START A PETITION 25,136,189 members: the world's largest community for good
START A PETITION
x
Group Discussions
Those bastards!
5 years ago

The copy of the EXPELLED movie I posted from YouTube to here was removed because of a copyright claim by the makers of the movie! You can no longer see it for free.

I guess that tells us all the real motivation behind those charlatans. Either they really want you to pay to see their crap (which I'd consider an assault to human dignity)....or even they realize too many are laughing at it when they DO see it for free.

Part 4
5 years ago

So, with the help of Abbotsford screenwriter Kevin Miller, they made a more controversial film -- by splicing provocative black-and-white images in between Stein's punchy interviews with various scientists.

The final version of Expelled includes chilling reels of the Berlin Wall, of soldiers, of machine-guns, of scolding school principals and of extermination camps where "inferior" people, the disabled and Jews, were slaughtered.

Ruloff admitted the black-and-white footage pumped up the movie's emotional impact. And focus groups liked the combative tone about social Darwinism (loosely defined as "survival of the fittest"), which Ruloff said would increase the chances the documentary would reach a mass audience.

In an interview this summer with the National Post newspaper, Stein is quoted saying it was Ruloff who initially "got in touch with me and said he wanted to do something about Darwinism and how it leads to social Darwinism, which leads to Nazism and the Holocaust."

But Ruloff said it was actually Stein. Because of his Jewish heritage, Ruloff said, Stein came up with the idea of linking scientific Darwinism to the concentration camps. "It was always Ben Stein. He was fascinated with the underlying scenarios for mass-scale eugenics."

Whatever the case, Ruloff does not hide that he "absolutely" agrees with many points Expelled makes linking Darwinism to abortion and eugenics and death camps. Darwinism does so, he said, because it does not accept "the sanctity of life."

FILM ON COLLAPSING ECONOMY PLANNED

What's next for Ruloff?

"I'm taking a break," he said with a laugh. "The last three years have been crazy, crazy."

When I note he seemed weary, he insisted it was not from the negative reaction to Expelled, or about how it has failed to return the original financial investment that he and others put into it. There is always the hope of DVD sales, which he said are so far "pretty good."

Ruloff said he felt tired mainly from the non-stop travelling involved in getting the film made and promoted. "I have a young family and I'd rather be at home." As soon as our interview ended, he was going to "go putz around the house and do some e-mails and pick up my kids from school and hang around with them."

Despite his pleasant demeanour, Ruloff seems like the kind of guy who is always up for a good brawl for what he feels is the right cause. After selling his company, he now works on a project-by-project basis.

"When I get my strength back, I'm going on another crazy venture."

It will probably be another documentary, he said, featuring Stein. But it will be quite different. "It will be on the [collapsing] economy. We'll go under the covers and look at what really happened. We'll analyse the fraud aspect to it. That's not being talked about enough."

Part 3
5 years ago

'BERLIN WALL' DIVIDES SCIENCE, RELIGION

What Ruloff was willing to explain, however, was his strong feelings about how there is a "Berlin Wall" between science and religion.

He particularly sees the wall between the Judeo-Christian tradition and Darwin's theory of evolution, which many mainstream scientists interpret as denying the hand of any "intelligence" in shaping the universe.

Many critics have accused Expelled of being the latest salvo in the religious right's "culture wars." They maintain Expelled serves as an unofficial mouthpiece for Seattle's Discovery Institute, whose members figure prominently in the film.

The Discovery Institute is a large, conservative organization that champions ID and presses for it to be taught in public schools. Ruloff likes the "intelligent design crowd" at the Seattle think-tank because they "come out swinging" on political and educational fronts.

Even though proponents of ID say it is distinct from creationism, critics charge ID still upholds belief in the exclusiveness of a Biblical Supreme Being.

For his part, Ruloff accepts some aspects of Darwin's evolutionary theory. He generally agrees that "natural selection" is part of the evolutionary process. But he rejects the second major arm of Darwinian theory; that evolution occurs primarily through "random mutation."

As a result, Ruloff doesn't want to be known as an "evolutionary theist," as do many scientists who are Christian or Jewish. He calls himself an "adaptive theist."

When I suggested, along with the late American philosopher Charles Hartshorne, that the evolutionary process contains elements of both chance and purpose, Ruloff seemed to agree.

Since we didn't appear that far apart, I asked Ruloff what he thought of the work of other scientists and spiritual thinkers who have been promoting rapprochement between science and religion.

The most obvious is Sir John Templeton, the billionaire financier and Presbyterian who died this year. Templeton, who was an even wealthier man than Ruloff, took a subtler and, I suspect, more effective approach to the science-religion dialogue.

The founder of the Templeton mutual funds put some of his millions into offering awards and research grants that encouraged collaboration among leading thinkers who highlight the intersection between science and spirituality -- without necessarily advocating ID.

Recent recipients of the $1.9-million Templeton Prize for Progress Toward Research or Discoveries about Spiritual Realities have been cosmologist Michael Heller (who is also a Catholic priest), Canadian philosopher Charles Taylor, mathematician John Barrow, Nobel-Prize-winning physicist Charles Townes, mathematician George Ellis, environmental scientist Holmes Ralston and mathematical physicist John Polkinghorne (also an Anglican priest).

Some Templeton Prize winners are in the new book, Back to Darwin: A Richer Account of Evolution, edited by John B. Cobb Jr. They include Charles Birch, a microbiologist, and Ian Barbour, a physicist. The book argues that Darwin was a deist (a person who believes in a Supreme Being that does not intervene in the universe.) Therefore Back to Darwin maintains it is primarily neo-Darwinists who have aggressively shoved any hint of divinity out of evolutionary theory.

Ruloff, however, made it clear he wants to go much further than Templeton.

Ruloff negatively compared many Templeton Prize winners to the noted American geneticist Francis Collins, who is a Christian. Despite Collins publicly saying there are "elements of design" in the evolutionary process, Ruloff said Collins has not been nearly bold enough.

Ruloff repeated a charge that Collins, who rejects intelligent design as proposed by the Discovery Institute, "toes the line" and stays within the Darwinian camp because he continues to work for the National Institute of Health.

Collins, who would not participate in Expelled, has called such accusations "ludicrous." (I didn't know it at the time I talked with Ruloff, but I later discovered the Templeton Foundation in 2007 had criticized ID.)

Given the negative reaction to Expelled from many quarters, I asked Ruloff if he'd make any significant changes to it. He said no.

However, he did acknowledge he started out trying to make a less aggressive, more "scientific" movie.

The first version of Expelled leaned heavily on computer-generated images of cells, illustrating how their development relied on more than random mutation.

But alas, Ruloff said, "When we first watched that movie it was verrrrry boring."

Part 2
5 years ago

RAISED BY DEVOUT PARENTS

How did Ruloff, whose family loves attending a "quiet little church" on Bowen Island, first come up with the idea of making a documentary that would cause him to become a target of anger in secular, scientific and even some Christian circles?

It came in part out of Runoff's early years as a computer pioneer, raised in a devout church-going home.

He was "a software kid" who began "farting around" with software systems in the basement of the family house in Markham, Ont.

Even though he has taken only a few courses at post-secondary institutions, Ruloff eventually found himself designing "advanced logistics optimization algorithms."

They helped multinational companies "save hundreds of millions of dollars" distributing products around the globe. In 1998 he sold his company, Inter-Trans Logistics, to U.S. buyers for $160 million.

Along his high-tech way, Ruloff said he learned to challenge standard models of thinking. To be an innovator.

But he later met biotechnology researchers who told him they weren't allowed to "think outside the box" in science, especially on origin-of-life issues. They said it was forbidden to question the "atheistic materialism" that dominates science.

"You're supposed to question the current paradigm, the orthodoxies, of science. But we're not allowed to challenge the premises of so-called neo-Darwinism. It's crazy," Ruloff said.

He acknowledged in 2004 he became "just really excited" about censorship in the scientific community. "So I thought we need to do something: We could make a movie."

Ruloff spoke quickly and enthusiastically, as we shared French fries and drank cranberry juice in a rustic restaurant.

While taking a course at evangelical Regent College in Vancouver (foreground of photo), Ruloff met a like-minded American, John Sullivan.

Together they decided to help finance a film that would show that scientific closed-mindedness has led to proponents of intelligent design being "expelled" from the academy.

Proponents of intelligent design (ID) generally argue a divine intelligence has a hand in forming the universe, though arguments vary on how that's done. Some critics claim ID is a front for creationism.

But Ruloff emphasized he is not a creationist. He does not believe the Bible's Book of Genesis accurately describes God fashioning the universe in six days about 6,000 years ago. Instead, Ruloff said he believes in an "old Earth."

I told Ruloff I agreed with him on many issues, including that most science departments are extremely poor at metaphysics. Many scientists are brilliant researchers in their (often-narrow fields), but most are not adept at handling the philosophical implications associated with evolution.

Still, I asked Ruloff whether he thought Expelled might have done more harm than good for the cause of blending science and religion -- or of advancing ID, which Expelled never precisely defines.

Its harsh tone mocked and almost demonized opponents, especially the anti-religious scientist Richard Dawkins, author of The God Delusion.

The documentary also interviews several ID proponents who say they lost academic positions because of their views. However, defenders of the scientific community have countered that Expelled's claims of academic persecution are misleading, if not false.

Ruloff says the film is accomplishing its goals, nevertheless. "What we really wanted to do was give scientists more courage. Science is in such lockdown. The only way we can give scientists courage is if we deal with the issue head-on -- in kind of an American style."

Adopting what he admits is a "Texas showdown" approach, Ruloff says Expelled attacks the "process of hyper-political correctness in the academy. It's getting worse. We wanted to expose the hypocrisy and the inconsistencies."

RULOFF KEEPS HIS LIFE PRIVATE

Ruloff didn't at first give much away about himself in our talk. He's private about his financial life and his religiosity.

"I live on Bowen Island for a reason: I like the peace and quiet," he said.

He wouldn't say how much money he put into the movie or how much the producers paid Stein.

He wouldn't provide the names of his wife or children. He also wouldn't share much about his Christianity.

He acknowledged he and his wife went in the late 1980s and early 1990s to St. John's Shaughnessy Anglican Church in Vancouver, one of the biggest and most conservative Anglican congregations in Canada. Most of St. John's members voted in 2008 to leave the Anglican Church of Canada over some bishops' support of same-sex blessings.

But now Ruloff will say only that he attends a "non-denominational" church on Bowen Island, which he'd prefer not to name.

He is equally coy about citing a thinker or author he admires, particularly a spiritual or Christian one.

No Apologies Allowed: Producer defends anti-Darwin movie
5 years ago

LINK to this story

By Douglas Todd

It's hard to reconcile such a presentable, intelligent and Christian man with such an incendiary movie. Walt Ruloff, a 44-year-old Canadian high-tech mogul, was explaining why he came up with the idea to finance Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed.

He told the stories over lunch in a sun-filled restaurant on Bowen Island, where his family lives in a mansion once incorrectly reported to be the home of Hollywood actor Harrison Ford.

Ruloff readily admitted Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed provoked rage in many quarters when it was released across the continent this year. And he knows it will continue to rile some now that it's come out in DVD.

Despite the documentary's roots in Christianity, Ruloff explained how Expelled's front man became Jewish comedian-commentator Ben Stein, who was once Richard Nixon's speechwriter and is now a freelance conservative columnist for The New York Times.

In Expelled, Stein, with his trademark monotone, takes on the role of a Michael-Moore-like muckraker bent on exposing the allegedly closed minds of scientists who champion Charles Darwin's theory of evolution.

The documentary links such scientists to Nazis. The reaction was what one would expect.

"We wanted to generate anger," Ruloff said.

"We always knew we'd get extreme anger on the one side and extreme support on the other. We also think we got extreme interest in the middle."

Even though evangelical leaders such as Focus on the Family's James Dobson cheered Expelled for accusing the scientific establishment of shunning researchers who believe "intelligent design" is inherent in the universe; most film critics went ballistic after the documentary's April 18 release.

I believe there are some reasonable arguments in Expelled. But the documentary hits extremely hard with its message. It has caused bitter polarization.

Throughout our conversation, I probed Ruloff about whether Expelled did more harm than good for the cause of forging more creative links between science and spirituality.

For instance, the website Rotten Tomatoes, which tallies up movie reviews across North America, reported that only 10 per cent of reviewers ranked Expelled positively.

Rotten Tomatoes' "consensus" of critics' opinion on Expelled was that it is, "Full of patronizing, poorly structured arguments ... a cynical political stunt in the guise of a documentary."

That compares to the 83 per cent of all critics who rated positively Michael Moore's documentary, Fahrenheit 911.

The New York Times' film critic called Expelled "the sleaziest documentary of all time."

Jeannette Matsoukis wrote: "Blithely ignoring the vital distinction between social and scientific Darwinism, the film links evolution theory to fascism (as well as abortion, euthanasia and eugenics), shamelessly invoking the Holocaust with black-and-white film of Nazi gas chambers and mass graves."

Ruloff seemed to revel in being dismissed by the mainstream. Despite his financial wealth, he sees himself as a cultural outsider. On this idyllic island near Vancouver, where he and his family have lived for 13 years, Ruloff described the delight Expelled's filmmakers had in capitalizing on the hostile review in The New York Times and elsewhere.

They decided to turn the flood of criticism from the secular media into their ongoing marketing strategy for Expelled, basically urging viewers to come see the documentary the Times described as the "sleaziest," etcetera.

As a result of Expelled being painted as too politically incorrect for the liberal elite, Ruloff said the film has so far earned $8 million. Expelled's website claims it is the "number-one documentary of 2008."

Good news and bad news for Expelled
5 years ago

http://ncseweb.org/news/2009/01/good-news-bad-news-expelled-003598

As 2008 drew to a close, the good news for the producers of Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed was that their creationist propaganda movie was getting a bit of press again. The bad news is that it was in the lists of the worst movies of 2008. The Onion's A.V. Club (December 16, 2008), was quickest out of the gate, commenting, "There are terrible movies, and then there are terrible movies that cause harm to society by feeding into its ignorance. Nathan Frankowski's odious anti-evolution documentary belongs in the latter category. ... Few moments in cinema in 2008 were as shameless and disgusting as the Expelled sequence where Stein solemnly visits a Nazi death camp and unsubtly links 'survival of the fittest' theory to the Holocaust."

John Serba of the Grand Rapids Press (December 26, 2008) wrote, "Ben Stein hosts this pro-Intelligent Design documentary that forgets to include a compelling argument for this viewpoint, and instead chooses to equate Darwinism and its legions of rational scientist followers with Nazis and the Holocaust. Facts rooted in reality are at a premium in this insidious, crassly manipulative dreck." Roger Moore of the Orlando Sentinel (December 26, 2008) commented, "Ben Stein's documentary was a cynical attempt to sucker Christian conservatives into thinking they're losing the 'intelligent design' debate because of academic 'prejudice.'" Stephen Whitty of the Newark Star-Ledger (December 27, 2008) described Expelled as lifting "its nonsensical knowledge of early man from an Alley Oop comic and its sense of honest inquiry from a snake-handling preacher." In the LA City Beat (December 30, 2008), Andy Klein wrote, "Stein's 'intelligent design' documentary has all the red flags — inadequate or misleading identification of interviewees, aggressively manipulative editing, extraordinary claims without extraordinary evidence, and extreme leaps of logic ... particularly suggesting guilt by association, even to the point of laying blame for the Holocaust on Darwin." And Ken Hanke of the Ashville, North Carolina, Mountain Xpress (December 31, 2008) said that Expelled was "as corrupt a piece of work as you’ll ever encounter."

Expelled fared no better north of the border. Jay Stone of the Canwest News Service (December 26, 2008) described Expelled as "a masterwork of intellectual dishonesty." And Richard Crouse of Canada AM (December 30, 2008) commented, "Wrapping his thesis in good old American jingoistic rhetoric — remember this guy used to write speeches for Nixon — Stein repeatedly compares Darwinist scientists to communists by the suggestion that the only way they can get funding for research is to be good Darwinist 'comrades' and even makes the outrageous connection between Darwin's theory and Nazism." Crouse added, "Perhaps it isn't just a coincidence that the host's initials are B.S."

5 years ago

You watched the whole movie? You're a tougher person than me.  Why someone would think that people can watch a man with that monotonous voice espouse bunk for that long is beyond me.  I was able to watch the trailer for EXPELLED, and that was plenty long enough.  What an egregious test of your patience it must have been!

Part 15
5 years ago

620
01:34:47,600 --> 01:34:50,780
Sounds to me like we have that already,

621
01:34:50,820 --> 01:34:56,170
and you're fighting them!

622
01:35:44,570 --> 01:35:47,950
The more boldly and often someone makes a claim...

623
01:35:47,980 --> 01:35:52,930
the more suspicious you should be of it.

624
01:35:52,970 --> 01:35:56,870
So all of this pressing of the freedom issue...

625
01:35:56,910 --> 01:36:03,330
leads me to believe that they're
just using it as a smokescreen.

626
01:36:21,820 --> 01:36:25,480
Martyr complex, anyone?

627
01:36:25,480 --> 01:36:29,070
Ask PZ Myers about hate email.

628
01:36:40,790 --> 01:36:42,780
Richard Dawkins on the movie:

629
01:36:42,880 --> 01:36:49,770
"The whole tone of the film is
whiny, paranoid--pathetic really."

630
01:36:49,850 --> 01:36:53,940
"[This] film is positively
barking with Lord Privy Seals.

631
01:36:53,980 --> 01:36:59,620
"We get an otherwise pointless cut to Nikita
Krushchev hammering the table (to illustrate
something like 'emotional outburst').

632
01:36:59,650 --> 01:37:02,700
"There are similarly clunking and
artless cuts to a guillotine, fist fights,

633
01:37:02,701 --> 01:37:05,750
and above all to the Berlin wall and Nazi
gas chambers and concentration camps."

634
01:37:05,790 --> 01:37:10,610
"[T]here are two reasons why we need to
take Darwinian natural selection seriously.

635
01:37:10,640 --> 01:37:15,800
"Firstly, it is the most important element in the
explanation for our own existence and that of all life.

636
01:37:15,830 --> 01:37:20,240
"Secondly, natural selection is a good object
lesson in how NOT to organize a society.

637
01:37:20,280 --> 01:37:26,910
"As I have often said before, as a
scientist I am a passionate Darwinian.

638
01:37:26,950 --> 01:37:30,625
"But as a citizen and a human being,
I want to construct a society...

639
01:37:30,626 --> 01:37:34,300
which is about as un-Darwinian
as we can make it."

640
01:37:34,330 --> 01:37:38,690
--RichardDawkins.net, 23 March 2008

641
01:37:44,050 --> 01:37:47,430
Subtitles by Shane Killian

642
01:37:47,460 --> 01:37:50,880
See copyright notice at the front of these
subtitles.

643
01:37:50,920 --> 01:37:57,120
www.Bogosity.TV

Part 14
5 years ago

580
01:26:01,330 --> 01:26:07,230
Just ask Lynn Margulis.

581
01:26:15,110 --> 01:26:22,820
And they could come over to that side
of the wall any time they wanted to.

582
01:26:22,850 --> 01:26:30,210
That is, if the theory they come
up with passes its own tests.

583
01:26:30,250 --> 01:26:36,240
If there's any merit to the idea, it would work.

584
01:27:08,241 --> 01:27:17,592
One wonders what the point of these
long transitional sequences is.

585
01:30:43,140 --> 01:30:47,400
Dawkins on this next exchange:

586
01:30:47,430 --> 01:30:54,660
"Stein asked whether I could think of any
circumstances whatsoever under which
intelligent design might have occurred.

587
01:30:54,700 --> 01:31:03,300
"It's the kind of challenge I relish, and I set myself
the task of imagining the most plausible scenario I could.

588
01:31:03,340 --> 01:31:10,530
"I wanted to give ID its best shot,
however poor that best shot might be."

589
01:31:10,570 --> 01:31:17,220
"I patiently explained to him that life could
conceivably have been seeded on Earth by
an alien intelligence from another planet..."

590
01:31:17,260 --> 01:31:21,560
"The conclusion I was heading towards was
that, even in the highly unlikely event...

591
01:31:21,561 --> 01:31:25,860
that some such 'Directed Panspermia' was
responsible for designing life on this planet,

592
01:31:25,890 --> 01:31:32,030
"the alien beings would
THEMSELVES have to have evolved."

593
01:31:32,030 --> 01:31:35,630
--RichardDawkins.net, 23 March 2008

594
01:31:35,660 --> 01:31:39,210
This is the big unanswered
question of Intelligent Design:

595
01:31:39,250 --> 01:31:42,190
Who designed the designer?

596
01:31:42,220 --> 01:31:49,300
If we're so complex as to require a designer,
that designer must be complex as well.

597
01:31:49,340 --> 01:31:53,850
So the designer needs a designer,

598
01:31:53,880 --> 01:31:58,320
and you end up in an infinite regress.

599
01:32:25,000 --> 01:32:28,800
The rational atheist conclusion
for the nonexistence of God...

600
01:32:28,840 --> 01:32:33,660
is an expression of the scientific
principle of the Null Hypothesis.

601
01:32:33,700 --> 01:32:41,790
In science, when you posit the existence of
something, you begin by assuming it doesn't exist.

602
01:32:41,820 --> 01:32:48,530
You then test for its existence
against the Null Hypothesis.

603
01:32:48,560 --> 01:32:53,440
If the test fails, the Null Hypothesis wins.

604
01:32:53,480 --> 01:32:56,910
It doesn't mean that the thing doesn't exist,

605
01:32:56,940 --> 01:33:01,820
but it hasn't been shown to exist,

606
01:33:01,860 --> 01:33:07,500
and therefore can be given no more
consideration than the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

607
01:33:16,200 --> 01:33:21,230
What if science did find God?

608
01:33:21,260 --> 01:33:26,240
Then it is the rational atheists like Dawkins...

609
01:33:26,280 --> 01:33:31,530
who would be best able to study him.

610
01:33:31,560 --> 01:33:36,200
They would be able to examine him without bias.

611
01:33:36,230 --> 01:33:42,250
But a religious person would see it as
a vindication of all they believed in.

612
01:33:42,290 --> 01:33:48,670
It would confirm every dogma and
every preconceived notion they held.

613
01:33:48,700 --> 01:33:55,740
They would be in a position of having
to shirk off all of that bias...

614
01:33:55,780 --> 01:34:03,550
if the God we find is even slightly
different to the one they believe in...

615
01:34:03,580 --> 01:34:08,270
as he almost certainly would be.

616
01:34:24,560 --> 01:34:28,210
There is absolutely no evidence of this.

617
01:34:28,210 --> 01:34:32,210
None of their claims of
ostracism stood up to scrutiny.

618
01:34:34,980 --> 01:34:39,340
Including all of these shots
about Communism and Nazism...

619
01:34:39,370 --> 01:34:44,270
is nothing but a Poisoning the Well fallacy.

Part 13
5 years ago

534
01:18:32,460 --> 01:18:36,920
This part is not even a complete sentence.

535
01:18:36,950 --> 01:18:46,240
The full sentence reads, "It is surprising how
soon a want of care, or care wrongly directed,
leads to the degeneration of a domestic race;

536
01:18:46,270 --> 01:18:53,070
"but excepting in the case of man himself, hardly anyone
is so ignorant as to allow his worst animals to breed."

537
01:18:53,070 --> 01:19:00,530
The omitted phrases show the passage to be
the opposite of what Stein makes it out to be.

538
01:19:00,530 --> 01:19:04,180
From Voyage of the Beagle:

539
01:19:04,210 --> 01:19:12,890
"[I]f the misery of our poor be caused not by the laws
of nature, but by our institutions, great is our sin..."

540
01:19:12,920 --> 01:19:21,340
"And these deeds are done and palliated by men,
who profess to love their neighbours as themselves,

541
01:19:21,380 --> 01:19:28,080
"who believe in God, and pray
that his Will be done on earth!

542
01:19:28,110 --> 01:19:36,210
"It makes one's blood boil, yet heart tremble,
to think that we...have been and are so guilty:

543
01:19:36,240 --> 01:19:48,440
"but it is a consolation to reflect, that we at
least have made a greater sacrifice, than ever
made by any nation, to expiate our sin."

544
01:20:41,350 --> 01:20:46,330
As we've seen, they're grossly
misrepresenting what's going on.

545
01:20:46,370 --> 01:20:52,430
None of their cases have turned
out to be what they said they were.

546
01:20:52,460 --> 01:20:59,020
They have not provided any
actual evidence of persecution.

547
01:20:59,020 --> 01:21:05,130
Intelligent Design is absolutely
free to participate in science...

548
01:21:05,170 --> 01:21:10,750
as long as they conform to the scientific
method and produce a viable theory.

549
01:21:10,790 --> 01:21:14,360
As long as they keep saying things
that have been falsified decades ago,

550
01:21:14,400 --> 01:21:18,290
they'll continue to be shunned.

551
01:21:18,330 --> 01:21:21,830
That's as it should be.

552
01:21:21,830 --> 01:21:25,720
Here's a Jefferson quote for you:

553
01:21:25,760 --> 01:21:31,330
"Question with boldness
even the existence of a God;

554
01:21:31,370 --> 01:21:35,180
"because, if there be one,

555
01:21:35,220 --> 01:21:40,900
"he must more approve the homage of reason

556
01:21:40,940 --> 01:21:45,840
"than that of blind-folded fear."

557
01:21:50,350 --> 01:21:54,030
Again, none of these scientists were "expelled."

558
01:22:06,740 --> 01:22:10,600
Dr. Scott's reply:

559
01:22:10,630 --> 01:22:16,540
"Who is Ben Stein to say what
is science and not science?

560
01:22:16,580 --> 01:22:20,650
"None of us speak for science.

561
01:22:20,680 --> 01:22:27,650
"Scientists vary all over the map in
their religious and philosophical views,

562
01:22:27,690 --> 01:22:32,780
"for example, Francis Collins,
so no one can speak for science."

563
01:22:32,780 --> 01:22:37,550
--from eSkeptic, 17 April 2008

564
01:22:41,440 --> 01:22:44,570
Again, that isn't what happened.

565
01:22:52,160 --> 01:22:56,980
Remember that it was a non-tenure track contract.

566
01:23:03,270 --> 01:23:08,970
Again, these renewals are denied all
the time for reasons of class demand.

567
01:23:20,730 --> 01:23:27,120
Because it didn't.

568
01:23:27,150 --> 01:23:34,870
It had to do with him misrepresenting a University
connection with a nonexistent laboratory.

569
01:23:34,900 --> 01:23:39,190
They were willing to allow
him to keep the web site,

570
01:23:39,220 --> 01:23:44,420
as long as he removed the word
"laboratory" and included a disclaimer.

571
01:23:44,460 --> 01:23:50,490
Marks refused, and the web site was
moved to an external hosting provider.

572
01:23:50,490 --> 01:23:55,400
The site could have been about basket weaving
and the same thing would have happened.

573
01:24:16,020 --> 01:24:21,450
Notice how these are short
quotes devoid of context.

574
01:24:59,060 --> 01:25:03,500
I've got a few new candidates
for the epithet "idiot," myself.

575
01:25:39,480 --> 01:25:43,510
Again, there is one way they could do this:

576
01:25:43,550 --> 01:25:46,990
Come up with a coherent theory.

577
01:25:46,990 --> 01:25:51,110
Put in the work to confirm its predictions.

578
01:25:51,140 --> 01:25:56,480
Make it correspond with
existing scientific knowledge.

579
01:25:56,520 --> 01:26:01,300
It can be done.

Part 12
5 years ago

489
01:12:34,440 --> 01:12:38,160
20,000 of those were
sterilized in California alone.

490
01:12:38,190 --> 01:12:40,780
All total, 33 states had a Eugenics program.

491
01:12:40,810 --> 01:12:44,650
Oregon was the last. It repealed
its forced sterilization law in 1983.

492
01:12:44,690 --> 01:12:48,270
The last forced sterilization
in the United States was 1978.

493
01:12:48,270 --> 01:12:52,380
Planned Parenthood is in no way eugenics.

494
01:12:52,410 --> 01:12:56,910
It's about people on their own
deciding when to have children.

495
01:12:56,950 --> 01:13:00,890
Eugenics is imposed through intervention.

496
01:13:00,890 --> 01:13:06,470
Birth control was and is seen as a
benefit to the poor so they don't have
to worry about more mouths to feed.

497
01:13:06,470 --> 01:13:11,970
One of the biggest proponents of eugenics
among American scientists was William Shockley.

498
01:13:12,010 --> 01:13:16,640
He was in favor of sterilizations based on low IQ.

499
01:13:16,680 --> 01:13:21,710
As one of the inventors of the transistor,
which won him and two others a Nobel Prize,

500
01:13:21,740 --> 01:13:25,190
he should have been highly
regarded among scientists.

501
01:13:25,220 --> 01:13:31,350
But, contrary to the idea you'd get from watching this
movie, his fellow scientists considered him a kook.

502
01:13:31,390 --> 01:13:34,950
They considered his eugenics ideas bigoted
and unworthy of a respected scientist.

503
01:13:34,960 --> 01:13:38,950
One British victim of forced
sterilization was Alan Turing.

504
01:13:38,950 --> 01:13:43,370
Turing is considered the father
of modern computer science.

505
01:13:43,400 --> 01:13:48,140
His Turing Test revolutionized the
field of Artificial Intelligence.

506
01:13:48,180 --> 01:13:55,550
Turing was homosexual, which in the UK at the time
was both illegal and considered a mental illness.

507
01:13:55,580 --> 01:14:02,780
When it came out, Turing was charged under
the same law Oscar Wilde had been convicted
of more than fifty years earlier.

508
01:14:02,810 --> 01:14:09,460
He was sentenced to chemical castration
and had to receive forced injections.

509
01:14:09,500 --> 01:14:15,050
In 1954, he was found dead of cyanide poisoning.

510
01:14:15,090 --> 01:14:21,070
It is believed to be a suicide,
but details are ambiguous.

511
01:14:25,980 --> 01:14:33,580
German historian Andrew Zimmerman said that
Weikart "distorts the history of Darwinism
and anti-Darwinism in Germany...

512
01:14:33,620 --> 01:14:39,270
"in ways that reflect theocratic agendas
in present-day American politics."

513
01:14:39,310 --> 01:14:44,880
Ann Taylor Allen, professor of
German history, said of the book:

514
01:14:44,910 --> 01:14:55,150
"This picture of the Holocaust as the outcome
of a 'culture war' between religion and science
leads to serious distortions on both sides."

515
01:14:55,180 --> 01:14:59,540
"If all these ideas were to fall
into well-deserved obsolescence,

516
01:14:59,570 --> 01:15:07,640
"this would in no way detract from the validity of
Darwin's contributions to modern biological science.

517
01:15:07,680 --> 01:15:16,200
"Neither religion nor science is well served by
this oversimplified view of their complex history."

518
01:15:28,420 --> 01:15:35,620
One could easily ask the same question
about religion, even Christianity...

519
01:15:35,660 --> 01:15:40,930
and with a much greater degree of justification.

520
01:15:40,930 --> 01:15:45,570
Crusades, inquisitions, witch hunts,
and other forms of mass murder...

521
01:15:45,610 --> 01:15:51,080
all had their direct and unmistakable
justifications in the Bible.

522
01:15:51,110 --> 01:15:58,040
There are no such justifications for
genocide anywhere in Darwin's writings.

523
01:15:58,080 --> 01:16:04,110
In Voyage of the Beagle, Darwin expressed the
love he held for people all over the globe,

524
01:16:04,140 --> 01:16:09,420
and clearly expressed his
extreme hatred of slavery.

525
01:16:09,460 --> 01:16:15,840
In Descent of Man, he lamented
the British imperialism...

526
01:16:15,880 --> 01:16:22,370
which had resulted in the
extermination of several native peoples.

527
01:16:38,390 --> 01:16:45,530
It is an "elite" only in the sense that
some people know more about it than others.

528
01:17:24,370 --> 01:17:28,850
Another difference between
Darwinism and eugenics...

529
01:17:28,890 --> 01:17:36,880
is that eugenics seeks to reduce the
diversity of inherited characteristics.

530
01:17:36,920 --> 01:17:45,180
Darwinism works best when that diversity
is enhanced and added to, not culled.

531
01:18:08,490 --> 01:18:12,490
This is quoted out of context.

532
01:18:12,490 --> 01:18:17,670
Several key phrases were
eliminated from the middle.

533
01:18:17,670 --> 01:18:22,770
A more complete version of the quote
was given earlier in these subtitles.

Part 11
5 years ago

444
01:06:26,160 --> 01:06:31,690
What he doesn't tell you is, in Mein Kampf
Hitler made numerous references to God.

445
01:06:31,730 --> 01:06:37,550
Hitler thought he was doing God's holy work.

446
01:06:37,580 --> 01:06:44,830
Hitler was a Christian who heavily
criticized the rest of Christendom for
letting the Jews live so long.

447
01:06:44,830 --> 01:06:49,610
In fact, Hitler's beliefs were
diametrically opposite to Darwin's.

448
01:06:49,640 --> 01:06:54,320
Hitler believed that the
Aryans were the supreme race.

449
01:06:54,360 --> 01:07:01,030
His extermination of millions of Jews was
nothing fundamentally different from what
dog breeders had been doing for millenia.

450
01:07:01,060 --> 01:07:06,870
It's artificial selection. It way predates Darwin.

451
01:07:06,900 --> 01:07:12,850
What Darwin did was look at this process
of selection and apply it to nature.

452
01:07:12,880 --> 01:07:21,010
He realized that nature undergoes a selection
process, not goal-oriented like artificial selection,

453
01:07:21,050 --> 01:07:25,630
and not intelligently directed,

454
01:07:25,670 --> 01:07:33,860
but it goes through a natural process of
selecting the forms that are best able to survive.

455
01:07:33,900 --> 01:07:43,170
If Hitler had really been a Darwinist,
he would have done absolutely nothing.

456
01:07:43,200 --> 01:07:51,300
He would have believed that natural
selection would kill off the Jews.

457
01:07:51,330 --> 01:08:03,890
Instead, he took a decidedly anti-Darwinian course
of action and took matters into his own hands.

458
01:08:03,890 --> 01:08:10,110
Killing off the sick or the
handicapped is not at all Darwinian.

459
01:08:10,140 --> 01:08:20,130
In fact, our ability to care for our sick and equip
our handicapped increases our survival potential.

460
01:08:20,130 --> 01:08:24,200
Hitler used Darwin to try to give
his ideas some false legitimacy.

461
01:08:24,230 --> 01:08:29,570
But he actually did what Stein
accused the scientists of earlier:

462
01:08:29,610 --> 01:08:33,960
Coming up with a world-view first
and then looking around for support.

463
01:08:34,000 --> 01:08:39,800
The result wasn't Darwinian at all.

464
01:08:39,830 --> 01:08:45,100
Charles Darwin, from The Descent of Man:

465
01:08:45,140 --> 01:08:51,980
"With savages, the weak in body or mind are
soon eliminated; and those that survive
commonly exhibit a vigorous state of health.

466
01:08:52,010 --> 01:08:58,860
"We civilized men, on the other hand, do our
utmost to check the process of elimination;

467
01:08:58,900 --> 01:09:06,560
"we build asylums for the imbecile, the
maimed, and the sick; we institute poor-laws;

468
01:09:06,590 --> 01:09:15,320
"and our medical men exert their utmost skill to
save the life of every one to the last moment."

469
01:09:15,330 --> 01:09:19,280
Eugenics began not with
Darwin, but Herbert Spencer.

470
01:09:19,310 --> 01:09:27,930
This misnamed "Social Darwinism" was put forth by
Spencer before Darwin published Origin of Species.

471
01:09:27,960 --> 01:09:33,750
It is from this, not Darwin, that we
get the phrase "survival of the fittest."

472
01:09:33,780 --> 01:09:41,880
Even after Origin was published,
Spencer was not a Darwinist.

473
01:09:41,920 --> 01:09:48,130
Darwin did not equate evolution
with upwardly-mobile progress.

474
01:09:48,170 --> 01:09:53,250
Spencer stuck with Lamarckian evolution.

475
01:09:53,290 --> 01:10:00,610
Spencer believed that humanitarian interests
should not be used to interfere with nature's laws,

476
01:10:00,650 --> 01:10:08,250
whereas Darwin considered these humanitarian
interests a part of the evolutionary
survival of humans.

477
01:11:07,000 --> 01:11:15,120
No, they weren't.

478
01:11:15,150 --> 01:11:21,500
We've already discussed how their program
was not Darwinism in any way, shape, or form.

479
01:11:21,530 --> 01:11:26,720
In fact, it's the diametric opposite.

480
01:11:41,270 --> 01:11:44,570
Names, please?

481
01:11:51,840 --> 01:11:54,330
Can we have their names?

482
01:11:56,310 --> 01:11:59,150
Guess not.

483
01:12:06,890 --> 01:12:13,020
Eugenics is based on Lamarckian,
not Darwinian, evolution.

484
01:12:13,030 --> 01:12:18,030
Lamarckism is progressive, and acquired
fortunes or detriments are passed on to the
next generation.

485
01:12:18,030 --> 01:12:22,640
Darwinism lacks the perfect equilibrium
that Lamarckian eugenics seeks.

486
01:12:22,640 --> 01:12:25,990
The American Eugenics program had
nothing to do with Darwinism, either.

487
01:12:26,020 --> 01:12:29,430
It wasn't even much like Spencer's eugenics,

488
01:12:29,470 --> 01:12:34,440
although it was a lot
closer than Hitler's version.

Part 10
5 years ago

403
00:59:01,680 --> 00:59:09,220
It was found by P.S. de Laplace, who took on
the challenge and developed Perturbation Theory.

404
00:59:09,260 --> 00:59:14,680
Newton had God as a crutch, so he
didn't put the work into explaining it.

405
00:59:14,710 --> 00:59:19,910
But as Laplace said to Napoleon,
he had "no need of that hypothesis."

406
00:59:19,950 --> 00:59:25,990
The true answer was delayed a hundred
years, because of a belief in God.

407
00:59:30,420 --> 00:59:35,730
Is it just me, or are you really wanting him
to interview some guy named "Bueller"?

408
00:59:57,790 --> 01:00:02,860
Actually, many scientists consider
evolution to be a designer.

409
01:00:02,860 --> 01:00:10,500
It's not a top-down intelligent designer,
but it is a bottom-up tinkering designer.

410
01:00:10,540 --> 01:00:23,610
Recently, NASA used evolutionary algorithms
based on mutation and natural selection to
design an antenna for the International
Space Station.

411
01:00:23,640 --> 01:00:31,510
A lot of work has been done on evolutionary
algorithms, including by my friend Lee Graham.

412
01:00:31,550 --> 01:00:37,900
You can see the results of
his work at StellarAlchemy.com.

413
01:00:37,940 --> 01:00:42,130
Some scientists disagree, in
particular Richard Dawkins.

414
01:00:42,130 --> 01:00:47,840
He prefers to call evolutionarily-
designed objects "designoid."

415
01:00:47,870 --> 01:00:54,250
It all depends on whether you think a
design must be directed from the top down.

416
01:00:54,280 --> 01:01:01,360
But really, all you're arguing
there is the definition of "design."

417
01:01:01,400 --> 01:01:07,350
The fact that objects designed from the
bottom up can look like they were designed
by a top-down designer...

418
01:01:07,390 --> 01:01:15,730
is the crux of the false
assumption the ID people make.

419
01:01:44,440 --> 01:01:49,600
There's certainly no indication his words are
typical of the beliefs of scientists or atheists.

420
01:01:49,600 --> 01:01:58,840
Dr. William B. Provine is still alive and teaching
evolution and biology at Cornell University.

421
01:01:58,840 --> 01:02:04,450
There is no scientific consensus
that evolution precludes free will.

422
01:02:04,490 --> 01:02:12,410
In fact, some scientists think that quantum
mechanics may allow free will to exist with
a perfectly natural explanation.

423
01:02:19,030 --> 01:02:27,780
PZ Myers, as you recall, was misled into
thinking this movie was about the
intersection of science and religion.

424
01:02:55,350 --> 01:03:02,040
The interesting thing here is that Stein
is not criticizing them for taking an
unscientific position about God.

425
01:03:02,080 --> 01:03:07,920
He is criticizing them for allowing evolution
to take away the gap where their God existed.

426
01:03:07,960 --> 01:03:12,430
This is another problem with
creationism/ID: the God of the Gaps.

427
01:03:12,460 --> 01:03:18,810
"Irreducible complexity" is a perfect
example of the God of the Gaps.

428
01:03:18,840 --> 01:03:24,910
It says, in essence, "I don't understand
how this could have come about naturally,

429
01:03:24,940 --> 01:03:29,460
therefore, God must have done it."

430
01:03:29,500 --> 01:03:35,900
Of course, the fact that an explanation isn't
known doesn't mean that one doesn't exist.

431
01:03:35,940 --> 01:03:46,800
The underlying implication here is that the person
holding to the God of the Gaps must know
absolutely everything about the natural world.

432
01:03:46,840 --> 01:03:52,180
Talk about hubris!

433
01:04:16,954 --> 01:04:22,744
Again, remember that PZ was misled
as to the subject of the film.

434
01:04:22,779 --> 01:04:29,733
He was told it was about "the
intersection of science and religion."

435
01:05:00,560 --> 01:05:05,190
He didn't say utopia, Ben. Don't use hyperbole.

436
01:05:14,430 --> 01:05:24,510
Here, Stein reproduces the fallacy that atheism
was responsible for totalitarian regimes.

437
01:05:24,510 --> 01:05:32,230
The truth is, these regimes were as dogmatic
as religion is, albeit in different ways.

438
01:05:32,240 --> 01:05:37,660
Stalin's disbelief in God didn't have anything
more do do with his murderous policies...

439
01:05:37,700 --> 01:05:43,140
than his disbelief in Leprechauns.

440
01:06:06,750 --> 01:06:10,380
This is absolutely untrue.

441
01:06:10,390 --> 01:06:14,930
Hitler wrote about extermination of the Jews.

442
01:06:14,960 --> 01:06:20,920
That idea had been around for
centuries before Darwin came along.

443
01:06:20,960 --> 01:06:26,120
The only difference is, Hitler had the
technology to do it on a massive scale.

Part 9
5 years ago

359
00:51:58,390 --> 00:52:06,680
only the fact that creationists and ID proponents
have tried to bypass the scientific method...

360
00:52:06,680 --> 00:52:15,180
by getting their ideas straight into
the classroom without scientific review.

361
00:52:15,180 --> 00:52:20,280
The judge in the Dover trial was John Jones.

362
00:52:20,280 --> 00:52:26,410
Jones is a conservative
judge and a Bush appointee.

363
00:52:26,410 --> 00:52:33,030
Before the trial, the Discovery Institute lauded Jones
and expressed hope that he would rule on their side.

364
00:52:33,030 --> 00:52:43,790
When he didn't, they suddenly changed their
opinion and labelled him a liberal activist judge.

365
00:52:43,790 --> 00:52:48,130
Now, why has Benny-boy gone to Poland?

366
00:52:48,130 --> 00:52:52,630
If this is just an American phenomenon...

367
00:52:52,630 --> 00:52:58,950
why not go to Canada, or the UK,
or France, or Germany, or Sweden...

368
00:52:58,950 --> 00:53:05,240
or even Norway or Denmark?

369
00:53:05,240 --> 00:53:08,040
Why Poland?

370
00:53:08,140 --> 00:53:11,620
Cherry-picking, maybe?

371
00:53:11,720 --> 00:53:19,980
This is a non-point; Clarence Darrow
wanted a guilty verdict in the Scopes trial.

372
00:53:19,980 --> 00:53:26,880
The reason was so that he could
appeal and get the law overturned.

373
00:53:26,880 --> 00:53:31,870
Only an appellate court can overturn the law.

374
00:53:31,870 --> 00:53:38,120
In reality, the guilty verdict was
overturned on a technicality.

375
00:53:38,120 --> 00:53:43,010
The Tennessee legislature repealed the law.

376
00:53:43,110 --> 00:53:49,850
There is no way in which the evolution
side could be said to have lost.

377
00:54:16,780 --> 00:54:21,540
Only because certain religious
people have turned it into one.

378
00:54:36,720 --> 00:54:40,530
Remember that these scientists were
lied to about the movie's subject.

379
00:54:40,630 --> 00:54:45,520
There is a difference between stamping
out ID and stamping out religion.

380
00:55:27,950 --> 00:55:33,290
Professor Dawkins, in his
response to The Dawkins Delusion:

381
00:55:33,300 --> 00:55:38,300
"I never tire of emphasising how much we don't
know. The God Delusion ends in just such a theme."

382
00:55:38,300 --> 00:55:44,380
"But whereas I and other scientists
are humble enough to say we don't know,
what of theologians like McGrath?"

383
00:55:44,410 --> 00:55:46,580
"Christian doctrine is remarkably specific:

384
00:55:46,581 --> 00:55:50,920
not only with cut-and-dried answers to
the deep problems of the universe and life,

385
00:55:50,960 --> 00:55:57,950
"but about the divinity of Jesus,
about sin and redemption, heaven and
hell, prayer and absolute morality.

386
00:55:57,990 --> 00:56:07,610
"And yet McGrath has the almighty gall to
accuse me of a 'glossy,' 'quick fix,' naive faith
that science has all the answers."

387
00:56:07,640 --> 00:56:13,730
"Is McGrath an 'ideological fanatic' because he
doesn't believe in Thor's hammer? Of course not.

388
00:56:13,770 --> 00:56:20,720
"Why, then, does he suggest I am exactly that because
I see no reason to believe in the particular God...

389
00:56:20,750 --> 00:56:29,540
"whose existence he, lacking both
evidence and humility, positively asserts?"

390
00:56:29,540 --> 00:56:36,200
Published in The Times Online, 12 February 2007.

391
00:56:56,680 --> 00:57:04,610
Ridiculous. You don't even get complete consensus
among scientists about issues in their field.

392
00:57:04,610 --> 00:57:12,280
There's no more a scientific war on religion than
there is a scientific war on Republicans vs. Democrats,

393
00:57:12,310 --> 00:57:18,370
or meat eaters vs. vegetarians.

394
00:57:27,090 --> 00:57:30,050
Who's saying that?

395
00:57:30,090 --> 00:57:35,070
Certainly not Dawkins, as we just saw.

396
00:57:35,070 --> 00:57:41,180
In fact, he has stated that his certainty
about God's non-existence is "six out of seven."

397
00:57:54,680 --> 00:58:00,190
Of course, he gives absolutely
no support for this, that we see.

398
00:58:35,230 --> 00:58:39,650
Isaac Newton's belief in God got in the
way of his science on at least one occasion.

399
00:58:39,660 --> 00:58:45,840
He had trouble modelling the solar system because
of the minute tugs of the planets on each other.

400
00:58:45,870 --> 00:58:52,160
He attributed the stability of the solar
system to "the counsel and dominion
of an intelligent and powerful Being."

401
00:58:52,200 --> 00:58:55,660
In other words, God did it.

402
00:58:55,700 --> 00:59:01,640
It took another century
for the answer to be found.

Part 8
5 years ago

313
00:45:12,410 --> 00:45:17,930
In truth, a good way to get grant money and
scientific respect is to question a paradigm.

314
00:45:17,930 --> 00:45:22,110
If you have a viable theory, that is.

315
00:45:32,110 --> 00:45:36,260
They aren't "afraid of free speech," Ben.

316
00:45:36,260 --> 00:45:43,560
They don't like science being misrepresented.

317
00:45:43,560 --> 00:45:48,390
Close scrutiny of theories is
the modus operandi of science,

318
00:45:48,390 --> 00:45:53,530
but they would like you to
believe that it's never allowed...

319
00:45:53,530 --> 00:45:59,240
so that they can give their
claims an air of legitimacy.

320
00:45:59,240 --> 00:46:06,490
Otherwise, it would be completely obvious to
everybody that they have absolutely nothing to offer.

321
00:46:28,583 --> 00:46:32,438
Note that Stein keeps using the word "gospel"

322
00:46:32,473 --> 00:46:38,364
to dishonestly imply that
Evolution is a religious belief.

323
00:46:45,030 --> 00:46:59,000
NCSE's web site: www.ncseweb.org

324
00:47:25,850 --> 00:47:32,020
Yes, she is, Ben. She has
the data to back it up.

325
00:47:32,020 --> 00:47:38,450
Whereas ol' Benny hasn't presented
any data at all to back up his claims.

326
00:47:38,450 --> 00:47:48,290
Are you beginning to see why the producers
of this movie thought it would be
"confusing" to interview a Christian
evolutionist?

327
00:47:55,350 --> 00:48:02,080
Remember that Dawkins's remarks
are entirely out-of-context.

328
00:48:09,700 --> 00:48:14,780
Yes, Ben, because as mentioned
before many scientists do it.

329
00:48:14,780 --> 00:48:18,040
Evolution does not preclude a creator.

330
00:48:18,040 --> 00:48:22,840
Nothing in science precludes a creator.

331
00:48:22,840 --> 00:48:26,880
But nothing in science
points to a creator, either.

332
00:48:26,880 --> 00:48:34,460
So the default position of science is that a
creator is like every other unsubstantiated idea...

333
00:48:34,460 --> 00:48:41,550
including fairies, mermaids,
and the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

334
00:48:41,550 --> 00:48:47,030
As Dr. Shermer pointed out earlier, it's in a different
class to things that have been outright falsified.

335
00:48:47,030 --> 00:48:54,480
Creationists and ID proponents take the
falsification science has done of their ideas...

336
00:48:54,490 --> 00:49:00,910
and make it look like a falsification
of God when it really isn't,

337
00:49:00,910 --> 00:49:10,910
Professor Dawkins's opinion notwithstanding.

338
00:49:26,330 --> 00:49:30,650
Because it isn't in any way an even debate.

339
00:49:30,650 --> 00:49:38,700
Come up with a coherent theory that is
testable, falsifiable, and conforms to the
Correspondence Principle...

340
00:49:38,710 --> 00:49:47,110
and then it'll be an even debate.

341
00:50:05,880 --> 00:50:11,080
Maybe because that's what you guys
have been saying for ten years?

342
00:50:11,080 --> 00:50:18,170
This argument has been made by Michael Behe and
others in the case of irreducible complexity,

343
00:50:18,170 --> 00:50:23,480
and by Dembski and others in
the case of specified complexity.

344
00:50:27,780 --> 00:50:33,580
Sure, if you call journalistic integrity "pressure."

345
00:50:37,220 --> 00:50:43,380
Winnick has been using ID talking points in her
articles for the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette since 2000.

346
00:50:43,380 --> 00:50:50,300
In 2001, she interviewed Michael Behe and was
panned because she only used softball questions.

347
00:50:50,300 --> 00:50:56,990
When she reviewed PBS's Evolution series, she said that
ID "began about a decade ago when serious scientists--

348
00:50:56,991 --> 00:51:03,680
many with doctorates from prestigious universities--
began to tackle evolution on scientific grounds."

349
00:51:03,680 --> 00:51:08,800
How this is not taking sides is a mystery
only resolved in Stein's imagination.

350
00:51:08,800 --> 00:51:12,790
Even so, she was never
punished or blacklisted.

351
00:51:12,790 --> 00:51:16,500
In fact, she still writes
articles for the Post-Gazette...

352
00:51:16,500 --> 00:51:21,090
including a blatantly anti-evolution
piece published in 2005.

353
00:51:21,090 --> 00:51:28,570
She has also written articles for the
Weekly Standard and the Wall Street Journal.

354
00:51:28,570 --> 00:51:32,850
Funny sort of blacklist, this.

355
00:51:32,850 --> 00:51:40,420
She also published a book in 2005 entitled, "A
Jealous God: Science's Crusade Against Religion."

356
00:51:40,420 --> 00:51:47,080
The accusation that she was "finished
as a journalist" is ridiculous,

357
00:51:47,080 --> 00:51:52,540
and the accusation that she
was unbiased is laughable.

358
00:51:52,540 --> 00:51:58,390
The court cases, of course, have nothing to do
with the ordinary controversies of science...

Part 7
5 years ago

270
00:39:24,220 --> 00:39:29,050
It wouldn't have even been its
single-stranded counterpart, RNA.

271
00:39:29,050 --> 00:39:33,950
There are much more basic
versions of the molecule...

272
00:39:33,950 --> 00:39:39,650
which, over time, would have been
selected for the ones that work best.

273
00:39:39,650 --> 00:39:45,380
It's very easy to go from
this to RNA and then to DNA...

274
00:39:45,380 --> 00:40:00,780
as long as you have enough time
for these changes to accumulate.

275
00:40:09,310 --> 00:40:11,650
All of this is beautiful and wonderful,

276
00:40:11,650 --> 00:40:18,110
but not at all indicative of what
early life would have been like.

277
00:40:59,080 --> 00:41:07,550
Remember, all of this is the product of
over three billion years of evolution.

278
00:41:19,200 --> 00:41:22,580
These quality-control mechanisms are
themselves a product of evolution.

279
00:41:22,580 --> 00:41:25,440
They would not have been
present in the first cells.

280
00:41:25,450 --> 00:41:29,730
In the beginning, cells had no limitation
on the number of mutations they experienced,

281
00:41:29,730 --> 00:41:35,960
but a cell that had slightly more control over its
reproductive changes would have had an advantage.

282
00:41:35,960 --> 00:41:39,640
If a cell mutates too rapidly, it has
trouble making viable offspring...

283
00:41:39,640 --> 00:41:43,750
and can be out-competed by
cells that don't change as much.

284
00:41:43,750 --> 00:41:47,850
On the other hand, if a cell does too
good a job of preventing changes...

285
00:41:47,850 --> 00:41:52,010
it cannot adapt to changing
environmental conditions...

286
00:41:52,010 --> 00:41:56,380
or to other cells that evolve
new ways of competing with them.

287
00:41:56,480 --> 00:42:00,426
Evolution zeroes these proofreading
mechanisms on the happy medium.

288
00:42:00,461 --> 00:42:06,480
Not too many mutations,
and not too few, either.

289
00:42:07,580 --> 00:42:11,300
As mentioned earlier, increases in
information have been observed.

290
00:42:11,300 --> 00:42:22,050
In the case of nylon-eating bacteria, the
first step was an accidental duplication of
the gene that allows it to digest food from
its environment.

291
00:42:22,050 --> 00:42:27,200
With two copies of the gene, one was free to
mutate further.

292
00:42:27,200 --> 00:42:33,550
Later on, a frame shift changed the
structure of the resulting protein...

293
00:42:33,560 --> 00:42:39,630
and allowed the bacteria to digest nylon.

294
00:42:39,630 --> 00:42:46,560
The result was a new gene with
information that had not existed before...

295
00:42:46,570 --> 00:42:55,260
allowing the bacteria to digest a
substance that had not existed before.

296
00:43:14,460 --> 00:43:16,750
Right, because those aren't testable.

297
00:43:16,780 --> 00:43:23,930
In 1966, Lynn Margulis published a paper
suggesting that the mitochondria in human
cells were originally bacterial invaders.

298
00:43:23,930 --> 00:43:29,910
It was rejected for publication numerous times
and her idea dismissed by mainstream biologists.

299
00:43:29,910 --> 00:43:34,710
But she came up with a genuine
theory and ways to test it.

300
00:43:34,710 --> 00:43:39,630
In 1970, she published a book,
Origin of Eukaryotic Cells.

301
00:43:39,630 --> 00:43:45,860
She kept doing the experiments, and
other scientists began verifying them.

302
00:43:45,860 --> 00:43:50,850
She began receiving accolades in
the scientific world in the 1980s...

303
00:43:50,850 --> 00:43:55,470
and in the 1990s her theory was accepted.

304
00:43:55,470 --> 00:44:03,950
In 1995, Richard Dawkins praised her for her
tenacity turning an unorthodox idea into an
orthodox one.

305
00:44:03,950 --> 00:44:10,000
Now, her theory is taught
in school textbooks.

306
00:44:10,000 --> 00:44:15,430
That is the process for getting attention for
an unorthodox idea, and getting it accepted.

307
00:44:15,430 --> 00:44:21,570
ID proponents try to bypass this process
and get it directly in the textbooks.

308
00:44:21,570 --> 00:44:30,370
It took Lynn Margulis over 30 years and lots of
hard work and testing in order to get to that point.

309
00:44:30,370 --> 00:44:35,430
ID proponents haven't even provided
a valid theory that can be tested.

310
00:44:42,310 --> 00:44:45,420
This claim is ridiculous.

311
00:44:45,420 --> 00:44:52,060
Go to any scientific conference and
you see dissent all over the place.

312
00:44:52,060 --> 00:44:57,810
Dissent is welcome as long as the
dissent is based on a testable theory.

Part 6
5 years ago

222
00:34:15,960 --> 00:34:22,030
Dr. Szostak's work, mentioned
earlier, makes no use of crystals.

223
00:34:22,030 --> 00:34:29,290
Clay-crystal theory is just one of many
options for how abiogenesis could have happened.

224
00:34:32,510 --> 00:34:36,170
Demanding to know the point
where non-life becomes life...

225
00:34:36,170 --> 00:34:45,170
is a bit like demanding to know the point
where an infant becomes an old man.

226
00:34:45,170 --> 00:34:49,770
It wasn't "mud," Ben. The
components were very different.

227
00:34:59,020 --> 00:35:03,370
The biggest problem with
Intelligent Design is...

228
00:35:03,380 --> 00:35:07,660
that it tries to solve the problem
of the complexity of life...

229
00:35:07,660 --> 00:35:11,350
by postulating its creation
by a complex living thing.

230
00:35:11,350 --> 00:35:16,460
But where did that complex
living thing come from?

231
00:35:16,460 --> 00:35:25,950
All you've done is just
pushed the problem back a step.

232
00:35:25,950 --> 00:35:30,830
That would only be the case if amino acids
and proteins were arranged randomly.

233
00:35:30,830 --> 00:35:35,830
But the laws of chemistry are not random.

234
00:36:00,510 --> 00:36:05,100
This probability argument has been around a
long time, and it's complete nonsense.

235
00:36:05,130 --> 00:36:12,090
The probability of being dealt any
particular poker hand is 1 in 2.6 million...

236
00:36:12,120 --> 00:36:16,260
but the more you're allowed to
discard and draw more cards...

237
00:36:16,290 --> 00:36:19,790
the closer you can get to that winning hand.

238
00:36:19,791 --> 00:36:25,436
So this entire argument
is an Appeal to Ignorance.

239
00:36:25,437 --> 00:36:31,952
Not to mention Appeal to Ridicule,
like so much of this movie.

240
00:36:34,010 --> 00:36:39,660
Apparently, this is what Ben
Stein considers a winning argument.

241
00:36:45,420 --> 00:36:48,670
Could you please show your work?

242
00:36:51,600 --> 00:36:55,920
There are an estimated 70 sextillion stars.

243
00:36:55,920 --> 00:37:00,380
If there's an average of just
one planet around each of them,

244
00:37:00,380 --> 00:37:05,780
and life is a one-in-a-trillion probability,

245
00:37:05,790 --> 00:37:09,780
then that means that life
exists on 70 billion planets!

246
00:37:09,780 --> 00:37:12,980
That's not zero!

247
00:37:12,980 --> 00:37:18,440
And that's assuming that each
planet gets one and only one try...

248
00:37:18,440 --> 00:37:23,630
as opposed to chemical reactions happening
continuously over billions of years.

249
00:37:23,630 --> 00:37:27,230
Panspermia does not require aliens.

250
00:37:27,230 --> 00:37:30,570
We know meteorites have
come to Earth from Mars.

251
00:37:30,570 --> 00:37:35,810
Say Mars had life; that means that life on
Earth could have originated on Mars.

252
00:37:35,810 --> 00:37:39,020
Scientists don't accept this theory,

253
00:37:39,020 --> 00:37:43,460
but it has a big advantage
over Intelligent Design...

254
00:37:43,460 --> 00:37:48,390
in that it doesn't require the
postulation of anything that's unproven.

255
00:37:48,400 --> 00:37:52,820
Of course, for all we know,
it could have been aliens...

256
00:37:52,820 --> 00:37:59,410
but like Intelligent Design, that
would only push the problem back a step.

257
00:37:59,410 --> 00:38:05,660
Actually, there are some ID proponents
who postulate an alien as the designer.

258
00:38:05,660 --> 00:38:11,680
One of these is William Dembski, whom Stein
interviewed earlier, and again just coming up.

259
00:38:11,680 --> 00:38:16,650
Yet, Stein ridicules the scientists
for this idea and not him.

260
00:38:16,650 --> 00:38:26,450
See? Here's Dembski, not being ridiculed.

261
00:38:32,870 --> 00:38:37,350
The original proto-cells and the
cells that evolved from them...

262
00:38:37,350 --> 00:38:44,370
would not have been anything like modern cells
that have evolved for over three billion years.

263
00:38:44,370 --> 00:38:49,850
Modern cells work too well.

264
00:38:49,850 --> 00:38:55,230
The original cells would
have been much simpler.

265
00:38:55,230 --> 00:39:03,320
They would have been fragile and
not very good at what they did.

266
00:39:03,320 --> 00:39:09,720
But over the eons, competition with each
other would have made the survivors...

267
00:39:09,720 --> 00:39:14,610
progressively better and
better at their functions.

268
00:39:14,610 --> 00:39:20,140
Dr. Szostak's theory even has the proto-cells
consuming each other in direct competition.

269
00:39:20,150 --> 00:39:24,220
These early cells would have not used DNA.

Part 5
5 years ago

176
00:28:39,200 --> 00:28:46,440
Berlinski has also made misleading
arguments about whale evolution.

177
00:28:46,440 --> 00:28:53,410
He claims to have made a
quantitative argument debunking it.

178
00:28:53,410 --> 00:29:03,450
By his own admission, it isn't based on any evidence,
whether fossil or genetic, about how whales evolved.

179
00:29:03,450 --> 00:29:13,830
He claims that 50,000 separate morphological changes
are needed to turn land vertebrates into whales.

180
00:29:13,840 --> 00:29:20,670
But since whales evolved over
a period of 40 million years,

181
00:29:20,670 --> 00:29:25,820
that would only require
one change every 800 years.

182
00:29:25,820 --> 00:29:31,820
No problem for evolution!

183
00:29:48,390 --> 00:29:57,590
Being "a mess" doesn't make it wrong.

184
00:29:57,830 --> 00:30:00,970
Many sciences have no such "rigor,"

185
00:30:00,970 --> 00:30:07,320
including meteorology, climatology,
physiology, psychology, and economics.

186
00:30:07,320 --> 00:30:13,550
Mathematics works with absolute
proof of clearly defined constructs.

187
00:30:13,550 --> 00:30:17,940
No physical science works this way.

188
00:30:20,480 --> 00:30:27,350
He also said, "Everything should be made
as simple as possible, but no simpler."

189
00:30:27,350 --> 00:30:33,750
Apparently, Berlinski would
ignore those last three words.

190
00:30:50,040 --> 00:30:53,370
Notice that Dawkins bases his
disbelief in God on a lack of evidence,

191
00:30:53,370 --> 00:31:03,570
not a belief in evolution as Stein claims.

192
00:31:16,080 --> 00:31:23,140
Very few if any of these have had any
significant publications in the field.

193
00:31:39,710 --> 00:31:44,450
Speciation has been observed
numerous times in the wild,

194
00:31:44,450 --> 00:31:48,720
and replicated in the laboratory.

195
00:31:48,720 --> 00:31:56,620
In order to deny this, creationists and ID
proponents need a mechanism preventing small
changes from accumulating.

196
00:31:56,620 --> 00:32:00,070
They don't have one.

197
00:32:00,070 --> 00:32:03,880
The origin of life is
abiogenesis, not evolution.

198
00:32:03,880 --> 00:32:07,980
Evolution deals with biology, whereas
abiogenesis deals with chemistry.

199
00:32:07,980 --> 00:32:13,380
A lot of progress has been made
in the field of abiogenesis.

200
00:32:13,380 --> 00:32:16,200
See the work of Dr. Jack Szostak.

201
00:32:16,200 --> 00:32:25,930
He has a comprehensive theory going from
basic organic chemicals to self-replicating
and evolving proto-cells.

202
00:32:25,930 --> 00:32:31,070
He has also confirmed this in his laboratory.

203
00:32:31,070 --> 00:32:36,880
Now, this doesn't mean that it happened
this way, just that it could have...

204
00:32:36,880 --> 00:32:44,890
but that is all that is needed to falsify
the claims of creationists and ID proponents.

205
00:32:53,640 --> 00:32:58,530
Those are four of the five most common
elements in the universe.

206
00:32:58,530 --> 00:33:04,480
The fifth is helium, which is completely
inert and therefore cannot make molecules.

207
00:33:04,480 --> 00:33:10,230
Recent findings indicate that the energy may
have come from the lightning that naturally
occurs around volcanic vents.

208
00:33:10,230 --> 00:33:14,520
This would have created the organic
molecules necessary for making life.

209
00:33:14,520 --> 00:33:24,130
These molecules are found in many places,
including on comets and asteroids.

210
00:33:24,140 --> 00:33:27,080
This is a misrepresentation of the
primordial soup theory.

211
00:33:27,080 --> 00:33:31,320
The soup refers simply to the availability of
the chemical ingredients, unlike what is pictured.

212
00:33:31,320 --> 00:33:37,230
In reality, it would have been tiny organic molecules
floating around in the oceans' convection currents...

213
00:33:37,230 --> 00:33:40,010
which occur near hydrothermal vents.

214
00:33:40,020 --> 00:33:42,840
The Miller-Urey experiments had
nothing to do with creating life,

215
00:33:42,840 --> 00:33:47,010
only creating organic
molecules such as amino acids.

216
00:33:47,010 --> 00:33:50,810
Their initial experiments found
five essential amino acids.

217
00:33:50,810 --> 00:33:56,250
Modern examination of the stored
residues from the experiments...

218
00:33:56,250 --> 00:34:00,200
found that there were actually
twenty-two amino acids created.

219
00:34:00,200 --> 00:34:04,370
Far from abandoning the
Miller-Urey results as Stein claims,

220
00:34:04,370 --> 00:34:09,870
scientists think it may be a very accurate
description of what occurred on the early Earth

221
00:34:09,870 --> 00:34:15,960
near the many volcanic vents and
geysers that existed at the time.

Part 4
5 years ago

130
00:21:41,350 --> 00:21:48,200
We consider something to be designed if we
know how and why humans would design
something,

131
00:21:48,200 --> 00:21:53,900
and if we know of no
natural explanation for it.

132
00:21:53,900 --> 00:21:59,010
The complexity argument is a red herring.

133
00:21:59,010 --> 00:22:03,980
In fact, the Argument from Design was
refuted by David Hume

134
00:22:03,980 --> 00:22:09,250
decades before Darwin
published his theory.

135
00:22:19,750 --> 00:22:23,910
But questions that are properly answered
tend to stay

136
00:22:23,910 --> 00:22:29,280
when people have a religious or
political reason for clinging to it.

137
00:22:35,160 --> 00:22:38,310
All theories have problems.

138
00:22:38,310 --> 00:22:43,740
The theory of gravity has much more
serious problems than evolution.

139
00:22:43,740 --> 00:22:49,810
If no theory had problems that
would mean that we knew everything.

140
00:22:49,810 --> 00:23:08,590
The scientific definition of evolution is
the change in genetic characteristics of a
population over generations.

141
00:23:13,660 --> 00:23:17,590
Yes, they have questions about it,

142
00:23:17,590 --> 00:23:30,390
but that doesn't mean they believe it didn't
happen.

143
00:23:36,760 --> 00:23:41,240
Their quintessential example is what they
call "irreducible complexity."

144
00:23:41,240 --> 00:23:47,570
Basically, if a system performs a function
that it couldn't with at least one part missing,

145
00:23:47,570 --> 00:23:53,000
then that system is irreducibly complex, and
therefore intelligently designed.

146
00:23:53,000 --> 00:23:59,740
The problem is, we see such irreducibly
complex systems form all the time.

147
00:23:59,740 --> 00:24:05,560
All that evolution requires is that each
stage be useful for something,

148
00:24:05,560 --> 00:24:11,070
even if that doesn't end up
being the use we see for it today.

149
00:24:11,070 --> 00:24:18,120
"Evolution is just a theory" is a common
mantra of the creationist/ID movement.

150
00:24:18,120 --> 00:24:23,840
All they're really saying is that they don't
know what the word "theory" means.

151
00:24:23,840 --> 00:24:27,430
Gravity is "just a theory."

152
00:24:27,430 --> 00:24:32,670
Someone takes antibiotics
because of "germ theory."

153
00:24:32,680 --> 00:24:36,680
Theories aren't guesses
that turn into facts;

154
00:24:36,680 --> 00:24:43,940
theories explain facts and provide a useful
model for understanding the phenomenon.

155
00:25:00,780 --> 00:25:04,490
That isn't how it happens.

156
00:25:04,490 --> 00:25:08,740
Science only accepts an idea and
applies it if it's been shown to work.

157
00:25:08,740 --> 00:25:12,600
ID proponents want to bypass that process.

158
00:25:12,610 --> 00:25:17,360
Again, Einstein embodied Newton's
theories into his relativity theories.

159
00:25:17,360 --> 00:25:23,180
Their theory must do
the same with Darwin.

160
00:25:53,770 --> 00:25:55,970
Huh?

161
00:26:33,890 --> 00:26:38,710
Scientists are supposed
to propose testable ideas.

162
00:26:45,150 --> 00:26:51,470
That doesn't mean that the
other argument isn't wrong.

163
00:26:57,630 --> 00:27:01,300
No one denies there are counter-arguments,

164
00:27:01,300 --> 00:27:05,890
but these arguments have
been falsified scientifically.

165
00:27:05,890 --> 00:27:11,780
For example, one such counter-argument is
that new information cannot enter a genome.

166
00:27:11,780 --> 00:27:18,020
But the development of nylon-eating
bacteria in the natural world falsifies this,

167
00:27:18,020 --> 00:27:26,260
as does the lab experiment which
resulted in citrate-eating E. coli.

168
00:27:26,260 --> 00:27:36,140
Jonathan Wells denies not only evolution,
but also denies that HIV causes AIDS.

169
00:27:44,770 --> 00:27:48,770
Oh, the irony...

170
00:28:01,530 --> 00:28:08,330
Can anyone say, "projection"?

171
00:28:12,920 --> 00:28:18,690
One of Berlinski's many false claims is that
mathematician Jon von Neumann disputed Darwinism.

172
00:28:18,690 --> 00:28:23,460
This is patently false.

173
00:28:23,460 --> 00:28:28,080
Von Neumann was absolutely pro-evolution,

174
00:28:28,080 --> 00:28:33,680
especially with regards to
mutation and natural selection.

175
00:28:33,680 --> 00:28:39,200
He used Darwin as an inspiration for his
theory of self-replicating automata.

Part 3
5 years ago

92
00:16:38,410 --> 00:16:44,180
In fact, PZ Myers posted the letter
he received from producer Mark Mathis,

93
00:16:44,180 --> 00:16:50,480
stating that the film was "Crossroads:
The Intersection of Science and Religion."

94
00:16:50,480 --> 00:17:00,050
It was dated April 2007, one month
after the domain name was registered.

95
00:17:00,050 --> 00:17:07,770
PZ: "Why were they so dishonest about it?
If Mathis had said outright that he wants to interview
an atheist and outspoken critic of Intelligent Design...

96
00:17:07,770 --> 00:17:13,390
"for a film he was making about how ID is unfairly
excluded from academe, I would have said, 'bring it on!'

97
00:17:13,390 --> 00:17:20,520
"We would have had a good, pugnacious argument on
tape that directly addresses the claims of his movie,

98
00:17:20,520 --> 00:17:25,900
"and it would have been a better--at least,
more honest and more relevant--sequence."

99
00:17:25,910 --> 00:17:31,590
"I mean, seriously, not telling one of the sides
in a debate about what the subject might be...

100
00:17:31,590 --> 00:17:41,310
"and then leading him around randomly to various topics,
with the intent of later editing it down to the
parts that just make the points you want,

101
00:17:41,310 --> 00:17:49,790
"is the video version of quote-mining
and is fundamentally dishonest."
--PZ Myers, Pharyngula blog, 21 March 2008

102
00:17:49,790 --> 00:17:54,360
All of the evolutionary scientists
interviewed are atheists.

103
00:17:54,360 --> 00:18:00,290
Clearly, the implication is that all
evolutionary scientists are atheists.

104
00:18:00,290 --> 00:18:05,160
This just isn't true.

105
00:18:05,160 --> 00:18:10,440
In fact, Kenneth Miller is a prominent
evolutionary scientist

106
00:18:10,440 --> 00:18:17,420
who has written school textbooks and was the
star witness for the prosecution in the
Dover trial.

107
00:18:17,420 --> 00:18:23,070
He's a devout, practicing Christian

108
00:18:23,070 --> 00:18:30,650
as are others, including Francis Collins,
head of the Human Genome Project

109
00:18:30,650 --> 00:18:39,280
and Francisco Alaya of the National Academy
of Sciences.

110
00:18:39,280 --> 00:18:46,370
When Mark Mathis was asked by Scientific
American editors in an internet podcast why
none of the Christian evolutionists were
included,

111
00:18:46,370 --> 00:18:51,760
Mathis replied that it "would have
confused the film unnecessarily."

112
00:18:54,160 --> 00:18:59,000
Apparently, Ben Stein doesn't
know how to use Google Maps.

113
00:19:26,880 --> 00:19:31,900
Bruce Chapman is the founder of the
Discovery Institute.

114
00:19:31,900 --> 00:19:36,940
Like Kenneth Miller, he's a Roman Catholic.

115
00:20:06,090 --> 00:20:10,740
They keep claiming that ID has no connection
to religion.

116
00:20:10,740 --> 00:20:14,170
Yet, the ID textbook, Of Pandas and People,

117
00:20:14,170 --> 00:20:17,770
was originally a creationist text.

118
00:20:17,770 --> 00:20:24,430
In one draft, someone went through and replaced all
references to "creation" with "Intelligent Design,"

119
00:20:24,430 --> 00:20:27,890
"creator" with "designer,"

120
00:20:27,900 --> 00:20:32,410
and "creationist" with "design proponent."

121
00:20:32,410 --> 00:20:42,920
One of the edits was very sloppy and the
result read, "cdesign proponentsists."

122
00:20:42,920 --> 00:20:53,960
This was used in the Dover trial as evidence
that ID is just creationism made over.

123
00:20:53,960 --> 00:20:58,810
That's because the debate has, indeed, been settled.

124
00:20:58,810 --> 00:21:04,740
Every piece of scientific evidence confirms
evolution,

125
00:21:04,750 --> 00:21:09,980
and there isn't the first bit to support ID.

126
00:21:09,980 --> 00:21:14,810
As discussed before, ID isn't even a proper theory.

127
00:21:19,470 --> 00:21:24,940
Why is Jesus never portrayed
as someone from the Middle East?

128
00:21:33,350 --> 00:21:37,630
ID proponents claim that we consider
something designed if it's complex.

129
00:21:37,630 --> 00:21:41,350
But complexity has nothing to do with it.

Part 2
5 years ago

49
00:10:19,870 --> 00:10:23,560
Her contract was for a non-tenure track position.

50
00:10:23,570 --> 00:10:29,270
Such professors may not be called back
the next semester for a number of reasons,

51
00:10:29,270 --> 00:10:34,980
including available faculty, enrollment, and
popularity of the class or whether it is even offered.

52
00:10:51,980 --> 00:11:03,280
As has already been pointed out, she has
held several scientific investigative and
teaching positions since this incident.

53
00:11:24,600 --> 00:11:36,400
This was an essay on an Intelligent Design blog.

54
00:11:39,380 --> 00:11:42,900
That's the blogsphere for
you. It ain't just you, pal.

55
00:11:42,900 --> 00:11:49,760
In fact, the creationists and ID proponents
have a reputation for being far nastier.

56
00:11:49,760 --> 00:11:59,350
Numerous creationists have done just that to
the University of Minnesota about PZ Myers,
who appears later.

57
00:11:59,350 --> 00:12:04,400
PZ has even received death threats.

58
00:12:04,400 --> 00:12:10,000
Um, "expelled" from where? They
never claim he lost his job.

59
00:12:21,160 --> 00:12:30,010
Yes, Ben, he was. He remains Professor of
Electrical and Computer Engineering at
Baylor and his work conditions have not
changed in any way.

60
00:12:30,010 --> 00:12:34,910
The web site in question was an ID web site and
had nothing to do with his university research.

61
00:12:34,910 --> 00:12:41,970
It was not shut down, but moved off the University
servers to a third-party hosting provider.

62
00:12:41,970 --> 00:12:48,930
He dishonestly called it a "laboratory"
when it was nothing of the kind.

63
00:12:48,930 --> 00:12:56,950
He also implied a connection between the
subject and Baylor which did not exist.

64
00:12:56,950 --> 00:13:06,750
Again, the web site was never shut down.

65
00:13:19,970 --> 00:13:25,370
Marks, like Egnor, was not
"expelled" from anywhere.

66
00:13:47,760 --> 00:13:51,230
This "stellar research record" only
occurred at the start of his career at ISU.

67
00:13:51,230 --> 00:13:55,750
He is not credited with the
discovery of any extra-solar planets.

68
00:13:55,750 --> 00:14:01,750
Denial of tenure happens all the time,
and seldom puts careers "in jeopardy."

69
00:14:01,750 --> 00:14:05,110
ISU based his tenure on:

70
00:14:05,110 --> 00:14:09,180
"refereed publications, his level of success
in attracting research funding and grants,

71
00:14:09,180 --> 00:14:14,520
"the amount of telescope observing time
he had been granted, the number of
graduate students he had supervised,

72
00:14:14,530 --> 00:14:19,140
"and most importantly, the overall evidence of
future career promise in the field of astronomy."

73
00:14:19,140 --> 00:14:25,120
During his time at ISU, he gained no major
grants and published no significant research.

74
00:14:25,120 --> 00:14:30,340
He only had one graduate
student finish a dissertation.

75
00:14:30,340 --> 00:14:37,970
Gonzalez's peers had obtained 50 times the grant
money he did by the time they were granted tenure.

76
00:14:49,010 --> 00:14:52,700
The Correspondence Principle
is very important in science.

77
00:14:52,700 --> 00:14:59,760
It says, to put it simply, a new theory
must correspond to the current knowledge.

78
00:14:59,760 --> 00:15:05,800
So, for example, when Einstein posited Special
Relativity to replace Newtonian physics,

79
00:15:05,810 --> 00:15:12,900
he had to explain why Newton had
worked so well up to that point.

80
00:15:12,900 --> 00:15:19,580
His equations reduce to the equivalent of
Newton's for velocities that are infinitesimal
compared to the speed of light.

81
00:15:19,580 --> 00:15:24,150
Every new theory must conform to this principle.

82
00:15:24,150 --> 00:15:31,070
So creationism or ID must have some way of explaining
why evolution has worked so well as far as it has.

83
00:15:31,070 --> 00:15:37,870
They haven't done that yet.

84
00:15:51,170 --> 00:15:55,890
The evolutionary scientists interviewed
for this movie were misled as to its topic.

85
00:15:55,890 --> 00:16:03,700
They were told the movie was "Crossroads:
The Intersection of Science and Religion."

86
00:16:03,700 --> 00:16:09,580
As a result, these interviews are
shown completely out of context.

87
00:16:09,580 --> 00:16:16,990
When confronted with this, the producers
claimed that "Crossroads" was a working title...

88
00:16:16,990 --> 00:16:22,620
and that the title changed when they
changed what the movie was about.

89
00:16:22,620 --> 00:16:28,150
The problem is, according to the
Network Solutions WHOIS database...

90
00:16:28,150 --> 00:16:34,400
they had registered the movie's domain name,
ExpelledTheMovie.com, on 1 March 2007...

91
00:16:34,400 --> 00:16:38,410
months in advance of the interviews.

Here are the real facts, Part 1
5 years ago

1
00:00:25,080 --> 00:00:29,580
Bogosity.TV presents

2
00:00:29,590 --> 00:00:33,660
Expelled: Correcting the Misinformation

3
00:00:33,670 --> 00:00:38,270
This is a special subtitle track.

4
00:00:38,370 --> 00:00:47,870
The movie you are watching contains numerous factual
errors and is filled with misleading information.

5
00:00:47,870 --> 00:00:55,130
The purpose of this subtitle file is to
correct the errors and set the record straight.

6
00:00:55,130 --> 00:01:00,700
It was created by Shane D. Killian and is
copyright 2008, some rights reserved.

7
00:01:00,700 --> 00:01:06,270
It is released under a Creative Commons
Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 license.

8
00:01:06,270 --> 00:01:11,390
You may--and are encouraged
to--distribute this file far and wide.

9
00:01:11,490 --> 00:01:16,490
The main source for the information
in this file is ExpelledExposed.com

10
00:01:16,490 --> 00:01:21,700
Other sources include interviews and
podcasts with the featured scientists

11
00:01:21,700 --> 00:01:30,360
including Michael Shermer, Richard Dawkins,
PZ Myers, and Eugenie Scott

12
00:01:30,460 --> 00:01:36,200
and various scientific references.

13
00:01:36,300 --> 00:02:16,620
Visit www.Bogosity.TV

14
00:03:54,340 --> 00:04:01,710
Herrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrre's Benny!

15
00:04:07,625 --> 00:04:10,109
"Gangstas"?

16
00:04:37,370 --> 00:04:44,710
ZZZZZZZZZzzzzzzzzzzz.............

17
00:04:54,330 --> 00:05:00,750
Science helped a bit, too.

18
00:05:00,750 --> 00:05:06,400
In fact, can you truly have
science without freedom?

19
00:05:26,860 --> 00:05:43,460
As these subtitles will show, his conclusion
is based on false and misleading information.

20
00:05:43,470 --> 00:05:47,060
Sternberg was never an employee
of the Smithsonian Institution.

21
00:05:47,060 --> 00:05:55,060
He was employed by the
National Institutes of Health.

22
00:06:12,540 --> 00:06:17,380
He published this article without
going through the proper review process.

23
00:06:17,380 --> 00:06:21,580
The "firestorm" occurred because
the paper was shoddy science

24
00:06:21,580 --> 00:06:24,790
It had previously been reviewed and rejected.

25
00:06:24,790 --> 00:06:28,300
The paper had nothing to do with how life began.

26
00:06:28,300 --> 00:06:31,680
It was on the Cambrian Explosion.

27
00:06:31,680 --> 00:06:34,760
There was no such investigation.

28
00:06:34,760 --> 00:06:40,690
He had already turned in his resignation
six months before publishing the paper.

29
00:06:40,690 --> 00:06:45,750
The issue in question was to be his
second-to-last as voluntary editor.

30
00:06:45,750 --> 00:06:53,150
The Smithsonian extended his unpaid
position in 2006, but he has never shown up.

31
00:07:12,530 --> 00:07:16,780
Stephen Meyer is an officer of the Discovery
Institute, an Intelligent Design think-tank.

32
00:07:16,780 --> 00:07:25,260
He declined to take the stand in defense of
Intelligent Design at the 2005 Kitzmiller v.
Dover School Board trial.

33
00:07:25,260 --> 00:07:32,530
The rejection of this paper had nothing to do with
religion and everything to do with being bad science.

34
00:07:32,530 --> 00:07:41,330
There is not a single piece of evidence
to show that he was called a "terrorist."

35
00:07:55,030 --> 00:08:07,030
Michael Shermer is the editor of Skeptic Magazine.

36
00:08:07,031 --> 00:08:17,031
www.skeptic.com

37
00:08:56,530 --> 00:09:01,520
In order to be taken seriously, Intelligent Design
or any new idea must conform to scientific principles.

38
00:09:01,520 --> 00:09:04,820
This includes, but is not limited to:

39
00:09:04,820 --> 00:09:09,300
Making testable predictions

40
00:09:09,300 --> 00:09:14,320
Having a way of being theoretically falsified

41
00:09:14,320 --> 00:09:19,320
Conforming to the Correspondence Principle

42
00:09:19,320 --> 00:09:27,120
So far, no Intelligent Design
advocate has done any of these.

43
00:09:39,000 --> 00:09:49,730
George Mason University is lauded by
libertarians for its commitment to freedom.

44
00:09:56,730 --> 00:10:00,060
Crocker did much more than simply
"mention" Intelligent Design.

45
00:10:00,060 --> 00:10:04,610
She took up valuable class time teaching
creationist material that had been shown to be false.

46
00:10:04,610 --> 00:10:08,480
Her career in no way came to an end.
She continued teaching at GMU and NVCC...

47
00:10:08,480 --> 00:10:15,230
and then took a postdoctoral position at Uniformed
Services University studying T-cell signal interaction.

48
00:10:15,230 --> 00:10:19,870
Despite numerous student complaints,
she finished out her contract.

Here is the ENTIRE movie
5 years ago

At least this way, no EE members need pay to see this worthless dreck.

Corrections to the false claims of EXPELLED
5 years ago
The first seven minutes of EXPELLED
5 years ago

PZ Myers being expelled from Expelled
5 years ago

Other references in EE to EXPELLED
5 years ago
More on the EXPELLED movie
5 years ago

This thread is the direct sequel to

EXPELLED!

I'll start with this:

http://scienceblogs.com/erv/2008/10/a_movie_review.php

Category: Creationism
Posted on: October 27, 2008 11:00 AM, by ERV

So I saw EXPELLED this weekend.

My review is two words: Thats it?

Thats it? Thats what caused a humagiganitisoid blagosphere hubub? OMG it was so boring! I got bored 15 minutes in, started cleaning the apartment while watching. Made it to 45 minutes in before just paused it and watched a documentary on Animal Planet 'Growing up Walrus' (really good, btw). Forced myself to watch another 30 minutes of EXPELLED, left to go see a documentary about Mardi Gras with some friends 'The Order of Myths' (really good, btw). Finally watched the rest of EXPELLED.

EXPELLED was boring.

I understand now why they kept slicing minutes off of it. I would have shot myself in the head it it was 110 minutes long instead of 90.

They expect kids to watch this?

They should sell EXPELLED with a box of Legos so kids can amuse themselves when they lose interest in the movie 15 minutes in.

%#&!*%.

And was this movie supposed to be funny? I loled twice.
1) IDiot Engor getting 15 seconds screen time. His eyes welled up with tears as he bawwed "
BLOGGERS WER MEAN TO ME!!!" And that was it. It was pathetic and hysterical.
2) Ben Steins 'surprise' visit to the Discovery Institute offices. They 'barged' right in, and all the Kreationist Kids working there peered curiously at Stein. None of them say a word or move to greet him. They just look at him like a confused Scooby Doo. Oh, and you get to see Casey Luskin here--
always lulz worthy. But the real reason this scene was funny is that we know exactly how DI Tards react to uninvited guests. They do not cock their heads and stare. Anika charges like a bull lookin to get some, and Casey wont shut up. lol Liars.

So, I mean, thats it? We were all worked up over 90 minutes of terrible camera work (maybe counting the pores in Ben Steins nose would be fun, if you were drunk), stock footage, and Ben Stein wandering around talking to people.

Meh.

Oh, wait, I did learn something! So like, I had no idea who Douglas Axe was. I mean I knew who he 'was', but I couldnt pick him out of a crowd. I assumed he was some jowled Tard like the rest of em. Turns out hes actually kinda cute! Ill take a screen shot of him later (cant find any pics of him online). Too bad the %#&!*% he was talking about made me want to throw up (a dinner date would be out of the question), but I would totally watch him deliver a lecture on mute. Um, so... YAY?

Absolute waste of time. Not funny. No lulz. Nothing you havent heard before. Pathetic.