<i>Expelled</i> pseudo-documentary bombs in Gonzalez's backyard

The local TV station had a completely one-side story about the showing featuring GG. The intro talked about the controversy--but basically they let GG make claims about discrimination that went unchallenged. They didn't even get a different point a view (like Avalos). Then again, it's the "present the controversy" approach favored by DI.

You could not get anyone more obscure to comment on the movie.

You could not get anyone more obscure to comment on the movie

Robert O'Brien: You could not get anyone more obscure to comment on the movie.

A local TV station in my area also ran a story on the news about the movie. Since they interviewed only people who were coming out of the movie, surprise, all of those interviewed thought there was some kind of scientific conspiracy. The report seemed balanced, they even mentioned Dover. Still, despite the free publicity, there were very few cars at the theater, even though seven other movies were also showing.

Obscurity-schmurity. Facts are the focus and he had access to them. As soon as it is a matter of 'the one with the higher profile wins the argument' God is something of a trump card for the religious majority.

It would have been nice if Avalos had been able to work in a link for Expelled Exposed.

The article said that the overall weekend total was $1.3 million, but I believe that was just for Friday. The website the author linked to lists the weekend total as $2.9 million.

FPS: The article said that the overall weekend total was $1.3 million, but I believe that was just for Friday. The website the author linked to lists the weekend total as $2.9 million.

Oh certainly. I apologize if that came across as an accusation. I did not mean to imply that he was being untruthful. As you said, his point remains because $2.9 million is a very low number.

Also, it seems telling that the total for the entire weekend is barely more than twice the total for Friday itself. I wonder if it's normal for attendance to drop off that sharply on Sat/Sun.

Also, it seems telling that the total for the entire weekend is barely more than twice the total for Friday itself. I wonder if it’s normal for attendance to drop off that sharply on Sat/Sun.

The reason for this should be quite clear - friday night’s a big movie going night, but saturday matinees, as well as saturday night, are big, so the total tends to be more than friday, ‘cause friday’s a work/school day for most.

Expelled is a great date movie ; )

I think that was a legit error on the author’s part - Expelled did make $2.9 million its first weekend. Note that number is roughly 1/4 of the predicted “success” value of $12 million as espoused by the movie’s producers. So even by their own standards it bombed - not that they’ll admit it.

Mobile goalposts--no problem!

"FPS said: The article said that the overall weekend total was $1.3 million, but I believe that was just for Friday. The website the author linked to lists the weekend total as $2.9 million."

Yes, that is my honest mistake. Thanks for pointing it out. The argument about the overall trend, however, remains the same.

Robert O'Brien: You could not get anyone more obscure to comment on the movie.

Prof. Avalos,

Thank you for helping to combat the usual Discovery Institute spin. They ought to hire this guy for PR.

Good to see my predictions verified once again.

As I explained in a previous thread, every crackpot who would accept orders to go see the movie was mobilized for the first weekend. That's mainly where the 2.9 million dollar gross came from.

I estimate that about 0.1-0.2% of the population of the US was so mobilized, from that figure, depending on what movie tickets cost around the country these days (I'm guestimating ten bucks; the percentage is higher if the price is lower). Please note that every right wing anti-science church and organization that is within the bounds of the "movement" pushed hard to have all followers attend on the opening weekend.

But also note that there had to be some other people who went to it by accident, not really knowing what it was and wrongly expecting something along the lines of "Win Ben Stein's Money".

Altogether, the base of order-taking nutjobs and die-hard Ben Stein fans seems to be about 0.1-0.2% of the total population. To be fair, maybe we should talk only about the "adult population". Double that figure, perhaps.

Now that's done. All the order-taking nuts and die-hard Ben Stein fan club members have seen it. Of course, some few zealots will go to it multiple times in an effort to bump the numbers, but even most of these people won't. Future ticket sales will rely on convincing members of the general population to go see an extremely poorly reviewed documentary.

Movie theaters are mainly reality-based, profit motive institutions. "Expelled" will soon live up to its name.

For those people in the Ames area, Dr. Avalos will be giving a lecture tonight (Thursday) at 7:30 pm in 2432 Food Science titled "Did Darwinism Lead to the Holocaust."

How long until the Expelled merchandising?: the Ben Stein action figure, DI lego set, ...

Vic:

Robert O'Brien: You could not get anyone more obscure to comment on the movie.

Now I know why Ed Brayton's "Robert O'Brien" award is thus named...

Vic:Back when GG was getting his tenure denied, the DI was making a big stink because Hector Avalos was granted tenure and they tried to spin a whole-cloth story about the christian GG was denied but the anti-theist Avalos was granted, proving the whole anti-christian bias of Big Science... They dropped his name quite a bit, actually. So, no, he wasn't 'obscure'.

Mr. Perakh, my apologies if I am mistaken. Are you an emigrant from the former Soviet Union? If so, what was it like? How much influence did that world famous 'Father of the Russian Nuclear Industry' (was his name, Sakharov?) exert?
Coming to the matter in hand - this good old media circus re. Darwinism - is it true that Darwinism was an enforced doctrine in the old USSR? How strictly was it enforced? What was it like?

Incidentally, I note that the woes that beset that unfortunate country stemmed from the embracing of occultism and false religion, not Darwinism as such. I also observe that Darwinism in a mild form need not be inherently atheistic. But it is noteworthy that an administration built on lies and persecution seems to have fully embraced atheistic Darwinism. I would value any comments you might wish to make.

Mr. Perakh, my apologies if I am mistaken. Are you an emigrant from the former Soviet Union? If so, what was it like? How much influence did that world famous ‘Father of the Russian Nuclear Industry’ (was his name, Sakharov?) exert? Coming to the matter in hand - this good old media circus re. Darwinism - is it true that Darwinism was an enforced doctrine in the old USSR? How strictly was it enforced? What was it like?

Incidentally, I note that the woes that beset that unfortunate country stemmed from the embracing of occultism and false religion, not Darwinism as such.

I also observe that Darwinism in a mild form need not be inherently atheistic.

But it is noteworthy that an administration built on lies and persecution seems to have fully embraced atheistic Darwinism. I would value any comments you might wish to make.

harold: Your pompous tone contrasts amusingly with your apparent ignorance. The Soviet Union, officially atheist, is the only major nation state to have ever successfully censored and distorted the theory of evolution in its educational system. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lysenkoism Furthermore, your absurd comment implies that former emigrees from the Soviet Union to the US would be advocates of Soviet policies, which is almost never the case.

Are you seriously so ignorant that you don't know that the Soviet Union was an officially atheist communist country? Occultism and religion in any forms were discouraged, to say the least.

The theory of evolution is not "inherently atheistic" in any form, as is easily documented by the fair number of religious biologists who embrace it, the fact that is has been accepted by most mainstream religious denominations, etc.

Thanks for the report, Prof. Avalos!

The film showed once per day in a theatre with two screens while in every major market it was in a multi-screen, popular location. Hmmmmm!

Blake Stacey: Thanks for the kind words, and for your many other
insightful blog posts.

From a review posted on the "Mid-Iowa News:"

"Gonzalez said he was finally offered a position last month at Grove City College, a small Christian school in Pennsylvania, which he has accepted.

"If (professors) value their careers, they should keep quiet about their intelligent design views," he said in the film."

No, 'DOCTOR' Gonzalez, they should do real scientific research rather than sit around with their thumbs up their behinds and whining to the DI. You're free to believe whatever you want, but you failed your students, your colleagues, and you wasted your time getting your wallpaper degree through your deceptive practices.

You could not get anyone more obscure to comment on the movie.

says the person whose only claim to fame is having an award for stupidity named after him.

Dr Gonzales HAS BEEN DENIED TENURE AT GROVE CITY COLLEGE.

This Christian college has provocatively denied tenure to this superbly qualified scientist of Newtonian calibre. A college spokesman said that many Professors at Grove City are denied tenure and it was in no way because Dr Gonzales holds some materialistic science views.

"Grove City has a long history of denying tenure to its professors and refusing to renew contracts. It's simply the best way to manage issues of academic freedom."

Someone should make a film.

How could he be denied tenure at GCC if he just accepted a position, according to his own statement?

many Professors at Grove City are denied tenure and it was in no way because Dr Gonzales holds some materialistic science views

Mr Heywood: Although this thread is properly owned by Prof. Avalos, I'll reply briefly to your questions. Yes, I emigrated from the USSR in 1973, and in 1978 came to the USA, invited as a visiting scientist by IBM Research Center for a two-year long stint. Subsequenly I joined the Cal.State Univ as a professor of physics, until my retiremement in 2004.
Instead of providing here a detailed answer to your question about "Darwinism" in the USSR, I'll just refer you to two of my posts where this topic has been elucidated in detail; One is at here and the other here.

Regarding Andrei Sakharov, he was a great physicist, often referred to as the father of the Soviet hydrogen bomb, but also as a very important contributor to many other aspects of nuclear physics. In the sixties he became an ardent adversary of any military use of nuclear energy and also of the Soviet system. He was deprived of all his decorations and privileges, exiled to a provincial town and held practically under house arrest. Soon after the collapse of the Soviet system he was allowed to return to Moscow and to his labs, but soon died. MP

Quidam is being facetious. Grove City College is not a tenure track institution.

Grove City College is not a tenure track institution.

One might be tempted to ask WHY Grove City College does not have tenure track program.

Is it that they are against Academic Freedom?

Philip Bruce Heywood: . . . is it true that Darwinism was an enforced doctrine in the old USSR? How strictly was it enforced?

Richard Simons:

Philip Bruce Heywood: . . . is it true that Darwinism was an enforced doctrine in the old USSR? How strictly was it enforced?

I am sure you know perfectly well that hundreds, if not thousands, of biologists in Stalin's USSR lost their jobs and frequently lives for refusing to reject the Theory of Evolution. I notice you phrased this in the form of a question. Is this so you could deny accusations of lying? Talking of lying, are you ready to retract your accusation that I said something that I did not in fact say? Remember the Commandments.

Message received, Mark. I was once privileged to be involved in hosting a visit by Russian geologists to my part of the world, and I yet remember one or two of them as amongst the finest people I have ever encountered. There was a mystifying, almost unbelievable contrast between the people and the noises we heard about the regime. I don't get much time at the computer but will view your linked papers in time. If you wish to get the facts about a so-called troll such as myself, you have the Internet. I dabble in mainstream origins science, bible based (as did Mendeleev, and indeed, the majority of successful scientists). I suspect you can think for yourself.

What I have written is totally relevant to this thread, because a public media event of this nature, involving science, means one thing: the 'science' needs fixing.

What I have written is totally relevant to this thread, because a public media event of this nature, involving science, means one thing: the ‘science’ needs fixing.

Philip Bruce Heywood: I dabble in mainstream origins science, bible based (as did Mendeleev, and indeed, the majority of successful scientists). I suspect you can think for yourself.

What I have written is totally relevant to this thread, because a public media event of this nature, involving science, means one thing: the 'science' needs fixing.

hje: How long until the Expelled merchandising?: the Ben Stein action figure, DI lego set, ...

Philip Bruce Heywood: Message received, Mark. I was once privileged to be involved in hosting a visit by Russian geologists to my part of the world, and I yet remember one or two of them as amongst the finest people I have ever encountered. There was a mystifying, almost unbelievable contrast between the people and the noises we heard about the regime. I don't get much time at the computer but will view your linked papers in time. If you wish to get the facts about a so-called troll such as myself, you have the Internet. I dabble in mainstream origins science, bible based (as did Mendeleev, and indeed, the majority of successful scientists). I suspect you can think for yourself. What I have written is totally relevant to this thread, because a public media event of this nature, involving science, means one thing: the 'science' needs fixing.

Damn. That's "propagandists".

GvlGeologist, FCD: Damn. That's "propagandists".

When I offered to email him links to help him rectify some of his misunderstandings (I was planning on sending him to TalkOrigins and to some of the blog posts here), he said he didn’t have time to look into it. Right.
I once had a protracted discussion with someone who emailed me about a column I wrote for the student paper at my Alma Mater. Whenever the argument turned strongly against him and he had to go READ, as in, every other email, he came up with some reason why he couldn't respond. At one point, it got to be so much that he said (all in caps) that he's in the military and is shipping out to defend our country etc etc etc. Not less than a week later I received an email from him. It was a half-finished lengthy argument. Minutes later I got another one that said "oops..."
Classic switch, ask questions, but as soon as it means that you have to go and expend effort to learn something - invent excuses as to why you don't have the time.

GvlGeologist,

Well I will. What science needs isn't fixing, it's defense - defense from far-right, anti-science religious fundamentalists who want to replace the scientific method with the belief that The Flintstones was a documentary.

I dabble in mainstream origins science, bible based (as did Mendeleev, and indeed, the majority of successful scientists).

Richard Simons:

Robert O'Brien: You could not get anyone more obscure to comment on the movie.

You?

Mark Perakh gave an eloquent defense of Andrei Sakharov to counter Philip Bruce Heywood's ignorance of Sakharov. Mark forgot to mention that Sakharov was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in 1975.

But somewhat more on topic, is a bit more of Heywood's ignorance in this statement by Heywood "is it true that Darwinism was an enforced doctrine in the old USSR?" That is completely false of course since Soviet Biology under Stalin was dominated by Trofim Denisovich Lysenko who was anything but an advocate of evolution as expounded by Darwin. (I think that this has been mentioned a number of times in "The Panda's Thumb".)

Tying this back to Sakharov, Sakharov help lead the fight to over throw Lysenko and his sycophants. In the Soviet General Assembly of the Academy of Sciences in 1964 Sakharov said this:

"He is responsible for the shameful backwardness of Soviet biology and of genetics in particular, for the dissemination of pseudo-scientific views, for adventurism, for the degradation of learning, and for the defamation, firing, arrest, even death, of many genuine scientists".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trofim_Lysenko

George

Getting off topic, but yes, the Soviet Union persecuted evolutionists for decades. And paid the price in inefficient agriculture and backward biology.

A few groups of religious fanatics are reinventing the Lysenkoist wheel here. In the USA, evolutionary biology is critical in:

1. Agriculture. Breeding new crop varieties and defending them against pests.

2. Medicine. New and emerging diseases that could kill tens of millions, flu vaccines, oncology, AIDS pathogenesis, resistance to antibiotics, antivirials and so on.

It only matters to people who eat and want to live a long, healthy life. The creos really have a lot of nerve to call us evil. SARS had made the species leap to human adaptation and was very close to killing millions. Some of the docs who fought it, caught SARS and died.

Those who would lead us into a new Dark Ages of falling life spans, rampant diseases, and stagnant agriculture are the evil ones.

raven: Getting off topic, but yes, the Soviet Union persecuted evolutionists for decades. And paid the price in inefficient agriculture and backward biology. A few groups of religious fanatics are reinventing the Lysenkoist wheel here. In the USA, evolutionary biology is critical in: 1. Agriculture. Breeding new crop varieties and defending them against pests. 2. Medicine. New and emerging diseases that could kill tens of millions, flu vaccines, oncology, AIDS pathogenesis, resistance to antibiotics, antivirials and so on. It only matters to people who eat and want to live a long, healthy life. The creos really have a lot of nerve to call us evil. SARS had made the species leap to human adaptation and was very close to killing millions. Some of the docs who fought it, caught SARS and died. Those who would lead us into a new Dark Ages of falling life spans, rampant diseases, and stagnant agriculture are the evil ones.

I was at the screening where Gonzalez was ,i also saw Hector Avalos there. If i remember correctly Hector is in the movie.

Robert O'Brien:

Vic:Back when GG was getting his tenure denied, the DI was making a big stink because Hector Avalos was granted tenure and they tried to spin a whole-cloth story about the christian GG was denied but the anti-theist Avalos was granted, proving the whole anti-christian bias of Big Science... They dropped his name quite a bit, actually. So, no, he wasn't 'obscure'.

That is the only reason Avalos has appeared on anyone's radar.

Robert O'Brien: Who, exactly, rejects evolution on that scale? Few to none, and I think you know it. Return the straw man to the cornfield when you are done pommeling him.

R O'B speaks; Who, exactly, rejects evolution on that scale? Few to none, and I think you know it. Return the straw man to the cornfield when you are done pommeling him.

R O'B speaks; Who, exactly, rejects evolution on that scale? Few to none, and I think you know it. Return the straw man to the cornfield when you are done pommeling him.

Given enough time, once they start to drift, what exactly stops them from drifting far apart?

Expelled dropped to 9th for Monday's ticket sales. I think it might dip below one or two more before the weekend comes.

If you were to separate a population - say, for example that two groups were left on separate islands after

Philip Bruce Heywood, Liar For Jesus™: is it true that Darwinism was an enforced doctrine in the old USSR?

I believe that if I recall my history correctly, this was largely one of the reasons why the old Soviet agricultural system collapsed. They kept insisting that Darwin was wrong and Lysenko was right - sucks when you try to deny reality, doesn’t it?

In 1958, the Chinese central planners adopted Lysenkoism. The resulting famine killed an estimated 20 to 40 million people. And that is just what you get out of politically mandated biology based on teleology.

Wesley R. Elsberry: An even clearer demonstration was provided by communist China. During the early 1950s, they collectivized their agriculture, but continued to use standard agricultural practices informed by evolutionary science. During that pperiod, they exported large amounts of surplus grain, sold on the world market. In 1958, the Chinese central planners adopted Lysenkoism. The resulting famine killed an estimated 20 to 40 million people. And that is just what you get out of politically mandated biology based on teleology.

We'd been speculating how much their theft would cost them, but it's official now.

Yoko is suing.

http://www.reuters.com/article/entertainmentNews/idUSN2320158220080423

Yoko is suing.

It was absolutely predictable.

I happen to have some experience in the field (I'm an engineer, but I spend most of my professional time these days designing digital technology for the entertainment industry, so I'm around the production and post process a lot.)

I cannot tell you how many times I've heard some film student or first-time low budget producer whine “But I only used four bars” of a popular song. Any competent lawyer will tell you there's only one answer; “It doesn't matter. If you can recognize a copyrighted song, you have to get permission to use it.”

The concept of fair use is real, but only allows for very narrow exceptions. Examples would be if Exposed was interviewing a man on the street and someone drove by and you could briefly hear “Imagine” playing on their car radio, or if a musical documentary on Lennon was trying to illustrate that Lennon had based “Imagine” on a previous song.

In the first case, it truly is a peripheral element, and in the second case, it's an honest illustration of a real academic issue.

As described, the use of “Imagine” in Exposed fits neither of these narrow exceptions. It's just pretty music, chosen specifically for its easily recognized melody and message. The industry even has a name (and a copyright clearance category) for this – thematic underscore.

A lot of people screwed up here.

Every producer has at least one person on staff whose job it is to secure rights and clearances. This isn't just good practice; when a film is sold to a distributor, one of the “deliverables” is the "rights book", documentation that everyone who could conceivably make a claim against the film has sold off on it.

That includes anyone with a recognizable image, all the film locations, anybody who is in a position to levy a mechanics lien, and, of course, any recognizable music or artwork.

Music clearances can be fairly convoluted. Sometimes they're a single-time buyout, but for a popular (ie valuable) song clearances are individually negotiated based on screen time, prominence (Is it underscore? Is actor someone performing it onstage? etc) and geographic distribution of the work (a short playing at Sundance pays a lot less for music than a major feature released worldwide).

Music rights fall into two broad categories, the song and the actual performance. The songwriter has copyright interest, and the performer has “mechanical” rights – rights to be paid to have his performance duplicated. (In this case, the Lennon estate may still have either of these rights or may have assigned them to some other company, like Apple records)

Heck, for the film “Moulin Rouge” The producers had to get clearance for the old Sweet song “Love is Like Oxygen” because one of the principal actors refereed to the songs title.

Distributors, once they buy the film and start planning a release, have their own staffs who should double check the clearances, and make sure that the scope of the release is covered.

Distributors are neurotic about this, because one slip can be incredibly expensive for them. (A disgruntled copyright holder can block a release or even have a film pulled from theaters, as almost happened on “Batman Returns”, because it featured some uncleared public sculpture in a few scenes)

It sounds complicated, and it is, but music clearance is such an established procedure that there are entire companies that do nothing else. Distributors usually hire one because a) they're good at it and b) they provide a legal buffer, like having a CPA do your corporate books. On many feature films, you'll see a line in the credits in the music section that says “clearance by XYZ corp”. This is what that credit line is all about.

It's barely conceivable that any reputable distributor would release on 1000 screens and not have someone double check clearances. It's absolutely inconceivable that a reputable clearance firm would blow it on something this big.

On a more personal level - and I may be painting with a broad brush here - It's particularly galling that the same ID crowd that sends cease-and desist copyright notices to U-Tube whenever some critic posts a snippet of ID lecture decides that they can simply “borrow” somebody else's material whenever it suits their purposes.

Oh wait – I almost overlooked one thing.

There is one more exception to copyright law – parody.

Now then, that could work! Given the level of logical argument in “Expelled” as a whole, that does certainly seem like a viable defense.

Reginald: We'd been speculating how much their theft would cost them, but it's official now. Yoko is suing. http://www.reuters.com/article/entertainmentNews/idUSN2320158220080423

I hadn't encountered 'Lysenkoism' before and what Mark says about the science-personal power tie-up in the old USSR makes sense. Quite interesting, although the suffering under that regime must have been anything but interesting.

It looks like some of their propaganda dept. got seconded to subscribe at PANDA'S THUMB, going on one or two of the entries above. Designate anyone who takes the word of God seriously to a mental asylum. That was one of the kinder 'solutions'. Of course, anyone, christian or otherwise, but especially any honest person, is in some sort of danger under those regimes.

I take the liberty of making a comment on what could perhaps be categorized as western religious nonconformists. I know nothing of Jonathon Wells - other than what I have just read - nor do I take the part of those who say that Darwin had nothing to offer other than harm. But let us not confuse the western non-conformist with totalitarian practices or with, say, heavy-handed administration. The reverse is more likely. Generally speaking, the bible-minded anti-evolutionist is totally committed to democracy. But let me quote Oliver Cromwell. After finally getting his own personally trained army into action and terminating the English Civil War, in favour of democracy, Cromwell was faced with a parliament over-endowed with nonconformists. All on his side, all for democracy and the new order, all non conforming nonconformists. In the end, he dismissed them with words something like this: "Gentlemen. In the bowels of Jesus Christ. Did it ever occur to you that you might be mistaken?" Some nonconformists are too nonconformist. England and ultimately the USA are free countries because of nonconformists. Well, perhaps it's because of the grace of God - but he certainly doesn't overthrow tyranny through mindless conformism.

Kindly take this as it is meant - I am not passing an opinion on your specific encounter with an ID exponent. Those people don't talk to me, anyway.

The problem with science that must be addressed and now with advancing technology can be addressed: The peculiar evolutionary theory variously known as Darwinism, Neo-Darwinism, Common Descent Evolution, or whatever name it goes under - if it relies on gradually accumulated change through selective breeding as the total engine of speciation; contradicts the geologic record (there are clearly defined fossil species), contradicts everyday observation (the species as a generality are genetically distinct) and no attempt is made by those propounding it to show the energy pathway by which the species transformations occur. As a geologist, if I was to say that here we have a beautiful crystalline mineral that gradually just happened by heat and pressure and rearrangement of atoms, I would be robbing the public of certain fundamental truths - especially, that all processes of nature are quantifiable and all chemical reactions happen according to the dictates of enthalpy and entropy - measured in kilojoules or whatever. A chemist theoretically can explain the origin of every known compound in those terms, utilizing mathematical quantities. The Common Descent Theory of evolution (other evolutionary theories exist and have existed in the past) has no measurable energy pathway to allow for the chemical processes. Unless it shows the energy pathways in terms of hard, cold, physical chemistry, it has no claim to being anything but imaginary. It has no right to say how a process occurred, if it cannot come up with the measurable, hence, possible, chain of events. Is what I am saying systematic science?
The answer to the conundrum is straightforward and becomes more so, every day. The technical publications are pointing us to it.

The Soviet Union, officially atheist, is the only major nation state to have ever successfully censored and distorted the theory of evolution in its educational system.

PBH wrote:

"Some nonconformists are too nonconformist."

Truer words were never spoken Phil and you yourself are the prime example. There is a vast difference between becoming an expert in a field and then challenging the basic assumptions of that filed and being a self-proclaimed expert in another field and still presuming to know more than anyone else in a differnt field.

Now you want a reaction by reaction account of speciation or you refuse to accept that it could occur. You know full well that energy is not the issue. There is plenty of energy available to biological systems. Speciation in it's simplest form only involves some form of reproductive isolation and divergence will automatically follow. Now, if you don't believe that speciation can occur, how do you account for observed instances of speciation?

Oh well, at least he didn't use the therm "entropy barrier" or try to claim that photons are processed by a magnetic field.

Philip Bruce Heywood: But let me quote Oliver Cromwell. After finally getting his own personally trained army into action and terminating the English Civil War, in favour of democracy, Cromwell was faced with a parliament over-endowed with nonconformists. All on his side, all for democracy and the new order, all non conforming nonconformists.

The Common Descent Theory of evolution (other evolutionary theories exist and have existed in the past) has no measurable energy pathway to allow for the chemical processes. Unless it shows the energy pathways in terms of hard, cold, physical chemistry, it has no claim to being anything but imaginary. It has no right to say how a process occurred, if it cannot come up with the measurable, hence, possible, chain of events. Is what I am saying systematic science?

PBH sez... The peculiar evolutionary theory variously known as Darwinism, Neo-Darwinism, Common Descent Evolution, or whatever name it goes under...

... contradicts the geologic record (there are clearly defined fossil species)...

(evolution) has no measurable energy pathway to allow for the chemical processes. Unless it shows the energy pathways in terms of hard, cold, physical chemistry, it has no claim to being anything but imaginary.

The Common Descent Theory of evolution (other evolutionary theories exist and have existed in the past) has no measurable energy pathway to allow for the chemical processes. Unless it shows the energy pathways in terms of hard, cold, physical chemistry, it has no claim to being anything but imaginary. It has no right to say how a process occurred, if it cannot come up with the measurable, hence, possible, chain of events. Is what I am saying systematic science? The answer to the conundrum is straightforward and becomes more so, every day.

Here is some more deconstruction of PBH’s pseudo-science on that other thread.

M. Elzinga, thanks for the talk-up of my stuff: you know why people were laughing at Copernicus and Kepler, don't you? (Kepler even mentioned Space travel, back in the early-post medieval era.) Don't be stupid, they said: what holds the planets in orbit? Show us what holds the planets in orbit!

You wouldn't be suggesting that science has to wait for EVERY fact to be uncovered, before making an hypothesis?

You wouldn’t be suggesting that science has to wait for EVERY fact to be uncovered, before making an hypothesis?

Designate anyone who takes the word of God seriously to a mental asylum.

— Philip Bruce Heywood

I hadn’t encountered ‘Lysenkoism’ before and what Mark says about the science-personal power tie-up in the old USSR makes sense.

— Philip Bruce Heywood

But it is noteworthy that an administration built on lies and persecution seems to have fully embraced atheistic Darwinism.

— PBH