Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Discovery News Release on Richard Dawkins Crashing EXPELLED Screening

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
PRESS CONTACT: ROBERT CROWTHER
DISCOVERY INSTITUTE
(206) 292-0401 X107
ROB@DISCOVERY.ORG

Richard Dawkins, World’s Most Famous Darwinist, Stoops to Gate-crashing Expelled
by Bruce Chapman, www.evolutionnews.org

Like many films im pre-release, Ben Stein’s Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed is being selectively screened around the country to develop a buzz.

There is a growing fear by the producers that Darwinists may be trying get into the showings to make bootleg copies (for the Web?), possibly in hopes of damaging the commercial value. Others may be crashing because they want to trash it before it even gets reviewed by the media. P.Z. Myers, who was not let into a showing last night in Minnesota, probably falls in the latter category.

Amazingly, the best selling Oxford scientist/author Richard Dawkins also crashed a showing of Expelled in Minnesota last night and he not only was let in, but introduced at the end of the showing.

Dawkins apparently acknowledged that he had not been invited and did not have a ticket. A sophomoric side to his ideological is thus revealed.

Dawkins, understandably is nervous about this film, among other reasons because Ben Stein has him on camera acknowledging that life on Earth may, indeed, have been intelligently designed, but that it had to have been accomplished by space aliens! This is hilarious, of course, because Dawkins is death on intelligent design. But it turns out that that view applies only if it includes the possibility that the designer might be God.

Myers, of course, relished being expelled from Expelled, but objective observers know that Myers is the most vociferous advocate of expelling Darwin critics from academia. Not from movie pre-screenings where he wasn’t invited, mind you, but from their jobs. Too bad the film doesn’t show (and I wish it had), his promotion of advice to attack teachers and professors who dare question Darwin’s theory. The whole point of Myers is that he is a take-no-prisoners, crusading atheist scientist who has made it his purpose in life to harass people who disagree with him. Dawkins turns out to be his buddy and mutual admirer.

Frankly, I wish the producers would have a special pre-release screening for the Darwinists who are interviewed in the film — and invite some of the rest of us who have seen their depredations up close. We’d be glad to debate right there.

Among other things, I’d like to read some of the Darwinists’ statements and charges back to them and ask them to defend themselves. One of the most preposterous is that the well-funded’ Discovery Institute is funding this film! ( 1-They seem to have far more money available to them than we do, and 2-We are saving our pennies for the upcoming Broadway musical comedy, Darwin’s Folly.)

I have to say something else, personally. I have been sandbagged by one TV and documentary crew after another. So have Discovery-affiliated scientists. The interviewers all say they just want to understand the issue. Going in, they are quite clear about definitions, for example, and only start using Darwinist definitions of our positions when they report. They never provide questions in advance and even if they say they will stick to science questions and public policy, almost all sneak in questions about personal religious beliefs. Then, of all the footage, guess what gets on TV or in the documentary?

So it really is pathetic of Dawkins, et al to complain that when they were interviewed for Expelled they didn’t know that the film was inherently unfriendly. These are interviewees who received pre-agreed questions, signed release forms after the interviews were conducted, and actually got paid for their time.

I am getting more excited about Expelled myself and can’t wait to see the finished version. I suspect I’ll wish that the film was twice as long and had twice as much from Dawkins, P.Z. Myers, et al. From what I already have seen, they really expose themselves as the anti-intellectual, bullying poseurs they are — small men who above all are afraid of a fair contest.

###

Comments
Allan_MacNeill at 94 mea culpa re:
"I believe you belittle Michael Behe. He has published experimental research." Nope. The paper you reference is not "experimental" in any way. It's a mathematical simulation, based on flawed assumptions, with no empirical data of any kind.
You are right that Behe and Snope were modeling in this paper. I was probably thinking of Ralph Seelke
"We’ve tested at least 1.1 trillion cells for their ability to evolve, when two mutations are required. So far, they can’t."
Ralph Seelke, What Can Evolution Really Do? How Microbes Can Help Us with the Answer. Paper & Powerpoint.
We’ve checked approximately 1.1 trillion cells for evolution, when two changes are required; it hasn’t happened yet. We’ve allowed cultures to evolve for ~1300 generations; one culture devolved- lost the gene! Two other have yet to show the ability to make tryptophan."
PS Behe has other experimental papers. e.g. Oligoadenosine Tracts Favor Nucleosome Formation Haleh Mahloogi and Michael J. Behe, Biochemical and Biophysical Research Communications, Vol. 235, Issue 3, 27 June 1997, Pages 663-668DLH
March 23, 2008
March
03
Mar
23
23
2008
05:04 PM
5
05
04
PM
PDT
Allen_MacNeill: The point I have been trying to make since my very first post is precisely the point that the main premise of the film “Expelled” — that ID supporters/evolution critics are unfairly “expelled” from academic discussions — is, in fact, a deliberate falsification. I have presented as evidence the fact ID supporters/evolution critics are regularly invited to make presentations at my evolution courses at Cornell, and have done so repeatedly in the past. That's it? You claim based on a single data point that the movie's premise is a deliberate falsification? Is it not at all possible that both A) ID supporters/evolution critcs have been unfairly expelled from academic discussions and B) this hasn't beeen the case at Cornell are both true? If not, then how would it not be valid for me to say that I've falsified your claims by showing a single data point where discrimination has occured? I seriously hope that this kind of sloppy thinking is not the sort of thing you practic in your classes at Cornell. Allen_MacNeill: However, this fact was deliberately omitted from the film. Of course it was deliberately omitted. It was irrelevant to the premise of the movie. You seem to be operating under one or both of the following assumptions: - If academic discrimination against ID supporters isn't universal, then it obviously doesn't exist. OR - The movie Expelled is not simply out to show the existence of such discrimination, but that it is universal. I don't believe either of the above is valid. Your interview would certainly be applicable to a claim that academic discrimination is universal, but it is irrelevant to a claim that academic discrimination exists, is it not? Unless you have some other proof for your falsification claim, I fail to see how the discerning reader is to find it convncing in the least.Phinehas
March 23, 2008
March
03
Mar
23
23
2008
03:46 PM
3
03
46
PM
PDT
DLH also wrote (in #88): "Behe has provided a quantitative model of the limits of neo-Darwinian random mutation with natural selection." (emphasis added -ADM) Precisely; Dr. Behe has never done any empirical research on any of the ID topics about which he has written. All he has done is to formulate a couple of mathematical models based on highly questionable assumptions. The same is true for Dr. Dembski's mathematical treatment of "complex specified information". It is a mathematical model, pure and simple, with no empirical verification of any kind. Indeed, when asked to provide an empirical example, he replied: "You're asking me to play a game: "Provide as much detail in terms of possible causal mechanisms for your ID position as I do for my Darwinian position." ID is not a mechanistic theory, and it's not ID's task to match your pathetic level of detail in telling mechanistic stories. If ID is correct and an intelligence is responsible and indispensable for certain structures, then it makes no sense to try to ape your method of connecting the dots. True, there may be dots to be connected. But there may also be fundamental discontinuities, and with IC [irreducibly complex] systems that is what ID is discovering." http://www.iscid.org/boards/ubb-get_topic-f-6-t-000152-p-3.html This link is to a discussion thread at ISCID, an organization that is now apparently moribund, with only DaveScot and Jon Davison posting intermittently for the last year or so.Allen_MacNeill
March 23, 2008
March
03
Mar
23
23
2008
03:45 PM
3
03
45
PM
PDT
DLH rote (in #88): "I believe you belittle Michael Behe. He has published experimental research." Nope. The paper you reference is not "experimental" in any way. It's a mathematical simulation, based on flawed assumptions, with no empirical data of any kind.Allen_MacNeill
March 23, 2008
March
03
Mar
23
23
2008
03:33 PM
3
03
33
PM
PDT
StephenB #87
A film that sets out to dramatize the problem of academic suppression should not minimize its impact by providing contrary examples to its own theme. Allen MacNeill is a glorious and welcome exception to the rule, but this film is not about exceptions. While I do care about the way the films producers treated Dr. MacNeill, I care more about the big picture.
Consider, please, the proposition that the "big picture" should be honest, fair and balanced. As you so eloquently point out, that is not the character of this film.Daniel King
March 23, 2008
March
03
Mar
23
23
2008
02:22 PM
2
02
22
PM
PDT
"WITHOUT requiring that the agent’s identify be specified?" I find this bizarre requirement you have most baffling. It would be like a scientist walking into a conference claiming to have discovered how radio waves worked. But when asked to specify how they work, he replies "how dare you demand such a thing of me, oppressors!" Any purported "explanation" of something must, you know, explain how it worked. That doesn't mean that you have to tell us that the designer was named Tim, but it does mean that you have to explain what general capacities and methods it employed to do what it did, and how you can know fro the evidence on the ground that these were, in fact, the specific procedures, methods, and events that occurred. Claiming that a being that could potentially do anything did it in an unknown way is just a polite way of rephrasing "I have no idea how it happened."Bad
March 23, 2008
March
03
Mar
23
23
2008
02:17 PM
2
02
17
PM
PDT
Behe shows that the malaria and HIV experiment includes ALL variations in nature, not just those people can speculate about. Darwinian writers appear to have little conception of the astronomical magnitudes of specified complexity involved. Combine Behe's analysis of the limit of two protein evolution with The origin of biological information and the higher taxonomic categories Stephen C. Meyer, PROCEEDINGS OF THE BIOLOGICAL SOCIETY OF WASHINGTON, 117(2):213-239. 2004 Diatribes against his paper fail to quantitatively address the serious issues Meyer's raises. Meyer reveals many many more orders of magnitude of complex information arising rapidly in the Cambrian explosion in a very much shorter time scale.
Then, beginning about 570-565 million years ago (mya), the first complex multicellular organisms appeared in the rock strata, including sponges, cnidarians, and the peculiar Ediacaran biota (Grotzinger et al. 1995). Forty million years later, the Cambrian explosion occurred (Bowring et al. 1993). The emergence of the Ediacaran biota (570 mya), and then to a much greater extent the Cambrian explosion (530 mya), represented steep climbs up the biological complexity gradient.
Yet, second, fossil data (Bowring et al. 1993, 1998a:1, 1998b:40; Kerr 1993; Monatersky 1993), and even molecular analyses supporting deep divergence (Wray et al. 1996), suggest that the duration of the Cambrian explosion (between 5-10 x 10^6 and, at most, 7 x 1^07 years) is far smaller than that of the entire universe (1.3-2 x 10^10 years).
Take then the combination of Behe with Meyers as the challenge. These barriers are astronomically far beyond anything neo-Darwinism has seriously addressed, let alone demonstrated. The rest are a collection of "Just-so stories"DLH
March 23, 2008
March
03
Mar
23
23
2008
02:00 PM
2
02
00
PM
PDT
Here's a link to the article mentioned above.larrynormanfan
March 23, 2008
March
03
Mar
23
23
2008
12:18 PM
12
12
18
PM
PDT
Here's a quantitative critique: Joanna Masel1 (2006), "Cryptic Genetic Variation Is Enriched for Potential Adaptations," Genetics 172: 1985-1991. The author argues:
In summary, not only is cryptic genetic variation not significantly eroded by the accumulation of deleterious mutations, but instead it is positively enriched for potential adaptations. The minimum condition for enrichment is that selection on hidden lethals is appreciable, and the optimal condition is when selection on unhidden potentially adaptive alleles is highly effective. Enrichment is weak with respect to potential adaptations resulting from a single mutation, but is dramatic for potential adaptations based on a combination of mutations. This provides a powerful mechanism for achieving an adaptation involving multiple mutations when each mutation, taken by itself, is deleterious. This gives a rigorous basis to previous speculations that adaptive combinations of mutations may appear more readily when variation is subject to weakened selection (KOCH 1972; TRUE and LINDQUIST 2000; HARRISON and GERSTEIN 2002). Recent models of the rate of obtaining an adaptive combination of mutations (BEHE and SNOKE 2004; LYNCH 2005) are therefore substantial underestimates, since they do not take this enrichment into account.
larrynormanfan
March 23, 2008
March
03
Mar
23
23
2008
12:09 PM
12
12
09
PM
PDT
Alan_MacNeill at 82 Re: "Will your Department actually allow fair consideration of models allowing for and testing intelligent causes?”
Yes, if the testing involves empirical testing of a clearly falsifiable hypothesis.
Thank you for your affirmation of the objective science.
When ID supporters start publishing field and laboratory research in peer reviewed journals we will have something to debate.
Respectfully, this sounds like pro experimental anti theoretical bias. Surely theoreticians such as Einstein should be allowed to form theories building on experimentalists data. I believe you belittle Michael Behe. He has modeled evolution. e.g., Behe M.J., Snoke D.W. 2004. Simulating evolution by gene duplication of protein features that require multiple amino acid residues. Protein Sci13:2651-2664. Among the 16 citations, see: Michael Lynch, Simple Evolutionary pathways to complex proteins Protein Sci. 2005 14: 2217-2225 Then see: Michael J. Behe and David W. Snoke, A response to Michael Lynch Protein Sci. 2005 14: 2226-2227 Behe and Snoke respond to Lynch clarifying/correcting his critique. Behe then combines his results with numerous other experimental results to posit * The Edge of Evolution, Free Press, June 2007. ISBN 0-743-29620-6 Behe posits an "edge of evolution" of about two cellular protein-protein binding sites developed by random mutation/natural selection in about 10^30 organisms. Compare about 10,000 protein-protein sites in a cell, where there have been fewer than 10^40 organisms during the entire history of the earth. (See p142-144.)
. . .Other things being equal, the likelihood of developing two binding sites in a protein complex would be . . .a double CCC ... 10^40. There have likely been fewer than 10^40 cells in the world in the past four billion years, so the odds are against a single event of this variety in the history of life. It is biologically unreasonable. With the criterion of two protein-protein binding sites, we can quickly see why stupendously complex structures such as the cilium, the flagellum, and the machinery that builds them are beyond Darwinian evolution." (p 146)
i.e., Compared to Darwin's meager data, Behe examines the largest data sets in existence - of malaria and HIV mutations. Behe observes ((p 161-162):
" all possible unintelligent processes in the cell - both ones we've discovered so far and ones we haven't - at best have extremely limited benefit, since no such process was able to do much of anything. . . .Nothing -- neither point mutation, deletion, insertion, gene duplication, transposition, genome duplication, self-organization, self-engineering, nor any other process as yet undiscovered -- was of much use. . . . With a billion times the firepower of the puny labs that humans run, the M-H (malaria-HIV) experiment has scoured the planet looking for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to build coherent biological machinery and has found absolutely nothing.
Behe has provided a quantitative model of the limits of neo-Darwinian random mutation with natural selection. Beyond that, the complexity of the cell is most reasonably explained by design. I submit that Behe has laid down a quantitative gauntlet for neo-Darwinian theory based on the best available evidence. It is now up to neo-Darwinists to quantitatively overcome these objections. In the mean time, ID will be developing predictive explanatory models. {DLH PS Corrected "He has published experimental results" to He has modeled evolution" per Allen_MacNeill's correction at 94 below.}DLH
March 23, 2008
March
03
Mar
23
23
2008
11:25 AM
11
11
25
AM
PDT
-----Allen MacNeill writes," I have presented as evidence the fact ID supporters/evolution critics are regularly invited to make presentations at my evolution courses at Cornell, and have done so repeatedly in the past. However, this fact was deliberately omitted from the film." A film that sets out to dramatize the problem of academic suppression should not minimize its impact by providing contrary examples to its own theme. Allen MacNeill is a glorious and welcome exception to the rule, but this film is not about exceptions. While I do care about the way the films producers treated Dr. MacNeill, I care more about the big picture. The problem is that Ben Stein and Allen MacNeill have presented two different accounts of reality, and they both can’t be right. If Stein is right, then the oppression is widespread and somebody needs to tell the story; if MacNeill is right, then the movie is, indeed, a propaganda piece. So, the question is this: Which of these two men is telling us the truth? More to the point, which of these men is even in a position to know the truth? McNeil is on the inside and has obviously interacted with other educators, so he would know something of their attitudes. His experience with them may or may not be representative of the big picture. We know that, in his case, the movie’s theme does not apply. He has opened up a meaningful dialogue with the ID community and seems to tolerate respectful dissent from his students. I am persuaded, though, that he is an anomaly. Further, I think his defense of the Darwinist community is wishful thinking and perhaps even a little self serving. He has everything to gain and nothing to lose by maintaining solidarity with his colleagues. Ben Stein, on the other hand, has everything to lose by telling his story. He has been vilified, lampooned, and hated, even on his own website. Why would he put up with all this abuse unless he was on to something? Yes, I know, he will make some money-- maybe-- but I don’t think that is what is driving him. I think he is motivated because he has learned facts that McNeil could have no way of knowing about. Having cast his net wide enough to reach the international community, Stein is in a better position than McNeil to understand the big picture. I find Ben Stein credible not just because he seems sincere but also because his experiences are somewhat similar to my own and others that I have heard about. All of this is anecdotal, of course, but there are probably a lot more cases than we haven’t heard about. With all due respect to Dr. MacNeill, I think he is placing too much emphasis on his own experience and too little emphasis on the big picture. I submit that Darwinist thought police are chilling speech, persecuting dissenters, and ruining careers. How can the movie be a “lie” if all these things are really happening?StephenB
March 23, 2008
March
03
Mar
23
23
2008
10:59 AM
10
10
59
AM
PDT
if flat-earthers came up w/ big bucks, and wrangled an interview w/ John Wheeler, I think Wheeler would be in his lab, or nestled in his bed, and not go to a screening of the movie;es58
March 23, 2008
March
03
Mar
23
23
2008
09:52 AM
9
09
52
AM
PDT
I still don't see how the fact that "expelledthemovie" was registered in March, while interviews were conducted in April and May, makes a slam-dunk case for the inference that "the producers lied to me." When I searched for "crossroads," I learned that the name is already registered. Whois then suggested several permutations and combinations of names involving "crossroads" which were available for $9.95 each. Why wouldn't the producers have preemptively registered a number of domain names (including but not limited to "expelledthemovie")? That would buy them some time to maybe do some marketing research about what name might work best. Evidently they settled on "Expelled." Were they then obliged to notify everyone they had interviewed that they had settled on this name?Lutepisc
March 23, 2008
March
03
Mar
23
23
2008
09:39 AM
9
09
39
AM
PDT
Phinehas asked (in #83): "With your “liar” charges here, are you making a substantive rebuttal against the film’s main premise regarding academic persecution? Or are you using a classical diversionary tactic?" The point I have been trying to make since my very first post is precisely the point that the main premise of the film "Expelled" — that ID supporters/evolution critics are unfairly "expelled" from academic discussions — is, in fact, a deliberate falsification. I have presented as evidence the fact ID supporters/evolution critics are regularly invited to make presentations at my evolution courses at Cornell, and have done so repeatedly in the past. However, this fact was deliberately omitted from the film. In brief, the central premise of the film "Expelled" is a deliberate lie, a lie that was perpetrated on all of the evolutionary biologists who were invited to participate of whom I am aware. What other conclusion would you draw from this evidence?Allen_MacNeill
March 23, 2008
March
03
Mar
23
23
2008
09:39 AM
9
09
39
AM
PDT
Allen MacNeill: If you would like to see some "empirical testing of a clearly falsifiable hypothesis," then the ID community can certainly oblige with a few hypotheses that should be testable using currently available techniques. Here are a few ways of falsifying ID, off the top of my head. (1) Identify some property of DNA that is: (a) clearly sub-optimal; and (b) found in all living organisms (and hence likely to have been present in the original Ur-cell at the dawn of life). [By a "clearly sub-optimal" property, I mean a property P that actually HAMPERS one of the functions that DNA is supposed to perform in organisms, so that it would be possible for scientists to IMPROVE the design of DNA by engineering a slightly better molecule instantiating property Q rather than P, which was able to perform at least one of DNA's functions better than DNA itself, and all of DNA's other functions at least as well as DNA does.] ID implies that there should be NO such property, since there is no conceivable reason why an intelligent designer would choose a less-than-ideal molecule to serve as the mechanism of heredity. (2) Establish the existence of a window of time, however narrow, during the Earth's history, during which: (a) no DNA-based cellular life-forms were yet in existence on the Earth; and (b) the environmental conditions on the primordial Earth would have allowed DNA-based cellular life-forms to survive and reproduce; AND subsequent to which, there were NO cataclysms (e.g. the impact of a Mars-sized body) that would have wiped out all life on Earth. The idea here is that an intelligent designer would have created life at the earliest available opportunity. A naturalistic hypothesis of the origin of life predicts an interval between the appearance of life-friendly conditions and the emergence of life. Research to date supports the ID hypothesis: see http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2006-07/uoc--uss072006.php . The article also briefly describes how scientists currently go about ascertaining the presence of life in ancient rocks. (3) FRONT-LOADING is one version of ID which can readily be tested by scientists. See M. Sherman's article, "Universal genome in the origin of metazoa: thoughts about evolution" in Cell Cycle, 2007 Aug 1; 6(15):1873-7 for details (or see http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?Db=pubmed&Cmd=ShowDetailView&TermToSearch=17660714&ordinalpos=3&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum for online abstract, which lists two testable predictions). (4) To make the foregoing paper a little bit more specific, here's one prediction I'd make. If front-loading is correct, then ALL multicellular animals (sponges included) should contain an analogue of the eyeless gene found in fruit flies. (5) Some ID proponents postulate multiple "interventions" by the intelligent designer, and the Cambrian Explosion is often held up as an example of an abrupt increase in organismic complexity, which, it is claimed, cannot be accounted for by "blind" natural processes (chance, necessity or some combination thereof). IF these ID proponents are right, AND IF this increase in complexity coincides with the appearance of about 30 new animal phyla in the fossil record during the early Cambrian, then: (a) paleontological research should establish that the metazoan phyla - be they chordates or cnidarians - ALL appear at the same time in the fossil record; (b) molecular clock research should be unable to unambiguously identify any one phylum of metazoa as pre-dating any of the others: rather, the phyla should appear to radiate from a common ancestor. The idea here is that an intelligent designer of animal phyla would presumably design them all in one hit, rather than in dribs and drabs. I have to admit that the results to date appear to contradict this particular version of ID: according to the Wikipedia article on the Cambrian Explosion at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cambrian_explosion , several major modern types of animal did not appear until the LATE Cambrian (490-500 million years ago), while at the other extreme, moderately complex animals such as triploblastic bilaterians seem to have appeared 580-600 million years ago. Not being a biologist, I cannot comment on predictions (1) to (4). I would be interested to hear what Dr. Allen MacNeill has to say regarding these.vjtorley
March 23, 2008
March
03
Mar
23
23
2008
08:34 AM
8
08
34
AM
PDT
Allen_MacNeill: When ID supporters start publishing field and laboratory research in peer reviewed journals we will have something to debate. Nice. Am I the only one who finds this statement incredibly ironic given this thread's subject? Allen_MacNeill: Yes, if the testing involves empirical testing of a clearly falsifiable hypothesis. So far, no such research has been published by any ID supporter anywhere. I'm convinced that it is not overly simplistic to boil down the two competing theories to the following: - ID infers design where it observes IC and/or FSCI. - Darwinism infers macroevolution where it observes similarity. I think there exists a double standard at this point. ID is expected to do more than show empirical evidence of IC or FSCI, it is expected to defend its inference. On the other hand, Darwinism gets a free ride on its inference, with evidence showing similarity automatically accepted as empirical evidence for Darwinism. Admittedly, this is just the perspective of a layman. I'm open to being shown otherwise. Allen_MacNeil: This is a classic diversionary tactic in rhetoric as well: if one has no substantive rebuttal, then change the subject. This raises an interesting question. With your "liar" charges here, are you making a substantive rebuttal against the film's main premise regarding academic persecution? Or are you using a classical diversionary tactic?Phinehas
March 23, 2008
March
03
Mar
23
23
2008
08:11 AM
8
08
11
AM
PDT
DLH asked (in #71): "Will your Department actually allow fair consideration of models allowing for and testing intelligent causes?" Yes, if the testing involves empirical testing of a clearly falsifiable hypothesis. So far, no such research has been published by any ID supporter anywhere. Michael Behe, Gugliermo Gonzalez, and William Dembski have done no such thing. All they have published is untestable speculation without empirical confirmation, consisting primarily of mathematical models without empirical verification and dubious applicability. When ID supporters start publishing field and laboratory research in peer reviewed journals we will have something to debate. Until then, this is all just speculation. Or, as Phillip Johnson, the "founder" of the ID movement has said: "I also don’t think that there is really a theory of intelligent design at the present time to propose as a comparable alternative to the Darwinian theory, which is, whatever errors it might contain, a fully worked out scheme. There is no intelligent design theory that’s comparable. Working out a positive theory is the job of the scientific people that we have affiliated with the movement. Some of them are quite convinced that it’s doable, but that’s for them to prove…No product is ready for competition in the educational world." http://sciencereview.berkeley.edu/articles.php?issue=10&article=evolutionAllen_MacNeill
March 23, 2008
March
03
Mar
23
23
2008
06:34 AM
6
06
34
AM
PDT
Ahhh! ... I wrote to Expelled about a month back, asking for info about Australian releases (so this may be pertinent to other similar countries) and to date I haven't received a reply. "Unfortunately in Australia, we will have to wait for the DVD I suspect." Yep, idnet.com.au, that was going to be my fear as well. I hope the Expelled crew get to read this: evolutionary dogmatism is world wide, so open up the issue to the world! Other non-US readers please raise your hand ... Allen_MacNeill, don't get your knickers in such a knot. Obviously the name 'Expelled' is a better moniker than the tame 'Crossroads'. I'm sure the working title [The Adventures of Luke Starkiller as Taken from the 'Journal of the Whills': Saga I] was thankfully dropped to just Star Wars, without affecting the on-screen stuff! Yep, they may have changed it to ensure that more 'names' would sign up for an interview, but if their words are fairly presented, then what is the FEAR? That all the combined brilliace, gift of the gab and scientific might will somehow come unstuck at the hands of a comedian with a microphone? Get a spine. I am amazed at so many references of, "I'm going to get a lawyer!!!" Dear me. In the US it is certainly looking like 'The Law' is becoming as powerful as 'Science'. I wonder when Truth can be navigated with the aid of a beer instead of vitriol and litigation.AussieID
March 23, 2008
March
03
Mar
23
23
2008
03:37 AM
3
03
37
AM
PDT
Allen "we expect people to tell the truth about what they are doing, rather than to lie repeatedly for the sake of producing propaganda. silly me…" If those interview for the film had known how their words would be used, would they have refused to be inteviewed? PZ said on his blog that he would have just asked for a lot more money! Do they claim that they did not say what is in the film, or that they were not telling the truth when they spoke, or something else? I don't get it.idnet.com.au
March 23, 2008
March
03
Mar
23
23
2008
12:10 AM
12
12
10
AM
PDT
Bob OH, I simply made the point that there was a contract, they were all well paid, and that the contract would have included a clause allowing use in any context. Once you sell your car you cannot dictate how it is used. Without knowing the people involved, I am unable to say what was said by whom and to whom, or to judge who is or is not a liar. It is possible for people to feel misled without having been told lies. Darwinists mislead people all the time, that there is no controversy over design in biology. They say ID is unfalsifiable AND that it has been falsified. They say there is NO evidence for Intelligent Design. This film is considered by some to be a ballanced coverage of what happenned. To others it is a distortion. We must wait for the "ordinary man" who has little agenda, to really judge how biased it is. In ID we trust ordinary people to judge. Those on the inside with the pertinent information throw insults back and forth. ID seeks to speak plain truth to the average person. They can sniff a lie when they hear one. Unfortunately in Australia, we will have to wait for the DVD I suspect.idnet.com.au
March 23, 2008
March
03
Mar
23
23
2008
12:04 AM
12
12
04
AM
PDT
idnet.com.au - your comment implies a strange sort of morality, where one can lie to people as long as you pay them enough.Bob O'H
March 22, 2008
March
03
Mar
22
22
2008
11:45 PM
11
11
45
PM
PDT
PZ was paid $US 1200 for his interview. Presumable there was a contract that would have included a phrase that the interview was the property of the film makers, to use as they saw fit. I think $1200 is OK pay for a few hours of talking off the cuff, on a subject you like talking about. It is even better to get paid and not have your interview in the film.idnet.com.au
March 22, 2008
March
03
Mar
22
22
2008
10:55 PM
10
10
55
PM
PDT
MacNeill @ 46: "Here is when the domain name “expelledthemovie” was registered at TUCOWS INC.: http://whois.domaintools.com/expelledthemovie.com That is, March 1, 2007." Mr.MacNeill, like I informed larrynormanfan, who also provided another similar link, the accuracy of the information presented, according to Tucows, is not guaranteed. So who knows for sure when the domain name was really registered.JPCollado
March 22, 2008
March
03
Mar
22
22
2008
09:11 PM
9
09
11
PM
PDT
Allan_MacNeill By: “Since neo-Darwinism is enforced by self selected atheists…” I was referring to the National Academy of Science at 93% atheists or agnostics. Leading scientists still reject God Of the NAS biologists who responded, only 5.5% believed in God. Compare almost all founders of modern science believed in God. That sounds like modern self selection. DLH
March 22, 2008
March
03
Mar
22
22
2008
08:20 PM
8
08
20
PM
PDT
MacNeill @ #70: "Unfortunately, I naively believed their representations to me at the time, and did no research into their activities then. Indeed, I only became aware of their true nature when I found out about the real focus of the film “Expelled” and did some digging into their other productions." So you have no case, Mr.MacNeill. None whatsoever. How could your lawyer propose a lawsuit when due diligence would have placed the onus on you to make the necessary discovery. It is not like Rampant is hiding the nature of their films, as you said. On that note, Fox also specializes in religious films. Does that make them propaganda-driven as well? Oh, and before I forget, I checked Rampant's webpage and found these titles: A Tale of Two Laredos The Hitchhiker Band Aid - Why Foreign Aid Isn't Working These don't sound religious to me.JPCollado
March 22, 2008
March
03
Mar
22
22
2008
08:18 PM
8
08
18
PM
PDT
Dr. MacNeill, I appreciate your attitude toward allowing criticism in your classes. I don't deny that there is general criticism across the country in evolutionary biology but I doubt much has to do with criticism of naturalistic methods for macro evolution in the sense of how complex novel functionality came about. This is what ID is critical of and seems to be lacking in nearly everywhere I have seen. Maybe Cornell is an exception. By the way I am through about 2/3 of the Jablonka and Lamb's book. It is quite interesting and gets a little too abstract at places so it will require a couple more readings to understand everything. My reactions are that it should be a required addition to the standard discussion of evolution but have not seen anything yet that undermines ID. ID should have no problem with any of the propositions proposed since none really address macro evolution in the sense ID is interested in macro evolution. Though I have not finished the book, only through chapter 7 on the interaction of epigenetics and genes. I love the discussion of the unmasked genes and how this might be important. But the relationships to Lamarckian evolution is a little stretched since the gene change or changed phenotype may not related at all to the type of stimulus causing the change.jerry
March 22, 2008
March
03
Mar
22
22
2008
08:11 PM
8
08
11
PM
PDT
MacNeill @ #62: "you will have to take my word for it that they repeatedly lied about their intentions before, during, and after the interview." Well, I don't know about that considering that you have mischaracterized other ID projects, like identifying Discovery Institute as a Neo-Creationism Propaganda Ministry, for instance. With such antagonostic predispositions, a person's memory and perception could be warped in a negative way.JPCollado
March 22, 2008
March
03
Mar
22
22
2008
08:06 PM
8
08
06
PM
PDT
Allen_MacNeill - at 65
Mine does [allow criticism of Darwin](that is, the Department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology at Cornell University).
Our complements. Will your Department actually allow fair consideration of models allowing for and testing intelligent causes? WITHOUT requiring that the agent's identify be specified? Or excluding agents because of its possible identity? Or would they ostracize any person making such as proposal like Richard Sternberg or Stephen Meyers or Guillermo Gonzalez?DLH
March 22, 2008
March
03
Mar
22
22
2008
08:04 PM
8
08
04
PM
PDT
JPCollado asked (in #68): "...if it is apparent that Rampant specializes in religious films, then how could you have been misled as to the intent of their interviews?" Unfortunately, I naively believed their representations to me at the time, and did no research into their activities then. Indeed, I only became aware of their true nature when I found out about the real focus of the film "Expelled" and did some digging into their other productions. I guess academics and scientists are a little too trusting: we expect people to tell the truth about what they are doing, rather than to lie repeatedly for the sake of producing propaganda. silly me...Allen_MacNeill
March 22, 2008
March
03
Mar
22
22
2008
08:01 PM
8
08
01
PM
PDT
DLH wrote (in #66): "Consider being required to “believe” or spout neo-Dawinism under fear of looking one’s job, grants etc." I'm not required to believe anything by anybody else, nor are my students, nor my colleagues. On the contrary, the only thing we are "required" to do is to support our arguments using empirical evidence and citation of published research. That requirement is not "legal", however; it's moral. Indeed, it is the bedrock foundation of the scientific tradition. DLH also wrote: "Since neo-Darwinism is enforced by self selected atheists..." ...like Ronald Aylmer Fisher, Theodosius Dobzhansky, Ken Miller, and myself, right?Allen_MacNeill
March 22, 2008
March
03
Mar
22
22
2008
07:57 PM
7
07
57
PM
PDT
1 2 3 4 5

Leave a Reply