information does not require that you assert a designer. You don't have to be a theist to draw this sort of inference from DNA. It is far from controversial to suggest that DNA functions as a code or a set of instructions that direct the development and function of an organism. The debate is over what mechanism(s) caused this information to come about. Some believe that first comes matter and energy, and then comes information. Others believe that information comes first. But there is a growing sense amongst scientists in many disciplines that information is one of the fundamental properties--if not the fundamental property--of the universe.
QUOTE(Peter T Chattaway @ Sep 3 2007, 03:23 AM)
If we can believe that God works through natural and seemingly random processes when we contemplate our origins as persons, then I see no reason why we cannot believe that God works through natural and seemingly random processes when we contemplate our origins as a species.
When I say ID is friendly to belief in God in a way that classical Darwinism is not, what I mean is Darwinism literally has no need for the God hypothesis. According to Darwinists like Richard Dawkins, everything can be explained purely by natural forces--including the origin of information, consciousness, and life itself. If you want to bring God into the picture, that is a belief that you are adding to science. It is not required by the science itself, and many Neo-Darwinists believe it gets in the way of science. ID, on the other hand, suggests that rather than something tacked onto one's interpretation of science, God--or whoever you believe to be the Intelligent Designer--is literally at the heart of nature itself, as expressed through information like the genetic code. Therefore, the search for potential signs of intelligence in nature becomes a legitimate scientific enterprise rather than a pseudo-scientific one. IDers are essentially asking the same question as the Darwinists: How did the information get there? What separates them from the Darwinists is that they are willing to consider intelligence as one possible cause. This is not to deny the power of mechanisms like random mutation and natural selection. All the IDers are saying is that such forces are simply inadequate to explain the origin and development of life. Once again, it is not just the IDers who are questioning this. There is huge debate amongst the Darwinists themselves as to which mechanisms are most important and at what level (group, individual, molecular) they operate.
Scientists Feel Miscast in Film on Life's Origin
A few months ago, the evolutionary biologist Richard Dawkins received an e-mail message from a producer at Rampant Films inviting him to be interviewed for a documentary called "Crossroads."
The film, with Ben Stein, the actor, economist and freelance columnist, as its host, is described on Rampant's Web site as an examination of the intersection of science and religion. Dr. Dawkins was an obvious choice. An eminent scientist who teaches at Oxford University in England, he is also an outspoken atheist who has repeatedly likened religious faith to a mental defect.
But now, Dr. Dawkins and other scientists who agreed to be interviewed say they are surprised -- and in some cases, angered -- to find themselves not in "Crossroads" but in a film with a new name and one that makes the case for intelligent design, an ideological cousin of creationism. The film, "Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed," also has a different producer, Premise Media. . . .
New York Times, September 27
Come On Guys....You can do better than THAT!
That said -- we do apologize to the supposed "victims" showcased by the article, for hiding our true identity as a mere "front" for the hairy, unwashed mass of knuckle dragging misanthropes who are allegedly behind this film -- or in other words, for not identifying ourselves as the caricature of those who do not agree with their particular views on evolution or life's origins.
Personally, we are amazed that a regressive troop such as ours could have pulled off such a remarkable feat against a highly evolved group of "experts."! . . .
The release references "Crossroads," as a "tentative" title, if that's OK? So just to set the record straight, the film was titled EXPELLED only after we began to see the disturbing pattern and shocking information that the footage reveals! So, thanks for the title guys, we couldn't have done it without you! And we're still considering using "Crossroads" for something else! Watch out. . . .
Expelledthemovie.com, September 28
- - -
Somebody at the movie's website needs to learn how to post links to the articles that they are supposedly rebutting. It doesn't give us any reason to hope that the film will celebrate good research habits or open and transparent dialogue if the rebuttal fails to even MENTION where the article appeared.
A few months ago, the evolutionary biologist Richard Dawkins received an e-mail message from a producer at Rampant Films inviting him to be interviewed for a documentary called "Crossroads."
The film, with Ben Stein, the actor, economist and freelance columnist, as its host, is described on Rampant's Web site as an examination of the intersection of science and religion. Dr. Dawkins was an obvious choice. An eminent scientist who teaches at Oxford University in England, he is also an outspoken atheist who has repeatedly likened religious faith to a mental defect.
But now, Dr. Dawkins and other scientists who agreed to be interviewed say they are surprised -- and in some cases, angered -- to find themselves not in "Crossroads" but in a film with a new name and one that makes the case for intelligent design, an ideological cousin of creationism. The film, "Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed," also has a different producer, Premise Media. . . .
New York Times, September 27
Come On Guys....You can do better than THAT!
That said -- we do apologize to the supposed "victims" showcased by the article, for hiding our true identity as a mere "front" for the hairy, unwashed mass of knuckle dragging misanthropes who are allegedly behind this film -- or in other words, for not identifying ourselves as the caricature of those who do not agree with their particular views on evolution or life's origins.
Personally, we are amazed that a regressive troop such as ours could have pulled off such a remarkable feat against a highly evolved group of "experts."! . . .
The release references "Crossroads," as a "tentative" title, if that's OK? So just to set the record straight, the film was titled EXPELLED only after we began to see the disturbing pattern and shocking information that the footage reveals! So, thanks for the title guys, we couldn't have done it without you! And we're still considering using "Crossroads" for something else! Watch out. . . .
Expelledthemovie.com, September 28
- - -
Somebody at the movie's website needs to learn how to post links to the articles that they are supposedly rebutting. It doesn't give us any reason to hope that the film will celebrate good research habits or open and transparent dialogue if the rebuttal fails to even MENTION where the article appeared.
Don't know why I hadn't replied to this yet...
KevinMillerXI wrote:
: Contrary to what you've said here, to liken DNA to a code or to say that DNA contains information does not require that you assert a designer.
Well that depends on what you mean by "information", doesn't it? In common parlance, "information" is a set of data that one person intends to communicate to one or more other persons. So unless we are willing to redefine what we mean by "information" and to educate the public on the proper meaning of that word, we probably shouldn't use that word, because it will prejudice the debate.
FWIW, in an article here, Richard Dawkins builds on a technical/economic definition of "information" developed by Claude Shannon in 1948, and applies it to genetic "information":
The pattern exists before the matter and energy that embody the pattern? Really? Which scientists are saying this, and how reputable are they?
: : If we can believe that God works through natural and seemingly random processes when we contemplate our origins as persons, then I see no reason why we cannot believe : that God works through natural and seemingly random processes when we contemplate our origins as a species.
:
: When I say ID is friendly to belief in God in a way that classical Darwinism is not, what I mean is Darwinism literally has no need for the God hypothesis.
Well, neither does the narrative of how my parents met and conceived me.
: ID, on the other hand, suggests that rather than something tacked onto one's interpretation of science, God--or whoever you believe to be the Intelligent Designer--is literally at the heart of nature itself, as expressed through information like the genetic code. Therefore, the search for potential signs of intelligence in nature becomes a legitimate scientific enterprise rather than a pseudo-scientific one.
In that case, ID must propose falsifiable hypotheses and so forth, and conduct experiments to test these hypotheses. Does it? Not that I've seen, though I admittedly don't have a library on the subject. I do know, though, that devout evangelical Christian scientists -- and self-described evolutionary creationsts -- such as Denis Lamoureux have chastised ID for failing to do this sort of thing, at least as of several years ago.
: IDers are essentially asking the same question as the Darwinists: How did the information get there? What separates them from the Darwinists is that they are willing to consider intelligence as one possible cause.
This does not sound at all different from earlier generations of creationism. Some people think complexity got there through purely natural means, others think it was put there by an even more complex entity (i.e. a creator/designer). Moving the discussion from the outward morphology to the inner genetics doesn't really change anything.
: This is not to deny the power of mechanisms like random mutation and natural selection. All the IDers are saying is that such forces are simply inadequate to explain the origin and development of life. Once again, it is not just the IDers who are questioning this. There is huge debate amongst the Darwinists themselves as to which mechanisms are most important and at what level (group, individual, molecular) they operate.
Ah, but IDers are not content to debate mechanisms. Indeed, they want to bypass/transcend mechanisms altogether. Unless they are proposing now that "intelligence" itself is just a mechanism, in which case I would ask what separates their "theory" from the Dawkins/Blackmore idea that the human brain is just a "meme machine".
KevinMillerXI wrote:
: Contrary to what you've said here, to liken DNA to a code or to say that DNA contains information does not require that you assert a designer.
Well that depends on what you mean by "information", doesn't it? In common parlance, "information" is a set of data that one person intends to communicate to one or more other persons. So unless we are willing to redefine what we mean by "information" and to educate the public on the proper meaning of that word, we probably shouldn't use that word, because it will prejudice the debate.
FWIW, in an article here, Richard Dawkins builds on a technical/economic definition of "information" developed by Claude Shannon in 1948, and applies it to genetic "information":
Perhaps the main lesson we should learn from Pringle is that the information content of a biological system is another name for its complexity. Therefore the creationist challenge with which we began is tantamount to the standard challenge to explain how biological complexity can evolve from simpler antecedents, one that I have devoted three books to answering (The Blind Watchmaker, River Out of Eden, Climbing Mount Improbable) and I do not propose to repeat their contents here. The "information challenge" turns out to be none other than our old friend: "How could something as complex as an eye evolve?" It is just dressed up in fancy mathematical language - perhaps in an attempt to bamboozle. Or perhaps those who ask it have already bamboozled themselves, and don't realise that it is the same old - and thoroughly answered - question. . . .: Some believe that first comes matter and energy, and then comes information. Others believe that information comes first. But there is a growing sense amongst scientists in many disciplines that information is one of the fundamental properties--if not the fundamental property--of the universe.
Mutation is not an increase in true information content, rather the reverse, for mutation, in the Shannon analogy, contributes to increasing the prior uncertainty. But now we come to natural selection, which reduces the "prior uncertainty" and therefore, in Shannon's sense, contributes information to the gene pool. In every generation, natural selection removes the less successful genes from the gene pool, so the remaining gene pool is a narrower subset. The narrowing is nonrandom, in the direction of improvement, where improvement is defined, in the Darwinian way, as improvement in fitness to survive and reproduce. Of course the total range of variation is topped up again in every generation by new mutation and other kinds of variation. But it still remains true that natural selection is a narrowing down from an initially wider field of possibilities, including mostly unsuccessful ones, to a narrower field of successful ones. This is analogous to the definition of information with which we began: information is what enables the narrowing down from prior uncertainty (the initial range of possibilities) to later certainty (the "successful" choice among the prior probabilities). According to this analogy, natural selection is by definition a process whereby information is fed into the gene pool of the next generation. . . .
The pattern exists before the matter and energy that embody the pattern? Really? Which scientists are saying this, and how reputable are they?
: : If we can believe that God works through natural and seemingly random processes when we contemplate our origins as persons, then I see no reason why we cannot believe : that God works through natural and seemingly random processes when we contemplate our origins as a species.
:
: When I say ID is friendly to belief in God in a way that classical Darwinism is not, what I mean is Darwinism literally has no need for the God hypothesis.
Well, neither does the narrative of how my parents met and conceived me.
: ID, on the other hand, suggests that rather than something tacked onto one's interpretation of science, God--or whoever you believe to be the Intelligent Designer--is literally at the heart of nature itself, as expressed through information like the genetic code. Therefore, the search for potential signs of intelligence in nature becomes a legitimate scientific enterprise rather than a pseudo-scientific one.
In that case, ID must propose falsifiable hypotheses and so forth, and conduct experiments to test these hypotheses. Does it? Not that I've seen, though I admittedly don't have a library on the subject. I do know, though, that devout evangelical Christian scientists -- and self-described evolutionary creationsts -- such as Denis Lamoureux have chastised ID for failing to do this sort of thing, at least as of several years ago.
: IDers are essentially asking the same question as the Darwinists: How did the information get there? What separates them from the Darwinists is that they are willing to consider intelligence as one possible cause.
This does not sound at all different from earlier generations of creationism. Some people think complexity got there through purely natural means, others think it was put there by an even more complex entity (i.e. a creator/designer). Moving the discussion from the outward morphology to the inner genetics doesn't really change anything.
: This is not to deny the power of mechanisms like random mutation and natural selection. All the IDers are saying is that such forces are simply inadequate to explain the origin and development of life. Once again, it is not just the IDers who are questioning this. There is huge debate amongst the Darwinists themselves as to which mechanisms are most important and at what level (group, individual, molecular) they operate.
Ah, but IDers are not content to debate mechanisms. Indeed, they want to bypass/transcend mechanisms altogether. Unless they are proposing now that "intelligence" itself is just a mechanism, in which case I would ask what separates their "theory" from the Dawkins/Blackmore idea that the human brain is just a "meme machine".
Page two discusses this film...
Intelligent Design tries rebranding as PBS looks at landmark Dover trial (ars technica)
Intelligent Design tries rebranding as PBS looks at landmark Dover trial (ars technica)
...
The use of discredited arguments probably won't work as well at major colleges, where faculty generally engage in research and are better aware of the current state of biological knowledge. Here, it appears that the ID movement is attempting to build pressure regarding ID as an issue of academic freedom using (of all things) a film presented by Ben Stein.
The material there isn't all that cohesive, and it appears that this confusion is intentional. The movie seems to conflate a number of related issues regarding personal belief and scientific practice. Scientific practice is consistent with a wide variety of theological views, including the belief that the natural world is ultimately dependent upon a supernatural creator; as such, there are many practicing scientists with religious beliefs. But the practice is not consistent with models that propose scientific data as evidence for supernatural intervention or suggest such intervention as an explanatory mechanism.
The promotional material blurs that distinction, and suggests that anyone who holds the former theological perspective is unwelcome in the sciences. Meanwhile, it presents those who seek to mix the supernatural with science as being viciously suppressed by the scientific community, rather than simply rejected for not practicing science. By presenting these radically different situations as essentially equivalent, the promotional material feels justified in concluding that academic liberty and freedom of inquiry have been curtailed by the academic science community. Bizarrely, it goes on to conclude that Einstein and Newton would be unwelcome in the modern scientific world. You can get a sense of the confused logic in a video of Ben Stein's appearance on Fox News.
How did the filmmakers flesh out these arguments into a movie? Apparently, by deceiving a number of advocates for science education that are also atheists. Asked to discuss the intersection between science and religion for a different film, these scientists now find their material being promoted as central to this advocacy film. And this is clearly an anti-evolution advocacy film, as its pro-ID stance is made clear by the catch phrase "no intelligence allowed." Students and leaders are encouraged to provide contact information so they can become part of a planned campaign.
Religious scientists such as Ken Miller and Francis Collins are currently thriving in the modern academic world, so at least some of the claims of this movie are simply wrong. The question of whether ID proponents face restrictions on their academic freedom, however, is a more complex one. The claims of evidence for supernatural intervention that are central to ID clearly preclude its consideration as science, so its advocates shouldn't expect to be hired as science faculty. Those that are already in a science department when they choose to pursue ID create a difficult situation, as they should retain a degree of academic freedom without being allowed to present students with an inaccurate depiction of science. Perhaps the best way of handling this is demonstrated by the faculty at Lehigh University, which has honored its commitment of tenure to Michael Behe while crafting a statement that makes it clear that his views do not represent science. Whether the academic world will be able to maintain that sort of subtle response in the face of a possible campaign organized by a group that appears incapable of making subtle distinctions is far from clear.
...
Screengrab Exclusive Preview: EXPELLED - NO INTELLIGENCE ALLOWED
Last week, I attended -- well, really, infiltrated is the proper word -- CPAC, the Conservative Political Action Conference in Washington, DC. A gathering of true believers, donors, hucksters, pundits and politicians of the extreme right-wing conservative momement, CPAC has, for a number of decades, been the premier venue for those seeking to court the votes of the nation's most reactionary thinkers. Both President Bush and Vice-President Cheney spoke at this year's CPAC, and I was there; Mitt Romney announced the suspension of his campaign at this year's CPAC (to the great disappointment of the right-wing faithful, who had inexplicably anointed him the new successor to St. Reagan), and I was there. More importantly to Screengrab readers, though, there were exclusive screenings of a number of new films made by and targeted at the extreme right, and once again, I was there. . . .
Expelled's central thesis is that an arrogant cabal of Marxist academics, politically correct leftists, and scientific ideologues are conspiring to keep the teaching of "Intelligent Design" -- a non-theory that is essentially creation science dressed up and given a new set of buzzwords -- off of college campuses. In aid of this theses, Stein wanders around with a camera crew, engaging in Moorean antics that involve him drawing calculated outrage and obnoxious bluster from a number of scientists, academics, and other detractors of ID. If all you want to do is upset authority figures, of course, it's not hard to do; people like Richard Dawkins and P.Z. Myers are easy to rile up, especially when confronted with an irritating talk show host berating them about their unwillingness to discuss total nonsense. If you want to see a bunch of straw men soaked with seltzer, Expelled attains a certain level of success; the right people are made to look foolish or self-important, if for all the wrong reasons.
However, if you want to see what the movie actually promises -- a genuinely successful argument over why Intelligent Design should or should not be taught in schools -- you'd best look elsewhere. The movie spends very little time in discussing the actual hypotheses of ID, no doubt because they're largely open-ended and unfalsifiable, and thus poor science. It's not so much a theory as it is a loosely slapped-together, multi-pronged critique of other theories, and is no more science than the man in the moon or the tooth fairy. . . .
Leonard Pierce, The ScreenGrab, February 13
Last week, I attended -- well, really, infiltrated is the proper word -- CPAC, the Conservative Political Action Conference in Washington, DC. A gathering of true believers, donors, hucksters, pundits and politicians of the extreme right-wing conservative momement, CPAC has, for a number of decades, been the premier venue for those seeking to court the votes of the nation's most reactionary thinkers. Both President Bush and Vice-President Cheney spoke at this year's CPAC, and I was there; Mitt Romney announced the suspension of his campaign at this year's CPAC (to the great disappointment of the right-wing faithful, who had inexplicably anointed him the new successor to St. Reagan), and I was there. More importantly to Screengrab readers, though, there were exclusive screenings of a number of new films made by and targeted at the extreme right, and once again, I was there. . . .
Expelled's central thesis is that an arrogant cabal of Marxist academics, politically correct leftists, and scientific ideologues are conspiring to keep the teaching of "Intelligent Design" -- a non-theory that is essentially creation science dressed up and given a new set of buzzwords -- off of college campuses. In aid of this theses, Stein wanders around with a camera crew, engaging in Moorean antics that involve him drawing calculated outrage and obnoxious bluster from a number of scientists, academics, and other detractors of ID. If all you want to do is upset authority figures, of course, it's not hard to do; people like Richard Dawkins and P.Z. Myers are easy to rile up, especially when confronted with an irritating talk show host berating them about their unwillingness to discuss total nonsense. If you want to see a bunch of straw men soaked with seltzer, Expelled attains a certain level of success; the right people are made to look foolish or self-important, if for all the wrong reasons.
However, if you want to see what the movie actually promises -- a genuinely successful argument over why Intelligent Design should or should not be taught in schools -- you'd best look elsewhere. The movie spends very little time in discussing the actual hypotheses of ID, no doubt because they're largely open-ended and unfalsifiable, and thus poor science. It's not so much a theory as it is a loosely slapped-together, multi-pronged critique of other theories, and is no more science than the man in the moon or the tooth fairy. . . .
Leonard Pierce, The ScreenGrab, February 13
QUOTE
Expelled's central thesis is that an arrogant cabal of Marxist academics, politically correct leftists, and scientific ideologues are conspiring to keep the teaching of "Intelligent Design" -- a non-theory that is essentially creation science dressed up and given a new set of buzzwords -- off of college campuses.
Well, at least he's not completely biased.
QUOTE
However, if you want to see what the movie actually promises -- a genuinely successful argument over why Intelligent Design should or should not be taught in schools -- you'd best look elsewhere.
This isn't promising, though.
QUOTE
The movie spends very little time in discussing the actual hypotheses of ID, no doubt because they're largely open-ended and unfalsifiable, and thus poor science. It's not so much a theory as it is a loosely slapped-together, multi-pronged critique of other theories, and is no more science than the man in the moon or the tooth fairy. . . .
While ID has it's problems... I'm starting to think that it will never get a "fair trial" so long as people keep painting it this way. Unfalsifiable? Disprove the concept of irreducible complexity and I.D. will go away. Perhaps it's just poorly named, as the "science" part (irreducible complexity) is overshadowed by the conclusion (presumably supernatural involvement in the process of evolution.)
I went to Christian high school so I never had a formal education on evolution, but from the bits I know it seems like I.D. is more "falsifiable" than evolution. It's hard to falsify creation, evolution, and even things like scientology when talking about pre-recorded history. Everyone's just guessing, why shouldn't we admit it?
theoddone33 wrote:
: Disprove the concept of irreducible complexity and I.D. will go away.
Well, in one of our threads on ID itself, there is a link to an article which argues that irreducible complexity -- or, rather, the significance that some would make of it -- was already "disproved" back in the 1930s. Essentially, it is possible to get irreducibly complex systems from reducibly complex systems. Sometimes you evolve something that is not essential, merely advantageous; but as other features are whittled out of your system, the former advantage becomes a necessity. In theory, at least, that sounds very plausible to me.
The question is whether we can chart any particular path from simple to reducibly complex to irreducibly complex. And I haven't a clue whether we can.
- - -
New mutation in Darwin debate
Those looking for proof of Charles Darwin's survival of the fittest theory need look no further than the cutthroat business of ... documentary making and marketing.
Lifting a page from the Michael Moore school of confrontational non-fiction, Premise Media's "Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed" aims to dislodge Darwin and evolution as the primary doctrines taught in public-school science classes.
Producers of the $3.5 million film, which has been enthusiastically backed by anti-evolution think tank the Discovery Institute, have harnessed some big guns to get the film's message out. . . .
Variety, February 15
: Disprove the concept of irreducible complexity and I.D. will go away.
Well, in one of our threads on ID itself, there is a link to an article which argues that irreducible complexity -- or, rather, the significance that some would make of it -- was already "disproved" back in the 1930s. Essentially, it is possible to get irreducibly complex systems from reducibly complex systems. Sometimes you evolve something that is not essential, merely advantageous; but as other features are whittled out of your system, the former advantage becomes a necessity. In theory, at least, that sounds very plausible to me.
The question is whether we can chart any particular path from simple to reducibly complex to irreducibly complex. And I haven't a clue whether we can.
- - -
New mutation in Darwin debate
Those looking for proof of Charles Darwin's survival of the fittest theory need look no further than the cutthroat business of ... documentary making and marketing.
Lifting a page from the Michael Moore school of confrontational non-fiction, Premise Media's "Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed" aims to dislodge Darwin and evolution as the primary doctrines taught in public-school science classes.
Producers of the $3.5 million film, which has been enthusiastically backed by anti-evolution think tank the Discovery Institute, have harnessed some big guns to get the film's message out. . . .
Variety, February 15
Brett McCracken:
QUOTE
I came into this film very, very skeptical, worried that it would be all about trying to disprove evolution and argue for creationism (thereby reinforcing stereotypes of anti-intellectual religious fundamentalists). I was worried that it would further reinforce the (false) binary that says Christianity and science are on two sides of a battle and can never have any common ground. But I was pleasantly surprised with Expelled on a number of levels.
First of all, it’s pretty funny and quite entertaining. Ben Stein’s hyper-dry way of interviewing people is great fun to watch, and his “everyman” persona makes him easy to sympathize with. His “anyone, anyone” Ferris Bueller character also makes him an appropriate choice for a film about the expulsion of dissenting ideas in the classroom.
Secondly, it’s a reasonably effective, well-mounted argument (if a tad on the manipulative side). The filmmakers interviewed many prominent figures from both sides of the debate, including an extended (and deliciously uncomfortable) interview between Stein and Richard Dawkins (atheist extraordinaire and author of The God Delusion). The film is smart to keep its focus on the glaring double standards and contradictions among the evolution advocates -- who have built impenetrable walls around the sacrosanct theory of evolution and (in a very un-academic spirit) refused to allow any rational dialogue on the matter.
First of all, it’s pretty funny and quite entertaining. Ben Stein’s hyper-dry way of interviewing people is great fun to watch, and his “everyman” persona makes him easy to sympathize with. His “anyone, anyone” Ferris Bueller character also makes him an appropriate choice for a film about the expulsion of dissenting ideas in the classroom.
Secondly, it’s a reasonably effective, well-mounted argument (if a tad on the manipulative side). The filmmakers interviewed many prominent figures from both sides of the debate, including an extended (and deliciously uncomfortable) interview between Stein and Richard Dawkins (atheist extraordinaire and author of The God Delusion). The film is smart to keep its focus on the glaring double standards and contradictions among the evolution advocates -- who have built impenetrable walls around the sacrosanct theory of evolution and (in a very un-academic spirit) refused to allow any rational dialogue on the matter.
It's a little dumb to screen this only for Christian critics. It really invites these kinds of situations:
The review in question is worth a read.
Haha!
QUOTE ("The New York Times")
Shortly before he was to attend a screening in January of the documentary “Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed,” which is about alternatives to the theory of evolution, Roger Moore, a film critic for The Orlando Sentinel, learned that his invitation had been revoked by the film’s marketers.
“Well, you already invited me,” he recalled thinking at the time. “I’m going to go.”
So Mr. Moore traveled to a local megachurch and planted himself among a large group of pastors to watch the movie. In it, Ben Stein, the actor and economist (and regular contributor to The New York Times) interviews scientists and teachers who say that Darwinism gets too much emphasis in the classroom and that proponents of the theory of intelligent design are treated unfairly.
There were nondisclosure agreements to sign that day, but Mr. Moore did not, and proceeded to write perhaps the harshest review “Expelled” has received thus far. The film will open April 18, but has been screened several times privately for religious audiences. Mr. Moore deplored what he perceived as “loaded images, loaded rhetoric, few if any facts” and accused Mr. Stein of using a “Holocaust denier’s” tactics.
Which, of course, was exactly the reaction the moviemakers were hoping to avoid by keeping mainstream critics out.(link)
“Well, you already invited me,” he recalled thinking at the time. “I’m going to go.”
So Mr. Moore traveled to a local megachurch and planted himself among a large group of pastors to watch the movie. In it, Ben Stein, the actor and economist (and regular contributor to The New York Times) interviews scientists and teachers who say that Darwinism gets too much emphasis in the classroom and that proponents of the theory of intelligent design are treated unfairly.
There were nondisclosure agreements to sign that day, but Mr. Moore did not, and proceeded to write perhaps the harshest review “Expelled” has received thus far. The film will open April 18, but has been screened several times privately for religious audiences. Mr. Moore deplored what he perceived as “loaded images, loaded rhetoric, few if any facts” and accused Mr. Stein of using a “Holocaust denier’s” tactics.
Which, of course, was exactly the reaction the moviemakers were hoping to avoid by keeping mainstream critics out.(link)
The review in question is worth a read.
QUOTE ( "Roger Moore @ Orlando Sentinel")
How do you re-package that tried, untested and untestable faith-without-facts warhorse, "Creationism" after its nearly-annual beat-down by an increasingly exasperated scientific community?
After you've tried renaming it "Intelligent Design," I mean.
With comedy. Mock your "Darwinist" foes the way comics, thinkers, scientists and educated people everywhere have been mocking creationism since Scopes took that monkey off our back.
....
It's a movie that uses animation, archival documentary footage, interviews with outraged "people of science" who want ID on the table, and "atheists" (scientists) who see all this as a step backward, all freighted to back up the argument that it stifled "freedom" when you refuse to consider the work of a supernatural being in America's science classes.
It just isn't particularly funny. Or the least bit convincing.
I lost track of the number of times Stalin's image hit the screen, and in the ways the movie equated science with Darwinism with atheism with Hitler or Stalin. Subtle, it's not.
(link)
After you've tried renaming it "Intelligent Design," I mean.
With comedy. Mock your "Darwinist" foes the way comics, thinkers, scientists and educated people everywhere have been mocking creationism since Scopes took that monkey off our back.
....
It's a movie that uses animation, archival documentary footage, interviews with outraged "people of science" who want ID on the table, and "atheists" (scientists) who see all this as a step backward, all freighted to back up the argument that it stifled "freedom" when you refuse to consider the work of a supernatural being in America's science classes.
It just isn't particularly funny. Or the least bit convincing.
I lost track of the number of times Stalin's image hit the screen, and in the ways the movie equated science with Darwinism with atheism with Hitler or Stalin. Subtle, it's not.
(link)
Haha!
QUOTE (Holy Moly! @ Mar 11 2008, 12:55 PM)
The review in question is worth a read.
This movie is sounding more and more like a dud. Although hearing from a reviewer who isn't actively hostile to the existence of I.D. would be nice.
In other news, I think it's pointless and backwards to make this movie and then pre-screen it for religious audiences only. Makes me wonder why it was made in the first place... thoughtful analysis or real issues or religious-conservative circle-jerk?
theoddone33 wrote:
: . . . or religious-conservative circle-jerk?
Do you mean "religious-conservative" in the sense of "a union of religious people and socio-politically conservative people", or in the sense of "religious people from the theologically conservative end of the religious continuum"?
I ask because one of the things that bothers me about the way this film has been marketed is the way it seems to be portraying ID as a politically "conservative" thing. Ideally, science should not be either liberal OR conservative; there should be facts and theories and even headstrong defenders of those theories, but the facts and theories should not be pigeonholed as "liberal" or "conservative". Yet the one thing people might know about this movie before they see it is that it is hosted by a former speechwriter for Nixon.
Fortunately, the film is hosted (if that's the word) by a Jew (though how religious he is about his Judaism, I could not say) rather than a Christian, so those who critique the film will not be able to write ID off as a merely evangelical Christian kind of thing. On the other hand, ID advocates have frequently said, at least publicly, that ID theory makes no assumptions whatsoever about the IDENTITY of the Intelligent Designer, yet in the trailers for this film, Ben Stein very clearly equates the Intelligent Designer with "God". So while the film avoids associating ID with any PARTICULAR religion, it does deepen the impression some may have that ID is essentially a religious belief and not a scientific belief.
In the meantime, here's the newest trailer:
: . . . or religious-conservative circle-jerk?
Do you mean "religious-conservative" in the sense of "a union of religious people and socio-politically conservative people", or in the sense of "religious people from the theologically conservative end of the religious continuum"?
I ask because one of the things that bothers me about the way this film has been marketed is the way it seems to be portraying ID as a politically "conservative" thing. Ideally, science should not be either liberal OR conservative; there should be facts and theories and even headstrong defenders of those theories, but the facts and theories should not be pigeonholed as "liberal" or "conservative". Yet the one thing people might know about this movie before they see it is that it is hosted by a former speechwriter for Nixon.
Fortunately, the film is hosted (if that's the word) by a Jew (though how religious he is about his Judaism, I could not say) rather than a Christian, so those who critique the film will not be able to write ID off as a merely evangelical Christian kind of thing. On the other hand, ID advocates have frequently said, at least publicly, that ID theory makes no assumptions whatsoever about the IDENTITY of the Intelligent Designer, yet in the trailers for this film, Ben Stein very clearly equates the Intelligent Designer with "God". So while the film avoids associating ID with any PARTICULAR religion, it does deepen the impression some may have that ID is essentially a religious belief and not a scientific belief.
In the meantime, here's the newest trailer:
QUOTE (Peter T Chattaway @ Mar 11 2008, 11:00 PM)
Do you mean "religious-conservative" in the sense of "a union of religious people and socio-politically conservative people", or in the sense of "religious people from the theologically conservative end of the religious continuum"?
The latter seems closer to what I'm thinking.
This is starting to seem like a "by the Christians, for the Christians" movie about how evil godless darwinists are trying to silence religion in the public square. I can't verify if that's the case since the critics thus far have been pretty biased, but if so then I'm disappointed. It's worthless as a film about how religion should be taught in schools... it's valuable as a film about how I.D. shouldn't be classified as religion in the first place and thus the separation of church and state argument against its teaching is invalid. (Though there may be other valid arguments against teaching I.D.)
I suspect if it was the movie I'd hoped, they wouldn't be pre-screening it to Christians. Although a lot of people do need a good "I.D. isn't creationism" kick in the head... on both sides of the aisle.
Since I posted that Dawkins story late last night, there have been close to 4,000 unique visitors to that post, and in a few short hours this is already a record-setting day at Looking Closer. And it appears from the comments that most of the visitors are first-time visitors who are here to defend Dawkins. Wild.
QUOTE (Overstreet @ Mar 21 2008, 11:46 AM)
Since I posted that Dawkins story late last night, there have been close to 4,000 unique visitors to that post, and in a few short hours this is already a record-setting day at Looking Closer. And it appears from the comments that most of the visitors are first-time visitors who are here to defend Dawkins. Wild.
--And Jeffrey, quoting George W. Bush, says, "Bring 'em on!"
Someone could write a book about the value of much internet "dialogue" based on those comments. It is hysterical (both funny and nuts).
You haven't seen the posts I've deleted. I'm getting buried in messages that read like they've been written by the Uruk-Hai. Check out the tone of the comments on this page. I mean, I'm all for comments and discussion, but those folks have all the dignity of a gang of playground bullies.
I must say, I did chuckle when PZ Myers said he had been "expelled" from Expelled.
QUOTE (theoddone33 @ Mar 12 2008, 06:01 PM)
QUOTE (Peter T Chattaway @ Mar 11 2008, 11:00 PM)
Do you mean "religious-conservative" in the sense of "a union of religious people and socio-politically conservative people", or in the sense of "religious people from the theologically conservative end of the religious continuum"?
The latter seems closer to what I'm thinking.
This is starting to seem like a "by the Christians, for the Christians" movie about how evil godless darwinists are trying to silence religion in the public square. I can't verify if that's the case since the critics thus far have been pretty biased, but if so then I'm disappointed. It's worthless as a film about how religion should be taught in schools... it's valuable as a film about how I.D. shouldn't be classified as religion in the first place and thus the separation of church and state argument against its teaching is invalid. (Though there may be other valid arguments against teaching I.D.)
I suspect if it was the movie I'd hoped, they wouldn't be pre-screening it to Christians. Although a lot of people do need a good "I.D. isn't creationism" kick in the head... on both sides of the aisle.
There are good reasons to pre-screen the movie to Christians, beyond making it a "religious" issue. If you have a message (as the makers of Expelled believe they do) that you want to get out, but you find yourself constantly shut down by the media and the academy (as ID, or even just criticisms of Darwinian evolution, often is), you need to have substantial backing. You need your friends to get involved, get invested, and see the film. Reaching out to Christian groups makes sense, if they want the film to be successful.
As far as the movie being "about how evil godless darwinists are trying to silence religion in the public square," I can tell you that it's not. The reason there's much at stake in the debate over intelligent design and evolution is that both have significant moral, philosophical and religious implications. Of course there are some religious Darwinists just as there are agnostic ID proponents. There are also certain atheist agitators who remain committed to Darwinism because it functions as a belief system for them. I think that the responses you see in the comments at Pharyngula reflect that. And I think the "expulsion" of PZ Myers, while foolish, might be understandable when you consider the opposition...
QUOTE (Till We Have Faces @ Mar 21 2008, 05:07 PM)
There are good reasons to pre-screen the movie to Christians, beyond making it a "religious" issue.
I am at a loss on this one. I can't think of one circumstance in which it would benefit a film to market it specifically to Christians until it had enough momentum to play on more screens. I am more than ready to be corrected on this.
QUOTE
And I think the "expulsion" of PZ Myers, while foolish, might be understandable when you consider the opposition...
I am not sure I want to pigeonhole someone who subscribes to evolution anymore than I want to be pigeonholed as a fundy because I go to church on Sundays. I know as many articulate and thoughtul "evolutionists" as I do "creationists" or "ID people." I have no problem reading comments such as the ones on JO's blog and realizing that such strange vitriol is not so indicative of everyone who claims evolution as a cosmology. I guess I just don't consider "them" the "opposition" even though I don't subscribe to evolution. Usually "they" are good conversations waiting to happen.
PZ Meyer's account of the evening is worth reading.
I'm trying to reserve judgment until I see the film, but to accuse the scientific community of suppressing open dialogue and then engaging in these strong-arm tactics is downright pathetic.
The most interesting part of the account Jeffrey posted is the supposed spoiler: The reader reports that " Many scenes are centered around the Berlin Wall, and Ben Stein being Jewish actually visits many death camps and death showers. In fact, Nazi Germany is the thread that ties everything in the movie together. Evolution leads to atheism leads to eugenics leads to Holocaust and Nazi Germany." (This is after he tells us that the film "does not bash evolution".)
If this is accurate, I do not hold high hopes for this film's ability to make a sustained rational argument. Godwin's law, anyone? Indeed, it seems the likely outcome is only further embarrassment and marginalization of people who grew up being taught creationist views. Young people will probably leave the church as a result of this film.
I'm trying to reserve judgment until I see the film, but to accuse the scientific community of suppressing open dialogue and then engaging in these strong-arm tactics is downright pathetic.
The most interesting part of the account Jeffrey posted is the supposed spoiler: The reader reports that " Many scenes are centered around the Berlin Wall, and Ben Stein being Jewish actually visits many death camps and death showers. In fact, Nazi Germany is the thread that ties everything in the movie together. Evolution leads to atheism leads to eugenics leads to Holocaust and Nazi Germany." (This is after he tells us that the film "does not bash evolution".)
If this is accurate, I do not hold high hopes for this film's ability to make a sustained rational argument. Godwin's law, anyone? Indeed, it seems the likely outcome is only further embarrassment and marginalization of people who grew up being taught creationist views. Young people will probably leave the church as a result of this film.
QUOTE (Holy Moly! @ Mar 21 2008, 01:51 PM)
Young people will probably leave the church as a result of this film.
Seriously?I have a hard time swallowing that one.
QUOTE (MLeary @ Mar 21 2008, 01:39 PM)
I am at a loss on this one. I can't think of one circumstance in which it would benefit a film to market it specifically to Christians until it had enough momentum to play on more screens. I am more than ready to be corrected on this.
This isn't my area of expertise, but I understand Motive Marketing (the people who were hired to market The Passion and Narnia) is successful in doing just that.
QUOTE
I am not sure I want to pigeonhole someone who subscribes to evolution anymore than I want to be pigeonholed as a fundy because I go to church on Sundays. I know as many articulate and thoughtul "evolutionists" as I do "creationists" or "ID people." I have no problem reading comments such as the ones on JO's blog and realizing that such strange vitriol is not so indicative of everyone who claims evolution as a cosmology. I guess I just don't consider "them" the "opposition" even though I don't subscribe to evolution. Usually "they" are good conversations waiting to happen.
I understand that an "us vs. them" mentality is a problem, especially in this debate, but this particular individual is probably not a good conversation waiting to happen.
I agree that it was stupid for whoever was running security to kick him out, but I think that there might be some justifiable concerns about people attending these screenings with the intent of disruption. It's one thing to engage in civilized dialogue with a colleague. It's another to face someone actively trying to hamper your efforts at getting your film out.
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.