“Expelled”: The Tyranny on Thought
January 12, 2008 · By Matthew
Jason, from Back off Government!, happens to be a very good friend of mine and sent me a link today to a new movie that I had no idea was coming out but will definately be seeing now…
Ben Stein, first made famous in the celebrity world through Farris Bueler’s Day Off, staunch Republican and former speech writer for Presidents Richard Nixon and Gerald Ford, is staring in a new documentary called “Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed” that will be out in theatres this February and tackles the dogma of evolution that is not only harming free speech in our society but also has led to many of the disasters of the 20th century with the greatest death toll. I have searched and haven’t seen any evidence that it will be carried by Canadian chains, but I hope this is just because the movie is still at least a month away from release.
Anyway, watch the trailer here since it’s actually a pretty powerful and moving piece. I hope that everyone who considers themselves to be truly open minded to all the possibilities of science watches this too. As for the commentators on this blog who will simply dismiss both this post and this movie as blind faith, I offer the challenge to you that Stein implies in the above-linked movie: watch the movie, listen to the criticism and respond accordingly. Otherwise, it really begs the question on whether you are really comfortable with your faith in what you have heard about evolution (studies, evidence of, arguments for), or are just paranoid that someone if challenged with a rival theory like intelligent design it will come crashing down. For the trolls (and you know who you are!), I simply offer the original title Darwin gave to his book,
On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life
,and ask you to explain how such a social (and Holocaust-endorsing) statement can be classified as the title of a purely scientific work — until I get a direct answer to that, I will not respond to any of your inquiries as I haven’t seemed to get much of a response on mine and think I’m overdue!
With that said, let the acid start flying…!
Matthew, this is topic that is of great interest to me. But to be honest, I’ve tried, in several threads over the last year, to engage you in a civil discussion - and you inevitably walk way. I don’t think you’re quite as open to discussion as you claim to be. So you’ll forgive me if I don’t bite again.
So, I guess, by following your logic, we can also make the assertion that the Wright brothers “endorsed” 9-11.
Forgive me, as well, but I agree with Dalton in that this is not worth anyone’s time.
I hope you check out PZ’s response to this posting. He answers your “challenge” regarding your misunderstanding of Darwin’s title for The Origin of Species - a book you really should read before you criticize it in public or anywhere else.
Canadian Cynic piles on you as well for not doing some basic research before you start throwing around the “rival theory” silliness.
Have a good one.
Your “point” reveals more about you than Darwin, Matthew. Darwin clearly didn’t mean “races” in the way that we use that word now.
The fact that you act as if you have a tremendous point to make here, when you obviously haven’t read the book in question is 1) Rather depressing and 2) Intellectually dishonest
You will be happy to know, however, that you’ve attracted the attention of PZ Meyers and he responds in more detail on his blog: http://scienceblogs.com/pharyn.....an_a_t.php
From Pharyngula:
Talk about clueless gomers—here’s a Canadian blog praising the Expelled movie, and bringing up a very tired argument against evolution.
For the trolls (and you know who you are!), I simply offer the original title Darwin gave to his book,
On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life
,and ask you to explain how such a social (and Holocaust-endorsing) statement can be classified as the title of a purely scientific work — until I get a direct answer to that, I will not respond to any of your inquiries as I haven’t seemed to get much of a response on mine and think I’m overdue!
First of all, the logic is deeply flawed: if evolutionary theory did have undesirable social consequences, that wouldn’t be a valid argument against the truth of evolution.
Secondly, and more conclusively, the question reveals quite a bit about the questioner. He hasn’t read the book he’s criticizing, beyond copying down the title! The Origin is using “race” in an antiquated way that refers to what we’d now call varieties — he doesn’t discuss human races at all, but does talk a great deal about domesticated breeds of pigeons and horses and vegetables. It certainly doesn’t endorse any kind of holocaust. Darwin doesn’t advocate any action, but is offering a descriptive explanation for what is.
The Origin is a purely scientific work, rich in detail and experiment and offering a useful framework for subsequent research. A man who can barely read past the title is in no position to make demands for explanations or deplore the unread contents of the book.
I can explain it. You’ve never read the book and you’ve bought into the lies of people who have such shallow faith that they believe in Lying for Jesus to bolster their faith.
Darwin’s book is talking evolution as it applies to animals such as horses and pigeons, as well as plants, mostly vegetables. The word “race” is used in it’s correct, but archaic way, to describe what we’d call “species,” “sub-species” or “varieties” today. The title, or the contents of the book, has nothing to do with the human race whatsoever.
Also, for the record, people who engage in “Lying for Jesus” do far more harm than good. Once the lies are exposed, it does tremendous damage in ways unforeseen by the liar and, typically, seems to start a crisis in faith. Some come through this unscathed, but most seem to either become unchurched and very weak in their faith, or atheists. All because the Liars for Jesus made the recipients of these lies incapable of trusting their elders.
And why not? If you lie about this, who is to say you’re not lying about other things? Ultimately, the wedge that destroys their faith is not because of “The Evil Darwinist/Atheist Conspiracy;” but, instead, the lies told by people upon whom they relied to tell them the truth.
P.S. If Expelled gets a wide release here in the States, I hope it’s listed on Rotten Tomatoes. It’ll be fun to see what rating it gets.
Can we be sure that Matthew’s post isn’t just a prank? It seems too clueless to be real.
I mean, seriously — noting that some breeds of animals survive better than others is a “Holocaust-endorsing statement”?
“or are just paranoid that someone if challenged with a rival theory like intelligent design it will come crashing down”
IF Intelligent Design ever actually offered up some real evidence, some actual scientific research into any field then maybe it would be a rival theory. For now, it remains nothing but a theory in the colloquial sense, it’s an idea… and not even a new idea. It’s creationism repackaged.
The creation myth is all of about 56 verses in the first two chapters of Genesis, then it repeats itself, and contradicts itself. On the other hand if you were to compile all the evidence collected in the last 150 years that all points to long term change over billions of years and evolution as true, and printed it on the same size pages as the standard pew size bible, it would wrap around the earth so many times it would block out the sun. So which one takes more faith to take as fact again?
The Discovery Institute has more than enough money to actually fund some research, but they’re far too busy tricking county school boards into trying to get creationism back in the schools. We all know how well that turns out.
So this is Matthew.
So, Matthew, have you read beyond the subtitle of Darwin’s book, or is that the extent of the big words you knew?
You never actually read Origin of Species, it seems, nor are aware of how English changes over time.
Maybe you should learn to spell “tyranny” before delving into anything more complicated.
Amazing. Creationists just keep making dumber and dumber arguments.
Matthew’s stupidity, or dishonesty, is almost enought to make me feel ashamed to be Canadian.
I’d be interested to know how a person can endorse an event that didn’t occur until 50+ years after the person’s death. Who knew that in addition to being one of the towering figures of science, Darwin was also a psychic.
Apparently, Matthew doesn’t know that “race” was used in the 19th Century biology to refer to any distinguishable among the member of a species of organism, as in “When we look to the hereditary varieties or races of our domestic animals and plants, and compare them with closely allied species”. Or for a more specific (no pun) example: “Nevertheless, as our varieties certainly do occasionally revert in some of their characters to ancestral forms, it seems to me not improbable that if we could succeed in naturalising, or were to cultivate, during many generations, the several races, for instance, of the cabbage, in very poor soil–in which case, however, some effect would have to be attributed to the DEFINITE action of the poor soil –that they would, to a large extent, or even wholly, revert to the wild aboriginal stock.” So, is Matthew suggesting that Darwin referring to races of cabbages is responsible for the deaths of billions of cabbages that occur annually as humans eat them? [Readers may want to refer to The Arrogant Worms' 'Carrot Juice is Murder' for enlightenment and laughs]
It appears as well that Matthew isn’t aware that describing what does happen in nature does not constitute endorsement of a course of human behaviour. Various animals engage in things like cannibalism (including intra-uterine cannibalism), incest and rape. Does Matthew think that an entomologist describing, say incest in aphids, is thereby endorsing incest among humans as a good thing? Is a marine biologist describing rape among giant cuttlefish endorsing rape among humans? Was Jane Goodall endorsing war when she described conflict between bands of chimps? Does Matthew think a criminologist who describes aspects of sexual abuse of children is thereby endorsing sexual abuse of children as a course of behaviour?
At one time, people thought that nature set out examples of how we ought to live. As we’ve grown to understand the complexity and variety of life, particularly in light of evolution, it is apparent that nature may offer a compendium of way that things can be done, but does not tell us how we ought to behave. I look to my religion, my conscience and philosophy, not to nature for how I ought to behave.
What’s annoying is that it has clearly taken me longer to put this together than it did for Matthew to read the title of the Origins. Anyone who wants to check my Darwin quotes can refer to the 6th Edition at Project Gutenberg and do a word search.
And the fact that Darwin’s book was originally published in 1859, 80 years prior to the German invasion of Poland and the ensuing Holocaust is of no particluar importance, right?
Do you even read your catastrophically ridiculous dreck before you publish? You should try it some time - you know, just for fun.
Well said Mike. If Matt reads your post properly, he should apologize for his post. And he’ll have read more in reading your post, obviously, than he read of Origins of the Species.
It seems obvious that the life forms we see on Earth today are the ones that survived the struggle for life of the past.
What is so hard to accept about that?
And who cares if we call them ’species’ or ‘races’ or ‘life forms’?
Dawkins said, “It’s been suggested that if the supernaturalists (Ben Stein’s god) really had the powers they claim, they’d win the lottery every week. I prefer to point out that they could also win a Nobel Prize for discovering fundamental physical forces hitherto unknown to science. Either way, why are they wasting their talents doing party turns on television?”…or in movies?
Additionally, one perhaps should never trust a writer who brags about being connected to one of the biggest crook that ever walked the planet (Nixon).
Matthew,
It’s very hypocritical of you to accuse people of not being “open minded” because they haven’t seen a movie that hasn’t even come out yet; and then to turn around and criticize a book you clearly have not read, based solely on its title. Origin of Species has been available for 150 years, so you have no excuse at all for not reading it. And if you read it, you’ll see that your purported criticism of the title is based on a gross misunderstanding of the meaning of 19th century English terminology. Darwin did not use the term “favored races” in anything like the way the term was used 80 years later.
But, anyways, I doubt you’ll actually bother to read it. That would take away from your time to accuse others of not being “open minded”.
Another point Matthew doesn’t understand is that in evolutionary biology, “fitness” means reproductive success. It’s more complex than simply the strong outcompeting the weak. Sneaker males in many species, for example, are smaller, weaker males who boink the females while the more dominant males are fighting among themselves.
Matthew,
Reading a book before you blame it for a century of ills is pretty basic. Otherwise you run the risk of embarassing yourself and looking like a total dunce.
And I’m sure you wouldn’t want that.
Matthew, there’s a bit of a pattern to your posts on this issue.
1) You post a statement or argument on evolution, “creation science”, or an associated topic, that includes a challenge to your readership to respond.
2) They do, usually with pretty good rebuttals, data, and arguments.
3) You fire back a weak riposte focusing on the ones you feel are being “abusive”; you ignore the substantive comments on your initial argument, and decline to engage in real discussion with the folks who appear willing to.
4) You then drop the thread. Occasionally you move directly from step (2) to step (4) without actually responding.
Do you get some kind of weird pleasure from repeating this cycle again and again and again?
Rugosa,
‘…weaker males who boink the females while the more dominant males are fighting among themselves.’
Works for me.
I hear that Expelled II is underway already with Ben Stein on board again. In it, he will expose the secular conspiracy to promulgate the *theory* of gravity as fact. It’s about time someone exposed Newton for what he was: a mewling didact responsible for the nihilist belief that “what goes up, must come down.” The resulting fatalism clearly seeded Neitzsche’s philosophy, which, of course, we all know fueled Hitler’s fascist rule and the Holocaust.
Look, evolution by natural selection is a fact of life. deal with it. Social Darwinism is a moronic idea, its like saying:
Fact: “When a plane crashes, everyone onboard usually dies instantly”
Therefore: If a plane with 250 people crashes, and only 3 people die, does that mean we should line up the 247 survivors and kill them right away, because “everyone usually dies in a plane crash.”
Its a lunatic idea, and it does absolutely nothing to change the FACT that people tend to die when their plane crashes.
Evolution is a fact, we, and all other animals survive because we manage to pass on our genes.
FACT*, ok?
Nothing you can do about it. it has already happened for 3 billion years, and its happening as we speak to every animal on earth.
*All this “theory not a fact” nonsense is bollocks. a theory in the scientific sense is actually “better” than a fact, evolution is both a fact and a theory.
There’s something very odd about running around claiming that there is a vast conspiracy amongst scientists to cover up the fact that they all support the Holocaust… and then offhandedly complaining about trolls or harsh responses.
As a point of interest: trolls, in fact, are often the first poster in a thread, and in this case, you seem the most likely candidate for the title.
Oh dear, the right wingers lack of scientific knowledge has spread across the border.
Intelligent design is a documented fraud. Creationism is a documented fraud.
Do you have a biology degree or are you just parroting right wing nuts?
Evolution is a theory backed by evidence.
Intelligent Design and Creatonism are guesses, not theories.
This has been another edition of The Obvious.
You’re in big trouble, Matthew. “We of the science people” are coming after you.
Whoops, sorry. In my synopsis of the usual progress of these threads, I forgot to list periodic, substance-free mocking interpolations by Aaron. Sorry. Carry on.
“And the fact that Darwin’s book was originally published in 1859, 80 years prior to the German invasion of Poland and the ensuing Holocaust is of no particluar importance, right?”
Is Lulu to Canadian Cynic what Rita was to Arrested Development?:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C.....Rita_Leeds
Don’t worry Aaron, I actually find the fact that they obey the characterization that “Expelled” suggests highly amusing and entertaining.
Don’t worry Aaron, I actually find the fact that they obey the characterization that “Expelled” suggests highly amusing and entertaining. Please see the new post up on the site: http://www.thepolitic.com/arch.....te-speech/
Aaron Unruh wrote … blah, blah, blah.
*yawn*
“It is better to keep your mouth closed and let people think you are a fool than to open it and remove all doubt.”
Matthew: you’re playing the part of the movie more than anyone else here: i.e. allege that criticism equals persecution and then use this to avoid having to respond to any of the criticism in any substantive fashion.
What a load of rubbish. Darwin didn’t encourage any holocaust - you’re putting your own narrow-minded prejudices on to the situation.
Darwin merely explained what wass going on, using the language of his time.
Along come hard-of-thinking muppets with a religious axe to grind (that’s you!), and we see a lot of dishonest spinning of what was said into whatever twisted message you want to send.
Regardless of you and the other forces of intellectual repression, evolution stands, and has done so for hundreds of years now. All you lot want is to suppress freedom of thought and research. When you whine about freedom of speech being suppressed, it’s utterly laughable. You want to suppress the teaching of evolution in schools while being allowed to peddle your primitive superstitions at will.
The bible is bilge, better used as toilet paper. As for creationism….that’s just the biggest farce imaginable. Why don’t you believe in the tooth fairy or the easter bunny? They’re just as believable, and just as useful in life.
The stupidity of your post is stunning, Matthew! You’ve actually made me slightly embarassed to be Canadian.
Two life lessons for you:
1. Before endorsing documentaries - watch more than the trailer. Then again, you seem the type to take things on “faith” without reason and/or evidence so perhaps, to satisfy your own poor standards, you needn’t watch it.
2. Before criticizing books - read more than the title. Unfortunately for you, in order properly to take a critical look at the contents of a book, you must know what those contents are beyond the title. Arguments against things you don’t understand are bound to fall flat.
In any case, you’ve plenty of excellent rebuttals to your “argument” - although, as predicted earlier, you’re diligently ignoring them in favour of patting yourself and Aaron on the back.
Cheers, and good luck with… That.
[...] a Canadian tries to claim his share of the price money by repeating the claim that there is a link between the work of [...]
Everyone’s been very polite so far, Matthew, so let me be the first to lower the tone a little: you are clearly a cretin. Thank you.
Matthew. You are indeed a mental midget and an embarrassment to Canada. You’ve answered none of the thoughtful responses to your ill-formed and uninformed diatribe. Try an honest, thoughtful, well-researched response to writers such as Mike from Ottawa (15), and then an apology to the entire internet community.
Please notice how many have responded to Matthew’s post with the correct factual information and he has yet to respond.
Not only is he woefully uninformed, he is also a coward in the face of truth.
Well, he did shift the discussion over to another thread, where he explains that he’s not going to answer. That’s something, I guess.
dalton: “That’s something, I guess.”
Like I said, he’s a coward. And apparently he has a crush on Aaron. Selective breeding.
Here we go again! Evolution is not an icon of faith, of blind trust. The theory is an explanation of what is observed in the real world. Whilst you’re challenging evolutionary theory, why don’t you attack quanta, gravity and ’round’ earth whilst you’re at it?
Secondly, the Expelled flick is all about the supression of ID in academic circles. Michael Behe still has a job doesn’t he? And he’s not the only one. He gets paid far more than me for spouting total tripe. If only I’d cottoned on sooner, I could be rich by now, selling books on snake oil.
If someone joined the Geology department of a university and advocated a flat Earth; or an astronomer did the same for an Earth-centred universe, should we allow them to teach students or question (a) their credentials and (b) their objectivity as scientists?
You never actually read Origin of Species, it seems, nor are aware of how English changes over time.
Well that last part’s easy to explain. Language doesn’t evolve, of course, any more than organisms do. So “race” must be the exact same thing in every context, and science never changes either, so Darwin is the person whose holy writ is what the Darwinists must believe through all time.
How is one supposed to deny organic evolution if one accepts the analogous evidences, and materialistic mechanisms of language evolution? I mean, no one thinks that language evolved via magic or the intervention of space aliens, nor even by “design” (some deliberate language change might be believed by the godless materialists, but clearly they see it as largely non-deliberate), and if we allow that vestiges and homologies indicate language evolution, won’t vestiges and homologies have to be understood as evidence for biological evolution?
No, evidence doesn’t matter, because the Designer can make anything it wants, including apparent evolution. The designer is godlike, not God, too, and it’s bizarre that anyone would ever suppose that ID is about God, when it’s only about a godlike being or beings.
Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/2kxyc7
Catastrophically ignorant… and proud of it!
Man, you guys are pathetic.
Well if Ol’Red is on the scene something has gone horribly wrong, in 500 words or less please…
“until I get a direct answer to that, I will not respond to any of your inquiries”
Since you’re clearly a dishonest cowardly idiot, why should anyone care?
Don - It’s also a tenet of evolutionary biology that mate selection is largely (though not always) up to the females. So, yes, lots of us prefer the sensitive, quiet guy to the egotistical blowhard.
Well, so much for the idea that we Canadians are so much smarter than the Yanks.
Since you’re obviously a supporter of the Conservatives, perhaps you might think on there education policies as you’re a prime candidate for some remedial literacy tutoring.
Love Ben Stein? Good luck with your green card application. We won’t be missing you.
Wow. I misspelled ‘their’. I’d blame it on my being so incensed, but….
I’ll eat my hat now.
Aside from everything else that’s tragically wrong-headead about this post, I also note that the author somehow even managed to misspell “Ferris Bueller” actually getting both the first and last names wrong. Two for two! Amazing.
“The designer is godlike, not God, too, and it’s bizarre that anyone would ever suppose that ID is about God, when it’s only about a godlike being or beings.”
argue in bad faith much, glen?
KEvron
Yup, I’ve also been known to be wrong-headead and misspell wurds…36 wurds Ol’Red…slipping?
lol!
I’m surprised you managed to get past the spam protection question, Mahmood. Congratulations! What a clever monkey. Nice name too! Maybe I’ll just call you Mr. Dinnerjacket.
I thought retards like this only existed in the Southern United States, I’m very sorry for Canada…
Well Mathew,
Along with some deserved acidic barbs against your lack or reading. A few very good points have been made. Specifically that race is referring to subspecies, which in truth is what the different races of man are, just variations, we call all interbreed so we are the same species. And the second point: Darwin does not state nor imply racial holocaust, social Darwinism or any of the other tripe that people try to paint evolutionary theory with.
Now that you have a fair explanation of what the title means, are you ready to learn from this and comment on your previous misconceptions?
You’ve asked for an explanation, how about rewarding us all by letting us see your world view expand though learning.
Matthew,
I’ve read “On the Origin of Species” and it’s an absolutely remarkable book. Any person who wants to be considered scientifically or historically literate should read it in its entirety. Darwin managed to consider every possible objection to his evidence and he addresses all of the them. Yet, the creationists still bring up the same old, tired, complaints. For the creationists its as if we still live in 1858. Do read the book, and read some of the evidence that has been gathered in the 149 years since its publication.
Richard, who is to say that I haven’t? I’ve been amazed at how my being a creationist is automatically being interpreted as me never reading anything about evolution; without going into a lengthy explanation, let me just say that I like to keep up to date on what the other side is arguing (see Sunday’s post for an example).
Richard, who is to say that I haven’t?
shall we quiz you on the contents, or do you want to admit to being a liar now?
Ichthyic, just so you know, you are now being ignored due to your ridiculous trolling — obviously you’re so brilliant that you fail to realize that your groupthink crowd can get all their Biblical quotes from Google, and I could get any answers to your inquisition questions from places like wikipedia. A word of advice to end my dialogue with you: be careful of accusing people of being liars in public — I’m no lawyer but I understand such threats have been used against people in court! Have a nice life…or at least try to!
Could someone please ask Professor Myers to stop delivering his garbage to our site?
WTF?
obviously you’re so brilliant that you fail to realize that your groupthink crowd can get all their Biblical quotes from Google, and I could get any answers to your inquisition questions from places like wikipedia
wanna bet?
hey, you say you’ve read it so you should be able to answer basic questions from it, right?
I know for a fact I can easily ask questions based on Origin that you would only be able to answer if you read it. At this point, you haven’t even made it past the title yet, and you even get that wrong!
what are you afraid of? surely since you think it is such doggerel, you can easily dismiss any questions arising from the material.
right?
wouldn’t it be a better argument for your “position” to be able to directly refute the arguments Darwin himself made in Origin?
LOL
you’re so transparent you should hang a frame on your head and sell yourself as a window.
btw, even in Canada, slander requires a lot more than me calling you a liar, especially since it’s so obviously accurate.
but hey, if you wanna play that game, have fun. I doubt you have the cash to buy a lawyer that wouldn’t laugh at you.
man, you are just too funny. seriously, you would really benefit from learning how to deal with denial.
btw, since you don’t own a copy, you can read Origin, and any of Darwin’s other works, right here for free:
http://darwin-online.org.uk/
no excuses now, eh?
you can even go right to the text online to figure out the answers to any questions.
what have you got to lose, other than your blatant dishonesty?
“dismiss … this movie as blind faith”
No, no, no. It’s a biased “mockmentary”. It tries to tell one side of the story and ignore the other side completely. So, in some sense, it’s just half of the truth. Unfortunately, the other side of the story makes all too much sense. So, a professor that doesn’t publish much, doesn’t get grant money, and doesn’t have graduate students doesn’t get tenure. Not much “action” based on that side of the story.
They offer to “bribe” schools to bring their kids:
http://www.getexpelled.com/schools.php
But hurry to register - there’s a limited amount of bribe money. Last come - not served.
[...] A delightful little explosion in readership happened back under my watch in January with a post about the upcoming Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed documentary staring Ben Stein (I admit that I deserve no credit for it, the potty-mouthed Canadian Cynic demonstrated his talent to aid his opponents’ cause more than his own). A flustered Prof. PZ Myers sent his little minions (if this were a movie, I picture a scene from the Wizard Of Oz, around the time that the flying monkeys make their appearance — that’s what the crowd thinks they basically are anyway!) over here to tell me, American IPs in hand how embarrassed they were to be Canadian they were (I wish those sentiments were true, honestly!), how I had to apologize to the above-mentioned offended professor for misunderstanding a 150 year-old title of a book (oops!; I guess you guys’ll now fess up that you might have misinterpreted that whole “separation of church and state” clause now…) and one particularly amusing demand that gave me till 5:30 one day to respond to the little monkeys or else I would have all credibility banished forever (and I was looking forward to seeing that Funny Farm application go through too!). [...]
[...] kook named Matthew read the title of Darwin’s [...]
[...] of getting lost in the clutter here or there, I have decided to create a separate post because I am presenting a slightly different [...]
“separation of church and state clause”
The judge at Dover seemed to understand it in 2005.
The Supreme Court seemed to understand it in 1987.