Lost Socks Insanity

Calendar

Categories:

Tag Cloud:

Stats:

General Links

Ignorance of "Expelled"

I have been watching video and listening to Ben Stein talking about his new so-called documentary "Expelled".

My point, as I hoped, was the dishonesty of the movie Expelled.  The crux of this docu-fiction is the tired arguement used by creationists, since science can't say how life began then creation MUST be viewed as the alternative. Creationists also go to great lengths to point out so-called holes in the fossil record. Both the beginnings of life and the holes are two of the biggest arguements of creationists but the lack of information is not an open door to the supernatural!

I understand that he is not a biologist, neither am I, but in these interviews he is staggeringly wrong about evolution. You would think that if the producers are going to send someone out to promote the docu-fiction that the person should be at the very least a little familiar with the material they are talking about! Doesn't that sound like a good idea, it does to me. Evolution is complicated and to be honest it still occassionally gives me a headache! And I would be very surprised if any of these people, particularly Stein knows anything about it beyond what his handlers have told him. 

-Evolution is not just chance or fate as Stein says in the video below. Part of evolution is a reaction to environment. Environment could be climate, predation, prey, geography, lots of conditions. What drives the creationists nuts is there is not plan, no direction to evolution, there is no end point.

-And his "mud animated by lightning" is a gross mischaracterization of a theory. I have heard him repeat this over and over, and on it's own it doesn't make sense. But there is some theories that state lightning could have been the trigger for life.

-He continues with a blatantly untrue statement that people are free to believe what they want about god. If a person espouses their belief in god that is ok, but it is considered bad form to challenge them. It is a social stigma to publically challenge religion. Why is that? Religion, I believe, has survived and thrived because of that very lack of questioning. You cannot challenge the bible because it "is the word of god". That in itself is the very reason it should be questioned! If god is so jealous and vindictive as to punish or strike down those who challenge it, why are the Buddists around, or any other non-biblical based religions? 

-And not to nit-pick, but Richard Von Sternberg left as editor in mid 2004 not 2005, as clearly stated on Von Sternberg's own web site.

-Steven Myer, from the Discovery Institute wrote the paper that got Sternberg into trouble. And here is a refutation of Myers paper . Lets back up a little in time and look at the Discovery Institute. Discovery Inst. has been trying to get papers published that even slightly support the intelligent design (ID) or creationist ideas. This has been part of the ID plan to get it incorporated into school cirriculums. In order to be taken seroiusly in the scientific community published papers in peer reviewed journals is a must. And Myers paper, when reviewed by others was found to be less than noteworthy. My question is, Von Sternberg edited the paper and got three people to review it, but I cannot find out who those three people were. Von Sternberg had an agenda, that is clear, Myers is the Program Director of the Discovery Institute ’s Center for Science and Culture. Tell me something isn't strange about this. Is it possible that Von Sternberg hand picked reviewers who would be less than strenuous in their review? As for his treatment related in the docu-fiction and his own web page, it isn't right, but the scientific community is a rough place to work. How about Chris Comer who was fired for teaching evolution? LINK

-Stein asks "what is so damning about this article (Myers article)?" There is nothing at all damning about it as Stein states, it is just not a very factually accurate one, and has been viewed as not worthy of publication in the first place!

-Stein says Myers paper "would not have been an issue if we were living in the time of Galileo or Einstein." He continues with "those who challenge the status quo seldom go unpunished." That statement on its own is bad enough, but the film shows a lion biting the neck of a wildebeest! It is a good thing we aren't in the age that Galileo lived. He was imprisoned by the catholic church's inquisition for heresy for saying the Earth was not the center of the universe! 

-Stein continues, saying that Von Sternberg is not alone, "many" other scientists have been fired, denied tenure had their papers denied for publication and "openly ridiculed and ostercized by their peers all for questioning Darwin". That is a load of crap! The vast majority of papers submitted for publication in scientific journals are denied for any number of reasons. It is cut throat! It takes a lot to get a paper published in the peer-review process. And despite what Stein says, it is not because these people have the audacity to question Darwin. Science is, for lack of a better word, an evolution of ideas. New ideas supplant old, that is why gravity is still a theory, because exactly how it works has not been worked out yet. But, taking the point that evolution is "just a theory" as being an open door to say it is wrong, and applying it to gravity, hold on to your seat because if the creationists had it their way gravity wouldn't work! And as for being denied tenure, well, tenure is not a right, it is not something that is guarenteed. If you go and piss people off, guess what, your probably not going to get tenure and there isn't anything you can do about it!

- "diobolical theocratic conspirators. trying to force religion into the class room". Well, that is exactly what they are trying to do! ID works very hard to distance itself from religion. It tries to look scientific, and it does not mention god, but instead choses some other supernatural force, and when pressed will even passively accept aliens as the designer. Science is not about the supernatural. If something is not understood, the ID/creationists immediately chalk it up to an unnamed supernatural power if you believe ID or god if your a creationist. This unfortunate ignorance was one of the points in the Kitzmiller vs. Dover trial. The ID people made a point that some biological systems are too complicated to have evolved, they call it irreducible complexity, But unfortunately for them, every single example they used was shown to be possible under evolution and they provided scientific proof that it had! ID is repackaged creationism, there is no doubt about that. And these people are being decietful about their intents.

-He then says that Darwinism might be dangerous, This is the point where they use the 'Lord Privy Seal' It is a cinemagraphic technique, when the narration is talking about evil, for example, any kind of evil, they show Hitler. It is a cheap and unoriginal way to make a documentary.. While he is saying this he is at Dachau and interspersed with him walking is a montage of black and white photos filling the screen, presumably victims of the Holocaust, barbed wire and most blatant of all, the ovens. He then portraits himself as some kind of valiant seeker of truth by very selectively editing comments of scientists to make it sound like the scientific community is going to form an inquisition. O, sorry, a little sarcasm slipped in here.

- Stein continues with the "freedoms" again. He wonders why those freedoms aren't applied to science. Well, because science is not a democracy! Science is investigation, study, experimentation finding out how things work and seeking the truth. If it was up to the ID/creationists everything would be explained already! The unnamed supernatural designer/god did it, no need to look any further. That is dangerous medieval thinking! These people are not interested in learning the truth because in their thinking they already have it and it they can't understand people who don't think the way they do!

-Stein then says "people who are confident in their beliefs are not afraid of criticism, so that tells me, the Darwinists are afraid, they're hiding something." And he goes on about how this docu-fiction is dangerous, it could get you in trouble, blah blah blah. Science is not religion. That is obvious, but the confidence portraited by religion is not the same as the confidence shown toward science by its believers. A long standing scientific idea can be over turned. And while it will be met with initial hostility by certain people, if it is true and can be shown to be true, it will be accepted. This has been shown time and time again. First the world was flat and the center of the universe, then it was shown it wasn't flat. Then it was shown that the Earth is not the center of the universe, it is not even the center of the solar system! There are still people, for what ever reason, who believe the Earth is flat or that the Sun orbits around the Earth, there is also people who believe that the Earth is supported on the backs of an infinite stack of turtles piled one on top of each other!  Religion does not work that way. Religion is filled with dogma and demands unquestioning faith. Questions are not tolerated because a typical answer given in reply is "it's gods will", "the bible says so" or "don't question the word of god."

Here is a video promo for the docu-fiction.  

The premise of the docu-fiction is how teachers and professors are being fired for dismissing Darwinism. I find this a little tough to agree with. As vocal as the creationist/ID crowd is, I am sure if someone was fired for the stated reason they would be paraded around to the news channels in a heart beat. I have been reading about cases which some might be in the docu-fiction.

But the question I have is of honesty really. How can a student, who believes in creationism and the "young earth", write a doctorate dissertation on the disappearence of certain marine life at the end of the Cretaceous era 65 million years ago? 65 million years is not 6,000 to 10,000 years that the "young earth" proponents believe. 6,000 to 10,000 or 65,000,000, big difference! Why would a student write their dissertation on something that is fundementally contrary to their beliefs?  A job? The student in question is named Marcus Ross from University of Rhode Island, he is now at Liberty University. Liberty University was founded by Jerry Falwell and is a "conservative christian institution". 

But I would be skeptical of anyone who is writing about the Cretaceous when their avowed biblical beliefs say the world is only 6 to 10 thousand years old? Isn't there some contradiction at the least or dishonesty at most involved?

Blasphemy! Aleged god fearing people not being truthful, yes it is true. How about the fiasco of Dover when it was shown that the Discovery Institute and others deliberately changed a text book replacing creationism with intelligent design then tried to deny it? The creationists have complained for years that universities and the education system is hostile to their beliefs. But the simple truth is universities decide what they teach, there are plenty of universities that are christian, like Liberty mentioned above. But there is a less than honorable motivation behind these students getting degrees in areas of study that blatantly contradict their stated beliefs. So they can go to these religious schools as graduates of Harvard, just for example, and that adds credibility to say Liberty University. 

Boy this post took one hell of a tangent didn't it!

This movie, if it is anything like the promo, is not exactly chock-full-o-facts. The part mentioned above with the wildebeest, is silly! It is meant to say that people like Von Sternberg were treated like the wildebeest and science community is the big bad lion! Richard Dawkins , who has seen the movie calls this cinemagraphic technique called 'Lord Privy Seal'. Expelled is full of 'Lord Privy Seal', Hitler, Dachau, and don't forget the lion and wildebeest. 

I am definitely going to see this movie. I will be taking notes and I will have a full report of what I thought then.  

Comments (0)