Expelled Exposed Goes Live With Response to Anti-Evolutionary Film

Expelled! is a movie promoting all the standard creationist canards, and Expelled Exposed is the answer to that movie. I don’t have time to review the site in detail until later today, but it looks nice, clean, and fairly comprehensive.

Link, read, and laugh at the idea that “debate” is silenced on these issues.

Advertisements

8 Responses to Expelled Exposed Goes Live With Response to Anti-Evolutionary Film

  1. Hmm…Anti-EVOLUTIONARY Film? Which one was THAT?
    Given that I have met and spoken with many of the professors interviewed in expelled, and that ALL that I have met are convinced evolutionists (not ‘creationists’), and even believe that Darwinistic Evolutionary explanations are enough for many aspects of biology, calling a movie about how you can LOSE YOUR JOB for even QUESTIONING Darwinistic evolutionary mechanisms an ‘anti-evolutionary film’ seems a bit of a stretch, don’t you think?

  2. foufga says:

    Shannon: You’re wrong, sorry. The film compares people who accept evolution as Nazis. So yeah… a bit ANTI-evolution. Are you aware that PZ Meyers (and I believe Richard Dawkins) were used in the film under false pretenses—i.e., they didn’t KNOW it was going to be a biased attack on evolution. That’s why they are in the film even though it is definitively against what they stand for.

    Since you mention teachers losing jobs… I’d love to get a concrete example we could look at. In all cases I’ve heard about, teachers have lost their jobs for applying for grants to study evolution, and then saying they won’t study evolution because they don’t accept it. What’s not to fire?

    Also, it is not bad to question Darwin’s (“Darwinian”) take on evolution… but it is irrational to question that evolution will happen to a biological system.

  3. Bad says:

    calling a movie about how you can LOSE YOUR JOB for even QUESTIONING Darwinistic evolutionary mechanisms an ‘anti-evolutionary film’ seems a bit of a stretch, don’t you think?

    No, not at all. Because this claim about how people are supposedly fired just for “questioning” is a falsehood promoted by anti-evolutionary organiations. Put that down with the grossly simplistic to the point of outrageous Hitler and eugenics comparisons, along with know-nothing ridicule of scientific ideas, and you’ve got perfectly conventional creationist rhetoric.

  4. Eli says:

    It’s interesting how foufga and Bad both predictably debase Shannon’s comments on their distaste for the very apparent link between Darwinism and eugenics, and therefore Darwinism and Hitler and Margaret Sanger. There are many examples and proof of the connection available for consumption, but here is just one that I like.: http://amywelborn.typepad.com/openbook/2007/02/happy_darwin_da.html. You can google “darwin eugenics” and read all sorts of commentary from both sides to see which you think holds more weight. I think Darwin said it pretty convincingly, “”At some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilised races of man will almost certainly exterminate and replace throughout the world the savage races.” Coincidence? I think not.

    Best Wishes!

  5. Bad says:

    There are many examples and proof of the connection available for consumption

    All of which turn out to be gross simplifications of history, or leave out key details, or conveniently leave out other influences which you are unwilling to apply the same logic too. Eugenics began before Darwin, based off of ideas about animal breeding and nobility. One of the very reasons Darwin used animal breeding as an example to support his descriptive theory was that it was already so well known and acknowledged.

    And who exactly ended up debunking eugenics? It wasn’t creationists. It was evolutionary biologists pointing out that the principles of eugenics a) didn’t make any evolutionary sense b) genetics and biological diversity were a lot more complicated than the movement let on. Many of the prominent defenders of evolution were, like Clarence Darrow, opponents of eugenics.

    Or point is not that there are no kinds of connection anywhere: of course people made all sorts of connections. But the presentation of these connections is extremely selective (ignoring, for instance, Christian influences on Nazis, and so on, which are either as mangled as Darwin, or as responsible), and neglects to mention key elements that show that many of the connections were scatterbrained misunderstandings of evolution, and the confusion of descriptive science with normative programs.

    I think Darwin said it pretty convincingly, “”At some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilised races of man will almost certainly exterminate and replace throughout the world the savage races.” Coincidence? I think not.

    This is what’s known as quote mining. Your link does it to: quoting sections where Darwin is explaining a view that he later argues AGAINST. Except you don’t quote the second part. In this passage, for instance, he’s describing what he sees happening, and has already happened, not endorsing it. In fact, what he predicted pretty much came to pass, especially in the Americas where the native populations were largely wiped out, subjugated, and most certainly replaced.

  6. dougvos says:

    Thanks for taking the time to respond to my article reviewing Expelled. and for bringing this to my attention: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sQacQy1KJ9M

  7. dougvos says:

    You attempted to make a few points, about the comments of others comments, but missed the main point of my article — near the top of the page:
    http://vvn.net/wp/2008/04/19/can-i-ask-you-a-question/

    Darwin had studied medicine at Edinburgh University in 1825. According to an Encyclopedia Brittanica article about Charles Darwin “Edinburgh attracted English Dissenters who were barred from graduating at the Anglican universities of Oxford and Cambridge” and “Darwin heard freethinkers deny the Divine design”. However, some speech “was officially censored” and “was considered subversive”. The EB article goes on to state that “Darwin was witnessing the social penalties of holding deviant views.”

    Today, we are witnessing a kind of “reverse reactionary apartheid” and prejudice against anyone who appears to be “Anti-Darwinian”. This whole thing seems a lot more like a high-school food fight, then a mature scientific discussion. Why is inquiry being stifled? Maybe these scientists (the ones being expelled from colleges and universities) are not really “Anti-Darwinian”. Maybe they want to be like Darwin, and have the academic freedom to ask intelligent questions. Is that OK with you?

  8. Bad says:

    I didn’t miss your point: you simply repeat the same accusation that Expelled makes, and you’ve repeated it again here. But accusations aren’t the same thing as reality. Expelled’s case is made by a highly selective choice of events, coupled with a highly selective and sometimes even dishonest presentation of those events.

    I and many others have debunked this exercise in fabrication here and elsewhere. I even gave some specific arguments on your blog.

    This whole thing seems a lot more like a high-school food fight, then a mature scientific discussion.

    The problem is that ID folks know what happens when there is a mature scientific discussion: they lose on the merits quite quickly. If hucking a sloppy joe at Dawkins, of all people, is their alternative idea of maturity, I’m not sure what to say to that.

    Maybe these scientists (the ones being expelled from colleges and universities) are not really “Anti-Darwinian”. Maybe they want to be like Darwin, and have the academic freedom to ask intelligent questions. Is that OK with you?

    Oh the overdrama!

    Again, your presentation there simply skates over all the important issues that Expelled would like to skate over: whether anyone lacks “freedom” at all (both because the cases it presents in Expelled are phony, and because even if they were real not paying to promote ID is not the same thing as quashing freedom to advocate it), whether science should have standards of merit (should holocaust deniers be granted equal billing in history departments? Astrologers given their own department next to astronomy?), and so on.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: