digg

Join DiggAbout

Digg Townhall now online!
Check out the latest Digg Townhall, where Kevin and Jay answered the top questions from the Digg Community!

See the original image at badastronomy.com —

Are NPR and the History Channel selling out science?

badastronomy.com — Bad Astronomy blogger Phil Plait says that NPR and The History Channel taking advertising dollars from the makers of the anti-science movie "Expelled" is "seriously like taking the KKK ’s money for ads, or from NAMBLA." ... Not all of his science-loving readers agree.

show profanity settings
expand all
  • mali1, on 04/18/2008, -26/+157History Channel sucks because of the following shows:
    Gangland
    UFO Shows
    Axe Men
    None of them are even history-related.
    • shane, on 04/18/2008, -30/+12Sure they are. Those shows talk about things that happen at one point or another, in the past. Past=History.
      • AsianChopsticks, on 04/18/2008, -5/+14So by your logic, they can show futuristic trans-humanist shows because it was in literature at one point or another, in the past?
        • shane, on 04/18/2008, -6/+9If they want. Somebody other than us owns the TV network, so I supposed that though it's called the "History Channel", they are still free to show whatever they feel like.
          • dOOBiEx213, on 04/19/2008, -1/+1Necessary comment abuse: This ginger boy is just a ***** troll to generate traffic. Nuff said.
        • Yonson, on 04/19/2008, -0/+3Clearly, but that's beside the point. The point is that "History Channel" is a misnomer because they play non-history related content.
      • bgrah449, on 04/18/2008, -5/+15At the time of broadcast, ALL shows portray events from the past. You're going off the rails on a crazy train, man.
    • Harabeck, on 04/18/2008, -21/+20Oh man, there showing modern stuff even though theyre called the "History" channel! Someone call the cops!
      • PabloMac, on 04/18/2008, -1/+12Their and they're up there.
      • OneLess, on 04/18/2008, -1/+6*They're* It's a contraction of "they are".
        • rholland356, on 04/18/2008, -0/+7If he didn't pay attention to his third-grade teacher, why do you think he would pay attention to you now?
          • OneLess, on 04/18/2008, -1/+3I'm on the Internets- that means I'm important.
      • SenorCardgage74, on 04/18/2008, -1/+3Cops....the history show or Cops, the cops?
    • brainster31, on 04/18/2008, -1/+38I would argue about gangland, a few weeks ago I saw a really interesting show about Frank Lucas (the basis of American Gangster)
      • terracottapai, on 04/18/2008, -1/+10The show about the Tongs of San Francisco was pretty good, too.
    • pianomahnn, on 04/18/2008, -1/+64Gangland is a fairly well produced show. Some of it is weak, but it does provide a very good /history/ of the gangs being featured. And, while the mass media would have you believe otherwise, gangs in the United States are one of the largest and most troubling problems for law enforcement and citizens. THC should be applauded for bringing these subjects to light.
      • trizzlelv, on 04/18/2008, -2/+7Cool - I never realized The History Channel broke down to THC, I love it. 4/20 is Sunday, gentlemen!
        • djholybolt, on 04/18/2008, -2/+0Woot can't wait! 420 ftw!
        • TobiasParker, on 04/19/2008, -0/+24/20 is Hitlers birthday, your habit supports terrorism.
      • Jade10145, on 04/18/2008, -0/+6I agree with you to a point. I just don't like the presentation of Gangland. There almost tabloid like with the sound effects and transitions, the promos are like that too. As for Ax Men, THC is just trying to cash in on the popularity of shows like The Deadliest Catch. THC also did Ice Road Truckers.
        • pianomahnn, on 04/21/2008, -0/+1Yea, that's what got my "some of it is weak" label.
    • Nougat, on 04/18/2008, -18/+2The History Channel too often produces shows about how great everything people do is, without ever touching on the downsides. Oh, look at how wonderful the automobile manufacturing industry is! Never mind that cars are still a huge source of pollution and that auto workers are getting laid off in droves because the manufacturers can't compete!

      Everything on the History Channel is all rosy, peaches and cream. This is propaganda at its worst; at least it's easy to see through the ***** of Fox News and CNN. Who wouldn't like to be lulled into a sense of snuggly security by feeding on media that only touts how great we are?
      • roosterjm2k2, on 04/18/2008, -2/+9Actually, most of the stuff on THC is just shown. Its not shown with a bias, its just shown, Showing things one way or the other is wrong, leave it neutral, and they do
      • Pstall, on 04/18/2008, -1/+9Yeah its all peachy on the history channel like last night when it showed some MS-13 gang members blowing a rival gang members head off in L.A. nice and peachy propaganda. Or the story about the crips shooting some poor innocent girl 100+ times in south central. Or the interview with the logger on Axe men who was missing a hand really peachy and great. Or hm what about the one where they showed the U.S. fire bombing mainland japanese cities killing thousands of civilians sooo rosy. Want me to keep going?
        • noisey, on 04/18/2008, -1/+7But what about the carbon footprint of gangs! THC's Gangland never discusses the effect gangs have on the environment!
          • SenorCardgage74, on 04/18/2008, -0/+4Hey hey hey jerk!
            Not so fast!
            The Slauson Rollng Deuce Crips bought alot of carbon offsets....of course The History Channel never tells you THAT.
        • Nougat, on 04/18/2008, -3/+4Granted, there do seem to be a number of street gang shows on HC these days. But let's look at today's schedule:

          http://www.history.com/schedule.do?action=daily&st ...

          "Look at how awesome we are with bricks!"
          "Gangs!"
          "Things under the ground!"
          "Look at how awesome logging is!"
          "Look at how awesome labor unions are!"
          "Look at how awesome our country's founding was!"
          "Gangs!"
          "More gangs!"
          "More underground *****!"
          "LAS VEGAS!"
          "Bullets: ***** AWESOME!"
          "GANGS!!"
          "GAAAAAANGS!!!"
          "More undergound *****, it's pretty cool, isn't it?"
          "LAS VEGAS! (repeat)"
          "Bullets: Still Awesome"
          "Awesome things in your bedroom!"
          "How we ***** up the Japs in the Pacific"
          "Cops are awesome and always win, this time by shooting the ***** out of people."
    • MrWhite7, on 04/18/2008, -6/+13Gangland - organized crime has had an enormous impact on the history of our country. UFO's - I hate these shows personally, but historical popular culture and conspiracy theories are entangled in our history. Ax Men - Educational and provides insight into the evolving lumber industry.
    • Jaliyl, on 04/18/2008, -2/+15I haven't watched the History channel much lately. Being a WWII fanatic I used to watch it a lot. Personally I hate the all of UFO and religious shows.

      I have not seen Axe men but I liked Ice Road Truckers so it might be good. As for Gangland I've only seen two of them but they aren't bad.
      • Andysan, on 04/18/2008, -1/+1Shows like Axe Men, America's Port, Deadliest Catch and others are good because they show how common sense is still a necessity in this world. In the real world common sense matters, unlike the virtual world of the Internet where common sense is a nonexistent commodity.
        • richlizard24, on 04/19/2008, -0/+1Deadliest Catch is on the Discovery Channel.
    • bdbr, on 04/18/2008, -2/+4From what little I watch them, the UFO shows do cover past events...so it is history. Its just not history that amounted to much, like any superstition.
    • Eivo, on 04/18/2008, -0/+22It's the SCIENCE channel in the article. Wow, no one RTFA?
      • Viral, on 04/19/2008, -1/+3A commenter of the article mentioned the History Channel, so both are right.
    • dockb0y, on 04/18/2008, -6/+2I'd love to take a ride in a UFO. Just a probeless ride, plz.
    • Fallout911, on 04/18/2008, -8/+8***** you I like that UFO show.
    • terracottapai, on 04/18/2008, -1/+9If anything, I think the network suffers from an overabundance of 10-year-old episodes of Modern Marvels and all the damn UFO shows.
      Frankly, I liked all the WWII shows, now I can't remember the last time I saw one on there.
      Also, Deep Sea Detectives kicked ass.
    • defwheezer, on 04/18/2008, -12/+3Axemen = Glorifying the rape of our forests... paid for by- the logging industry. Yeh, sure- thats "history".... BS
      • MrWhite7, on 04/18/2008, -1/+13you realize that the paper and logging industry has lead to the planting of MORE trees...
        • sgtpppr, on 04/18/2008, -1/+6People on the Internet don't look up facts (yes, it's ironic), but they are all about knee-jerk responses.
        • diptheria, on 04/18/2008, -0/+2While I agree with you, MrWhite, that defwheezer is indeed a bit hyperbolic your retort misses the mark as well. The logging industry's planting of trees is more beneficial than leaving the land stripped, but it in no way replaces the complex ecology of a forest.
        • directrix13, on 04/18/2008, -1/+6@diptheria:
          Coming from the son of man who got his Masters degree in Forestry. I can guarantee that logging companies do not just annihilate a local ecosystem. The thing is... tree's grow back, loggers don't take out whole forests at once, and the logging industry would like nothing more than for their operations to be sustainable.
          • defwheezer, on 04/21/2008, -0/+1After having witnessed clearcut old growth forests myself, I call your bluff.
        • sparsely, on 04/19/2008, -0/+2Why is hemp illegal again?
    • WATYF, on 04/18/2008, -1/+8I'm pretty disappointed in the History Channel, and not because of anything to do with Expelled.

      I didn't have Cable for a good long time, and recently I finally bit the bullet and got it. I was really looking forward to things like the History channel, because I dig watching shows about WWII or the Old West or ancient Greece or whatever. Well much to my surprise, the History channel is now full of crappy pseudo-realty shows that have little (or nothing at all) to do with history.

      I don't have anything against those shows specifically... but they just don't belong on a channel devoted to History, and as a result of them taking up all the time slots, I have yet to see ONE good "history" show about WWI or anything like that since I got cable. What a waste.
    • rodelero2, on 04/18/2008, -3/+4History Channel sucks because its owned by Rupert Murdoch
    • Kronk42583, on 04/19/2008, -0/+1you're very right, although gangland can be ok sometimes... i hate the ufo ***** it makes me sick....
      even for all that History(ugh stupid unnecesary name change) is awesome because of one show. Engineering an Empire. its pure gold. i especially like peter weller.
    • SteveHamn, on 04/19/2008, -0/+1ZOMG!!! You mean there are shows that aren't 100% about history on the History Channel?!!?!? WOW THEY SUCK!!!! What's next, non-music shows on MTV?!?!?!

      /sarcasm

      How is that a basis on why a channel sucks? Because not 100% of their shows aren't exactly related to the name of the channel? LAWL @ YOU
      • Neo829, on 04/21/2008, -0/+1I wouldn't go using a comparison to MTV's programming as a defense for anything, if I were you.
    • jc730, on 04/19/2008, -0/+1Yeah, It seems History is trying to compete with Discovery's fishermen show with axeman and ice road truckers, im sick of em
      • triplenerd, on 08/27/2008, -0/+0stfu those are the best shows ever, ur ***** retarded
  • RayG68, on 04/18/2008, -26/+25badastronomy guy: I agree
    • dockb0y, on 04/18/2008, -13/+11badastronomy guy has little confidence in his science. I he had some, he wouldn't mind any skepticism, no matter what form.
      • Logicexe, on 04/18/2008, -8/+10The problem is that there are hundreds of millions of people who are convinced evolution isn't true because "if we evolved from monkeys, how come there are still monkeys?"

        The criticisms brought up by the ID proponents has been thoroughly eviscerated by the scientific community. The only avenue left for ID is to try and "win" a public relations battle by misrepresenting science as a whole and evolution in particular.
        • masterm1nd, on 04/18/2008, -9/+8Sorry but science hasn't proved ID to be not possible. Until then, let people believe whatever they want. In no way does evolution disprove a creator.
          • Logicexe, on 04/18/2008, -5/+8Science doesn't need to prove ID impossible, it just needs to show how the evidence fits much better with evolution than ID. Intelligent Design proponents have yet to find one single argument or piece of evidence in favor of intelligent design.

            What they do is post a bunch of arguments against evolution that pretty much every professional biologist could refute with one hand tied behind their back. The arguments are however good enough to convince many average laymen who are not education in biology.

            Of course people are allowed to believe whatever they want. No one is trying to take away that right. But if they're going to come here and assert their position then they better be able to back themselves. If you can't back up your beliefs with reasoned arguments and evidence do yourself a favor and keep them to yourself and for the love of Zeus keep them out of my science classrooms.
          • masterm1nd, on 04/18/2008, -3/+4If you're going to bitch about other peoples crappy arguments, you should probably stop using the whole "if we evolved from monkeys, how come there are still monkeys?" schpeal.

            Could I now apply this to you?
            "If you can't back up your beliefs with reasoned arguments and evidence do yourself a favor and keep them to yourself and for the love of Zeus keep them out of my science classrooms."?
          • 5urr3al5am, on 04/18/2008, -3/+5@Logicexe -- you don't REALLY know what ID is do you? just admit it!
          • Logicexe, on 04/18/2008, -3/+1My Zeus comment was a joke, as was my comment about people asking why the existence of monkeys doesn't disprove the theory of evolution. Although, I have heard that question plenty of times. My real point if you care enough to understand it is that many people simply do not understand evolution, that's why they often ask questions that sound silly and are easily persuaded by creationist literature.

            So are you actually going to come up with an argument or are you just going to nit pick my admittedly half assed use of humor?

            5urr3al5am

            Do you know what ID is? Does ID even have a coherent definition from which testable hypotheses can be derived? From what I can see it's nothing but a big god of the gaps fallacy, except with "designer" replacing the "god." They've got loads of nice questions about evolution, some of them are decent questions that have yet to be properly answered, but none of them actually support intelligent design. The entire movement is one big false dichotomy that tries to prove ID by falsifying evolution. They're not even doing a good job of that considering their changes in tactics over the years. They went from outright trying to disprove evolution to "teaching the controversy" to claiming academic persecution because the big mean scientists criticized their ideas.

            Maybe I'm being unfair though. Perhaps I'm drawing a false link between the Discovery Institute and ID itself. So tell me, exactly what am I not getting about ID?
          • 5urr3al5am, on 04/19/2008, -0/+3@Logicexe
            Nice way to ineloquently dance around the question...
          • Logicexe, on 04/20/2008, -2/+1I noticed how you didn't answer my question either. I told you what my opinion on ID was. A movement designed to try and weaken the theory of evolution and posit some sort of designer in its place as what can only be described as meta fallacy including an argument from ignorance and a false dichotomy. There was no dancing around the question. I told you what ID was. If you're wondering why I included nothing about their science its because they have none to offer.
        • mycoplasma, on 04/19/2008, -1/+3@Logicexe: They did come up with an argument. That's what this movie is all about.
          • Logicexe, on 04/19/2008, -2/+2Yes they did have an argument, and it was dismissed by the scientific community as nonsense. Just because they an argument, doesn't mean it was a good argument. Arguments that rely on ignorance (argument from complexity), false premises (irreducible complexity) and a quasi-secularized "god of the gaps" do not constitute valid criticisms.

            Most of their arguments boil down to a simple misunderstanding of evolution. They asked their questions, they made their criticisms, the scientific community disagreed and responded to their arguments quite nicely. It's not like anti-evolution ideas popped up overnight. The theory has been in constant criticism since it was first proposed. There is a long history of evolution denialism.

            Worst of all, these useless, fallacious arguments take away from the importance of the real debates going on about evolution. Debates about group selection, kin selection, the evolution of altruism, punctuated equilibrium etc. Evolution is an active, dynamic area of research, and it has been been for 150 years. Anyone who thinks that "Darwinism" has some sort of stranglehold over scientific inquiry is just plain wrong.
    • metric7, on 04/18/2008, -0/+1http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyperbole
  • custal, on 04/18/2008, -4/+4pecunia non olet ... unfortunately.
    • metric7, on 04/18/2008, -1/+2What stinks is comparing creationists with nambla
      • vuke69, on 04/19/2008, -1/+3Agreed, why further sully the reputations of the nambla guys by comparing them to creationists?
  • JimmySpaza, on 04/18/2008, -50/+14Badastronomy commenting about others having junk science and bias is the pot calling the kettle black. Ever seen some of badastronomy's objective "science"?
    • CryRightardCry, on 04/18/2008, -20/+13Ah, the rightards are chiming in.
      No spaz, you lost your credibility long ago.
      What EXACTLY are you complaining about on badastronomy, hmm?
      Could it be you are one of the ***** who tries to push creationism as some sort of science rather than the fairy tale it is?
      Yep.
      Could it be that as a rightard shill you do your very best to keep people from thinking logically about your *****?
      Man, you suck. Even for an LGF loser you are pathetic.
      Do you get off on trying to lie to your fellow Americans? It sure seems like it.
      I guess you are just so busy shilling for evil you couldn't be bothered to show us where badastronomy was wrong.
      Typical rightard *****.
      I imagine you dancing around the house in your wifes undergarments singing "Bury me, yes bury me!" after your posts, because by now you must have realized your brand of idiocy is a guaranteed burial. Some sort of perverted drive keeps you posting.
      Oddly enough this image makes you more likeable.
      • 5urr3al5am, on 04/18/2008, -5/+13with a name like CryRightardCry you have NO objectivity `nough said
      • metric7, on 04/18/2008, -4/+5That makes you a "Leftard" then, n'est-ce pas?
      • Apokalyps2547, on 04/19/2008, -1/+1Don't feed the troll. Jimmy is beyond redemption.
    • deadmann, on 04/19/2008, -2/+2Yes, but most diggers are probably alike in allowing flaming liberalism to define universal truths just like Mr BA, who's politics eventually made me unsubscribe from that great astronomy blog.
      • ParticleMan420, on 04/19/2008, -0/+2or maybe other people think differently with you.
  • DreKor, on 04/18/2008, -16/+169NPR didn't sell out. Here's their mission statement:

    The mission of NPR is to work in partnership with member stations to create a more informed public — one challenged and invigorated by a deeper understanding and appreciation of events, ideas and cultures. To accomplish our mission, we produce, acquire, and distribute programming that meets the highest standards of public service in journalism and cultural expression; we represent our members in matters of their mutual interest; and we provide satellite interconnection for the entire public radio system. /mission

    Like it or not, Expelled is a piece of American culture. It may not be a piece you believe, agree with, or even like, but it's out there. People have a right to know it's out there and they have a right to discuss it publicly. I'm not saying that NPR should be promoting it as science, but that there's no reason to keep people in the dark about it's existence.
    • leodavinci, on 04/18/2008, -4/+15Summed up my thoughts exactly.
    • oldhick, on 04/18/2008, -3/+33Well put. I hate attempts by anyone to silence any opinion or expression. If creationist want to debate, then debate. They continually lose. We need to remember that people have a right to different opinions and that right actually extends so far that they can express those opinions too.
      • RevChris, on 04/18/2008, -6/+1but if you debate them you give their idea credibility as one that should be debated, we don't debate the spaghetti monster
        • parithes, on 04/19/2008, -3/+2If I walk up to you and tell you a spaghetti monster is going to come eat you - - it's laughable.. I have witnessed to many people about Jesus and am usually confronted with conviction and anger....so comparing a spaghetti monster to Jesus and God is asinine. Here is a fun question; how did all information come into existence?? How did proteins and amino acids get the information to do what they do?? Chaos does not produce order and precise information does not randomly come into existence.
        • oldhick, on 04/19/2008, -1/+1Yeah, there's a pretty big difference. I think Parithes really hit the nail on the head. Certainly creationists are using their faith to try and explain the un-explainable. But they cross the line when they make up junk science. Never the two should meet in my mind. You have faith and you admit that your faith is unexplainable and unprovable. I'm not sure why those with faith feel they need science to prove what we all know will never be proven. As someone on faith, take heart that there is no scientific explanation or even legitimate theories of where the universe came from and how matter was created. The focus on earth and on evolutionary ideas is simply never going to pan out.
    • fefu, on 04/18/2008, -8/+15NPR would be going against their mission if they decided to not include information about "Expelled" in news stories, on Fresh Air, Talk of the Nation, etc. It sounds like an interesting controversy they could cover in programming. However, they do NOT need to accept advertising dollars from them. They are two separate things, people. Are folks so confused they can't separate programming from advertising?
      • cheebus, on 04/18/2008, -5/+4exactly
      • ToadLeg, on 04/18/2008, -2/+18It's just a movie, and I think comparing Creationists to the KKK or NAMBLA is quite a stretch. They are making claims that are non-scientific, not lynching or raping people. If a lot of people hear about the movie, or even see it, they can hear from NPR or the History Channel about the inaccuracies.

        If Creationists want to fund NPR and the History Channel, let them.
    • tattertech, on 04/18/2008, -17/+10So the NPR should take money from the KKK to advertise them? They're part of American Culture.
      • roosterjm2k2, on 04/18/2008, -2/+8If they were trying to advertise, then why not?

        Supressing them doesn't make them go away. Putting them in the limelight would actually probably hurt them more than anything.
      • friday81, on 04/18/2008, -6/+3Creacionists haven't killed anyone that I know...that makes a huge difference
        • spongya77, on 04/18/2008, -3/+4No, they just want to force their own values onto everybody else. Soooo much better.
          • friday81, on 04/18/2008, -1/+3a lot less worse
          • lacronicus, on 04/19/2008, -0/+4I would most definitely rather someone try to non-violently push their values on me than kill me.
          • parithes, on 04/19/2008, -0/+1Forcing me to sit through a lecture on the myth of evolution is along the same lines... Every bit of so called evidence is subjective, not to mention to constant reshaping of theory itself.
        • Disfnord, on 04/18/2008, -0/+5"NAMBLA: we're not killers."
        • chaosium, on 04/18/2008, -2/+3Faith healing is evidence to the contrary.
      • ninetimes, on 04/18/2008, -2/+2Here's the difference, I think: While the makers of Expelled may be trying to convince of something that's incorrect, they're not specifically advocating illegal behavior or violence. They aren't, AFAIK, encouraging people to actively bring physical harm to others.

        I mean, really, the big offense of the people who made this movie is only that they're incorrect in their assertions. Even though what they're doing isn't science, it's also not a good practice for the pro-science people to attempt to censor others simply because their assertions are incorrect. Instead, let them talk, and then correct them.
        • spongya77, on 04/18/2008, -0/+2They are not incorrect. They are blatantly lying. There's a difference. And when the general population knows ***** about science, and hostile towards science (only Turkey is more pro-creationist), then these ***** should be forced to defend their stupidity in open forums, and not given a chance to lie through propaganda.
        • parithes, on 04/19/2008, -2/+1Chaos does not produce order - - and amino acids/proteins do not randomly come into existence with the INFORMATION to build simple or complex life.... any other assertion is simply dense and dimwitted.
          • tattertech, on 04/20/2008, -0/+2Wow.. way to have no ***** clue what you're talking about. Order forms naturally constantly. Or are rocks and crystals Satan's tricks?
      • falstaff, on 04/18/2008, -2/+2Here's my question...remember a few weeks ago when that FOX radio guy runs speeches of Obama and Hitler back to back, in an attempt to compare the reactions of the audiences? Deservedly brought down a lot of outrage. Now here's BA guy doing the exact same thing by 'comparing' creationists to NAMBLA. No outrage here? Naive, yes; child molesters, no.
        • tattertech, on 04/19/2008, -0/+1You mean like Creationists saying people that you know... support scientific inquiry are nazis? Right. That's cool with you.
    • bowe, on 04/18/2008, -7/+24Can you even watch the movie yet? How many of you have seen it? It might have some good stuff for people with open minds. At the very least, you'll learn where the other side of the debate is coming from, and how to counter their arguments. I would never want to live in a country where people aren't free to voice theories that go against the scientific consensus of the day, whether or not they are well-founded or likely.
      • ToadLeg, on 04/18/2008, -3/+4I agree that people, including those who produced Expelled, should be able to voice theories against scientific consensus, even if those theories are logically non-scientific. However, it isn't as if we don't know what's coming, given reviews from organizations like Scientific American. Apparently in the movie they try to say Darwin caused the Holocaust, not Hitler, who was just following instructions from Darwin.
      • davdev, on 04/18/2008, -4/+18I agree with you, however calling ID a Theory is not accurate. At best it is a bad hypothesis. There are no competing theories on evolution. There is one Theory, and a bunch of untestable hypotheses
      • TechMike, on 04/18/2008, -4/+3People like me have watched the trailers and read the press releases. I'm looking forward to the movie. The premise of "EXPELLED", as I understand it, is not support for a Creationist viewpoint, although it does support ID. Rather, it is against a scientific community that suppresses dialogue about competing views on unproven and unobserved phenomena..
        • chaosium, on 04/18/2008, -4/+5"The premise of "EXPELLED", as I understand it, is not support for a Creationist viewpoint, although it does support ID"

          Apparently you don't understand it. Creationism is ID is Creationism, and the movie only serves to promote it, not for any other purpose.
        • spongya77, on 04/18/2008, -3/+6If, as a Biologist, I could disprove the theory of evolution, I would be the Elvis, the Czar, the ***** KING of biology. My name would live forever, and I would have statues in every university for eternity.
          Now, tell me. Why would hundreds of thousands of scientist, like me, trying to suppress the "truth", if the rewards are high? I guess we all are part of the Jewish conspiracy. Or the Free Mansions. Or the Government pays us.
        • lacronicus, on 04/19/2008, -3/+2Chaosium, ID is very different from creationism. Creationists believe that a god created the entire universe as we know it approximately 6000 years ago, and that everything that leads you to believe otherwise was planted by god to sway you from the truth; it is not only unprovable, it is anti-scientific, as it assumes science is a lie. Those who believe in intelligent design, more or less, believe that science is fact, simply that god was the catalyst behind science as we know it. While this is practically impossible to prove scientifically, it does not in any way contradict modern science, including evolution.
    • spongya77, on 04/18/2008, -10/+10I think you should be ashamed that creationism is a part of American culture. (Or "culture"...? So far the culture I have seen came from the much-despised metropolitan areas -by those pesky pink-commie liberals, you know. Your culture is Vonnegut, Heller, and others. Not these lunatic fundamentalists.) Only in islamic countries are people so much against science... and not in one Western democracy do you see a scientific theory handled as a political issue. You guys missed out the last few centuries, apparently; Enlightenment did not take root here.
      Not to mention in reality there is NO doubt about evolution.
      • jstone, on 04/18/2008, -2/+4"Not to mention in reality there is NO doubt about evolution."

        This is America. Reality has no place here.
        • spongya77, on 04/18/2008, -0/+2Yeah, I guess. ~sigh~ I've seen what goes on as politics and press... :`( sad, really.
    • defwheezer, on 04/18/2008, -9/+3NPR = National Petroleum Radio (bought and paid for by ExxonMobile et al), another byproduct of the privatize government neocon-reagan-antiregulation-*****, just kill government-*****-4-brains right wing.
      • Scorpy2643, on 04/19/2008, -1/+0you know that putting reagan and neocon together makes you look like a stupid *****, right? do you even know what neocon means? or do you just spout this ***** like diarhea without having any clue what any of it means?

        you are a *****
      • browwiw, on 04/19/2008, -1/+1Defwheezer, have you even ever listened to 5 minutes of NPR? Because to those of use that listen on a daily basis, you sound like an uninformed douche bag.

        NPR is about as objective as journalism gets.
        • defwheezer, on 04/21/2008, -0/+1I have listened to NPR for many yrs. But you sir, need to be deprogrammed! Since the collective "hurrah!" from NPR anchors during the 1992 elections when Bill Clinton won, the Right has been hell bent on gutting NPR; 'de-liberalizing' it. Since GWB and Co. came into office with a "***** the electorate" attitude, they have indeed turned NPR into another propaganda arm of the Republicant party. Dont; believe me? Listen to NPR, and then listen to progressive radio like Pacifica and you'll see just how "balanced" NPR has been reduced to as of late. Beisdes that, NPR gets way too muich $ from corporate interests to be "unbiased". Wake up and smell the propaganda.
    • mustsee, on 04/18/2008, -7/+1I had no idea there was so much insecurity among the "worshipers" o science
    • Gnarled, on 04/18/2008, -1/+2They were also probably worried about being labeled as liberal biased if they refused to accept the sponsorship.
    • Cattywampus, on 04/18/2008, -0/+1I agree, NPR takes sponsorship from all kinds of organizations, I don't know that it means they are "selling out." The big agribusiness firm Archer Daniels Midland was a longtime sponsor, and NPR still did stories about controversies involving the company.
      I don't even know if the promotion of Expelled is a deal for just promoting that film on NPR; other films have been sponsors on NPR, including Once and There Will Be Blood. It's possible that some movies studios have sponsorship deals with NPR to promote a certain number of that studio's films, and NPR may not even know in advance what those films will be.
    • joeanon, on 04/19/2008, -5/+3Child porn is part of American culture. Should NPR glorify that also ?

      It's not about freedom of speech, it's about taking a RESPONSIBLE approach and considering the sociological effects of helping distribute propaganda that is likely to harm your culture and economy.

      If NPR went along with Hitler and helped the labor party gain power.. would you still defend their right to reproduce American culture.

      Think about what your saying. NPR ... DOES NOT... have to GO ALONG with expelled to report on it. Just like they shouldn't go along with McCarthyism or Fascism.

      I personally don't know NPR's true place on expelled, but IF they supposed such programming I will not support them, AND last I remember, they rely ENTIRELY on their regular audience, not attracting new viewers.

      Of course, NPR also makes little to no money, so bribing them would be very... very easy. Plus it may also be safe to assume old style broadcasting networks like this are on the downfall anyway, along with newspapers. However, RIGHT NOW I think NPR serves a decent purpose and while they may feel an obligation to take everyone opinion into account. The reality is that is not possible.

      They have to CHOSE information vs misinformation.

      If you think glorifying Nazism and McCarthyism doesn't ultimately result in more demographics that support those ideas... THINK AGAIN.

      The public is a highly impressionable and barely educated mass. THANKFULLY their attention span is so short
      however their zealot rage is limited to only a few years.. usually. That is, the public can only get so excited for so long before apathy takes back over and they forget what they were mad about or they concede their rights and prosperity.

      The reason YOU THINK it's ok to TAKE MONEY FROM ANY SPONSER (even communists and fascists according to your logic) is simply because that's what you used to.

      You're used to news and other media outlets providing your a stream of ***** on the basis that supply and demand is some magically ethical force that will allow invisible forces to regulate the markets.

      Information can be seen as a commodity like any other. We have lemon laws, we have false advertising laws, we have all kinds of consumer protections. We also have an obligation to protect the consumers of media and put entertainment in one corner and NEWS in another.

      Normally the FREE press regulates itself, but in only a few decades media monopolization, kindly called media consolidation (as though they are all losing money and need to merge) has change the viewers ability to find contrasting sources.

      With the majority of mainstream media being controlled by only 4 different parent companies NOW is not an acceptable time for NPR to side itself with Expelled.

      Why ?

      Because Expelled is not conveniently being released during a major Presidential election.

      Expelled is being paid for, being throw together with the prayer that it can help draw YET ANOTHER divide among the American people.

      Ben Stein has been aligning his failed career (just as Dennis Miller) with conservatives, because basically they are desperate and MUST find talking heads that can sway moderates or even liberals. Using people who've been on popular liberal shows or channels like comedy central are great ploys to draw in people who are still making their minds up as to what side of the fence they are on.

      Who really thinks Fox News is interested in Ben Stein's opinion on anything ? They are helping promote a new divisional factor because they are getting desperate.

      NPR is unwittingly or wittingly helping manipulate the election by supporting what is OBVIOUSLY not a religious or scientific film, but rather an election ploy.
      • AeroZeppelin, on 04/19/2008, -1/+5Oh, shut up.
      • Matt2k, on 04/19/2008, -1/+4I hate to say tl;dr, but JESUS what a rant. You lost me after the first sentence.

        > It's not about freedom of speech, it's about taking a RESPONSIBLE approach and considering the sociological effects of helping distribute propaganda that is likely to harm your culture and economy.

        I mean, seriously. Ben Stein's movie is like the Nazi party? WHAT?
        • avidlinuxuser, on 04/19/2008, -0/+1Yep, Ben Stein even implies that the theory of evolution is what caused the Nazis to exist.
      • Cyberen, on 04/19/2008, -0/+1Although you violated Godwin's Law (no mentioning Hitler) your rant had some truth to it, how much I'm not sure, but thanks for taking the time to share your opinion.
        • CrackWilding, on 04/19/2008, -0/+0The words "the" and "and" were spot on. The rest was tripe.
    • Spartanious, on 04/19/2008, -0/+1even though i don't agree with you i want to thank you for making spaces in your rant. its much more readable than people that clump it in one blob.
  • yellowcakewalk, on 04/18/2008, -31/+12NPR is the mouthpiece of government and industry.
    • christopheles, on 04/18/2008, -3/+17Totally dude. Every time I try to listen to Car Talk it's like Military Industrial Complex is breathing down my neck.
    • greenlight2001, on 04/18/2008, -5/+2***** Click AND Clack!
      • Disfnord, on 04/18/2008, -1/+1Now that's a three way I'd pay to see...
    • browwiw, on 04/19/2008, -0/+1Have you ever even listened to NPR, *****?
  • insomniacal, on 04/18/2008, -25/+108Golden rule: If evolutionists complain about Ben Stein comparing them to Hitler, they shouldn't be comparing Ben Stein to the Ku Klux Klan.

    Let's _all_ play fair.
    • insomniacal, on 04/18/2008, -17/+5Negative diggs on that comment, eh? I stand corrected: both comparisons were fair game after all.
      Let the tit-for-tat continue, then.
    • BevansDesign, on 04/18/2008, -11/+18We should be comparing Stein to someone who writes speeches for a crooked political figure. Oh wait...
    • Harbinger1080, on 04/18/2008, -6/+11i dugg you up...
      come on kids, let's try not to get all knee-jerk hypocritical now.
    • Wonderama, on 04/18/2008, -2/+5Now, now...let's not get carried away here. There's no reason to expect civility and rational discourse when discussing such things. This is Digg and the author of the article has an ax to grind. Let's not pass up an opportunity to claim offense to gain the higher moral ground, or lash out with incrementally outrageous statements.
    • CryRightardCry, on 04/18/2008, -16/+8No moron.
      When someone makes up stories and demands you accept them as scientific fact and teach them to children then NO, you don't have to pretend they are saying something valid.
      Are you really this dumb, or is this a rightard shill pretending to be reasonable?
      Ah, I see. Shill.
      So you'll push the right wing retardation while at the same time pretending you just want to get along.
      Pathetic.
      At least be honest about what you represent.
      • Wonderama, on 04/18/2008, -6/+6Awww, does someone need a nap?
      • fantasticFlan, on 04/18/2008, -2/+8Did insomniacal say we should pretend they are saying something valid? No, he said we shouldn't lower ourselves to their level.
      • insomniacal, on 04/19/2008, -0/+1Why do I have a feeling I lost you at "Golden rule"?
    • dcollins, on 04/18/2008, -4/+6I bet none of the people raising hell here on digg have even seen the movie. I haven't seen it yet, so I have no feeling for or against it.
    • sealhands, on 04/19/2008, -2/+3so creationists get to make the atheist/holocaust connection in the format of a major motion picture while one evolutionist cant make a similar outlandish comparison in his measly science blog? if youre talking about fairness than youd have to admit one has a much more negative, large scale impact than the other.
      • insomniacal, on 04/19/2008, -0/+1"so creationists get to make the atheist/holocaust connection in the format of a major motion picture while one evolutionist cant make a similar outlandish comparison in his measly science blog?"
        You said it yourself: "similar outlandish comparison." Why stoop that low? Let the opposition shame themselves. This isn't politics we're talking here, it's science.
    • jpittawa, on 04/19/2008, -0/+0I have yet to see the movie, but it is true that Hitler and his henchemen accepted evolution as scientific fact. They wanted to remove Jews from human gene pool to prevent further polution of the evolutionary chain. Sick, demented and not representative of the mainstream evolutionists...I hope.
  • wynja, on 04/18/2008, -20/+11Dugg for associating the asshats that produced Expelled with members of NAMBLA. I think the NAMBLA boys... I mean men should be offended by the association personally.
    • laserblazer, on 04/18/2008, -5/+6These are men who want to have sex with eight year-old boys - what could possibly offend them that they don't already know about themselves?
      • wynja, on 04/23/2008, -0/+1It's a ***** joke and poke at the morons that produced Expelled. This ***** site is going downhill when you can't make a joke about an association made by the ***** article. l2read. RTFA.
    • metric7, on 04/18/2008, -1/+1Go be a hero.
  • eminiguy, on 04/18/2008, -13/+47Sound science thrives on controversy. Bogus science abhors it. Enough said.
    • gyver, on 04/18/2008, -6/+16There is no controversy about evolution between the non-religious. Morons that don't like their dogma being contradicted are the only ones who have an alternative view.
      • shazzb0t, on 04/18/2008, -1/+2You are speaking as though there is no such thing as a community of individuals with a religious faith who see tons of evidence for the evolutionary process being the vehicle by which human beings and other life forms have come to this point. There is. Don't equate faith in a God(s) with advocating hokum paraded as science.
      • Hangly, on 04/18/2008, -0/+1Which group of dogmatic morons are you talking about?
        • gyver, on 04/23/2008, -0/+1any group that thinks untestable claims trump the scientific method
    • brstilson, on 04/18/2008, -6/+20Creationism doesn't raise a valid controversy. All of it's claims have already been dismissed. You can't expect scientists to waste their time arguing with creationists all the time any more than you can expect them to spend all their time disproving alchemy.
      • TechMike, on 04/18/2008, -9/+3Hegelian method says that if you start with a bad assumption, you get bad results. If you assume there is no God, any solution that depends on one is assumed to be wrong. However, a premise that admits there might have been a creator would consider the possibility of an alternative explanation. Only when all other alternatives have been positively dismissed can you affirmatively conclude that what is left is the truth. Scientists who dismiss assumptions without proof (but only supposition) are guilty of bad science.
      • Hangly, on 04/18/2008, -2/+1Isn't it wonderful we live in a free country where people like you don't get to decide by fiat what is and is not valid.
      • Intamin, on 04/19/2008, -0/+1You mean alchemy isn't real? Over ten million WoW users would have to disagree with you, sir.
    • kingmanic, on 04/18/2008, -3/+4Really? so the massive particle science set ups dont' thrive at all because it's not controversial. Nor the thousands of studies a year which only refine our understanding instead of up ending it? Science is bigger then what you think it is. the bulk of it is many little refinements to existing ideas and once in a blue moon someone comes and completely up ends what we know. Darwin, Einstien, Pasture, etc.. did this but the legions of others which onyl contributed refinements made contributions as well. Sound Science thrives on good solid experimental data, good procedures, and falsifiability. Sound science is independent of the presence or lack of controversy. The right answer gets weeded out over time.
      • fantasticFlan, on 04/18/2008, -1/+3Who said science can't thrive without controversy?
        • kingmanic, on 04/18/2008, -1/+1The GP says Bogus science abhors while sound science thrives on it with the distinct implication that if it isn't controversial then it's bogus.
        • Hangly, on 04/18/2008, -2/+3All men are mortal, Socrates was mortal, therefore the distinct implication is that all men are Socrates!

          Kingmanic, you fail at logic.
  • benny786, on 04/18/2008, -8/+0E=mc^2 his ass!
  • brstilson, on 04/18/2008, -4/+28The History Channel is hardly a bastion for credible scientific information. Half of the time they're running a special on Nostradamus or UFO's, giving about 0-30 seconds to real science and the rest of the show to the whacko nutjobs promoting it.
    • EvilAnimator, on 04/18/2008, -1/+2I watch History Channel a lot and you are lying.
      • timoumd, on 04/18/2008, -1/+3Clearly not the same History channel Im watching...I dont always remember what "science" channel Im watching, but they often put on UFO/World is Ending/Pseudo-Science bull without giving a sane perspective. I mean one show was trying to tell me the Bermuda Triangle was a worm hole! Where do you even begin to prove that one wrong?
        • carpespasm, on 04/19/2008, -0/+1Actually I found these shows useful since they allowed me the chance to get into these things and see what claims they made and how it didn't seem to make much sense when I was a kid and they couldn't come up with good answers to even basic questions. Kinda like how I found going to church very enlightening when I was in my late teens. It gave me a good chance to try and find the faith that they spoke of, and to directly hear how the faith was practiced, but I only wound up seeing cracks in the story that led me to questions the church couldn't answer. I think the pseudoscience things are interesting stories, same as mythological stories, you just have to know that it's not science unless there's strong evidence for it.
      • deadbaby, on 04/19/2008, -0/+1They're right. The amount of information you learn watching the History Channel for hours is less than what you'd get off wikipedia or from a book in about 10 minutes. I.
    • Marijuana, on 04/19/2008, -0/+1I've also been noticing this change. I'm starting to believe theres an agenda as well.
  • hayzeus, on 04/18/2008, -9/+14Dugg down for gratuitously insulting NAMBLA.
    Just kidding. Obviously the KKK are the real victims here...
  • empiric, on 04/18/2008, -25/+14"evolution occurs" = testable, scientific proposition

    "evolution is causally exhaustive with regards to human origins" = wholly untestable, unscientific proposition

    Since, pretty universally, people wrapping themselves in the mantle of "science" do not care about the former proposition, only the second, and argue the first while wishing really hard that concluding the second was logically valid--I suppose I'm in the "anti-science" group, since I like my science to be, you know, science.
    • sonoran, on 04/18/2008, -5/+5"evolution is causally exhaustive with regards to human origins" = undecipherable nonsense sentence
      • empiric, on 04/18/2008, -11/+2Needs smaller words?

        "Science says no being with genetic modification skills we have today could have influenced evolution at any point in history."

        No, "science" doesn't say that, because it'd be completely untestable. You'd be simply hoping that is the case.
        • Logicexe, on 04/18/2008, -0/+10Are you trying to say that science should accept Intelligent Design because they can't absolutely prove that the designer (if it even exists whatever it may be) didn't do something with our DNA at some point in the past?

          Do you have any idea how absurd that is? If you're going to argue in favor of your position you actually need some evidence in its favor. Not having evidence against your theory does not, in any way, support your theory.

          Furthermore, your idea is simply unfalsifiable, thus is useless to anyone who actually might want to test for ID or generate some sort of prediction based on ID.
          • empiric, on 04/18/2008, -7/+4I'm saying that science should scope its position to what is scientific: "Evolution occurs."

            To say beyond that is a stance of metaphysics, not science.

            And yes, we have evidence, because the most definitive form of evidence possible is heuristic evaluation of the probability of biological structures forming where not progressively beneficial. To draw from scientific knowns to make a heuristic evaluation is evidence, will be evidence when you try to redefine the requirement as "proof", and will be evidence when you have 1000 people say it isn't evidence.

            "Proof", when and if that becomes possible, will be a function of quantifiability when we know enough about the specific genetic changes necessary in terms of the specific changes to the genome required, calculated with respect to the relevant population and timeframe. We aren't there yet, but I'll certainly be interested in the numbers when we are.
          • Logicexe, on 04/18/2008, -2/+6*****.

            DNA evidence, the fossil record and morphology all point clearly to common ancestry. In order to fit this in with ID you'd have to accept that the designer, at some point, made all the animals in the world in such away that they would look exactly as if they evolved from a common ancestor. Do you understand what a falsifiable hypothesis is? Do you understand what Occam's Razor is?
          • empiric, on 04/18/2008, -4/+2Sure, I understand what Occam's Razor is--do you?

            By the way, in that respect, is my position ridiculously simple, "goddidit", or unnecessarily complex?

            Occam's Razor is an epistemlogical economy heuristic, not a determinant of fact. The facts determine the minimal complexity for representation, not the other way around. But while we're at it, would it be Euclidean Geometry or Riemann Geometry that is shown simply wrong by Occam's Razor?

            But I digress. Basically, most of my application programs as a software developer use 90% of the same underlying structures of code. That's because I'm a relatively intelligent designer.
          • Logicexe, on 04/18/2008, -1/+7I bet you don't copy the errors from one program to the other do you? If your program becomes infected with a retro virus you don't port the program with the virus in it do you?

            So tell me, why do some of our most closely related primate cousins have the same vitamin C deficiency that we do? Why do they have the exact same gene responsible for the synthesis of vitamin C broken in the same spot?

            Why do our primate cousins contain many of the same retro viral insertions that we have? Why would an "intelligent" designer put in the same junk DNA into the primates unless he was intentionally trying to fool us into thinking that evolution were true?

            So we either have a malevolent trickster designer trying to fool us into believing he doesn't exist by making everything look exactly as it should if we had all evolved from a common ancestor, or we simply did evolve from a common ancestor. I wonder which proposition has more unknown variables and is more needlessly complex. hmmmmm...
          • empiric, on 04/18/2008, -6/+3I think... these questions could bear a great deal more discussion. But in the interests of brevity, how sure are you we all have a common ancestor now, apart from questions of ID? Are you sure that are no living creatures in, say, North Korea, who did not come into existence by the chain of reproductive descent that defines what we mean by "common ancestry"? Perhaps such a Genetic Engineer personally wants to fool you by reusing existing genetic information, maybe he just didn't care what you think. Why would you exclude this possibility except within a current time-frame?

            As far as malevolence, I think that's largely a matter of perspective. Bringing about your absolute insistence in your inevitable "Deselection", along with recognition you have little basis to complain regarding how negative that ends up being for you, simply that you objectively lost in the only sense you acknowledge matters (survival), seems not particularly malevolent toward me as a theist. Especially if the relevant scope of "survival", and the benefits of doing so, ends up being a bit wider than you believe.
          • sonoran, on 04/18/2008, -0/+4We aren't *sure". Never in science, all science is tentative. We could find a fossil or even a living creature tomorrow that may have originated from something other than the common ancestor that all life today that we have catalogued so far has originated from. But so far, in all the life we've found and catalogued we haven't found an exception to this. So to say we won't in the future is an extrapolation from the current situation. But even if we found such an organism it would most likely be that another lineage was started sometime in the distant past separate from that started by our common ancestor. There are scientists who are looking at this hypothesis now, that there may have been several life origin events resulting in lineages that are completely separate. So far they haven't found evidence to suuport their hypothesis.
          • empiric, on 04/19/2008, -3/+0"We could find a fossil or even a living creature tomorrow that may have originated from something other than the common ancestor that all life today that we have catalogued so far has originated from. But so far, in all the life we've found and catalogued we haven't found an exception to this."

            What? This "tree" is under continual revision, no, not simply adds of new species to where they deterministically would fall on the tree, but outright revision of the placement based on outright error. And, any new placement is purely probabilistic. The only -consistent- factor is tautological--that there are genetic relationships so we define some relationship according to some perception of genetic probability. The same dismissal of divergent probability by which you reject "microevolution" versus "macroevolution" is the same probabilistic method by which you generate any particular "tree" -at all-. The general notion that you -know- with any degree of certainty that history caused the scenario...

            Organism A -> Organism B -> Organism C

            ...as opposed to...

            Organism A -> Organism X -> Organism C

            ...is absurd. It is probabilistic guesswork, and could be 90% in error without violating the constraint you hold yourself to, that something could by some probability descend from something else, but not as an exclusive possibility. Well, duh. Tautological information.
          • sonoran, on 04/19/2008, -0/+5Uh huh… I’ve heard this “your cheating” argument before and frankly it misses the whole point. Yep the Evolutionary tree is under constant revision. Yes we use genetic information to establish relatedness. Yes genetic information is part of the definition of relatedness. I don’t reject micro or macro evolution by the way, that’s an assumption on your part. The real answer to all those questions is: “so what?”
            If we were to arrange languages into a tree showing their relatedness we’d “cheat” in similar ways. We use similarity of words, similarity of pronunciations among other things to inform us as to how the relationships fall. Even though those characteristics also define how those languages descend from one another. We’d revise the tree when new information came to light about population movements, older pronunciations etc.
            The point is to refine things to make them as accurate as possible, it’s not a test to see if arranging things by one criterion is validated by reviewing them using another criteria. There’s no Tautological problem here because the significance of this exercise is different from what you perceive it to be. You see languages *can* be arranged in a cladistic tree that produces a statistically significant result *because* their relationship is one of descendancy. You can’t arrange unrelated entities this way, cladistic analysis will not bear it out. For languages and living organisms the results aren’t perfect, nothing ever is in science, but your claim of 90% error is a ridiculous characterization. The results for living organisms is statistically *extremely* high, way beyond any question of chance. It’s one of the most powerful cases for evolution.
        • sonoran, on 04/18/2008, -0/+4Words with a clearer meaning would do. OK science *does not* say that! Absolutely not. If you're referring to a "supernatural" being then that's outside of science's realm. Science says that proposing a supernatural being is by definition untestable and not science because a supernatural being can do anything anytime and thus you can never establish any type of evidence that would be unsupportive. The answer would always just be: "well the I guess (Thor, Odin, Yahweh) just did it that way" no matter what you found. Supernatural beings can be elements of religion and philosophy but not science.
          If you're talking about a being of natural origin and with no supernatural powers (scientifically advanced aliens or something)... again science cannot and doesnot exclude this. At this point science considers it *extremely* unlikely because there's not a shred of evidence to support it.
      • busket, on 04/18/2008, -4/+0That's great. You're all like 'Yaaaaaaaaaay science!!!!" Until you get to a sentence with big words. You don't sound like much of a scientist to me.
        • sonoran, on 04/18/2008, -0/+5This is a case of someone using big words without the requiste language skills.
          • busket, on 04/18/2008, -3/+0Did you mean "requisite'? Or were you just being ironic?
          • sonoran, on 04/18/2008, -0/+2I meant requisite and misspelled it.
          • busket, on 04/19/2008, -0/+0So I'm being dugg down for pointing out a spelling error in a sentence where sonoran was attempting to exert his superiority in language skills? You guys should digg him down for looking like a fool.

            Even then, I understood what "evolution is causally exhaustive with regards to human origins" means. It's not Spanish. It certainly wasn't an example of the misusing of big words.
    • hayzeus, on 04/18/2008, -3/+15Theories are not "causally exhaustive", so you're more with the "I don't understand science" crowd. Congrats.
      • empiric, on 04/18/2008, -10/+3No, I understand it fine, but make up whatever you like. Indeed, a theory must be "causally exhaustive" with respect to the domain it asserts universal applicability toward. As soon as we found a replicable exception to, say, Relativity, it would no longer be a sound theory.

        That's rather aside the point, though, as I'm simply pointing out the disconnect between "evolution" in a scientifically-testable rendering, and one which is not. While the valid scientific rendering might be less than satisfying to those whose whole interest in it is supporting atheism for wholly un-science-related personal reasons, there it is.
        • zephc, on 04/18/2008, -1/+7There *is* no counter-evidence to evolution though. Changes in understanding of evolution have pushed it forward and refined it, not hindered it.
          • empiric, on 04/18/2008, -6/+2Well, I think we'll quickly reach an impasse here, because from my perspective, until all proposed examples of "irreducible complexity" are analyzed, there is "counter-evidence". For that to happen, they would have to be first be fully enumerated. That process, however a particular proposed example resolves, is a process appropriate to science. Personally, I'm willing to wait and see how that may proceed, though, typically, at this point we'd simply have some broad-brush dismissal of all such hypothetical cases, bypassing scientific inquiry entirely. Since given your assertion "there is no counter-evidence", I expect your reply to this will be equally categorical with regard to what hasn't even been enumerated for analysis, much less individually analyzed, I'll presume this will be my last comment in this thread.
          • zephc, on 04/18/2008, -1/+3@empiric:
            http://www.proteinpower.com/drmike/wp-content/uplo ...
            This is how science works. We have a working theory that explains things really, really well. When counter-evidence is produced (and is reproducible), THEN we go and look to see what is wrong and come up with a new or altered theory.

            Creationism makes NO TESTABLE HYPOTHESES. It is as futile arguing that "God did it" a few thousand years ago as it is arguing that God created the universe 1 minute ago, and that everything we know is implanted false memories (there to test our faith!)
          • empiric, on 04/18/2008, -4/+0@zephc:

            Thing is, I'm not really going to play along with the deliberately-deceptive use of "creationism" to mean "the conjunction of the idea that the world is a few thousand years ago, with the idea that there is a God, accept or reject both as a unit". Sure, you know it's an invalid usage of a concept, and if you read some Aristotle (or Miss Rand) the "package-deal" nature of the proposition would be even more directly spelled-out.

            But anyway, regarding testable hypotheses: NDE's proposed as a consequence, data. http://profezie3m.altervista.org/archivio/TheLance ...

            Experiential knowledge of God determinable by a given methodology: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hesychasm Proposed, and tested.

            I think what you mean is it makes no testable hypotheses in the domain of the methods of testing you acknowledge, with such domain defined as restrictively as necessary to exclude the tests.
        • sonoran, on 04/18/2008, -0/+3What's your point here? That Evolutionary Theory and the embedded scientific fact of common descent are invalid until every single possible facet and exception has been explored and shown to be consistent with the Theory? That's completely impractical, it'll never happen. Not only in regard to Evolution but in regard to any scientific theory. Science doesn't deal in "truths" and "absolutes" that's for philosophy and religion. Science is a body of knowledge undergoing constant review and revision. That doesn't detract from the fact that there's a huge body of evidence, many independent lines of evidence, that support the Theory of Evolution. I know you acknowledge that, but there seems to be some expectation that somehow there has be some absolute resolution of this… Once you get a certain weight of evidence to support a Theory you count it as highly credible, and Evolution has a body of evidence behind it of a magnitude as is rarely found for any scientific theory. That’s the best humans can ever do, and that’s what science is about. Can science prove there is no God… no it can’t. Can scientists deduce that God is extremely unlikely based on the evidence they see of how the physical world works? Sure, and increasingly they are doing just that.
          • empiric, on 04/19/2008, -2/+0"That Evolutionary Theory and the embedded scientific fact of common descent..."

            Again, back to my previous point--unless you have some reason to even be relatively sure all living organisms -today- have "common descent" (e.g. no North Korean Genetic Engineer generating a life form explicitly without -descent-, hence without "common descent"), you have no business saying that such never occurred in millions of years you can't check in any way, is a "scientific fact".

            I'm rather curious as to why you'd assert common descent, specifically, anyway. Since I assume you would reject a distinction of "microevolution" as opposed to "macroevolution", why not simply be consistent and say any given organism can directly mutate into any other organism at all in a single generation, and do away with a progressive "tree" entirely? And for that matter, since the "earliest" forms of life coming into existence isn't really improbable from your perspective, why hold the notion it's exactly improbable enough to happen once, in one basic form? Seems like a rather inconsistent stance, more a derivative of a theistic notion of "God creating life once" than anything naturally suggested by your own worldview. Why not a dozen distinct primitive spontaneously-generated life forms from which evolution proceeded further along particular "branches"? Why not a hundred? Too improbable of a completely-probable thing, to you?
          • sonoran, on 04/19/2008, -0/+3Oh OK well so far no one can create life from whole cloth. So even the North Korean is practicing an aritificial kind of descent as his work is derived from an existing organism.

            The progressive tree and the notion of common descent are held because the evidence supports them. At this point the other hypothesis you propose have no evidence to support them .
          • empiric, on 04/19/2008, -2/+0So... evolution (the term used as presenting an exhaustive causal explanation) is fact, because it could not be otherwise by your definitional terms. Modification of genetic information by an Intelligent Designer that existed in any other subset form at any point in history, would be "descent", even though it isn't descent.
          • empiric, on 04/19/2008, -2/+0And... it's late, I'm going to call it a night.

            I should add parenthetically, though, that I'm not opposed to evolution in terms of its significant explanatory power--as I'm not among those who present a "evolution versus ID" false dichotomy (those people being ID's opponents, not typically ID's adherents), and arguing "against evolution" would be a bit disconcerting to me in that it would be arguing against the reality that I automatically, inevitably win, just by waiting.

            Because, in a Darwinian sense, "survival" is a bit of a misnomer--nothing physical whatsoever survives. Just information--and information is squarely metaphysical. Which, is a fact I leave to naturalists to ponder as to how it fits into their materialist reduction of what they can discuss.

            And besides, I'd have to radically change my interpretation of the direct indication of historical human precursors (and what "it means") provided to me as of the First Century A.D., via the Gospel of Thomas. If you're going to be an early adopter, may as well start with when we were first told, 18 centuries before Darwin thought of it, I'd say. ;)
          • sonoran, on 04/19/2008, -0/+2"So... evolution (the term used as presenting an exhaustive causal explanation) is fact, because it could not be otherwise by your definitional terms."
            I don't know if you're still viewing this thread but if you've read what I've already written you can see that your characterization (quoted above) of my argument isn't accurate. There is no "could not be otherwise" in science. Anything could be otherwise. A "fact" in science is a concept that has such a large body of evidence behind it that the likelihood of it being valid is extremely high. "Facts" are determined in science by a high level of confidence and confidence is determined by the amount and quality of supporting evidence. So "exhaustive" as meaning covering *all* possibilities isn't a word that works in this context. You can conduct an exhaustive study in science but scientific facts theories and even laws aren't exhaustive treatments. They aren't meant to be. So yes tomorrow we might find something that indicates that: Eurynome, the goddess of all things, really did rise naked from chaos and finding nothing for her feet to stand on created the earth, as the Ancient Greeks believed. But based on what we know and what we've seen we think that's extremely improbable.
        • sonoran, on 04/19/2008, -0/+2... and by the way thanks for the discussion. I probably could have found a better way to start it off than proclaiming your statement "undecipherable"; so empiric and busket... my apologies. Cheers!
    • geomon, on 04/18/2008, -2/+5"Since, pretty universally, people wrapping themselves in the mantle of "science" do not care about the former proposition.."

      You've met "every" scientist working in the field of evolutionary biology?

      Now who is the one with the self-promoting boast?
      • busket, on 04/18/2008, -2/+1I think he was referring to people who spell science with a capital S; the science scenesters; the kind of person who says ""evolution is causally exhaustive with regards to human origins" = undecipherable nonsense sentence". He's talking about the people who trip all over each other proclaiming their love for science, but don't know enough about science to know what it actually is, what it can say, and what it can't say.
    • ninetimes, on 04/18/2008, -3/+3I'm going to try to rephrase, because I think you have a point here.

      Even if we take for granted that evolution occurs, that evolution has occurred, and that humans have evolved, it does *not* necessarily follow that "God" wasn't involved in the creation of mankind. Whether or not God was involved entirely untestable, and therefore is simply not the proper object of scientific investigation. In other words, Science has nothing to say on the subject of God.

      This is why the "Intelligent Design" crowd is wrong to try to bring religion into science, and it's also why Dawkins and his crowd are wrong in trying to use science as some sort of "proof" against the existence of God.
      • bnut, on 04/18/2008, -0/+2Dawkins never uses his "belief" in science as a proof against a god. The lack of evidence of a god is the reason why he leans toward atheism.
      • lacronicus, on 04/19/2008, -0/+1Just something to keep in mind: there is no contiguous "ID crowd" any more than there is a "atheist crowd." Yes, some among them may believe the same thing, others, however, may not.
        As I see it, our universe exists based on a set of basic rules that govern its existence (the study of which we call science). We cannot possibly discern the origins of those rules from the rules themselves, which means that science cannot either prove or disprove a superior being. What that does mean, however, is that the one can believe in god as well as trust in science.
      • SuperCow1127, on 04/19/2008, -0/+1I find anthropology a much better foil to theistic nonsense than evolutionary biology anyway. Beliefs based on nothing say far more about the believer.
    • rodelero2, on 04/18/2008, -0/+2READ A BOOK
    • timoumd, on 04/18/2008, -0/+2So we haven't tested whether gravity works exhaustively, so is that bad science too? Science is not exhaustive, nor can it be. I believe you mixed it with math.
  • Nougat, on 04/18/2008, -4/+12NPR is not a sell out. I don't know if anyone here remembers this, but when Archer Daniels Midland got nailed with a bunch of other companies for price fixing, NPR covered that hard for weeks. And ADM was then - even *during* the coverage - a big NPR sponsor. They pulled no punches whatsoever.
    • CryRightardCry, on 04/18/2008, -3/+5NPR has been going way downhill since Bush appointed a right wing asshat to lead it.
      The quality of reporting has dropped, and I can't even count the number of Bush administration people who have appeared on it and make false claims that were not questioned.
      I used to love NPR.
      Now.... not so much.
      • metric7, on 04/18/2008, -3/+3As opposed to the left-wing asshats that previously ran it. So you admit theres
        a political bias @ NPR?
  • CrunchyDeluxe, on 04/18/2008, -8/+33Free speech.
    • billbugger, on 04/18/2008, -0/+6Exactly. While i may disagree with you, i will fight for your right to say it... or something like that.
    • baley, on 04/19/2008, -0/+2Yeah but Expelled is a utter crap nonetheless
  • DuffyDirect, on 04/18/2008, -5/+3NPR is as awesome as NPH, so shut up!
  • bffoley, on 04/18/2008, -5/+7And if these two media groups DIDN'T take their advertisements, then I'm sure the producers of Expelled would have loudly whined that "Big Science" is punishing them yet again.
  • Nodnarbs, on 04/18/2008, -12/+44This guy lost me when he said the producers of Expelled are "liars and evil." ...evil?...really? hardly sounds like something a skeptic would say, sounds to me like this guy is getting a little carried away. Science welcomes all challengers and does not cast away ideas as evil simply because they are against the grain. Let's leave that to religion and the creationists.
    • Defuser, on 04/18/2008, -16/+4..except of course that Atheism IS a religion. Never has it been more obvious than here on Digg.
      • cadon35, on 04/18/2008, -2/+9Please name the deity that atheists worship... please
        • Hangly, on 04/18/2008, -2/+3Not all religions worship deities.
          • facelesscoward, on 04/19/2008, -2/+3Actually, that's true. Not all religions worship deities. There are atheistic religions. Of course, atheism is not a religion just as theism is not a religion. The difference is that all theists are religious, whereas only some atheists are religious.
      • hayzeus, on 04/18/2008, -1/+11Yes. When you think about it, "not eating pie" is really the same as "eating pie".
        • Hangly, on 04/18/2008, -2/+2They're both all about the pie.
          Perfect example, actually.
      • geomon, on 04/18/2008, -1/+11Look! Atheism IS a religion. He even Capitalized it!
      • Zarokima, on 04/18/2008, -1/+6Atheism is as much a religion as not collecting stamps is a hobby.
        • Hangly, on 04/18/2008, -4/+4If you spent your afternoons determinedly not collecting stamps, posted on the internet ad nauseum about not collecting stamps, read several books about not collecting stamps, and savagely attacked the stamp collectors that you hate oh-so-much whenever you encounter them, then yes I would call that a hobby.

          Actually I would call that a religion. All you need is a meeting house and you can apply for tax-exempt status.
          • Opiate, on 04/19/2008, -1/+3You are getting dugg down, only cause it hurts.
          • hayzeus, on 04/19/2008, -1/+2Of course you'd call it a religion. I get the sense that you would be willing to characterize just about ANYTHING as a religion if it suited your argument. Vegetarians don't eat meat, thus all people who eat meat are vegetarians, because it's all about the meat.
            Having said that, you *do* make a compelling case for persecuting stamp collectors.
      • Atheno, on 04/19/2008, -0/+2Please God!, atheism is not a religion; its a political viewpoint and a philosophical stance against *****.
      • solid12345, on 04/19/2008, -2/+1Who needs gods when hardcore athiests like the Soviets worshipped men like Lenin and Stalin as super humans on Earth with giant murals, statues, and all other perverted tributes to them. And to an extent even in America we have this with the cult of Lincoln and Washington as perfect men with no flaws.
    • cadon35, on 04/18/2008, -5/+1it was an exagerration.. dang, guy
      • fantasticFlan, on 04/18/2008, -1/+6It's the kind of hyperbole that seriously detracts from the discourse.
        • sgtpppr, on 04/18/2008, -2/+2It's also the kind of hyperbole that would NOT be taken as a joke if a creationist said a pro-evolution article was 'evil'.
    • spongya77, on 04/18/2008, -7/+5Let's see... someone is try to bring down the very foundations science was built on... by his own admission, seeks to destroy the materialistic society, and introduce one built on "christian" values... blatantly lies about a scientific theory, and makes it into a political issue... creates controversy where none exists... well, I would say, that it's fair to say that that person is an evil douche bag, who, one day, I pray, would be violated by a crucifix.
      • Neo829, on 04/18/2008, -1/+4Ben Stein is Jewish. I think it's pretty safe to say he isn't advocating rebuilding society around christianity.
    • fokov, on 04/18/2008, -1/+1Good vs Evil is about perception. However, the most common perception of evil starts with liars. Pretending an idea that never went through type of study or experiment is a conclusion or fact is a type of lying, and therefore evil in this perception of nature.

      I personally have problems with people that claim to know everything and lie about things they do not know, attempting to pass them off as whole truths. Yet they are sheep of their shepherd, and I view their lying as evil. It isn't hard to say 'I don't know.'
  • Jovensdesciple, on 04/18/2008, -14/+11Ever heard of "global warming"??? They hate science because it doesn't say what they want it to say
    • CryRightardCry, on 04/18/2008, -3/+4Still got that misspelled nick, eh?
      It's impossible to take you seriously when you are a rightard who can't even spell disciple.
      So we should believe the right wing claims that contradict real scientists from a guy who can't spell his own name?

    • evilbob333, on 04/18/2008, -1/+1Hell I even remember Global Cooling
  • KillerFuzzball, on 04/18/2008, -18/+16Jeeeeesus, enough about Expelled. The internet doesn't like anything having to do with religion, except for bashing it. I think we've figured that out by now.
    • spongya77, on 04/18/2008, -13/+1Only morons like you think creationism and religion are the same thing... I bet you anything that I know more about the bible than you. Your type only likes to talk religious, but know ***** about the real deal. (Btw you have just committed blasphemy.)
      • Defuser, on 04/18/2008, -0/+7Oh, ***** off. I have no idea what point you're trying to make, but you're making it poorly, so just shut up already.
      • Hangly, on 04/18/2008, -0/+4Dude, you're not helping.
      • bagelmaster, on 04/19/2008, -0/+1I'm sure a non-religious person is really concerned that he has blasphemed. While you're at it, why not go ahead and tell him he's damned to hell, I'm sure it'll keep him up late at night.
      • jpittawa, on 04/19/2008, -0/+0I'll take your bet. Start by explaining how 'killerfuzzball' blasphemed. What is 'blasphemy', biblically speaking?
    • Scorpy2643, on 04/19/2008, -3/+0people on digg like religion, they think fundamental islam is dandy!
  • Parkinsons, on 04/18/2008, -2/+8I will support the History Channel in what ever they do so long as they keep making Modern Marvels.
    • fokov, on 04/18/2008, -0/+4That show rocks. It shows us the beauty in our engineering skills.
    • blindhammer, on 04/18/2008, -0/+5Modern Marvels: Water
      Modern Marvels: The Wheel
      Modern Marvels: Pully Systems

      These were real shows. Not very modern. They are grasping :)
      • bagelmaster, on 04/19/2008, -0/+3Maybe not modern, but still interesting.
  • D3ADBOLT, on 04/18/2008, -3/+2Yes
  • dnields, on 04/18/2008, -0/+10Has anyone here actually read past the title here and read the friggin' article? All this talk about the History Channel, when the article clearly says "The Science Channel".
  • CrazedLeper, on 04/18/2008, -21/+10You Neverlution worshipers (yes, it is a religion) are doing exactly what Stein said. He has not come out in support of "Intelligent Design" --which, by the way, is *not* religion. What Stein is trying to point out is that the Neverlution camp is doing exactly what many are doing on this very page: shutting down the discussion on fraudulent grounds.

    Many are resorting to ridicule, word-association, mockery and influence to shout-down Stein just as the proponents of the SCIENTIFIC position of Intelligent Design have been shouted-down without appropriate debate. You'll shout me down too but your opinions are are worthless, uninformed regurgitation of the intellectual byproducts that your overlords have shoveled into your empty heads.
    • dockb0y, on 04/18/2008, -6/+6You got it in one. If anyone is confident in their beliefs, they wouldn't mind questioning and skepticism. By shutting down debate and attacking, they show their true colours.
    • hayzeus, on 04/18/2008, -2/+11'Neverlution' -- Dugg up as retarded
    • zephc, on 04/18/2008, -3/+9Until Creationists can state something that is falsifiable, there is nothing to debate about. "God did it" is not falsifiable until you can prove the existence of God first.
      I say Creationism is because I am calling a horse a horse. "Intelligent Design" is no different than Creationism, and you know it.
      • CrazedLeper, on 04/18/2008, -9/+2Intelligent design notes that the marks of intent are indisputably and inextricably found in all living things. ID makes no attempt to specify who the designer might have been. The fact is, Neverlution teaches a warped perspective on life and it has no first cause.

        The motivation for the theory first postulated by Darwin was racism. Darwin was seeking to prove that whites were, somehow, superior in an absolute way. What he came up with is; "if you can kill something, you're better than it". Brilliant. Every advance of the theory, whether knowingly or unknowingly advances the motive upon which the preposterous nonsense is founded.
        • zephc, on 04/18/2008, -2/+5CrazedLeper: -1, Troll
          • CrazedLeper, on 04/19/2008, -1/+1More insults? Last time I checked, insults and ridicule did not qualify as evidence.
    • geomon, on 04/18/2008, -2/+8"SCIENTIFIC position of Intelligent Design..."

      What *is* the scientific position of ID?

      Define *intelligent*.

      Define *design*.
    • kagyakusha, on 04/18/2008, -1/+7Intelligent design is NOT a scientific position. A SCIENTIFIC position can be TESTED and SHOWN to be either plausible or implausible.
      Intelligent Design is a circular argument "ZOMG! It looks like it was designed so it MUST BE" and then if you break it down and show how natural selection explains the exact same thing SCIENTIFICALLY and with EXPERIMENTS which can be REPEATED then they find some other way to say the same thing -- again without testing it or supporting it in any way. ID is not science. It's religion. And yes, until ID actually has ANY scientific experiments or proof anyone who understands science is going to disregard it as about as scientifically useful as the bible.
    • robopuppy, on 04/18/2008, -1/+3Thanks, your opinion is just as worthless to me, not that you've actually formed any of your own. What leaders feed you your regurgitated crap? The pope? GWB? Christian fundamentalists?
      • MidnightRealism, on 04/18/2008, -0/+1Catholic doctrine supports evolution, so the pope shouldn't be included in there. Not to say there's not a wide array of other things to complain about him, but fair's fair.
    • MidnightRealism, on 04/18/2008, -1/+5Hahaha, CrazedLeper shows up to spout more idiocy about something he doesn't understand. There are no "marks of intent" in organisms, only common traits present as the result of common ancestry. Besides, didn't you say a few weeks ago that you lack a college education because of a fear of school shootings? Hardly an authority, are you?
      • MidnightRealism, on 04/18/2008, -0/+4Found it, for anyone curious: http://digg.com/space/Earth_Mars_Moon_Have_Differe ...
        Scroll up one comment from mine for a good laugh.
      • CrazedLeper, on 04/19/2008, -0/+1"didn't you say a few weeks ago that you lack a college education because of a fear of school shootings? Hardly an authority, are you?"

        You twist words well, you're ready for a government job--assuming you don't already have one.
  • hgielrehtaeh, on 04/18/2008, -2/+24When the hell are people going to realize that evolution is not an abiogenesis theory? It does not attempt to show how life started, merely how it evolved. People are so stupid.
    • TopherD, on 04/18/2008, -8/+3This is the common spot in which an evolutionist will run to when the theory is attacked. You know any argument about the origin and how everything got here is not science. Congratulations. But now we have to focus on abiogenesis and Darwinian evolution. Yes everything shares some part of DNA that is not conclusive proof that everything is related to the same amoeba from a primordial soup. Tell me when I go too far and leave your theory. The argument is this. Most evolutionists know their arguments can't hold water, so they jump as quickly as they can between arguments and try to confuse the opponent. Switching up terms and definitions, and flipping from one so called evidence to the other. This makes their opponent look bad for not being able to keep up. But when each argument used is separately looked at, can be taken apart piece by piece.
      • MidnightRealism, on 04/18/2008, -1/+5By all means try to take his argument apart, since, uh...you didn't actually do anything except say that it can be done. That's less than compelling. :[
    • Samohtneas, on 04/18/2008, -0/+4Unfortunately hgielrehtaeh, this is the main problem, with both sides. Ignorance has a strong foothold in the debate, far too many people believe/explain it as being a theory that explains the origin of life. This doesn't get anyone anywhere, and until everyone understands EXACTLY what evolution is, we're going to be at this for a long time.
    • Defuser, on 04/18/2008, -6/+2The only people trying to say that evolution explains the appearance of life on Earth are Evolutionists and Atheists. So yeah, people are stupid, but in this case, it's stupid group that's doing all the name-calling.
      • MidnightRealism, on 04/18/2008, -1/+5What the hell? Evolutionists don't claim any such thing. Creationists try to paint it that way to try to dodge the mountain of countevidence to Genesis serving as a historical text. Way to completely miss the point, fundie.
      • Edrick, on 04/18/2008, -0/+4Origin of species, not the origin of life. This shouldn't have to be said more than once, really.
      • sealhands, on 04/19/2008, -0/+2youre an idiot.
  • ender7074, on 04/18/2008, -15/+7Wow, taking this movie seriously is as stupid as taking Al Gore's lie-fest "documentry" seriously.
  • oldcyborg, on 04/18/2008, -4/+2I don't fault NPR one bit. Right or not, money talks. They didn't say the movie was right, they just advertized it as being out there.
    DC is whole nuther egg. I don't understand where they come from at all, but it IS fun to watch, most of the time. :)
    No problem, as I see it...
    Cyborg
    • tont0r, on 04/18/2008, -2/+3You must be new here. On digg, you apparently dont need money and if you are running a business, you should just either give ***** away for free or whatever you work with better not touch anything they disagree with.
  • superkendall, on 04/18/2008, -4/+11Pathetic to see so many people who only support free speech when the speech agrees with what they have to say.

    I wouldn't fault them from taking KK money either. Bad ideas are shown to be show when they are aired, not when they are hidden and prevented from being shown.
    • Logicexe, on 04/18/2008, -1/+3How the hell is criticizing someone's speech being against free speech? Seriously, just because I disagree with you and would argue against you doesn't mean I think you should have your right to free speech taken away.

      Freedom of speech includes the freedom to criticize other people's speech.
      • daybreak, on 04/18/2008, -1/+2Meh, there's a fine line between criticizing someone's speech and trying to take it away.
        • Logicexe, on 04/18/2008, -0/+2I agree, it's possible that criticism can turn into persecution, but what's the alternative? No discussions? No disagreements? No debates? The freedom to criticize is part of freedom of speech. They are inseparable. If you do not have the freedom to criticize the claims other people make then you do not have freedom of speech.
      • phrenzy, on 04/18/2008, -1/+2Yeah you are totally right. If I stand outside of your house saying that you a child molester, if you try to stop me you are "against free speech"