Allen MacNeill: Expelled from Expelled

Well, congrats to MacNeill and Provine for a completely independent but also efficient demonstration that "Expelled" is propaganda. The more facts the merrier the outcome!

"Treating people with who you disagree as 'enemies' is the antithesis of the intellectual tradition." This is a fairly rosy-coloured view of the current 'debate' engaged by posters on this site.

I'd hoped in vain this site would offer something akin to intellectual sharpshooting, a rational corrective to the arguments of those who identify with 'Intelligent Design,' but it's just a meaningless collection of ad hominem asides. Oh well. Maybe someone could point me somewhere else.

However, unlike PZ Myers and Richard Dawkins, the interviews with Will and I were not included in the film. Why not? Because (as many posters at this site are well aware), we regularly invite ID proponents (such as Michael Behe, John Sanford, Hannah Maxson, and Phillip Johnson, among many others) to make presentations in our evolution courses at Cornell. But this fact would clash in an unfortunate way with the premise of the film, which is that “Darwinists” unfairly discriminate against ID supporters and creationists.

— Allen MacNeill

I've just gotten kind of blase about submitting things to journals where you often wait two years to get things into print. And I find I can actually get the turnaround faster by writing a book and getting the ideas expressed there. My books sell well. I get a royalty. And the material gets read more.

— William Dembski

Oh well. Maybe someone could point me somewhere else.

— Richard Whittall

Richard Whittall: "Treating people with who you disagree as 'enemies' is the antithesis of the intellectual tradition." This is a fairly rosy-coloured view of the current 'debate' engaged by posters on this site. I'd hoped in vain this site would offer something akin to intellectual sharpshooting, a rational corrective to the arguments of those who identify with 'Intelligent Design,' but it's just a meaningless collection of ad hominem asides. Oh well. Maybe someone could point me somewhere else.

@Richard:

Lots of people are very keen to do serious intellectual sharpshooting on ID, and there are some very impressive guns out there. Not a lot is happening though, because of the absolute lack of intellectual substance in ID that they could possibly shoot at.

The ID proponents never talk about ID, only about evolution. Essentially, the argument is: "A (evolution) is broken, so B (ID) must be right!". This is simply bad logic, since B could also be broken, and the working answer might be C, which we are not smart enough to have thought of yet.

So B must be tested for validity independently of A, and that requires a statement of what B is, and that is what the ID proponents (carefully?) never provide.

Feel free to prove different, by answering one question: What is B (independently of A)?

Regards,

YAL

“Treating people with who you disagree as ‘enemies’ is the antithesis of the intellectual tradition.” This is a fairly rosy-coloured view of the current ‘debate’ engaged by posters on this site. I’d hoped in vain this site would offer something akin to intellectual sharpshooting, a rational corrective to the arguments of those who identify with ‘Intelligent Design,’ but it’s just a meaningless collection of ad hominem asides. Oh well. Maybe someone could point me somewhere else.

What sort of intellectual sharpshooting, re that article, would you hope to see in order to counter the “Nuh-uh, magic did it and you can’t ask how, why or when!” side?

— DBC

So B must be tested for validity independently of A, and that requires a statement of what B is, and that is what the ID proponents (carefully?) never provide.

— Lurker #753

Maybe someone could point me somewhere else.

McNeill: “Treating people with who you disagree as ‘enemies’ is the antithesis of the intellectual tradition.”

quote from a Wesley R. Elsberry entry at antievolution.org: Pamela Thompson, Templeton Foundation spokesperson, says in her letter to the LA Times: We do not believe that the science underpinning the intelligent-design movement is sound, we do not support research or programs that deny large areas of well-documented scientific knowledge, and the foundation is a nonpolitical entity and does not engage in or support political movements.

Here is when the domain name “expelledthemovie” was registered at TUCOWS INC.: http://whois.domaintools.com/expelledthemovie.com That is, March 1, 2007. No domain name for “crossroadsthemovie” has ever been registered. If you have ever registered a domain name yourself, you know that it never appears in the WHOIS listing before you register it; only after. Therefore, the very latest that this domain could have been registered is March 1, 2007. Here is the “meta: description that goes with the aforelisted registration: “Ben blows the horn on Suppression! Science and Education has expelled smart new ideas from the classroom. What they forgot is that every generation has its Rebel…” I was interviewed by Mark Mathis & Co. on May 3, 2007. I have a canceled check from Rampant Films (canceled on May 5, 2007, the day after I deposited it), in payment for my interview (which, as I mentioned in my original post, was cut from the film). How much more evidence would you like that I (and Will Provine, and every other evolutionary biologist that was interviewed for this film) was lied to, repeatedly and for blatantly political (i.e. not scientific) reasons? And BTW, the reason I did not immediately respond to the posts following mine was because I was coloring Easter eggs with my four kids. So sue me…

— Allen MacNeill

Jerry asked: “Were they all after the February 12th date?” My interview (and Will Provine’s) was three months after the domain name “expelledthemovie” was registered. Unless the video crew was on the road for several months (pretty expensive), I would guess that nearly all of the interviews were conducted in late April and early May. Ergo, the film crew lied about the name and the intent of the film, and did so to hoodwink us into participating. And, given that both Will Provine and my interviews directly contradicted the main thesis of the film, and were subsequently cut from the film, it should be clear to anyone what the actual intent of the film makers was from the beginning: Propaganda, pure and simple.

— Allen MacNeill

Well, okay, yes there's likely some wacko religious ideology at work behind the Intelligent Design argument, but there are some serious problems with how the debate is framed. For example, the 'Talk Origins' site, whilst dressed up in philosophical/logical language is just a series of puerile rebuttals to simplistic assertions about Darwin as person.

The biggest problem here is the lack of philosophical rigor on both sides, because ultimately the question of the existence of 'God' seems to me to be outside the bounds of demonstrative science, for or against. This point was perhaps best laid out in Wittgenstein's Philosophical Investigations and I have yet to read a cogent argument against it since.

The reason I was led to this site in the first place was after reading David Berlinski's piece in the most recent issue of Harper's. I was disappointed to learn that he has associated himself with ID, because I think he raises a very important point that has been overlooked with the recent popularity of the Dawkins/Hitchens scorched-earth pop-atheism school, and was sincerely hoping he had done so without maintaining a pre-ordained conclusion about the nature of reality. Intelligent Design is so boringly wrong that to dedicate a website to attacking it is absurd, and the very fact this 'debate' has any traction whatsoever reveals the failure of modern scientists alongside their fundamentalist foes to understand the basics of philosophy and the philosophical method. Let me explain.

Intelligent Design first originated back in the thirteenth century with the famous 'five proofs' of the existence of God laid out by Thomas Aquinas. All can be refuted, although the easiest and first to go was his argument from design, that the seeming organization of the universe was proof that a divine intelligence must have created it, 'and this all men know as God.' Once it had become apparent that the natural organization of the world could be attributed to natural principles culminating with the development of Newtonian physics, the argument, already unfavoured by most serious philosophers, was abandoned. The Kantian critique of metaphysics was the final nail in the coffin.

Yet here we are at the start of the 21st century, and scientists, in their desire to rid the world of these meddlesome IDers, deign to tread where their forebears knew better not to, blithely employing the innocent empirical method to answer the question 'why something and not nothing' famously posed by Heidegger. It is one thing to say (quite correctly) that the theory of evolution is a sound model, in a broad sense, for explaining the origins of life on earth, if you can carefully avoid the unscientific pitfalls of reverse engineering engaged by some evolutionary zealots like Pinker and Gould. It's quite another to draft evolution in answering the question of whether or not there is a God. I would urge scientific materialists as well as their Intelligent Design counterparts to perhaps have a look back at their undergraduate philosophy texts before making wild assertions about God and evolution.

Richard Whittal said:

"For example, the ‘Talk Origins’ site, whilst dressed up in philosophical/logical language is just a series of puerile rebuttals to simplistic assertions about Darwin as person."

You're kidding, right?

Well, I was being tongue-in-cheek but the 'Talk Origins' site is hilarious. How does an Oxford dictionary-esque discussion on how 'fact' and 'theory' are understood to mean get us anywhere closer to understanding the full scientific implications of evolution? It exemplifies the problem with this debate.

As to the whole 'troll' thing, this all reminds me why blog culture is ruining the standard of contemporary thought. Please have a look at Jacoby's Age of American Unreason...

Richard Whittall said:

"It’s quite another to draft evolution in answering the question of whether or not there is a God."

Indeed; this is precisely why I so admire both Charles Darwin and T. H. Huxley, as neither ever committed this particular sin against logical argument in their published works. Both admitted privately that they were no longer "believers" in the traditional conception of a supernatural deity, but both were careful to separate that personal conviction from their science.

Other notable evolutionary biologists have come to the opposite conclusion: they have, in their personal lives, been devout believers in the traditional Judeo-Christian concept of God. Included in their ranks are two of the founders of the "modern evolutionary synthesis", Ronald Aylmer Fisher and Theodosius Dobzhansky, both of whom were devout Christians throughout their lives. The best selling biology text in the world, which uses evolutionary biology as the underlying logical thread throughout the book, is co-authored by Ken Miller, a devout Catholic and author of Finding Darwin's God, perhaps the most effective debunking of ID yet written.

In other words, the question of the existence or non-existence of God is completely outside the realm of science (as Stephen J. Gould so eloquently pointed out), and is therefore also completely irrelevant to the validity of the science of evolutionary biology.

Richard Whittall: the 'Talk Origins' site, whilst dressed up in philosophical/logical language is just a series of puerile rebuttals to simplistic assertions about Darwin as person.

I would urge scientific materialists as well as their Intelligent Design counterparts to perhaps have a look back at their undergraduate philosophy texts before making wild assertions about God and evolution.

Re Whittall's description of TalkOrigins:

Why should we take anything you say seriously when you throw down bullshit like that?

Confused Richard Whittall said..."How does an Oxford dictionary-esque discussion on how ‘fact’ and ‘theory’ are understood to mean get us anywhere closer to understanding the full scientific implications of evolution?"

Creationists misuse the two words to create confusion and mislead the public.

"It is one thing to say (quite correctly) that the theory of evolution is a sound model, in a broad sense, for explaining the origins of life on earth,..."

Origins of life on Earth? Oh, you mean abiogenesis!
Don't go around confusing abiogenesis with the theory of Evolution. That's what the uninformed and creationists do.

"I would urge scientific materialists..."

What on Earth is a 'scientific materialist'?
As opposed to what? A 'scientific spiritualist'?

Wouldn't it just be easier to say 'scientist'?

Frank J:

I've just gotten kind of blase about submitting things to journals where you often wait two years to get things into print. And I find I can actually get the turnaround faster by writing a book and getting the ideas expressed there. My books sell well. I get a royalty. And the material gets read more.

— William Dembski

Concern Troll Alert! Concern Troll Alert!

The problem is that science provide the best explanation given the evidence, while theology addresses the who and why.

So long as there isn't any evidence about the who and the why. But if there is some evidence about the who and why, then I think maybe science should handle that one. :D But if there is anything anywhere about absolutely anything at all for which there is no evidence whatsoever period, then yeah theology is good to go. Happy Easter!!

I’ve just gotten kind of blase about submitting things to journals where you often wait two years to get things into print. And I find I can actually get the turnaround faster by writing a book and getting the ideas expressed there. My books sell well. I get a royalty. And the material gets read more.

Dembski puts it nicely: “An argument from ignorance is still better than a pipe dream in which you’re deluding yourself. I’m at least admitting to ignorance as opposed to pretending that you’ve solved the problem when you haven’t.”

Richard Whittall:

Very interesting post. At least for me personally, you bring up a number of interesting philosophical topics. But in labelling this site as puerile, you completely and utterly miss the point. This particular site is devoted to monitoring and discussing the political movement know as "creationism". ID is merely the latest manifestation, and it is most certainly not philosophical. The issue here is the rhetorical and political attack on biological science aggressively pursued by by a small but powerful and vocal group of people, directed to a largely ignorant and ideologically conservative American public. The goals are clear...1) eliminate the teaching of evolution in public schools, 2) undermine the public's confidence in the "authority" of science, 3) cast doubt specifically on evolutionary biology as a science, 4) where possible, introduce the teaching of sectarian religious doctrine in American public schools to any degree possible.

The discussion on this site is often not scientific and sometimes devolves into derision and name calling (usually prodded by trolls). As an active scientist, I can say with great confidence that the debates here are largely irrelevant to the day to day operation of evolutionary biology, even though some wonderful scientific findings are posted as relevant to the ID talking points. The likes of Behe, Dembski, and Johnston are so insignificant as to be completely irrelevant to science. Their towering egos are diametrically opposed to their reputation in the sciences.

But as a concerned scientist who is a citizen and member of the community at large, the discussions here are critical to exposing the latest tactics and talking points of creationists.

It is indeed unfortunate that philosophy gets left behind in these debates. Sadly, though, in the same way that this discussion does not really concern the operation of science, neither does creationism contribute to philosophy or theology. However, a number of folks have occasionally pointed out that ID and creationism is as a great a danger to Christianity as it is to the public perception of science.

As for your buddy McNeil, he got cut from the film b/c it was a boring interview. No offense to Alan.

Given the accounts I've seen of Expelled, Ben Stein and company probably wanted to reserve the boring stuff for themselves.

Look on the bright side. No one is ever going to trust the Expelled players agains, Ben Stein, Mathis, Kevin Miller, Rulhoff etc. This lying creos with a camera stunt is a one off.

Once everyone knows you are slimy dishonest morons, the game is up.

Anyone who has dealt with the media before quickly learns to be very careful and very wary. Even when they aren't being actively malevolent, things tend to go wrong. In the case of PZ and the camera crew, someone media savvy would have known something was up before they got within a thousand miles.

author = "Richard Wittall"> I would urge scientific materialists as well as their Intelligent Design counterparts to perhaps have a look back at their undergraduate philosophy texts before making wild assertions about God and evolution.

raven: Once everyone knows you are slimy dishonest morons, the game is up.

raven: Once everyone knows you are slimy dishonest morons, the game is up. Stanton: What about the Republican Party?

raven: Anyone who has dealt with the media before quickly learns to be very careful and very wary. Even when they aren't being actively malevolent, things tend to go wrong. In the case of PZ and the camera crew, someone media savvy would have known something was up before they got within a thousand miles.

Then what is Richard Dawkins excuse? This was not the first time he had been burned by lying creationists.

The problem is that science provide the best explanation given the evidence, while theology addresses the who and why.

Interesting: I was expelled from "Expelled" because my interview was "boring." Surprising, then, that my students have twice nominated me as the outstanding lecturer at Cornell University and that I was given a special award for my teaching by the Cornell Learning Skills Center.

But maybe I was a little boring in that interview. After all, I didn't use ad hominem attacks against my opponents, nor did I try winning a Godwin Award (for most egregious application of Godwin's Law), nor did I lie from the beginning to the end of the interview the way the film makers did. Silly me!

And all of that beside the point, it still doesn't explain why Will Provine's interview (with essentially the same content, but probably a little more pizazz) was also omitted. It couldn't possibly have to do with the fact that he and I invite IDers and YECs to make presentations in our evolution courses, and that this fact totally undermines the basic premise of "Expelled"?

Oops, sorry, I forgot: as Ben Stein (a towering intellect in political history, philosophy, and science) has said repeatedly, "No Darwin, no Hitler."

Or, to put it even more succinctly,

"No integrity, no credibility."

Dembski describes the Design Inference well as an argument from ignorance

Jacob, please explain...

PvM:

Jacob already derailed one thread, and is now operating on this and several others. I vote to move all his comments to the BW.

Behe admits that speciation occurs, thus contradicting IDC wrongly stated dogma of “no ‘macroevolution’”, conceding evolution as process and major mechanisms.

— Torbjörn Larsson, OM

...ultimately the question of the existence of ‘God’ seems to me to be outside the bounds of demonstrative science, for or against.

...the ‘Talk Origins’ site, whilst dressed up in philosophical/logical language is just a series of puerile rebuttals to simplistic assertions about Darwin as person.

PvM: Ironically Dembski describes the Design Inference well as an argument from ignorance

Dembski puts it nicely: “An argument from ignorance is still better than a pipe dream in which you’re deluding yourself. I’m at least admitting to ignorance as opposed to pretending that you’ve solved the problem when you haven’t.”

”How does an Oxford dictionary-esque discussion on how ‘fact’ and ‘theory’ are understood to mean get us anywhere closer to understanding the full scientific implications of evolution?”

Hmm. Do we know of any other interviewees for "Crossroads *wink wink nudge nudge* who were Expelled? Or just folks who were interviewed for the film in general? I think it would be interesting to see some viral videos popping up on YouTube about being Expelled from Expelled going over all the dishonesty that the film's producers are going through to protect their eggshell egos and their paper-thin premise.

Richard Whittall: Well, okay, yes there's likely some wacko religious ideology at work behind the Intelligent Design argument, but there are some serious problems with how the debate is framed. For example, the 'Talk Origins' site, whilst dressed up in philosophical/logical language is just a series of puerile rebuttals to simplistic assertions about Darwin as person.

raven:

Then what is Richard Dawkins excuse? This was not the first time he had been burned by lying creationists.

You will have to ask Richard Dawkins. He might have just shrugged his shoulders and let the chips fall where they may. From the film reviews, Dawkins says he is an atheist. This isn't news. And Expelled could very well backfire on Stein, Mathis, and affiliates. They've shown themselves to be highly dishonest to make the film, lied about such subjects as the causes of the Holocaust and communism, and equated science in general and evolutionary biology with atheism. When Xian becomes synonymous with lying, stupid bigot, who would want to be one?

Is it possible to ask for a complete, unedited copy of your interview?

I imagine the producers would want to charge a fee for it. I wouldn't be averse to chipping in a donation to get those interviews. Send them on to NCSE to add to their ExpelledExposed website.

We need to get al these things out in the open. I'm adding this link to a flyer I plan on printing and handing out to people if the movie actuallyopens here.

Cheers.

Now DaveScot has "expelled" me from Uncommon Descent as well. Looks like I'm in good company here — just another one of the boys in the banned...

Allen MacNeill: Now DaveScot has "expelled" me from Uncommon Descent as well. Looks like I'm in good company here — just another one of the boys in the banned...

Just for the record, Provine was not cut from the film. And here's what Mathis has said about Provine:

"What I can’t say about most of the people I interviewed is that Will Provine is something of a model of what we should be seeing in most of the universities today. He believes that Neo-Darwinism is a fact and there is no God, but he allows people who disagree with him to speak in his classes. It’s very healthy for science, and it forces his students, who think like he does, to sharpen their arguments. That’s what science should do."

For example, the ‘Talk Origins’ site, whilst dressed up in philosophical/logical language is just a series of puerile rebuttals to simplistic assertions about Darwin as person.