Blogcritics Comments on An Analysis of the Arguments Presented in Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed

Comment by Thom on An Analysis of the Arguments Presented in Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed

Tue, 1 Jul 2008 22:25:57 EDT

Isn't 2000, like, 60% of the entire population of Canada? Yeah, but some of 'em saw it twice. A few even saw it three times. Can you imagine? ;-) It was interesting to see that "Wanted" beat "WALL-E" in Canada. I don't follow many of the discussions here. Is this pattern of bailing in the middle of a discussion common?

Comment by Dr Dreadful on An Analysis of the Arguments Presented in Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed

Tue, 1 Jul 2008 18:09:28 EDT

I dunno, Thom. At, say, $12 a ticket, that's a little over 2000 tickets sold. Isn't that, like, 60% of the entire population of Canada? ;-) P.S. Happy Canada Day!

Comment by Thom on An Analysis of the Arguments Presented in Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed

Tue, 1 Jul 2008 17:54:42 EDT

According to this, "Expelled" wound up with $24,374 in its Canadian premiere. Woo hoo! They stayed away in droves! Thanks to Dan for helping to make clear that this mockumentary's premise was fundamentally flawed. On behalf of those Canadian droves, I thank you.

Comment by Thom on An Analysis of the Arguments Presented in Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed

Thu, 19 Jun 2008 21:46:48 EDT

Now it's "lost his job". At least you're making the attempt. At what, I'm not sure. Actually, Dan, "Expelled" used both of those phrases. Ben Stein repeatedly used the phrase "lost his job." When Shermer replied with "fired" in the conversation, Ben didn't correct him. Then, in his response, Ben Stein uses "fired." So now you know that both of those phrases were bandied about when talking about Richard Sternberg. Why exactly you think it's important which of those phrases were being used is a little mystery. Would you care to explain? The movie also claimed Sternberg's life was "nearly ruined," but fails categorically to explain how. This movie is an embarrasment. Why exactly you give more credibility to this movie than its Wikipedia page is rather bizarre. [Silence. Dan has no response.] So is this how the discussion ends? To the readers from Canada who are getting this movie in a couple of weeks: 1. The fundamental claim of this movie are wrong. Sternberg did not lose his job. He was not fired. Claims about the other "expelled five" are similarly dubious. Look at ExpelledExposed.com or the movie's Wikipedia entry for details. 2. None of the apologists for the movie have any credible defense for the lies of this movie. The kitchen got too hot; they fled the discussion. 3. The "speech" that Ben Stein made that frames the rest of the film is totally contrived. See item #2. This movie is a major embarrassment. Don't waste your money. If you must see it, wait until it shows up in a dollar-rental store. That should be in October. You have been warned.

Comment by Thom on An Analysis of the Arguments Presented in Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed

Sun, 1 Jun 2008 03:42:43 EDT

"A critical thinker would not be excessively steered by any source. If a critical thinker heard Ben Stein say in the public record: ""The most egregious is Richard Sternberg at the Smithsonian, the editor of a magazine that published a peer-reviewed paper about ID. He lost his job."" Lost his job? Back in #91 you said: "you seem to have forgotten that "Expelled" said that he was "fired."" Now it's "lost his job". At least you're making the attempt. At what, I'm not sure. Actually, Dan, "Expelled" used both of those phrases. Ben Stein repeatedly used the phrase "lost his job." When Shermer replied with "fired" in the conversation, Ben didn't correct him. Then, in his response, Ben Stein uses "fired." So now you know that both of those phrases were bandied about when talking about Richard Sternberg. Why exactly you think it's important which of those phrases were being used is a little mystery. Would you care to explain? The movie also claimed Sternberg's life was "nearly ruined," but fails categorically to explain how. This movie is an embarrasment. Why exactly you give more credibility to this movie than its Wikipedia page is rather bizarre. Transcript from the movie: Ben Stein: It all began when I met evolutionary biologist Richard Sternberg in Washington, DC. His life was nearly ruined when he strayed from the party line while serving as editor of a scientific journal affiliated with the prestigious Smithsonian Museum of National History. Ben: "Your office was over there?" Richard: "That's correct. This here is the west wing ... directly ahead of us is the west wing of the national history museum." Ben: "But now you're not there anymore because you're a bad boy?" Richard: "No, I'm not. No, I was egglogged (??)." Ben: "You were a bad boy. You questioned the powers that be." Ben: What was Dr. Sternberg's crime? He dared to publish an article by Dr. Stephen Meyer, one of the leading lights of the Intelligent Design Movement. The paper ignited a firestorm of controversy merely because it suggested that Intelligent Design might be able to explain how life began. Ben: As a result, Dr. Sternberg lost his office. His political and religious beliefs were investigated. And he was pressured to resign. Richard: "The questioning of Darwinism was a bridge too far for many. The mentioning of Intelligent Design that occurs at the end of the paper was over the top. And I think the Intelligent Design proponents have raised a number of very important questions." Ben: "And you wanted to get those questions brought up and discussed?" Richard: "Placed on the table." Ben: "Placed on the table." Richard: "People were so upset about it. There were so upset ... that you could see they had a physical emotional reaction." Ben: "Wow." Richard: "They were saying that Stephen C Meyer is a well-known Christian. That Stephen C Meyer was an Intelligent Design proponent. That Stephen C Meyer was a Republican. It was all couched in terms of religion, politics, and sociology. The way the chair of the department put it is that I was viewed as an intellectual terrorist." Ben: "Terrorist?" Richard: "Giving the topic of Intelligent Design some modicum of credibility." Ben: What happened to Dr. Sternberg was terrible. But surely it was just an isolated case. I was still pretty skeptical. So, naturally, I checked in with the head of the skeptic's society, Michael Shermer." [...] Ben: "Is Intelligent Design nonsense?" Shermer: "Well, it's unproven, so in that sense it's nonsensical. So I would put it in the sort of shaded areas between good solid science and total nonsense. You know ... it's sort of 3/4 of the way toward the nonsense side." Ben: "But you think nevertheless that people should be allowed to speak about it and publish papers about it?" Shermer: "They are free to write and publish and be heard in public forums and go to conferences just like everybody else does." Ben: "Well, what if a person published something, say, at the Smithsonian, in favor of Intelligent Design, then lost his job over it. It had been peer-reviewed and published and then lost his job over it anyway. What about that situation?" Shermer: "I think with that particular situation there was something else going on." Ben: "What was going on?" Shermer: "I don't know, because I don't know. There had to be something. People don't get fired over something like that. You roll up your sleeves. You get to work. You do the research. You get your grants. You get your data. You publish. And you work your butt off. And that's how you get your theories taught." Ben: "Well, wait a minute. What if you try and try and roll up your sleeves and go and work your butt off and they say, 'Well, we're going to fire you if you mention the word Intelligent Design." Shermer: "I don't think that's happening. Where has that happened?" [End of conversation with Shermer.]

Comment by Thom on An Analysis of the Arguments Presented in Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed

Sat, 31 May 2008 02:35:16 EDT

I asked you why Sternberg didn't take some legal action about the "compelling evidence" that he had somehow been discriminated against. Among other things, this blog entry explains. Here are the summary five points from that entry; I suggest reading the whole thing: 1. What little ill-treatment Sternberg may have gotten (in fact, all of the comments expressing distrust and anger at Sternberg and urging his dismissal were made not to his face, but in private emails that he never saw) was largely self-inflicted, the result not only of his violation of procedures in regard to the Meyer paper, but in regard to several other instances of professional malfeasance and prior examples of poor judgement as PBSW editor. 2. The evidence does not support the conclusion that Sternberg was discriminated against in any material way. At absolute worst, he was greeted with professional mistrust and anger on the part of some of his colleagues, who were upset that his actions in regard to the Meyer paper brought disrepute to the Smithsonian and to them as associates. Disapproval and criticism, of course, are not the same thing as discrimination nor are they a violation of his civil rights. 3. Sternberg has grossly exaggerated several alleged instances of "retaliation" in the early days of the scandal. In particular, he claimed that he had his keys taken away, his access to the Smithsonian's collections taken away, and lost his office space. In reality, the keys and office space were exchanged as part of larger museum changes and he retains the same access today that all others in his position have. 4. The accusations, in particular, against the National Center for Science Education - that they conspired with Smithsonian officials to "publicly smear and discredit" Sternberg - are not only not supported by the evidence in the appendix, they are completely disproven by the emails contained therein. 5. All of that leads to the only possible conclusion: that this is a trumped-up report orchestrated by political allies of the Discovery Institute, particularly Rep. Mark Souder and former (I love saying that) Sen. Rick Santorum. They have put out a report that simply is not supported by the evidence and was designed, intelligently or otherwise, to support the disingenuous PR campaign that includes the attempt to position themselves as victims of discrimination.

Comment by Thom on An Analysis of the Arguments Presented in Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed

Sat, 31 May 2008 02:28:00 EDT

Thom: "If you want to claim that there is a scientific case to link the two disciplines, you'd damn well better be able to make that case."  In comment #87 I explained how evidence for seeming transitional organisms depends on a specific concept of Abiogenesis, Did that not show up on your screen? It certainly didn't show up as a scientific justification for linking the two fields, which is what I've been asking for. Your specific words from that posting: To take it further, Evolution theory depends on a specific concept of Abiogenesis. How, for instance, would you theorize that multi-cellular organisms descended from single celled ones, if Abiogenesis doesn't have a presumed concept of creating single celled organisms?  More interesting, How would evolution scientists speculate that apparant transitional organisms share a common ancestry if a presumed concept of Abiogenesis wasn't thought to be a very rare event? Why not multiple events over time, producing multiple macro-static organisms that only seem to be transitional? They may be interesting speculations, but they do not make a scientific case for linking the two fields. The argument was originally thrust on me because Dr. D thought I was conflating the disciplines to cheapen the prestige of Evolution. I wasn't. Perhaps. One can indeed see strong motivations for the Creationist/ID crowd to attempt to create a linkage between the two disciplines.  Dan: "why wouldn't the cause of economic frugality be served as well by coupling abiogenesis with, say, botany?"  Thom: "I have no idea."  Sheer coincidence then? Since the coincidental coupling of these totally unrelated scientific disciplines is a common occurence, then why the outcry when I do it? Because there's no controversy about it in your example. OTOH, there is controversy — and pressure — for editors of High School textbooks mash abiogenesis and evolution together. They don't do this for the sake of science; They're kowtowing to the state commissions that approve books. "Which directly contradicts what is said by the Biological Society of Washington:..."  heh, heh, Yes, Yes, it certainly does... dont it. Both statements a matter of public record as well. Heh, indeed. I'm still wondering why you thought it was noteworthy to tell us in #82 that Mark Souder's Staff Report was part of the public record. It just looked like superfluous pomposity and added nothing to the discussion. here's what "trickiwiki" says about the Counsil's statement: "The Society subsequently declared that the paper "does not meet the scientific standards of the Proceedings" and would not have been published had usual editorial practices been followed." (with prominent placement, and links) The paper had absolutely nothing to do with the topic of the particular scientific journal that Sternberg was editing. Ed Brayton deconstructed Sternberg's claims about this topic in the essay "Creating a Martyr: The Sternberg Saga Continues." Sternberg wrote on his webpage: "Since systematics and evolutionary theory are among my primary areas of interest and expertise (as mentioned above, I hold two PhDs in different aspects of evolutionary biology), and there was no associate editor with equivalent qualifications, I took direct editorial responsibility for the paper." Ed Brayton notes: "But this simply was not true. Systematics (the study of taxonomy) is the subject of the PBSW and it is the subject of Sternberg's expertise, but it is not the subject of Meyer's paper. The primary subject of the paper is the Cambrian explosion and, ostensibly, bioinformatics as it pertains to the origin of the higher phyla. This is not the focus of Sternberg's research, nor does it have much of anything to do with systematics other than an obligatory discussion of how many phyla and sub-phyla originated during the Cambrian. The most appropriate reviewers, then, would be paleontologists." He then lists the paleontologists who are and were available on the journal's staff. "...which observes that there is no credible scientific evidence supporting ID as a testable hypothesis to explain the origin of organic diversity. Accordingly, the Meyer paper does not meet the scientific standards of the Proceedings."  A mantra encased in circular logic. Why exactly do you think that's circular logic?  Of course the statement I provided; public evidence from the investigation by the US Office of Special Council Please STOP using the words "evidence" and "investigation" to talk about the OSC report. So then why would the President of the BSW, Dr. McDiarmid, seem to have a change of heart? I'd say he wasn't paying attention. He was expecting the scientists on the editorial board to be acting in a professional and ethical fashion.   Sternberg did not. So you've got outside agencies throwing a fit, and influencing the BSW.   you see Thom?, it's not difficult to demonstrate the fraudulant mis-charachtarizations in the wikipedia entry. Nonsense. You're taking what you report as gospel; it is not. I'll post a full-blown counterpoint in another message. And you have conveniently managed to ignore the most important question I asked in my last message. I'll place it in bold this time so you won't ignore it: If, as the Staff Report claims, there actually is "compelling evidence that Dr. Sternberg's civil and constitutional rights were violated," then why doesn't he sue? Why simply repeat the "facts" from this partisan propaganda piece? Why not take actions that would yield actual factual findings, have legal significance, and a potential monetary settlement? As I said, it's just time consuming and depressing. It's depressing because it disgusts me that an entity that presumes to be an objective source of information stoops to it, and also because when I put in the effort to expose the crap, it has no desired effect on the willfully ignorant. Not that I'm accusing. Perhaps because what you're posting is, using your language, crap. See the next article I post for a discussion about that. "Dan, you seem to take statements published by the Discovery Institute at face value, but you imply that statements published on the Wikipedia should be viewed with more skepticism. Why is that?"  What statement by the Discovery Institute do you refer? I don't recall. You haven't been citing your sources; I usually google for a phrase. I thought I recall the Discovery Institute website coming up one or more times. How about this: why do you take the statements of the movie at face value? Have you critically examined the distortion of Darwin's quote that the movie used? The only statement by DI I remember taking issue with is the one Wikipedia infered--but not quoted--with reference to Gonzales. We covered that. The documentary "Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed" failed to provide any sort of record on their website to document the claims they made in the movie. I did see the movie, and I recall complaints about the inclusion of Gonzales's ID writings in his application for tenure. I learned later that Gonzales had included those writings himself; the complaint was rather silly. I don't know what their official statement was Precisely. The moviemakers failed to make any official statements at all. They didn't document the claims of their documentary. just that Wiki's infered version doesn't pass the smell test. They were just reporting on what was discussed in the movie. I'm still at a loss for understanding the squawking about Gonzales's failure to get tenure. Even if you include his ID writings, his output dropped precipitously in the three years preceeding his application. If Di made any official statement Wiki won't quote it. Nonsense. Why would you presume that? The Wikipedia entry on this movie does indeed include references to the DI website. "A critical thinker would not be excessively steered by any source. If a critical thinker heard Ben Stein say in the public record:  ""The most egregious is Richard Sternberg at the Smithsonian, the editor of a magazine that published a peer-reviewed paper about ID. He lost his job.""  Lost his job? Back in #91 you said: "you seem to have forgotten that "Expelled" said that he was "fired."" Neither one happened. He wasn't fired, and he didn't lose his job. Now it's "lost his job". At least you're making the attempt. At what, I'm not sure. The point is that Ben Stein's claim — part of the public record — is completely false. As I've said, there are many ways Sternberg could have "lost his job" that don't necessitate a direct firing. You made the claim, but you failed to explain it at all. Sternberg never ever worked for the Smithsonian. He never ever "lost" his volunteer position there, either.   "Gosh. Why don't we have a discussion about the meaning of the word "is"? ;-)"   Probably should, Or maybe just the difference between "lost" and "fired". Neither happened. He wasn't fired, and he didn't "lose his job." Ben Stein flat-out lied in the movie to the audience. And you're now acting as an apologist for the movie. When you read the internal e-mails (public record) of senior staff at the museum conspiring to restrict Sternbergs access to research information, but expressing concern that they needed to avoid the appearance of singling him out; or withdrawling his invitation to reapply as "associate", and instead, under "a new system in place" offering him a "collaborator" demotion, you understand another way one could "lose" a job. HE NEVER EVER WORKED THERE. HE WAS A VOLUNTEER. There was no "job" for him to "lose". HIS TENURE AS EDITOR OF THE JOURNAL WAS ALREADY OVER. He had already volunteered his resignation as editor before the edition with the Meyer article had ever been published. Sure, he could still work there. No. The only thing he could continue to do is to VOLUNTEER there. "Still work" implies that he once had a job there. There's no reason for you to BenStein in this discussion. They could flood his workspace with six inches of excrement and he could still work there. Only if he got a job there. Richard Sternberg has never worked for the Smithsonian.   "I'm not speculating, Dan. Do you know what "IIRC" means?"  No, actually I don't. Then ask. Or look it up: dictionary.com or just google the term. I was considering: 'Intentional Ignorance = Ridiculous Conclusions'. That is indeed what you just did! You were intentionally ignorant, and you came to a ridiculous conclusion. Don't do that. If in doubt, ask. "If these filmmakers had bothered to document on a website the claims they made in the film, we wouldn't have to speculate about this."  Since they document the claims they make in the film, wouldn't it be redundant? No. We wouldn't have to have these silly discussions over what Gonzalez was so upset about. Isn't it up to wikipedia to document the documentation from the film to give a fair reading? Why do you presume that hasn't happened? I'll repeat the question you ignored: If, as the Staff Report claims, there actually is "compelling evidence that Dr. Sternberg's civil and constitutional rights were violated," then why doesn't he sue? Why simply repeat the "facts" from this partisan propaganda piece? Why not take actions that would yield actual factual findings, have legal significance, and a potential monetary settlement? Has the Discovery institute ever addressed that question? Can you answer it?

Comment by Dan on An Analysis of the Arguments Presented in Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed

Fri, 30 May 2008 23:25:58 EDT

Dr D: "But they aren't assuming intelligence. Despite the name of the program - Search for Extra-Terrestrial Intelligence - they go to great pains to be sure there are no natural explanations for signals before announcing success." Yes, they don't assume intelligence, they only assume the scientific possiblility of intelligence. No one is denying them funding or imposing a hostile environment for them to do their research. "...But Evolution doesn't assume there isn't a designer. It doesn't assume there is, either..." I know it and you know it. That would be the proper position for science to take. Some scientists don't think that the principle of objectivism is being observed. "I must have misunderstood you." I understand. I don't communicate as effectively as I could, and sometimes my defense of ID leads me to sound more skeptical of evidence for evolution than I actually am. The theories are both compatible in some areas while competing in others. Thom: "If you want to claim that there is a scientific case to link the two disciplines, you'd damn well better be able to make that case." In comment #87 I explained how evidence for seeming transitional organisms depends on a specific concept of Abiogenesis, Did that not show up on your screen? You never commented on it. Maybe it's just not scientificky enough for your standards. That's about the last of what I'm going to say on this absurd divergent issue. The argument was originally thrust on me because Dr. D thought I was conflating the disciplines to cheapen the prestige of Evolution. I wasn't. The point I made at the time isn't compromised by the slight, and I only argued it, reluctantly, in the face of insistent pestering, because it is persuasively arguable. I think that Dr. D and I are clear on my original intention, although probably not in agreement on the propriety of conflation in this pointless argument. Dan: "why wouldn't the cause of economic frugality be served as well by coupling abiogenesis with, say, botany?" Thom: "I have no idea." Sheer coincidence then? Since the coincidental coupling of these totally unrelated scientific disciplines is a common occurence, then why the outcry when I do it? "Which directly contradicts what is said by the Biological Society of Washington:..." heh, heh, Yes, Yes, it certainly does... dont it. Both statements a matter of public record as well. here's what "trickiwiki" says about the Counsil's statement: "The Society subsequently declared that the paper "does not meet the scientific standards of the Proceedings" and would not have been published had usual editorial practices been followed." (with prominent placement, and links) The statement says: "The paper...was published at the discretion of the former editor, Richard v. Sternberg. Contrary to typical editorial practices, the paper was published without review by any associate editor..." STOP! typical perhaps, but not atypical either. Certainly not a majority, but not an insignificant amount either. A "typical" reaction to such a paper wouldn't raise an eybrow. "...Council, which includes officers, elected councilors, and past presidents,..." STOP! and one current President (top guy, chief executive, great one) who diligently reviewed the review process, and the editing process, and subsequently found the paper appropriate for publication. "...would have deemed the paper inappropriate for the pages of the Proceedings because the subject matter represents such a significant departure..." yes, let's narrow our scientific vision, Galileo be damned. "...For the same reason,the journal will not publish a rebuttal to the thesis of the paper..." meaning: "I'd fight you, but I'd get my clothes dirty" "...which observes that there is no credible scientific evidence supporting ID as a testable hypothesis to explain the origin of organic diversity. Accordingly, the Meyer paper does not meet the scientific standards of the Proceedings." A mantra encased in circular logic. Of course the statement I provided; public evidence from the investigation by the US Office of Special Council; the evidential centerpeice of the film; not deemed worth mentioning or supplying a link to (apparently, I dug deep to one I thought it might've been, but the link was broken) in the "trickiwiki" reference, was from Dr. McDiarmid, President of the Biological Society of Washington, and the final say on all papers published in the Journal. In responce to an outside agency: "...I was surprised but concluded that there was not inapropriate behavior vs a vis(sic) the review process". So then why would the President of the BSW, Dr. McDiarmid, seem to have a change of heart? Well, one theory from the evidence: "...while, technically the BSW and the National Museum of Natural History are separate entities, Dr Sues, #2 scientist at the Smithsonian who had also secured Smithsonian funding for the 'Proceedings', e-mailed National Center for Science Education's executive director, Dr. Scott: ""I met with roy McDiarmid yesterday, and urged him to publish, in the next issue of the 'Proceedings', an open letter to readers from the Council of BSW that Meyer's article does not represent views endorsed by BSW and that there was a clear failure of the editorial process"" So you've got outside agencies throwing a fit, and influencing the BSW. you see Thom?, it's not difficult to demonstrate the fraudulant mis-charachtarizations in the wikipedia entry. As I said, it's just time consuming and depressing. It's depressing because it disgusts me that an entity that presumes to be an objective source of information stoops to it, and also because when I put in the effort to expose the crap, it has no desired effect on the willfully ignorant. Not that I'm accusing. "Dan, you seem to take statements published by the Discovery Institute at face value, but you imply that statements published on the Wikipedia should be viewed with more skepticism. Why is that? " What statement by the Discovery Institute do you refer? The only statement by DI I remember taking issue with is the one Wikipedia infered--but not quoted--with reference to Gonzales. I don't know what their official statement was; just that Wiki's infered version doesn't pass the smell test. If Di made any official statement Wiki won't quote it. "A critical thinker would not be excessively steered by any source. If a critical thinker heard Ben Stein say in the public record: ""The most egregious is Richard Sternberg at the Smithsonian, the editor of a magazine that published a peer-reviewed paper about ID. He lost his job."" Lost his job? Back in #91 you said: "you seem to have forgotten that "Expelled" said that he was "fired."" Now it's "lost his job". At least you're making the attempt. At what, I'm not sure. As I've said, there are many ways Sternberg could have "lost his job" that don't necessitate a direct firing. "Gosh. Why don't we have a discussion about the meaning of the word "is"? ;-)" Probably should, Or maybe just the difference between "lost" and "fired". When you read the internal e-mails (public record) of senior staff at the museum conspiring to restrict Sternbergs access to research information, but expressing concern that they needed to avoid the appearance of singling him out; or withdrawling his invitation to reapply as "associate", and instead, under "a new system in place" offering him a "collaborator" demotion, you understand another way one could "lose" a job. Sure, he could still work there. They could flood his workspace with six inches of excrement and he could still work there. "I'm not speculating, Dan. Do you know what "IIRC" means?" No, actually I don't. I was considering: 'Intentional Ignorance = Ridiculous Conclusions'. But then, when I looked it up, it said 'If I Recall Correctly'. So I know that's not right, because you haven't seen the film to recall it. Another entry said 'If I Really Cared', so I'm going with that one for now. Unless you want to just tell me. "If these filmmakers had bothered to document on a website the claims they made in the film, we wouldn't have to speculate about this." Since they document the claims they make in the film, wouldn't it be redundant? Isn't it up to wikipedia to document the documentation from the film to give a fair reading?

Comment by Thom on An Analysis of the Arguments Presented in Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed

Fri, 30 May 2008 01:42:08 EDT

"...Sternberg himself refereed the article in question, even though there were scientists on the review board who were far more competent -- by their scientific qualifications -- to review that particular article. He failed to even discuss the article with other scientists who clearly seemed much more qualified to referee that particular article."    After the allegations of improper handling had gone on for several months, Dr Sues, the #2 scientist at the Smithsonian asked Dr. McDiarmid, President of the Biological Society of Washington, via e-mail (on the record) whether the BSW was "satisfied that a proper review by specialists was undertaken". Dr. McDiarmid replied to Dr Sues: "I have seen the review file and comments from 3 reviewers on the Meyer paper. All three with some differences among the comments, recommended or suggested publication. I was surprised but concluded that there was not inaptropriate behavior vs a vis(sic) the review process". Which directly contradicts what is said by the Biological Society of Washington: "The paper by Stephen C. Meyer, "The origin of biological information and the higher taxonomic categories," in vol. 117, no. 2, pp. 213-239 of the Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington, was published at the discretion of the former editor, Richard v. Sternberg. Contrary to typical editorial practices, the paper was published without review by any associate editor; Sternberg handled the entire review process. The Council, which includes officers, elected councilors, and past presidents, and the associate editors would have deemed the paper inappropriate for the pages of the Proceedings because the subject matter represents such a significant departure from the nearly purely systematic content for which this journal has been known throughout its 122-year history. For the same reason, the journal will not publish a rebuttal to the thesis of the paper, the superiority of intelligent design (ID) over evolution as an explanation of the emergence of Cambrian body-plan diversity. The Council endorses a resolution on ID published by the American Association for the Advancement of Science, which observes that there is no credible scientific evidence supporting ID as a testable hypothesis to explain the origin of organic diversity. Accordingly, the Meyer paper does not meet the scientific standards of the Proceedings. We have reviewed and revised editorial policies to ensure that the goals of the Society, as reflected in its journal, are clearly understood by all. Through a web presence and improvements in the journal, the Society hopes not only to continue but to increase its service to the world community of systematic biologists." Dan, you seem to take statements published by the Discovery Institute at face value, but you imply that statements published on the Wikipedia should be viewed with more skepticism. Why is that?   "The fact that the findings of these hearings are "in the public record" doesn't really mean anything. All it means is that there's a partisan legislator kowtowing to his right-wing friends."   The findings are, of course, subjective The "findings" are objectively meaningless. The Staff Report -- not a hearing -- by the Congressman from Indiana has no legal significance: its only purpose was to make recommendations to Congress, which, AFAICT, were categorically ignored. , but the content of the evidence "in the public record" is factually undeniable. The fact that the legislators of the State if Indiana once tried to set Pi to a rational number is also factually undeniable. These guys ain't always rational (to coin a phrase). ;-) A reader can draw their own conclusions, and not be steered by wikipedia. A critical thinker would not be excessively steered by any source. If a critical thinker heard Ben Stein say in the public record: "The most egregious is Richard Sternberg at the Smithsonian, the editor of a magazine that published a peer-reviewed paper about ID. He lost his job." And they then learn that Sternberg did not lose his job, they would start to seriously question every single thing that came from that source. Dan: do you question the "facts" that are presented by Ben Stein's mockumentary? What exactly would it take for someone to say "he lost his job" when he knew that wasn't true? What would you think if you realized that they deliberately mis-quoted Darwin? You need to critically think about all sources. You seem to be taking a bible-belt congressman's report as gospel; it doesn't seem to occur to you that this "hearing" could have been one-sided. "Nope. IIRC, that wasn't the point they were making in the documentary; they were squaking about the inclusion of Gonzalez's works. Any speculation right now is rather pointless."  . I'm not speculating, Dan. Do you know what "IIRC" means? I did see the film, and I do recall they were squaking about the inclusion of Gonzalez's ID works. The Wikipedia says the same thing. If these filmmakers had bothered to document on a website the claims they made in the film, we wouldn't have to speculate about this.    "No job was lost. Ben Stein's claim is demonstrably false. The claim was indeed egregious -- but not in the way that Ben and the filmmakers intended. They flat-out lied to their audience." There are many ways Sternberg could have "lost his job" that don't necessitate a direct firing. Gosh. Why don't we have a discussion about the meaning of the word "is"? ;-) There wasn't a direct firing. There wasn't an indirect firing. There was no firing at all. Read the evidence of the investigation and see if you can think of any. Investigation? You mean the Staff Report, right? If, as the Staff Report claims, there actually is "compelling evidence that Dr. Sternberg's civil and constitutional rights were violated," then why doesn't he sue? Why simply repeat the "facts" from this partisan propaganda piece? Why not take actions that would yield factual findings, have legal significance, and a potential monetary settlement? Something doesn't quite add up. A critical reader of the Staff Report would notice that.

Comment by Thom on An Analysis of the Arguments Presented in Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed

Thu, 29 May 2008 22:53:34 EDT

Comment by Dr Dreadful on An Analysis of the Arguments Presented in Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed

Thu, 29 May 2008 00:02:20 EDT

These astronomers are keeping a list of promising signals to anylize for intelligent design. But they aren't assuming intelligence. Despite the name of the program - Search for Extra-Terrestrial Intelligence - they go to great pains to be sure there are no natural explanations for signals before announcing success. "Intelligent design is not scientific because it assumes a designer without first ruling out natural explanations for what is observed." Do you see what the converse of that statement would be? I see what you think the converse would be. But Evolution doesn't assume there isn't a designer. It doesn't assume there is, either. It merely postulates a theory based on the evidence available. Missed what?. I commented on Eldredge and Gould's evidence before you posted the link. I must have misunderstood you. I thought that you had got the allusion to Eldredge and Gould's trilobites and gastropods from the same Talk.Origins source I linked to: in which, if you had read it, you would have seen that the claim of no evidence for PE was debunked.

Comment by Dan on An Analysis of the Arguments Presented in Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed

Wed, 28 May 2008 23:29:01 EDT

Thom #91: "You have insisted that there should be an "obvious" linkage between the evolution and the origin of life. When asked, repeatedly, what scientific case could be made for that linkage, you have failed to provide anything." Thom, if you would like for me to think of you as a rational person worthy of having a discussion with, you would need to either ignore or attempt to dispute my various reasons for linking the two disciplines. Simply stonewalling the reality of my multiple attempts at this leads me to beleive that a meaningful dialogue is impossible. "If you're talking about HS biology texts, it's an economic reason, not a scientific one. They're kowtowing to the state commissions that approve books." If the coupling of abiogenesis to evolution theory in biology texts is of pure economic necessity, why wouldn't the cause of economic frugality be served as well by coupling abiogenesis with, say, botany? "...Sternberg himself refereed the article in question, even though there were scientists on the review board who were far more competent -- by their scientific qualifications -- to review that particular article. He failed to even discuss the article with other scientists who clearly seemed much more qualified to referee that particular article." After the allegations of improper handling had gone on for several months, Dr Sues, the #2 scientist at the Smithsonian asked Dr. McDiarmid, President of the Biological Society of Washington, via e-mail (on the record) whether the BSW was "satisfied that a proper review by specialists was undertaken". Dr. McDiarmid replied to Dr Sues: "I have seen the review file and comments from 3 reviewers on the Meyer paper. All three with some differences among the comments, recommended or suggested publication. I was surprised but concluded that there was not inaptropriate behavior vs a vis(sic) the review process". "The fact that the findings of these hearings are "in the public record" doesn't really mean anything. All it means is that there's a partisan legislator kowtowing to his right-wing friends." The findings are, of course, subjective, but the content of the evidence "in the public record" is factually undeniable. A reader can draw their own conclusions, and not be steered by wikipedia. "Nope. IIRC, that wasn't the point they were making in the documentary; they were squaking about the inclusion of Gonzalez's works. Any speculation right now is rather pointless." You're speculating, I saw the film. "No job was lost. Ben Stein's claim is demonstrably false. The claim was indeed egregious -- but not in the way that Ben and the filmmakers intended. They flat-out lied to their audience." There are many ways Sternberg could have "lost his job" that don't necessitate a direct firing. Read the evidence of the investigation and see if you can think of any. Dr. D: "Signals have been received from deep space which seemed at first analysis to be potentially of intelligent origin. Rather than rush to the press, however, astronomers analyze the signals to rule out any possible natural origin. So far, none of the candidate signals has been definitively identified as even likely." exactly, These astronomers are keeping a list of promising signals to anylize for intelligent design. "Intelligent design is not scientific because it assumes a designer without first ruling out natural explanations for what is observed." Do you see what the converse of that statement would be? " That isn't what I said was false. It was your claim that Eldredge and Gould's theory of punctuated equilibria was a patch-up job without supporting evidence. If your allusion to trilobites and gastropods came from the same source, I'm surprised you missed that." Missed what?. I commented on Eldredge and Gould's evidence before you posted the link. Then I said "but the scientific hypothesis goes back to Darwin and is founded on what ID is often critisized for; negative evidence."

Comment by Thom on An Analysis of the Arguments Presented in Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed

Tue, 27 May 2008 21:45:15 EDT

"Expelled portrays Gonzalez as a victim of religious discrimination and the Discovery Institute campaign asserts that his intelligent design writings should not have been considered in the review."  If you know anything about the Discovery Institute you would know that they would never assert any such thing. Since the moviemakers didn't bother to provide a website to actually document the claims that they made in their documentary, we really won't know until the DVD comes out. I distinctly remember there were comments that, for some reason, Gonzalez's ID writings should have been considered "out of bounds" for his consideration for tenure. They want ID writings to be considered. By everyone. They're not hiding them. Of course not. What we're talking about is what claim the movie made about this, and those claims do indeed seem strange at this point. Since Gonzalez did include his ID writings in his application for tenure -- that's part of the public record -- it's really a moot issue. Their "assertion" would be that intelligent design writings should not have been *the reason* for denial of tenure. Nope. IIRC, that wasn't the point they were making in the documentary; they were squaking about the inclusion of Gonzalez's works. Any speculation right now is rather pointless. I see no record if "Expelled" will be sold on DVD. If it does make it to a dollar-rental box, I may get it and see what they actually said. Until then, it's all hearsay.   I'm sure I could continue to expose wikipedia on this film, I have no idea what you think you've "exposed" so far. All of the above is about a point that the movie made, and Wikipedia reported it. There are no footnotes, because it's simply based on what people witnessed when they saw the film. This is far more a commentary on the filmmakers' failure to document their own documentary. Why would they force anyone to guess on this stuff? but it's work to unravel every deceptive intricasy in a web like this one. Depressing to. If you think there are factual errors in the Wikipedia article, the way to do that is to provide the incorrect facts. You haven't done that.   I didn't reference the Sternberg essay to argue the film. I referenced it specifically for the main body of it, which details how a brilliant scientist, indoctrinated in atheist/evolution dogma by academia, follows the evidence of his research to accept intelligent design as science. And that's another example of all-spin-no-facts. One more time: what facts do you find wrong in the Wikipedia article? Anything?   "But a basic claim that a "documentary" makes that is provably false casts every single claim into doubt. The movie's claim that Sternberg *was* fired is total poppycock. Even Sternberg would agree with that."   I've not seen this. Did you really read the Wikipedia article. It's right there: Ben Stein claimed it in an interview in the 4/30 issue of Newsweek: "[...] The most egregious is Richard Sternberg at the Smithsonian, the editor of a magazine that published a peer-reviewed paper about ID. He lost his job." I've seen the movie, but don't recall the claim that Sternberg was fired. I've noticed the point made, that the film makes the implication that Sternberg was fired. Ben Stein was pretty unambiguous in his claim; it's part of the public record: "He lost his job." As one of the e-mails between NMNH officials suggested: "a face to face meeting or at least a 'you are welcome to leave or resign' call with this individual, is in order." (Dr. Rafael Lemaitre). But no direct firing. No direct firing. No indirect firing. No firing at all. So I wouldn't say the proof is in on that. No job was lost. Ben Stein's claim is demonstrably false. The claim was indeed egregious -- but not in the way that Ben and the filmmakers intended. They flat-out lied to their audience. If this is the best that "Expelled" can do to document "persecution," then they haven't got a leg to stand on.

Comment by Dr Dreadful on An Analysis of the Arguments Presented in Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed

Tue, 27 May 2008 01:52:21 EDT

Your hypothesis for dishonesty, or disingenuousness would be more compelling if I had ever disputed your definitional distinction. Instead, more emphatic agreement with the distinction seems to produce more emphatic argumentation. Peering past the excruciatingly tortured language here, I've never disputed with you the places of abiogenesis and evolution in the historical narrative of life on this planet. What I take issue with is your interpretation of what the still scant evidence for abiogenesis means for the theory of evolution. But what if instead of sending, we received such a message? Would it be unscientific to theorize intelligent design? Signals have been received from deep space which seemed at first analysis to be potentially of intelligent origin. Rather than rush to the press, however, astronomers analyze the signals to rule out any possible natural origin. So far, none of the candidate signals has been definitively identified as even likely. Intelligent design is not scientific because it assumes a designer without first ruling out natural explanations for what is observed. "This is simply false." (The hypothesis for punctuated equilibrium goes back to darwin) That isn't what I said was false. It was your claim that Eldredge and Gould's theory of punctuated equilibria was a patch-up job without supporting evidence. If your allusion to trilobites and gastropods came from the same source, I'm surprised you missed that.

Comment by Thom on An Analysis of the Arguments Presented in Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed

Tue, 27 May 2008 00:55:46 EDT

Yes, I understood the first time. Rather than re-post my response from the first time, I'll just remark on the irony of your complaint in the context of mis-labeling me as a Creationist. Something that must have seemed "obvious" to you. You have insisted that there should be an "obvious" linkage between the evolution and the origin of life. When asked, repeatedly, what scientific case could be made for that linkage, you have failed to provide anything. I don't care if you label yourself as a "Creationist" an "IDer" or something else. What is clear is that you are clearly not thinking as a scientist. If you were, you could make a clear and cogent statement about the scientific case for linking those two fields. You cannot do that. There is no irony in my statement. I'm trying to think of what benefit to this discussion answering your question (again) would have. It's a rather silly statement. You have never ever made the scientific case for establishing a linkage between those two disciplines. It's an especially silly question, since I've already explained this to Dr. D. Nope. That's really silly. You never ever have made the scientific case. Repeating the claim does not make it true. If you don't like my answer, There's nothing to like or not like. You have never ever explained the scientific benefit of linking the two disciplines. I don't know how to say it any more plainly than that. why not pose your question to the authors of Biology textbooks, or Professor's (SIC) of Biology, who routinely "mash" the two together in Evolution theory lesson plans? If you're talking about HS biology texts, it's an economic reason, not a scientific one. They're kowtowing to the state commissions that approve books. As far as "Professor's (SIC) of Biology", please provide some references. Which of the scientists out there are actually stating a scientific benefit for creating a linkage between the theories of evolution and the origin of life. Please back up your claim. The article is a full-throttled, hundred percent hit piece, factual or not. So, just start with that little bit of honesty. Nonsense. That just reveals your biases about the Wikipedia. Any Creationist/IDer who wanted to participate in the article could have done that ... could still do it now. If someone were being censored, there would be a record in the history of the article. Do you have any smoking guns where that perspective has been censured, or is that just a conjecture on your part? The Society subsequently declared that the paper "does not meet the scientific standards of the Proceedings" and would not have been published had usual editorial practices been followed." Right. Sternberg himself refereed the article in question, even though there were scientists on the review board who were far more competent -- by their scientific qualifications -- to review that particular article. He failed to even discuss the article with other scientists who clearly seemed much more qualified to referee that particular article. Wikipedia doesn't say that the offended publication society of the tarnished journal was leaned on by the National Center for Science Education to make their statement of fowl play. There is no Wikipedia! There are only volunteers who write the articles. If this is actually a legitimate point, then why has nobody said it? Why haven't you said it? Was there some effort to censor this commentary in the Wikipedia article? If that were the case, it would be in the record. Why do you think that Richard Sternberg was even qualified to referee that particular article? The volunteers who edit these scientific journals are in a position of trust. As far as I can tell, Richard Sternberg abused that trust. The article about the Cambrian Explosion had nothing to do with his particular specialty; he has no business approving it. Wikipedia doesn't bother you with the details of the pressured denouncement because then they might have to tell you about the investigations by both the U.S. Office of Special Counsel and also subcommittee staff of the U.S. House of Representatives Committee on Government Reform, all of whose findings are on public record. Sorry, Dan. That's just not true. The Office of Special Counsel's involvement with the Richard Sternberg case is indeed discussed in detail. You just failed to follow the links. Go back to the Expelled article, scroll down to the Richard Sternberg section, then click on the first link there, "Sternberg peer review controversy." Then go and chase the links that are in that article. The fact that the findings of these hearings are "in the public record" doesn't really mean anything. All it means is that there's a partisan legislator kowtowing to his right-wing friends. As far as Meyer's article itself, folks actually qualified to peer-review it said: "[...] it contained poor scholarship, that it failed to cite and specifically rebut the actual data supporting evolution, and 'constructed a rhetorical edifice out of omission of relevant facts, selective quoting, bad analogies, knocking down straw men, and tendentious interpretations.' Further examination of the article revealed that it was substantially similar to previously published articles co-authored by Meyer." In short, its shoddy scholarship sounds awfully like a shoddy mockumentary we're discussing here. ;-( Believe it or not, those statements above were also made in the public record! Among other findings from a Congressional staff report: "Officials at the Smithsonian's National Museum of Natural History created a hostile work environment intended to force Dr. Sternberg to resign his position as a Research Associate in violation of his free speech and civil rights." What actually happened was that several researchers complained, in private e-mails, about the incompetent job that Sternberg did in appointing himself to referee the article and his actual job refereeing it. Remember, all of this was, in fact, discussed in the Wikipedia entries on Sternberg. What the rhetoric fails to describe is what actual actions anyone did that allegedly violated any of his civil rights. Congressmen don't get to decree what is a civil right violation -- even if they make such pronouncements "in the public record." If Sternberg thought that his rights were somehow violated, he should file suit. "And there are lots of subpoena E-mails between NMNH officials that demonstrate the strategy completely." They demonstrate that strategy completely incompetently. If I were a researcher at the Smithsonian and I saw the damage that this "researcher" had done to the journal, I would be pissed, too. I would send e-mails to my colleagues complaining about this bozo. How exactly one would construe that as "violating the civil rights" of Sternberg surpasses my imagination. You would not even need to do much research to dismantle the wikepedia smear. What smear? Despite anything you try to spin, this is ALREADY discussed rather thoroughly in the Wikipedia. You failed on your due diligence, Dan. If Sternberg thought his civil rights were violated, then he should bring a suit. The partisan "hearings" that were done is the true smear campaign here -- even if those congressman's hearings were "part of the public record". ;-) Why in heaven's name you thought saying "public record" would somehow buttress your case also boggles my imagination. If you look around, you'll find that the State of Indiana tried to change the value of Pi to a rational number. The pertinent thing to this conversation: do you realize that those debates were also part of the public record? In that case, those State congressmen were a bit brighter: a mathematician came in and told them exactly how silly their efforts were, and they dropped their legislative efforts. Unfortunately, it seems that that lecture didn't wind up being part of the public record. Too bad. One last comment on Sternberg: you seem to have forgotten that "Expelled" said that he was "fired." How do you reconcile that wrong claim by the film? Anything? Anything? Bueller?

Comment by Thom on An Analysis of the Arguments Presented in Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed

Mon, 26 May 2008 23:31:47 EDT

Erik John Bertel: "you can measure the quality and success of a movie by the number of bootlegs copies on the street. There aren't none for Expelled." I'm sure there's a correlation, but the success of a documentary should probably be measured against other documentaries. Actually, that would be a poor way to compare documentaries. "Expelled" hired *four* separate companies to market this movie. They took it on a nationwide tour to drum up buzz. They even offered to pay churches for admissions during the first two weeks of the run. In short, any comparison between the BO of this film and, say, the Osama Bin Laden documentary is completely inappropriate. Those guys clearly didn't spend nearly the marketing $$$ that the "Expelled" producers did. Even the number of theaters for the initial release is relatively meaningless: everything is a negotiation between the theater chains and the distributor. The tiny distributor RMP has no leverage with the chains -- no pending Harry Potter or Narnia movies in the pipeline. The only real thing a RMP has to offer to crank up the theater count is to offer a higher percentage of the BO than a top-20 distributor would ever offer. The measure of "Expelled" is the week-over-week drops in the BO: 53%, 51%, 52%, 69%, 66%. That indicates a movie with abysmal word-of-mouth. Nobody was telling anyone to go to this film -- and odds are high that there was, in fact, no demand whatsoever for bootleg versions of the film. That kind of box-office drop is highly uncharacteristic for documentaries. The only top-20 documentary with a similar drop-like-a-rock BO profile was the 2003 film "Tupac: Resurrection." None of the Michael Moore films that this movie desperately tried to posture itself as being comparable ever experienced the week-over-week BO drop of this film. It's also possible that a prospective audience for "Expelled" might be less prone to criminality. If you talk about breaking criminal laws, you're probably right. If you're talking about gross failures of "Bearing False Witness," then these moviemakers sinned just as much as anyone else making a mockumentary. These filmmakers lied to Biologists about the purpose of the film. When they were caught in that lie, they claimed that the title of the movie changed in mid-course. But that was just another lie. You can see the smoking gun on the website for the movie-they-never-intended-to-make: crossroadsthemovie.com . The Darwin quote used in this film was grossly distorted. You can see the Darwin's words and what the "documentary" makers used at the movie's Wikipedia page. The claims of the "expelled five" also fail to stand up to a basic fact-check. The claim that Richard Sternberg was "fired" is just plain wrong. I don't know about the predilections of the right to steal a movie. But the drop-like-a-rock BO charts make any such observations moot for this film. A prerequisite for a theft is that there be something of value to steal.

Comment by Dan on An Analysis of the Arguments Presented in Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed

Mon, 26 May 2008 23:27:50 EDT

"Exactly. Come now, Dan. Do you honestly not understand my meaning, or are you being disingenuous? If the former, there really isn't any point in continuing." Your hypothesis for dishonesty, or disingenuousness would be more compelling if I had ever disputed your definitional distinction. Instead, more emphatic agreement with the distinction seems to produce more emphatic argumentation. "This idea..." (ID theory) "... is based on certain anthropocentric assumptions about what design looks like. How, without introducing human bias, could you even obtain scientific evidence that would support that hypothesis?" This is a pretty good response. I'm not sure "human bias" can be eliminated from any scientific inquiry. We are human after all, and design detection, or intelligence detection is going to be intelligence as we think it is. We consider humans more intelligent than ants. But we don't really know. Consider the Arecibo radio telescope in Puerto Rico. One of the first uses was to send a repetitive message into space, directed toward global cluster M-13, 25,000 light years away. The goal is to communicate with extraterestrials. The message contains things like atomic numbers of principle elements for life, Descriptive formulas for nucleotides in DNA, A schematic of our solar system etc. Clearly our scientists think they have a way to communicate our intelligence. But what if instead of sending, we received such a message? Would it be unscientific to theorize intelligent design? "As for its appearance in peer-reviewed journals, the same can be said of other scientifically flawed hypotheses as well - Fleischmann and Pons's paper on cold fusion being a famous example. Would you argue that the subsequent debunking of that was politically motivated?" No, they rushed the paper, and failed to do some important control experiments, and when others tried to duplicate their results the experiment failed. "This is simply false." (The hypothesis for punctuated equilibrium goes back to darwin) Wrong. Your citation is simply what I had alluded to. (trilobites and gastropods) In Darwin's fifth edition of The Origin of Species--After the case for gradualism seemed to be waning--he wrote that "the periods during which species have undergone modification, though long as measured in years, have probably been short in comparison with the periods during which they retain the same form. In 1954 Ernst Mayr published a paper theorizing that large populations--the most often found--probably had a stablizing effect, but smaller populations--the ones not found--morphed faster: uhh, we'll get back to you on that. "It is indeed an interesting question - but what does it have to do with our argument?" My argument is that evolution descendency depends on a specific concept of abiogenesis, which is why a specific concept of abiogenesis is "part of evoulution theory", though a distinct discipline of study as we both agree. "To support their argument that this is true of the five 'expelled', the film-makers had to try to prove that the evidence for evolution was shaky, and that that for intelligent design deserved serious scientific attention. Without this 'controversy', they wouldn't have a film." There was perhaps 10% of the film that dealt with some of the "shaky" issues, but the main body of the film was to establish the credentials of the dissenting scientists and to expose the motivations of their oppressors through their own words, and investigations of their deeds.

Comment by Dr Dreadful on An Analysis of the Arguments Presented in Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed

Sun, 25 May 2008 17:14:07 EDT

You offered "Google 'definition theory of evolution'", not just Google. Exactly. Come now, Dan. Do you honestly not understand my meaning, or are you being disingenuous? If the former, there really isn't any point in continuing. Abiogenesis is accepted "scientific" theory, while ID is not. Although, ID has staked the claim of being in a peer reviewed scientific journal, under politically motivated protest of course. ID is the theory that life (and/or the entire universe) was consciously conceived, designed, created and directed in its development by an intelligent entity. This idea is based on certain anthropocentric assumptions about what design looks like. How, without introducing human bias, could you even obtain scientific evidence that would support that hypothesis? As for its appearance in peer-reviewed journals, the same can be said of other scientifically flawed hypotheses as well - Fleischmann and Pons's paper on cold fusion being a famous example. Would you argue that the subsequent debunking of that was politically motivated? If I could have forseen this technical intrusion I could have substituted Punctuated Equilibrium for Abiogenesis. [...] But the scientific hypothesis goes back to Darwin and is founded on what ID is often critisized for; negative evidence. The fossil record simply didn't support the theory of gradualism and PE was an escape hatch. This is simply false. See here. Evolution theory depends on a specific concept of Abiogenesis. How, for instance, would you theorize that multi-cellular organisms descended from single celled ones, if Abiogenesis doesn't have a presumed concept of creating single celled organisms? In the same way I can theorize that a person named Dan wrote the above, without having to have a theory about how Dan came into existence. More interesting, How would evolution scientists speculate that apparant transitional organisms share a common ancestry if a presumed concept of Abiogenesis wasn't thought to be a very rare event? Why not multiple events over time, producing multiple macro-static organisms that only seem to be transitional? It is indeed an interesting question - but what does it have to do with our argument? If natural abiogenesis has been happening throughout geological history, there's no particular reason why it wouldn't still be happening today - and it isn't, as Pasteur proved. The two main reasons for this are firstly, because chemical conditions on the early Earth were radically different from the way they are today; and secondly, because the life that already exists would quickly consume any enzymes and proteins that developed. The film is nearly exclusively about academic freedom being stifled by dogmatic bigots, and what implications it could have. To support their argument that this is true of the five 'expelled', the film-makers had to try to prove that the evidence for evolution was shaky, and that that for intelligent design deserved serious scientific attention. Without this 'controversy', they wouldn't have a film.

Comment by Dan on An Analysis of the Arguments Presented in Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed

Sat, 24 May 2008 20:23:06 EDT

"Dan, I was responding directly to your extravagant claim that 'the entire world considers abiogenesis as part of evolution theory'. I offered you Google because it is as close an approximation to the entire world as you'll find online." My exasperated claim of 'the entire world considers abiogenesis as part of evolution theory' came after you had began the evasive maneuver of being a stickler for precise definition, not before. You offered "Google 'definition theory of evolution'", not just Google. "And on the contrary, it's of no small consequence to the point because your insistence on linking abiogenesis - a scientific theory with as yet little evidence to support it - with evolution is a clear attempt to imply that the evidence in favor of the latter is as insubstantial as that in favor of the former." Therein lies the acknowledgedment that the point is taken, although not well. Abiogenesis is accepted "scientific" theory, while ID is not. Although, ID has staked the claim of being in a peer reviewed scientific journal, under politically motivated protest of course. If I could have forseen this technical intrusion I could have substituted Punctuated Equilibrium for Abiogenesis. Although, admittedly, there is some supporting evidence in accelerated morphing of Gastropods, and trilobites. And some dispute of that evidence. But the scientific hypothesis goes back to Darwin and is founded on what ID is often critisized for; negative evidence. The fossil record simply didn't support the theory of gradualism and PE was an escape hatch. At any rate (pun intended) the mechanism for this theory of acceleration, such as a reaction to increased environmental pressure, is pure conjecture. A naughty scientist might speculatively attribute it to design. "...perhaps you'd care to provide some examples? Shouldn't be too hard if it's as 'routine' as you say it is. An obvious word of caution, though, would be to remind you that just because abiogenesis is presented along with evolution in a biology textbook, or because a scientist conflates the two, does not make it part of the theory of evolution." It would be easy, and I suspect you realize this since you reject the evidence before it's presented. I've readily acquiesced (maybe twice) to this argument you're hell bent on having--but on your terms only. But an argument that Abiogenesis is 'part of evolution theory' because the theories are logically inextricable (my terms) can be made on the grounds I've already covered. To take it further, Evolution theory depends on a specific concept of Abiogenesis. How, for instance, would you theorize that multi-cellular organisms descended from single celled ones, if Abiogenesis doesn't have a presumed concept of creating single celled organisms? More interesting, How would evolution scientists speculate that apparant transitional organisms share a common ancestry if a presumed concept of Abiogenesis wasn't thought to be a very rare event? Why not multiple events over time, producing multiple macro-static organisms that only seem to be transitional? "your broader definition is not what the movie is about." The film is nearly exclusively about academic freedom being stifled by dogmatic bigots, and what implications it could have. "BTW, I read Sternberg's essay. His ideas on design are interesting, if unoriginal, but extend into the realm of philosophy rather than science. Not that scientists shouldn't philosophize - far from it - but it's crucial to know when you're crossing the boundary from one to the other." I compliment you for taking a look. I don't pretend to extensively understand his angle, but I gather that his philosophy isn't religously based. More devotion is given to being critical, even bitter, of what he percieves as a dogmatic philosophical approach inherent, but not admitted, in modern evolution theory. You would probably call it naturalism. I might call it accidentalism, or purposelessness. (I know, it's not a word) Whatever it is, it excludes plausable explanations, (and research grants) in a field that is teeming with evidence based on plausability.

Comment by Dr Dreadful on An Analysis of the Arguments Presented in Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed

Fri, 23 May 2008 18:16:39 EDT

What evidence do you have that Satan created the world/universe?

Comment by Satanists of Florida on An Analysis of the Arguments Presented in Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed

Fri, 23 May 2008 17:47:31 EDT

Intelligent Design should be taught in our schools, it finally opens the a path that SAtan can be identified as the true creator of the world to our children. Intelligent Design is the notion the SAtan may be the designer of the world. We Satanists of Florida are strong promoters of absolute moral values, and it is a great error that our views and our absolute moral values have been excluded from school and censored in the media and in academics.

Comment by Dr Dreadful on An Analysis of the Arguments Presented in Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed

Fri, 23 May 2008 12:09:06 EDT

^ Here it is: "As soon as a way is found of arriving at definite knowledge on some ancient question, the new knowledge is counted as belonging to 'science', and 'philosophy' is deprived of the credit. [...] Anaximander, in the sixth century B.C., had a theory of evolution, and maintained that men descended from fishes. This was philosophy because it was a speculation unsupported by detailed evidence, but Darwin's theory of evolution was science, because it was based on the succession of forms of life as found in fossils, and upon the distribution of animals and plants in many parts of the world." - Bertrand Russell, 'Philosophy for Laymen'

Comment by Dr Dreadful on An Analysis of the Arguments Presented in Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed

Thu, 22 May 2008 21:05:27 EDT

I haven't argued that there wasn't a definitive, semantical distinction between the two. Just that the distinction was inconsequential to the point that was made. Dan, I was responding directly to your extravagant claim that 'the entire world considers abiogenesis as part of evolution theory'. I offered you Google because it is as close an approximation to the entire world as you'll find online. And on the contrary, it's of no small consequence to the point because your insistence on linking abiogenesis - a scientific theory with as yet little evidence to support it - with evolution is a clear attempt to imply that the evidence in favor of the latter is as insubstantial as that in favor of the former. If you don't like my answer, why not pose your question to the authors of Biology textbooks, or Professor's of Biology, who routinely "mash" the two together in Evolution theory lesson plans? I realize this was addressed to Thom, not me, but perhaps you'd care to provide some examples? Shouldn't be too hard if it's as 'routine' as you say it is. An obvious word of caution, though, would be to remind you that just because abiogenesis is presented along with evolution in a biology textbook, or because a scientist conflates the two, does not make it part of the theory of evolution. And yes, I am aware that you're using the term 'evolution theory' to distinguish from the Darwinian theory of evolution of species by natural selection. But your broader definition is not what the movie is about. BTW, I read Sternberg's essay. His ideas on design are interesting, if unoriginal, but extend into the realm of philosophy rather than science. Not that scientists shouldn't philosophize - far from it - but it's crucial to know when you're crossing the boundary from one to the other. There's a Bertrand Russell essay I'm reading at the moment in which he articulates the distinction between the two disciplines rather succinctly: unfortunately the book's at work and I'm not. I'll post the quote as soon as I can retrieve it.

Comment by Dan on An Analysis of the Arguments Presented in Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed

Thu, 22 May 2008 19:38:56 EDT

Dr. D: "Really? Why don't you Google 'definition theory of evolution' and see what you come up with." I haven't argued that there wasn't a definitive, semantical distinction between the two. Just that the distinction was inconsequential to the point that was made. Erik John Bertel: "you can measure the quality and success of a movie by the number of bootlegs copies on the street. There aren't none for Expelled." I'm sure there's a correlation, but the success of a documentary should probably be measured against other documentaries. It's also possible that a prospective audience for "Expelled" might be less prone to criminality. Thom #80: "Correct. That was a response to your use of "obvious" in #73" (whenever a Creationist says that something is obvious, it most likely isn't) Yes, I understood the first time. Rather than re-post my response from the first time, I'll just remark on the irony of your complaint in the context of mis-labeling me as a Creationist. Something that must have seemed "obvious" to you. "I had asked Dan what scientific benefit there would be to mashing these two disciplines together. You have failed to answer. Can you answer that question, Dan?" I'm trying to think of what benefit to this discussion answering your question (again) would have. It's an especially silly question, since I've already explained this to Dr. D. If you don't like my answer, why not pose your question to the authors of Biology textbooks, or Professor's of Biology, who routinely "mash" the two together in Evolution theory lesson plans? "Then please tell us: what biases are there in that article?" First of all, to say that the wikipedia entry is just "biased" gives the impression that it is only leaning toward a subjective perspective. The article is a full-throttled, hundred percent hit piece, factual or not. So, just start with that little bit of honesty. Start with the first on the list, Dr. Richard Sternberg, wikipedia says " he circumvented the journal's reviewing process to include a paper by intelligent design proponent Stephen C. Meyer... The Society subsequently declared that the paper "does not meet the scientific standards of the Proceedings" and would not have been published had usual editorial practices been followed." Wikipedia doesn't say that the offended publication society of the tarnished journal was leaned on by the National Center for Science Education to make their statement of fowl play. Up until NCSE pressured, the societies members were hunky-dory with the peer reviewing process for the heretical ID publishing. Wikipedia doesn't bother you with the details of the pressured denouncement because then they might have to tell you about the investigations by both the U.S. Office of Special Counsel and also subcommittee staff of the U.S. House of Representatives Committee on Government Reform, all of whose findings are on public record. An embarassment to NCSE. Among other findings from a Congressional staff report: "Officials at the Smithsonian's National Museum of Natural History created a hostile work environment intended to force Dr. Sternberg to resign his position as a Research Associate in violation of his free speech and civil rights." And there are lots of subpoena E-mails between NMNH officials that demonstrate the strategy completely. You would not even need to do much research to dismantle the wikepedia smear. Just look at the way some things are stated. Like this take on Gonzalas: "Expelled portrays Gonzalez as a victim of religious discrimination and the Discovery Institute campaign asserts that his intelligent design writings should not have been considered in the review." If you know anything about the Discovery Institute you would know that they would never assert any such thing. They want ID writings to be considered. By everyone. They're not hiding them. Their "assertion" would be that intelligent design writings should not have been *the reason* for denial of tenure. I'm sure I could continue to expose wikipedia on this film, but it's work to unravel every deceptive intricasy in a web like this one. Depressing to. "Have you actually critically examined Sternberg's essay?" I didn't reference the Sternberg essay to argue the film. I referenced it specifically for the main body of it, which details how a brilliant scientist, indoctrinated in atheist/evolution dogma by academia, follows the evidence of his research to accept intelligent design as science. Since he doesn't claim that the Devil planted dinosaur bones to trick people away from God, I figured you may have never heard his perspective. "But a basic claim that a "documentary" makes that is provably false casts every single claim into doubt. The movie's claim that Sternberg *was* fired is total poppycock. Even Sternberg would agree with that." I've not seen this. I've seen the movie, but don't recall the claim that Sternberg was fired. I've noticed the point made, that the film makes the implication that Sternberg was fired. As one of the e-mails between NMNH officials suggested: "a face to face meeting or at least a 'you are welcome to leave or resign' call with this individual, is in order." (Dr. Rafael Lemaitre). But no direct firing. So I wouldn't say the proof is in on that.

Comment by Thom on An Analysis of the Arguments Presented in Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed

Mon, 19 May 2008 02:31:12 EDT

An excellent essay from one of the films alleged victims, gives some insight into what causes some reputable scientists to become disreputable. But why is this an "excellent essay" -- and the Wikipedia article is not? Remember, you just told us: goes a long way toward explaining your uncritical analysis of wikipedia's biased version of the films merit. Have you actually critically examined Sternberg's essay? What facts from the Wikipedia article are disputed by Sternberg's essay? What objective evidence does Sternberg provide to back up those claims? You must have missed that part of the discussion I had with Andy: I asked him, repeatedly, why he was giving all the rest of the discussion here a "pass" but would categorically paint the Wikipedia article as a poor source. You're doing exactly the same thing. Do you also give the claims that the movie made a pass? You do realize that the film has failed to provide any references for the claims that it made, right? One thing jumps out at me from the undocumented Sternberg article: he claims that he was "almost" fired from the NIH, but provides nothing to back that up. Why do you take that claim on face value? A belief is not intellectually disreputable because some of the people who hold it are. But a basic claim that a "documentary" makes that is provably false casts every single claim into doubt. The movie's claim that Sternberg *was* fired is total poppycock. Even Sternberg would agree with that.