More creationist lies and Expelled the Movie

There is alittle shit storm brewing in the science blog world.

You can start here: http://scienceblogs.c...

But I will attempt to summarize, you see:

Richard Dawkins, PZ Myers, and several other family member of Myers RSVP'd to go see a premiere of the expelled movie thats coming out. As they were waiting in line, someone pulled Myers aside and asked if his name was PZ Myers. He said yes and was promptly asked to leave as he wasn't invited to something you could publically ( freely ) rsvp for. He returned to his family to discuss with them when the theatre manager returned with the guard/cop ( unknown details ) and told him to leave immediately or be arrested.

He promptly complied.

Richard Dawkins and Myers family went on to watch the movie. Myers immediately went and blogged about the incident. Since that night a certain amount of 'spin' has come out of the expelled blogs/producers etc. It began with:

1. Myers was causing a disruption. Largely unfounded claim that contradicts with several other witnesses that were actually there.

it became

2. Myers didn't have a ticket. To an event you could freely and publically RSVP for. That both Myers family and Dawkins attended.

it moved on to

3. Myers wasn't invited. To an event you could freely and publically RSVP for. That both Myers family and Dawkins attended.

All of these claims were submitted in part by the very producer of the movie itself ( Kevin Miller ), his blog can be read here to confirm:

http://kevinwrites.ty...

Which he ignores/omits that you can publically and freely RSVP at the websited for expelled itself. The confirmation email says no tickets are required and you only need to present a photo ID.

Other bloggers that attended the same event verified PZ Myers tale:

http://amused-muse.bl...

Not to mention that you can RSVP to see movie premieres on the damn expelled website itself ( that they wree claiming you had to be privately invited to, who privately invited Dawkins and PZ Myers family if thats so? )

As he said on his blog, you can't buy publicity like this.

If this ends up on the news more people will see the movie regardless of how Ben Stein or Kevin Miller come off looking.

We should remember the all important goal of making this movie. To Make Money.

Even bad publicity is better than no publicity.

Hahahaahahahaahahahaahaah!

If there is a god, he sure isn't on the side of the 'expelled' movie makers.

http://scienceblogs.c...

This is too good for me to summarize.

http://skepchick.org/...

Follow up link including a audio recording of the interview.

http://skepchick.org/...

Lord, I ascribe it to Thy Grace,
And not to chance, as others do,
That I was born of Christian Race
And not a Heathen or a Jew.

"Praise for the Gospel" by Isaac Watts (originally published in Divine Songs Attempted in the Easy Language of Children)

*Christian Hymn For Children ( Pre-Darwin )

Something I'm working on:

Expelled is a movie that operates from a basis of misinformation both of science and history. The purpose of Expelled is not free speech or exposing a bias in science as it is attempting to form an emotional argument by associating atheism to evolution then evolution to the holocaust. It is purely hate speech directed and backed from primarily christian creationist who in attempting to avoid criticism similar to that that,"Coral Ridge Ministries" have picked up Ben Stein ( a jew ) as the host.

Unfortunately, Ben Stein is as uneducated in science as he is in history. We can draw a simple obvservation of this by analyzing his own blog post ( provided thats actually his post ):

http://expelledthemov...

From the blog:
Darwinism, the notion that the history of organisms was the story of the survival of the fittest and most hardy, and that organisms evolve because they are stronger and more dominant than others, is a perfect example of the age from which it came: the age of Imperialism.

Stein begins by falsely defining evolution in his association to none other then 'Imperialism', the ultimate point is to dismiss darwin and biological science in an emotional statement rather then a logical one. The first mistake is actually using the term 'Darwinism' as if biological scientist actually sit around in circles calling each other darwinist like physicist sit around in circles calling themselves Einsteinians/Newtonians etc. etc. The second mistake is the actual term association of first 'Survival of the fittest' then combing it with the qualifiers of "most hardy" and "organisms that evolve because they are stronger and more dominant than others". Noteable, survival of the fittest is not the same thing as survival of the strongest. A species is fit if its able to survive, its physical strength and dominance are really an aside to its ability to survive overall. If a species overall size and ferocity makes it a less likely example for survival, it will inevitably perish and be replaced by a smaller weaker and far more adaptable creature.

There is also a history lesson here of sorts that Ben Stein is also ignoring in that he uses the term,"Survival of the Fittest" in describing darwinian evolution but ignores that Darwin didn't actually coin the term. The term comes from Wallace Spencer, which Darwin later incorporated into another book. He had some reservations both on the use of natural selection and the use of survival of the fittest. ( and explained as much ) Survival of the 'strongest' wouldn't come about till far later and is more often in usage associated to social darwinism. That of course brings us to 'social darwinism' which isn't darwinism, which isn't evolution, which isn't biology. Infact, social darwinism wasn't even coined until 1944 ( Austin Sanchez ) which is after 10 years of the holocaust occuring and the rise of anti-semitism in germany. It is also the same year that D-Day occured.

Not to mention that Hitler's political power rose from his capitalization of already pre-existing anti-semitism. Much of his own rhetoric and the rhetoric expressed by his supporters came from religious based anti-semitism as well as age old classic myths associated with Jews. Such as jews being magically endowed in 'bringing money' to themselves. Infact, this myth was so pervasive that Japan attempted to bring jews to settle areas in China based on that rumor. Most of this material originated from,"The Protocols of the Elders of Zion" which embraced many of the religious based anti-semitic notions ( blood libel ) and medieval europe anti-semitic notions. It was circulated in Japan once they allied with Germany, but was never widely accepted. On a side note Japan actually has an early history of hiding and helping Jews escape from Poland/Germany/Russia.

http://en.wikipedia.o...
http://en.wikipedia.o...

So, before we even begin with Stein and expelled we discover that not only is he factually incorrect with addressing exactly how the terms involved are defined, but he is also historically missing the point as well. To make it worse Stein goes on in his own blog post to associate evolution to the holocaust and more through the 'age of imperialism'. Which only begs the question, why the fallacies? Why the dishonesty?

Simply because christian creationist can get a patsy that happens to be a jew doesn't change the ethical responsibilities of lying about both history and science. The ADL is likely waiting for the movie to come out after the 18th before they respond officially, but other jewish organizations have always condemned creationist nonsense as christian attempts to force their beliefs upon others ( and into public schools ).

Wasn't it Herbert Spencer who coined the term "Survivial Of The Fittest" ?

http://en.wikipedia.o...

Wasn't it Herbert Spencer who coined the term "Survivial Of The Fittest" ?

http://en.wikipedia.o...

That would be correct sir, edited and corrected. ( typing to fast )

Speaking of Spencer, when I was a teenager I read Jack London's "The Sea Wolf"
Wolf Larson (the Sea Wolf) has a line in there where he says "there is no god but the unknowable and Herbert Spencer is his prophet" That piqued my curiosity so I dug up Spencer's "First Principals" (written in 1862) and with a dictionary struggled through his metaphysical arguments of the unknowable.

That was the turning point when I realized Religion was a crock.
(I had been raised Catholic until then)
Hate to say it but that was a long long time ago.

But the arguments still hold up well and were a percursor to Dawkins and Harris. For that, Herb will always be special to me.

I havn't gone over Spencer in detail yet, I'm still browsing through Ernst Haeckel at the moment. I was getting sick of people claiming a link from darwin to hitler, so I decided to go look it up myself. So far, its been a long road of disingenuous associations, misquotations, and simple dishonesty.

A scientific model is no more a social ideology, then a social ideology is a scientific model. That being said, if we were really to believe the Darwin to Hitler link in combination with the holocaust it only begs the question,"What distinction was used to seperate the jews from their christian neighbors in the build up to the holocaust? ( or non-jews )"

Which leads us down the path of realizing that many jews were so racially inseperable from their protestant/roman catholic christian neighbors, that the only distinction was religious belief. Which only begs the question,"How do you use a social darwinism to annihilate not a race, but a belief system?"

"if there is a God, he's not on the movie's side"
.. to which their answer is "God is merely testing or faith" i.e. their normal answer when they "lose"
- then when something "lucky" happens, then that proves there is a God.

- guys check the episode where they PJMeyers actually gatecrashing the carefully staged media conference call http://www.theskeptic... episode 141

.. but aren't you US guys wasting a lot of time arguing with creationists, when the rest of the world pats the the head like innocent children ?