Discover the best of the web!
Learn more about Digg by taking the tour.
Expelled from Expelled!
scienceblogs.com — PZ Myers, biologist & associate professor at the University of Minnesota, was expelled from a showing of Expelled , the creationist propaganda movie, but they didn't notice who was with him, Richard Dawkins, Dawkins got in! Posted on Myers blog, Pharyngula.
tulipdog- 2128 diggs
- digg it
- Antangil, on 03/21/2008, -15/+237It's classic; a movie that rants about how their viewpoint is being suppressed uses armed guards to keep people out with whom they disagree. Ben Stein and his cronies FTL!
- OneLess, on 03/21/2008, -3/+23If they weren't such massive hypocrites, PZ could have used their own arguments against them.
"I can't enter the theater? I beg to differ, that's only a theory!" - Frejesal, on 03/21/2008, -80/+5Aww that's cute!
Replace a single cop with ARMED GUARDS and you're an expert at sensationalizing!
As to keeping him out because he disagreed, check your facts. This guy probably has a history of acting like an asshole at events like this. You can't seriously believe he just wanted to go watch the movie?
Also, funny how when Christians make a movie it's "OMG PROPAGANDAAAAA!" but anything else is almighty science.
Again: bury me to let me know I've proved my point.- slave1, on 03/21/2008, -7/+46"bury me to let me know I've proved my point"?
Meh, Christians are such suicidal freaks.- nigh7dagger, on 03/21/2008, -4/+7You might have a one in a billion chance of being right. The only problem is that fanatics of all shapes and sizes say things along those lines. I bet I can find 50 examples of someone saying something along the lines of "Ron Paul 08! Bury me if you want facism!". I wouldn't even need to try.
- slave1, on 03/21/2008, -7/+7Aw c'mon, Christians are special in this regard coz their own leader, their very God, is himself a suicidal freak! *lol*
- nigh7dagger, on 03/21/2008, -4/+7You might have a one in a billion chance of being right. The only problem is that fanatics of all shapes and sizes say things along those lines. I bet I can find 50 examples of someone saying something along the lines of "Ron Paul 08! Bury me if you want facism!". I wouldn't even need to try.
- OneLess, on 03/21/2008, -2/+29"This guy" is a professor at a respected university...I'm sure he has a history of going to movie premieres and causing uproars. I bet he brings small children to use as seat cushions as well.
Someone sure does need to check their facts, but it's not Antanqil or tulipdog. - bigbadgoat, on 03/21/2008, -5/+34So, a movie intentionally misleads its audience by presenting arguments that have already proven to be incorrect. It throws out abstract, branched theories about the start of mankind as the accepted norm when they have nothing to do with evolution. It never once offers any definition of what exactly is Intelligent Design or Evolution or offers any evidence that actually supports that ID is even remotely plausible, and you expect people to strike it down because they're anti-christian?
Sorry sir, they're just pro-intellect, pro-logic, and pro-reason. - 22magnum, on 03/21/2008, -5/+25actually i buried you because your an idiot...
- ayeroxor, on 03/21/2008, -10/+5says the guy who doesn't know what "your" means...
- slave1, on 03/21/2008, -7/+46"bury me to let me know I've proved my point"?
- diggrific, on 03/21/2008, -16/+2This is what I overheard from a theatre employee named "Jared" to PZ: "The producer said that you are not allowed to attend the screening, because you don't have a ticket, and you were not invited. This is a private screening."
http://tinyurl.com/3ans3c- OneLess, on 03/21/2008, -1/+14So they invited his wife and kids but not him?
- Nullifidian1859, on 03/21/2008, -1/+24If the excuse is that Dr. Myers wasn't invited, then who's the bright spark who invited Richard Dawkins, who was allowed in?
- diggrific, on 03/21/2008, -4/+3"Nomad", a friend of the submitter's comment I posted above wrote, "Regarding what it took for me to get in, no, no passes or anything. I signed up through the online form. They emailed confirmation forms that many people printed out and brought in, but the forms didn't seem to count for anything, in the end all that mattered was that they had your name on a list (sorted by first instead of last name) and you could prove that you were who you said you were. They made a point about being strict with the list, if you had signed up for three people total and brought one extra the extra guest absolutely would not be admitted. Despite this the theater wasn't jam packed as you'd expect, they seemed to leave about a third of it unoccupied. Or else that many people didn't show up."
So they were in a rented theater holding a private screening, and working off a guest list. Dawkins' name was on the list, but apparently PZ wasn't, so they didn't let him in. Not as sensational as the story is being presented here, but the facts will all come out eventually.- williamager, on 03/21/2008, -2/+5While I have only had but a cursory glance at the numerous accounts of the incident, it appears that Myers and others are asserting that he *was* on the list, and that he was specifically sought out by the guards - not turned away when the list was being checked.
It seems the other side is claiming that, while Myers may have been on the list, he wasn't actually invited, and the fact that the website allowed him to enter himself on the list was unintentional; this would seem to suggest that many of the people on the list should not have been allowed to enter. - diggrific, on 03/21/2008, -9/+1I myself find it quite funny how my comments get buried. It shows a lot concerning atheists bias and intellect.
They THINK I'm against them, so they bury me. The funny thing is, the comments I'm quoting are actually comments from atheist supporters, and from people close to "PZ" who got kicked out.
They laugh and feel glee about the hypocrisy of the ID crowd concerning this incident, yet they are doing the same to me.......HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHA
Time to grow up children of Digg.- badjoke, on 03/21/2008, -1/+2Time to quit whining and taking the internet so seriously.
- diggrific, on 03/21/2008, -5/+1I'm not whining, I'm surprised you think so. I'm pointing out how shallow the atheists are by burying my comment since the comment is actually a quote FROM an atheist that was at the event, with a link to prove it I might add!
So, you have nothing to come back with to explain the idiocy that is being displayed by so called "enlightened" people here on Digg hey? You have to resort to that old and tired comment to deflect the issue, without answering the challenge.
It's liively debate here isn't it? I suggest to you, that if you can't handle it, you should be the one to lighten up. - williamager, on 03/21/2008, -2/+0As I said earlier, most accounts I've read disagree with the ones you are describing, if only on a rather minor and technical point. After reading more about the matter, I've come to the conclusion that Myers was probably on the list, but was not invited - it appears that invitations were made to specific groups of people, but the rsvp system just trusted that people rsvp'ing were members of those groups. Wikipedia has an example involving an invitation for legislators, for example.
It is a bit unusual for people to become so upset over this, however: while the manner in which he was thrown out, if described accurately, wasn't terribly courteous, especially if he was on the list due to a problem with the rsvp system, I don't see why someone having a private screening shouldn't be able to invite only certain people, or insist that others not be allowed to enter. It certainly makes the producers look bad, but they are perfectly within their rights to make themselves look bad, are they not? - diggrific, on 03/21/2008, -1/+2Christine is the reference I quoted. She made comments on the original poster's link.......http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2008/03/expelle ... and also on an atheist forum board ...... http://www.antievolution.org/cgi-bin/ikonboard/iko ...
She was with PZ Myers that night. It is her statement that I quoted. On PZ Myers's blog in the comments, many more facts have come out, at least their side of the incident.
I have no idea what you have read. By saying that "most accounts I've read disagree with the ones you are describing", I must say is quite amazing since I'm only QUOTING participants statements. Why is that so hard for Digg atheists to accept? .....The statements from fellow atheists that were there?
- williamager, on 03/21/2008, -2/+5While I have only had but a cursory glance at the numerous accounts of the incident, it appears that Myers and others are asserting that he *was* on the list, and that he was specifically sought out by the guards - not turned away when the list was being checked.
- diggrific, on 03/21/2008, -1/+6Here is how to get on the list for the next showing.
http://rsvp.getexpelled.com/events/events/rsvp/202
- Petrarch1603, on 03/21/2008, -1/+3Ben stein? huh?
- Bhima, on 03/21/2008, -2/+20his latest gig is promoting christian creationism
- Petrarch1603, on 03/21/2008, -1/+10okay, i guess i'm out of the loop. Ben Stein believes in Intelligent Design according to wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ben_Stein#Views_on_ev ... this is kind of surprising because he was so good at trivia on that tv show
- NSResponder, on 03/21/2008, -4/+33Well, that makes sense. Creationism is certainly trivial.
-jcr- TheBrain21, on 03/21/2008, -9/+1HEY. I see what you did there.
- Kral, on 03/21/2008, -2/+12Trivia is memorization, not intelligence. You likely are faster at learning trivia if you don't waste time thinking about what it is you're accepting as fact.
- MrMongoose, on 03/21/2008, -3/+1But couldn't rapid recall of relevant information count as intelligence? Cetainly Ken Jennings is highly intelligent, but also mormon as all get out. I'd say being religious makes you gullible, but not unintelligent.
- itsthebrod, on 03/21/2008, -1/+5Intelligence is much more than just memorization of facts and events. It's about being able to think, connect facts, and formulate ideas.
- MrMongoose, on 03/21/2008, -3/+1But couldn't rapid recall of relevant information count as intelligence? Cetainly Ken Jennings is highly intelligent, but also mormon as all get out. I'd say being religious makes you gullible, but not unintelligent.
- NSResponder, on 03/21/2008, -4/+33Well, that makes sense. Creationism is certainly trivial.
- Fordi, on 03/21/2008, -5/+32Holy *****. Did not know that Ben Stein was a ***** creationist. Need to make a quick internal adjustment.
People.Stein.Ben.respect*=0.01;- macaddct1984, on 03/21/2008, -2/+4And to think that "Win Ben Stein's Money" made me think he was such an intelligent person :-|
- MacPrince, on 03/22/2008, -0/+2He was a speechwriter for Richard Nixon, don't forget- integrity couldn't be too terribly high on his list of priorities.
- Petrarch1603, on 03/21/2008, -0/+2it wasnt just that he could memorize all those facts. It was obvious that he knew a lot about the world and many different subjects. With all that knowledge how could one advocate intelligent design?? I guess I'll have to see that movie before I jump to any conclusions.
- keinsignal, on 03/21/2008, -1/+1You know I once met a Princeton particle physics professor while visiting a friend's family - brilliant guy, as a high school student I was dazzled by his ability to lay out the current state-of-the-art of quantum mechanics and where his research was trying to fill in the gaps. More than that, though, I will always remember the merciless ribbing he was getting from his family for his recent failed attempt at dishwasher repair - a misadventure that, to hear them tell it, nearly destroyed their house.
Moral of the story - knowledge, and even intelligence in one field does not necessarily carry over to any other.
- keinsignal, on 03/21/2008, -1/+1You know I once met a Princeton particle physics professor while visiting a friend's family - brilliant guy, as a high school student I was dazzled by his ability to lay out the current state-of-the-art of quantum mechanics and where his research was trying to fill in the gaps. More than that, though, I will always remember the merciless ribbing he was getting from his family for his recent failed attempt at dishwasher repair - a misadventure that, to hear them tell it, nearly destroyed their house.
- OneLess, on 03/21/2008, -3/+23If they weren't such massive hypocrites, PZ could have used their own arguments against them.
- IrisMR, on 03/21/2008, -19/+166Oh. My. God.
It doesn't get much more hilarious than that. Expelled folks? YOU ARE PATHETICALLY FUNNY! Crash and burn with your silly prehistoric nonsense.... Oh wait, you deny prehistory even existed. Nevermind.- ICSU, on 03/21/2008, -4/+25Oh. My. Science.
- TheBrain21, on 03/21/2008, -6/+1Oh. My. Darwin.
- Fordi, on 03/21/2008, -3/+14Neither of those really work, as they aren't subjects of worship.
Oh. My. Pasta.- TheBrain21, on 03/22/2008, -0/+1Anything can be a subject of worship. Like my bowl of Cheerios, I love my Cheerios...
- MrMongoose, on 03/21/2008, -4/+3Around here it's:
Oh. My. Dawkins.
- Fordi, on 03/21/2008, -3/+14Neither of those really work, as they aren't subjects of worship.
- itsthebrod, on 03/21/2008, -0/+4Science H. Logic!
- IrisMR, on 03/21/2008, -0/+2Now now, don't be picky. It's just a figure of speech... :)
- TheBrain21, on 03/21/2008, -6/+1Oh. My. Darwin.
- patosan, on 03/21/2008, -6/+1"Crash and burn with your silly prehistoric nonsense.... Oh wait, you deny prehistory even existed. Nevermind [sic]."
Some of the most brilliant scientists of our time believe(d) in a creator. If they continue to believe in one, why do you have such a violent reaction to others believing in one? They know far more about the universe than myself and most likely you.
If there is room for a creator in their understanding and intellect, you should not be so quick to denigrate others.
Einstein certainly did not believe in a personal God. Einstein definitely believed in a creative god though. Here are a couple of quotes by Einstein to bolster my assertions.
"I want to know how God created this world. I am not interested in this or that phenomenon, in the spectrum of this or that element. I want to know his thoughts. The rest are details."
"I'm not an atheist and I don't think I can call myself a pantheist. We are in the position of a little child entering a huge library filled with books in many languages. The child knows someone must have written those books. It does not know how. It does not understand the languages in which they are written. The child dimly suspects a mysterious order in the arrangements of the books, but doesn't know what it is. That, it seems to me, is the attitude of even the most intelligent human being toward God."- macaddct1984, on 03/21/2008, -0/+7I prefer this quote:
"It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it." - Testiculese, on 03/21/2008, -0/+6Patosan, your post has nothing to do with the belief or non-belief in prehistory. All scientists know prehistory exists. Creationists are ignorant of this fact. Belief in a god is not relevant to this.
- patosan, on 03/21/2008, -4/+1"All scientists know prehistory exists. Creationists are ignorant of this fact. Belief in a god is not relevant to this."
Completely untrue, this is a misrepresentation repeated by people who are either uninformed or malevolent.
What you are describing are "Young Earth Creationists". Einstein definitely was not a Young Earth Creationist, but he still is a Creationist since he believes that god is responsible for the creation of the universe. Please read the following for more information:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creationism - patosan, on 03/21/2008, -2/+1I has assumed that the original comment was in part speaking towards people's belief in a god.
-= IrisMR "Crash and burn with your silly prehistoric nonsense." =-
Perhaps you read it differently than I did?
-= Testiculese "Belief in a god is not relevant to this." =-
How do you intend to decouple Creationists and ID proponents from the belief in a god? God, Creationists and ID are intrinsically linked to the belief in a god.- macaddct1984, on 03/21/2008, -1/+1"God, Creationists and ID are intrinsically linked to the belief in a god."
Not according to people trying to get ID taught in schools. The defense in Kitzmiller v. Dover went to great lengths trying to distance themselves from creationism and any religious affiliation. - Fordi, on 03/24/2008, -0/+1Belief in God, however, does not a creationist make. Hell, you can believe in God and be a huge proponent of secularism.
- Testiculese, on 03/24/2008, -0/+1Yes, I described YEC's, because that's the reference of the quote you pulled, but then you didn't respond to the quote, you went off on a completely different tangent. You're post was fine, it just didn't match up with what you quoted. "Does not compute" :)
- macaddct1984, on 03/21/2008, -1/+1"God, Creationists and ID are intrinsically linked to the belief in a god."
- patosan, on 03/21/2008, -4/+1"All scientists know prehistory exists. Creationists are ignorant of this fact. Belief in a god is not relevant to this."
- macaddct1984, on 03/21/2008, -0/+7I prefer this quote:
- someuser90, on 03/21/2008, -1/+0Oh your god?
- IrisMR, on 03/22/2008, -0/+2Figure of speech. Another picky one.
- ICSU, on 03/21/2008, -4/+25Oh. My. Science.
- wagnerfilm, on 03/21/2008, -8/+134Not just people with whom they disagree, but one of the actual scientists from whom they secured an interview by deliberately misrepresenting themselves and the nature of their film. This whole silly mess is going to collapse under the weight of ridicule before it even gets going. Talk about an epic fail!
- Leadhyena, on 03/21/2008, -0/+7If you go to the website for Expelled's blog, you'll find the following on the top of the page...
"It's (EXPELLED) going to appeal strongly to the religious, the paranoid, the conspiracy theorists, and the ignorant –– which means they're going to draw in about 90% of the American market."
-Atheist blogger and fabulist PZ Myers, on a film he has not yet seen.
So lame.... Preventing someone from going to your film just so you can make a quip! That makes me incredibly angry. The movie's trailer is equally inciting. He talks about papers that would have been publishable in Galileo's time but not now, and yet Galileo was arrested for what he published back then.
- Leadhyena, on 03/21/2008, -0/+7If you go to the website for Expelled's blog, you'll find the following on the top of the page...
- StopPre, on 03/21/2008, -7/+44This is too good to be true!
- IrisMR, on 03/21/2008, -2/+16And yet... IT IS! Aaah, I laughed so hard I don't know how I'll be able to sleep now. Laughter will keep me awake!
- dreamflows, on 03/24/2008, -0/+1 UPDATE: Richard Dawkins and P.Z. Myers Talks about Expelled
http://digg.com/general_sciences/UPDATE_Richard_Da ...
- iamondigghaha, on 03/21/2008, -7/+75Imagine how sad Richard Dawkins must have felt. :(
- ICSU, on 03/21/2008, -0/+11I think he must have had a jolly laugh at that film.
- Devilboy666, on 03/21/2008, -0/+34British people don't feel sad - they feel indignant!
- OneLess, on 03/21/2008, -0/+12Probably not too sad, since he got to sit through the movie with PZ's trophy wife ;)
- jcusano, on 03/21/2008, -0/+2I have never seen PZ's wife; what are you basing your assumption on?
- OneLess, on 03/21/2008, -0/+5I honestly don't remember the exact origin of the joke, but it's sort of taken on a life of its own. I think it may have been a satirical "creationist" blog that popped up a while back on blogspot to "criticize" Pharyngula.
- radix2, on 03/22/2008, -0/+3It is an in-joke. Started by a creationist hit-piece claiming effectively that scientists are just in it for the grant-money and the chicks...
- keinsignal, on 03/21/2008, -0/+0Although, on the other hand, he had to *sit through the movie*, pleasant company notwithstanding.
- iamondigghaha, on 03/21/2008, -0/+1It's a Pharyngula inside joke ;)
- jcusano, on 03/21/2008, -0/+2I have never seen PZ's wife; what are you basing your assumption on?
- muldoon1987, on 03/21/2008, -11/+76Dawkins pwns Ben Stein!
- Pedwidget, on 03/21/2008, -16/+2LOL in your dreams. Dawkins is a blithering idiotic pompous ass. Atheism is nothing more than a religous cult.
- amoirae, on 03/21/2008, -1/+13For a religious cult, watch the movie Jesus Camp. For real fun, watch where they worship a graven image of President Bush!
- itsthebrod, on 03/21/2008, -0/+3I read from a review of the film (by someone who hated it) that they actually edited in such a way that made Dawkins look silly in the final movie. Either way, I refuse to waste my time or money on such a poor movie premise and waste of film.
- Pedwidget, on 03/21/2008, -16/+2LOL in your dreams. Dawkins is a blithering idiotic pompous ass. Atheism is nothing more than a religous cult.
- BionicWhippet, on 03/21/2008, -9/+94Very funny. Looking forward to hearing what Dawkins thought of the film.
- magoghm, on 03/21/2008, -3/+5Yes, this will make history.
- L0t3k, on 03/21/2008, -52/+4I'm afraid to hear it... Dawkins is a caustic *****, making noise for attention. He makes true academics, scientists, etc. look like *****.
I'm pretty sure most of the people who are actually detailing the origins of life and the universe, the ones that actually contribute something, would love to punch him in the face for acting as a roadblock to progress.
Do people who take their religion too far need to be dealt with? Yes. Should you call them stupid? Not if you want them to listen to you. Somehow the Hawkings of the world are able to manage being brilliant scientists... beyond any of us... and are still religious. Those are the ones we need to get through to uneducated and indoctrinated. I can't begin to imagine how many minds he's touched. Dawkins? He just gets people riled up for a living.- ICSU, on 03/21/2008, -3/+14Mad house called. They want you back.
- yakski, on 03/21/2008, -3/+17You have got to be kidding... compared to all the self professed God knowers out there/preachers that do not know anything about science, religion or the bible, Dawkins is a saint.
- L0t3k, on 03/21/2008, -23/+4Typical knee-jerk. I'm sorry, the man is the Bill O'Reilly of the scientific community, tantamount to a court jester standing in the middle of the road to progress. He contributes nothing, aside from being funny... but only in that he's elegantly obnoxious. I know you all love him, he's like a rock star on this site, but he's doing more harm than good. As an atheist, someone who has always enjoyed learning about the world around me, and someone who is genuinely interested in making sure the generations after me feel the same way about learning, I'm embarrassed by the man.
- ncairns, on 03/21/2008, -1/+15"...tantamount to a court jester standing in the middle of the road to progress. "
'The Selfish Gene' is one of the single most important, brilliant texts on evolutionary biology ever written, arguably second only to Darwin's own. Speaking as someone who has worked (to varying extents) with people like Marvin Minsky and Noam Chomsky, Dawkins may well be the most intelligent person I have ever met.
And you are? - johnnysaucepn, on 03/21/2008, -1/+7@ncairns, agreed. Dawkins is out there talking loud because there is nobody else who has the visibility to do it. PZ Myers is relatively unknown outside the internet - Dawkins has been writing accessible best-selling books for years. If it wasn't for Dawkins standing up as a figurehead, we'd be getting railroaded by now.
- yakski, on 03/21/2008, -0/+2It really sounds like you just object to anyone confronting stupidity head on ... I am not sure what you would rather happen.. that intelligent thought be avoided in conversations on religion and dogma... maybe people should just quietly allow religiosity to continue to unravel the world through wars and misery and utterly contrived thinking... Dawkins dares to do what few thinking people ever do, which is confront lazy non-critical thinking, bible thumping, propaganda mongering people with the flaws in their own core belief system which they willingly overlook to the detriment of themselves and the world in which we all live.
- ncairns, on 03/21/2008, -1/+15"...tantamount to a court jester standing in the middle of the road to progress. "
- Phyraxus, on 03/21/2008, -1/+22If you actually read the god delusion, you'd notice that he never calls anyone stupid outright. Delusional, ignorant and/or wicked, yes, but not stupid.
And, if you did read it, compared to the bible, his tone is much more jovial than that of the horrendous atrocities that occur in the bible.
And, I'm sure if you weren't ignorant, you'd know that Richard Dawkins does contribute to science and he is attempting to utterly destroy the position that the religious zealots take against science, because they are the roadblock to progress.- nigh7dagger, on 03/21/2008, -13/+2Yes, because calling someone delusional, ignorant, and/or wicked is completely different from calling them stupid.
Your first paragraph wasn't stupid at all. It was just delusional and ignorant. - Phyraxus, on 03/21/2008, -2/+13Well, delusional means there is something mentally wrong with them, ignorant means they just don't know, and wicked means they are evil. NONE of those words are synonymous with unintelligent.
- Vorsuc, on 03/21/2008, -3/+1No he just makes outrageously egotisical claim in the opening lines that either you agree with him that Athism is the way to go if you want to be happy, intelligent and an independant thinker or disgree with him because you are a closed minded biggot.
Hardly a compelling argument.
- nigh7dagger, on 03/21/2008, -13/+2Yes, because calling someone delusional, ignorant, and/or wicked is completely different from calling them stupid.
- L0t3k, on 03/21/2008, -22/+2Of course he does, and you bring up a fantastic example. Naming your book, "The God Delusion" is something you do to aggravate people and sell books, not to help the world by promoting reason. It's as if atheists have developed a genuine hate for religious people, which is silly, and are rallying behind him like he speaks for science. He doesn't. You'll notice there's plenty of irritation with him in the scientific community.
I am aggravated with the vocal minority among religious people that press political and educational agendas... absolutely. The way to handle it, however, is not by throwing gas on the fire... of which there is surprisingly little to begin with. And it's certainly not going to help by using the shotgun approach of stereotyping people as irrational or "delusional".- bigbadgoat, on 03/21/2008, -1/+12If you were a reasonable person, you wouldn't believe in a god to begin with.
- L0t3k, on 03/21/2008, -9/+2Yeah, tell the world's most brilliant scientists that they're not reasonable people. Look, I don't believe what they believe, but I can respect that being religious is not the same as being an ID whack-job. This is where people like Dawkins make their money, by convincing otherwise rational people that religious people are ID zealots. As is every other stereotype I've known, it's a demonstrably incorrect assertion.
- bigbadgoat, on 03/21/2008, -1/+8If any scientist uses the scientific method, god cannot exist.
The scientific method requires proof to believe things to be correct.
So yeah, while the worlds most brilliant scientists may believe there may be a higher power, which there is no proof for or against, no matter how disturbingly unlikely or improbable the idea is, I assure you, none of them are brilliant if they believe in ID. - Phyraxus, on 03/21/2008, -1/+8You're the one making sweeping generalizations. Like I've said, Dawkins says none of the sort that ALL religious people are ID zealots; in fact, he makes it very clear as to not misunderstand him that the majority are moderate peaceable theists, however, they give power to the whack job zealots by allowing them to spew their hatred and bigotry unabated, because for some unintelligible reason, religion is somehow unaffected by logic and reason and can never be placed under criticism or scientific scrutiny. But then, you wouldn't know any of that, because you are obviously making false claims of a man you do not know and of a book you have never read.
- eviltandem, on 03/21/2008, -0/+6The people that enjoy this type of film will never listen to anyone, ever. He isn't trying to convince them to listen to him, he's trying to convince the rest of us that either agree with him, or are on the fence, to organize and put down this nonsense.
You can believe in the fairies all you want, but the idea that the rest of us have to respect that opinion needs to stop. We don't listen to astrologists, psychics, or alchemists, and we need to add the world's religions to that list.
Religion has just become poison. Tell someone you hate gays because of religion and it's ok. Tell someone you hate gays because you're an intolerant biggot who fears they may be gay, and nobody would "respect" your opinion.
- L0t3k, on 03/21/2008, -52/+4I'm afraid to hear it... Dawkins is a caustic *****, making noise for attention. He makes true academics, scientists, etc. look like *****.
- magoghm, on 03/21/2008, -3/+5Yes, this will make history.
- Lando66, on 03/21/2008, -6/+14Laughed out loud
- Jalbietz, on 03/21/2008, -7/+15Best news of the week.
- SphinctOr, on 03/21/2008, -25/+129PZ was a victim of a HATE CRIME.
I would press charges and bring shame upon the AMC 14 at the Mall of America, as well as the Producer of the film who asked that PZ be thrown out! My God, PZ had to post from an Apple store! For the love of God, man!
Anonymous, where are you when we need you!?
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
TITLE 42 > CHAPTER 21 > SUBCHAPTER II > § 2000a
§ 2000a. Prohibition against discrimination or segregation in places of public accommodation
(a) Equal access
All persons shall be entitled to the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, and accommodations of any place of public accommodation, as defined in this section, without discrimination or segregation on the ground of race, color, religion, or national origin.
...
Each of the following establishments which serves the public is a place of public accommodation within the meaning of this subchapter if its operations affect commerce, or if discrimination or segregation by it is supported by State action:
...
(3) any motion picture house, theater, concert hall, sports arena, stadium or other place of exhibition or entertainment; and ...blah blah you get the point.
John
Tampa, FL- IrisMR, on 03/21/2008, -6/+15This is certainly possible discrimination but I think a lawyer would be best to answer that. But frankly I wouldn't push this matter this far. Why? Because it's so hilarious and PERFECT as it is!
- lougoose, on 03/21/2008, -3/+21I'm not sure if the theater is technically considered public property.
- GreatToast, on 03/21/2008, -3/+16While not public property (not owned by the government), it IS a place of public accomodation. Basically any place you open for business to the public comes under that category. And there are laws you have to abide by. Just like I couldn't open a night club and not allow black people in.
- grakker, on 03/21/2008, -3/+5Ah, I think you could. You could even, if you wanted, I'm not sure why, open a golf club course place which didn't allow black people. Doesn't make it morally right, but legally, I think you could. I'm obviously no lawyer.
- quisph, on 03/21/2008, -1/+5No, not really. Not unless you made it a private club. But even then, it would be very difficult to maintain your legal "private club" status, especially if you're running any kind of business, as opposed to a purely social club.
Anyway, this theater is clearly not a private club.
- quisph, on 03/21/2008, -1/+5No, not really. Not unless you made it a private club. But even then, it would be very difficult to maintain your legal "private club" status, especially if you're running any kind of business, as opposed to a purely social club.
- SpeedSteamBoat, on 03/21/2008, -1/+7@grakker: No, that would be illegal. Segregation is illegal as stated above. This isn't the 1950s.
- grakker, on 03/21/2008, -3/+5Ah, I think you could. You could even, if you wanted, I'm not sure why, open a golf club course place which didn't allow black people. Doesn't make it morally right, but legally, I think you could. I'm obviously no lawyer.
- bmorlok, on 03/21/2008, -2/+21There are segregration laws that extend past public property and into businesses as well ;-)
- GreatToast, on 03/21/2008, -3/+16While not public property (not owned by the government), it IS a place of public accomodation. Basically any place you open for business to the public comes under that category. And there are laws you have to abide by. Just like I couldn't open a night club and not allow black people in.
- rkef, on 03/21/2008, -2/+10"on the ground of race, color, religion, or national origin."
- jstone, on 03/21/2008, -2/+12Yeah, but the creationists will probably argue that, since atheism isn't a religion, it doesn't fall under the protection of that clause. You know, the same thing they say about the first amendment.
- andronoid, on 03/21/2008, -6/+4are you saying atheism is a religion?!? anyway, it doesn't matter if it is or isn't...discriminating against someone for their lack of religion is still discrimination on the grounds of religion.
- rkef, on 03/21/2008, -1/+2My point was that nobody was kicked out for any of those reasons. It's political and/or personal.
- Matri, on 03/21/2008, -1/+10Are you kidding? Creationists AND fundamentalists have both been crying themselves blue insisting that atheism is a religion.
Way I see it, they just kicked themselves into a Catch-22 corner: Either they believe that atheism is a religion and therefore they are segregating and therefore broke the law, or that they announce atheism is not a religion and that they have been knowingly & intentionally misleading & lying to the people. - johnnysaucepn, on 03/21/2008, -1/+6Discrimination on the grounds of religion doesn't mean you have to have a religion. You can be discriminated against for not having a religion. Just as you can be discriminated on the grounds of mobility if you have no legs.
- KingGorilla, on 03/21/2008, -1/+1what about lack of religion
- jstone, on 03/21/2008, -2/+12Yeah, but the creationists will probably argue that, since atheism isn't a religion, it doesn't fall under the protection of that clause. You know, the same thing they say about the first amendment.
- flip2trip, on 03/21/2008, -1/+12If it was a sreening as PZ states, then it's not open to the publc--it'll be in theaters April 18th.
- lohphat, on 03/21/2008, -5/+9The police threatened arrest. Congrats GOP you helped the USSR collapse but brought KGB tactics home to roost.
- L0t3k, on 03/21/2008, -9/+4If I had a private party and make it clear that you're not invited, I can have the police arrest you in the event that you persist. In this case, he calmly left, and nobody got in trouble. There's nothing KGB about that... it means you're entitled to allow or disallow whoever you choose for a private event. Don't let your love of Dawkins blind your ability to reason.
- quisph, on 03/21/2008, -1/+8No. This was a film screening, not a private party. It occurred for a business purpose, not a social purpose; and it occurred in a place of public accommodation, not a private home. You will find that these are not trivial differences when it comes to determining whether or not an organization is allowed to discriminate against members of a protected class.
- L0t3k, on 03/21/2008, -6/+3In point of fact, they are trivial differences. A film screening is typically a private event and can be controlled as such. The facility at which it's held is largely irrelevant. If I hold a private event in a facility that I've legally secured for that purpose I may allow or disallow whomever I wish. Further, the party was not discriminated against as a member of any protected class. In all ways, it happened legitimately... regardless of whether Digg likes it or not.
- Phyraxus, on 03/21/2008, -0/+6@ lotek: Since when did what happened to PZ even relate to Dawkins? Or when did lohphat even mention Dawkins? I think your probably just a hater, and won't change your position no matter what anyone says.
- nigh7dagger, on 03/21/2008, -2/+0Man, they need Godwin's Law: Part 2. In Soviet Russia, stupid analogies make up YOU!!!
- L0t3k, on 03/21/2008, -6/+1@ Phyraxus: Much as I'm bothered by everyones' hollywood-style lust for Dawkins (you've read how I detest his antics), I cringe when I see hypocrisy. If he (lohphat) were forced to let people into a private event and denied the assistance of law enforcement, he'd be screaming about conspiracies and fascism then, too. Private events are private events, it's as simple as that... and yet the plainness of the situation escapes everyone. Digg is a mob at work, and engages in hysteria when anything challenges the collective. In this case, a perfectly legal and typical event took place, and was deemed "illegal" by the brilliant legal minds of Digg. And what happened to PZ relates to Dawkins in that the culminating point of the whole post was that they booted him only to let Dawkins in.
- johnnysaucepn, on 03/21/2008, -0/+6@L0t3k, no, the brilliant legal minds of Digg proclaimed the event 'damn funny'. And I'm going to proclaim you more than a little obsessed with Mr. Dawkins. It's starting to sound a little creepy.
- L0t3k, on 03/21/2008, -9/+4If I had a private party and make it clear that you're not invited, I can have the police arrest you in the event that you persist. In this case, he calmly left, and nobody got in trouble. There's nothing KGB about that... it means you're entitled to allow or disallow whoever you choose for a private event. Don't let your love of Dawkins blind your ability to reason.
- lohphat, on 03/21/2008, -5/+9The police threatened arrest. Congrats GOP you helped the USSR collapse but brought KGB tactics home to roost.
- sickswaystop, on 03/21/2008, -0/+3He never exactly said what the reason was... they must have told him something.
- diggrific, on 03/21/2008, -4/+2This is what I overheard from a theatre employee named "Jared" to PZ: "The producer said that you are not allowed to attend the screening, because you don't have a ticket, and you were not invited. This is a private screening."
http://www.antievolution.org/cgi-bin/ikonboard/iko ...- amoirae, on 03/21/2008, -2/+3Why are you so invested in lying? Correct me if I'm wrong, but don't you Jeebus types see lying as a sin?
- diggrific, on 03/21/2008, -4/+3I'm lying?
The quote is from a friend of the guy that got kicked out. She was actually there and that is her quote describing the incident to the fan base of an atheist forum. Follow the link I provided and read for yourself.
You have been corrected for you bias and hypocrisy.- maggock, on 03/21/2008, -1/+4You took the quote out of context, therefore altering it's meaning. Which I would say is lying by omission. Here's the full quote:
"This is what I overheard from a theatre employee named "Jared" to PZ: "The producer said that you are not allowed to attend the screening, because you don't have a ticket, and you were not invited. This is a private screening." Nomad, did you have a ticket? Were you invited? Didn't you click on that "please fill the theatre, please, please," link and subsequently get, as I did, an e-mail that said, "TICKET NOT REQUIRED"?" - diggrific, on 03/21/2008, -2/+2You are 100% incorrect, and here is why:
The question was asked what the reason was that was given for the refusal. What I quoted was reported by someone there was the reason. You don't have to agree with it, as the person I quoted elaborated on later as you point out, but it is still the reason given by the theater. So I did not lie nor did I omit anything.
By the way, tickets were not needed for the event. You needed to sign up online to have your name on the list. Once you arrived, you needed to provide ID to get in. This was a theater that was rented for this private screening, and they warned that only names on the list would be let in.
Read the Blog and the responses from the original poster, also the later posts from the link I provided. The information I stated is all from those two sources.
- maggock, on 03/21/2008, -1/+4You took the quote out of context, therefore altering it's meaning. Which I would say is lying by omission. Here's the full quote:
- diggrific, on 03/21/2008, -4/+2This is what I overheard from a theatre employee named "Jared" to PZ: "The producer said that you are not allowed to attend the screening, because you don't have a ticket, and you were not invited. This is a private screening."
- philipl411, on 03/21/2008, -22/+2No he wasn't a victim of a hate crime. There is no such thing. Its a made up "crime" that liberals use to control people. The owner may not be able to kick all (insert whatever group you want to here ) out, but he can very legally kick out ( insert whatever group you want to here ) that are known trouble makers. This guy wasn't some stranger, he was a know person that might have been a trouble maker. Now if it were me, I would have let him in to the show. But the manager was completely within his rights
- philipl411, on 03/21/2008, -15/+1negatives diggs, but no replies. Strange no open discussion, why am I not suprised?
- L0t3k, on 03/21/2008, -5/+4Because you're wrong. It wasn't because he was a "known trouble maker". It was because it's a private event, for which you can disallow anyone you like, without even needing a reason.
- philipl411, on 03/21/2008, -1/+1So he could have excluded all (insert whatever group you want to here )?
- L0t3k, on 03/21/2008, -5/+4Because you're wrong. It wasn't because he was a "known trouble maker". It was because it's a private event, for which you can disallow anyone you like, without even needing a reason.
- ncairns, on 03/21/2008, -1/+6"No he wasn't a victim of a hate crime. There is no such thing. Its a made up "crime" that liberals use to control people."
***** bullocks. Like it or not, laws are societally reflexive impositions of agreed upon moral standards of conduct. We say premeditated homicide is more morally wrong than manslaughter, and have two separate penal codes to reflect that accepted reality. Likewise, any thinking, humane individual can see that it is more morally wrong taking someone's life not for any semblance of personal gain or previous aggravating experience with the victim, but simply because ingrained bigotries you've allowed to fester inside you dictate that that *kind* of person is unfit to walk the Earth.
Probably shouldn't open your fat ***** mouth without some basic apprisal on legal philosophy, eh?- philipl411, on 03/21/2008, -2/+1It based upon the 14th amendment. That is if you believe in the Constitution. Equal protection under the law.
- ncairns, on 03/21/2008, -0/+3Yep, that means absolutely nothing.
If the purpose of the Fourteenth Amendment was to ensure nominally equivalent punishments for all nominally equivalent crimes, all instances wherein one individual caused the death of another individual would have to be treated the same. And yet, as I already pointed out and you conveniently ignored, they aren't. Planning murder is worse than spontaneously committing it under mental duress. There are mitigating and exacerbating circumstances. Hate crime laws just make bigotry one them.
- ncairns, on 03/21/2008, -0/+3Yep, that means absolutely nothing.
- philipl411, on 03/21/2008, -1/+1So if I plan to murder someone because he is sleeping with my wife, or I plan to murder someone because he is gay. This deserves different levels of punishment?
- ncairns, on 03/24/2008, -0/+1Yep.
Murdering someone because he's sleeping with your wife, while still wholly unjustified, is aggravated.
Murdering someone because you hate gay people is not.
- ncairns, on 03/24/2008, -0/+1Yep.
- philipl411, on 03/21/2008, -2/+1It based upon the 14th amendment. That is if you believe in the Constitution. Equal protection under the law.
- IrisMR, on 03/21/2008, -0/+1If you think that was prevention, think well. Maybe you should be kicked out of a mall just because there's a possibility you might be a thief. You don't ban people out of prevention. They had no proofs that PZ might cause trouble. Heck, if he DID cause trouble, wouldn't it have been glorious for the creationists? They have it all backwards.
- philipl411, on 03/21/2008, -0/+2Like I said, I WOULD HAVE LET HIM IN. But it was the right of the manager to NOT LET HIM IN.
- johnnysaucepn, on 03/21/2008, -0/+1It was "the right" of the manager, but not "right" of the manager. What they did was the worst thing they could have done, politically speaking. Wait until he starts 'causing trouble', THEN remove him.
- philipl411, on 03/21/2008, -15/+1negatives diggs, but no replies. Strange no open discussion, why am I not suprised?
- alteran1, on 03/21/2008, -1/+3it seems the day is coming where we should carry a copy of that law in our pocket everywhere we go so we can shove it in the cops faces when they try to control us and violate our rights as americans
- L0t3k, on 03/21/2008, -8/+4Yeah, read your law book while trying to enter a private event to which you've been disallowed, see how far it gets you.
- Diderotten, on 03/21/2008, -4/+2How do liberals use hate crimes as a means of manipulation? Whenever I hear hate crime, I think a crime perpetrated because of the victim's race. Playing the race card is wrong. But if racism was happening, it's perfectly fine for it to be defined as a hate crime. The only way the definition ever gets extended is when it includes other factors protected by the constitution: "... race, color, religion, or national origin." You neocons just don't make sense sometimes.
About him being a troublemaker, you're probably right. - NSResponder, on 03/21/2008, -2/+3"PZ was a victim of a HATE CRIME. "
Guess again, counselor. He wasn't excluded because of his membership in any protected class. It was personal, and that makes it legal.
-jcr- wufoo, on 03/21/2008, -0/+4Sad to say I agree, I think any private business can refuse service to anyone.
- Murrabbit, on 03/21/2008, -3/+5Like many people, mostly whom oppose hate crime legislation, you fail to realize that in order for there to be a hate-crime there must first be a crime. What was done to PZ is entirely legal and the right of the film's producers/theater owner (jerkish though it may still be).
No crime means no hate crime, simple as that.
- DarwinsBeagle, on 03/21/2008, -12/+49It's been two hours since I read PZ's blog and I still can't stop laughing. If there is a god, the dude's an Athiest for sure! The Irony!! It hurts!!
- DCGUY12, on 03/21/2008, -2/+1I am RSS fed to his blog Pharyngula. Love it! Everyone should view it.
- scrambled, on 03/21/2008, -13/+38This may be the greatest thing I have read all year. Could Creationists get any dumber?
- error792, on 03/21/2008, -2/+15It's like a dominant gene for them.
- vjeko, on 03/21/2008, -2/+3Of course they can.
- bsalus01, on 03/21/2008, -8/+3do you really want people to believe your view because of intimidation?
that kind of arrogance and snobbishness is exactly what the movie is about; that kind of attitude doesn't help anyone.
the fact is compared to most other scientific theories, like general relativity for instance, evolution is a very weak and unproven theory and still has a long way to go. don't be so naive to think other wise.
newton, probably the smartest person in history, believed in god and a very literal translation of the bible, and even tried to predict the time of armageddon. so i wouldn't say creationists are dumb.- cranium, on 03/21/2008, -2/+2You need to quit getting your science education at church, LOL.
- Logicexe, on 03/21/2008, -1/+3Are you seriously citing Newton? Newton, like every other historical figure was a product of his time. Socrates was a very smart man, and he believed that the Earth was the center of the universe, does that give the geocentric theory any legitimacy? No. Lincoln was all for abolishing slavery, but he was still just as racist as everyone else in his time. Newton is often considered to be the father of modern science, but just like Lincoln and Socrates, he was a product of his time and shared many of the same beliefs common amongst people of his period in time.
These sorts of honored historical figures have to be observed in the context of their period in history.
- anid4me2, on 03/21/2008, -22/+12If you subtract the "I" (intelligence, clearly missing here) from ID you get "D", which is the grade I think they get for this stupidity.
- monkeyvoodoo, on 03/21/2008, -1/+3Wow.
- bxblox, on 03/21/2008, -1/+4Clever?...
- PoeticExplosion, on 03/21/2008, -0/+2No.
- Kallahan, on 03/21/2008, -0/+10while I agree with the sentiment, you're really trying to hard. no digg, but no bury either.
- Phyraxus, on 03/21/2008, -0/+2Naw, prolly a F.
- CatalystGhost, on 03/21/2008, -0/+6You get an A+++++ for effort, but... your presentation is lacking. B-, no digg.
- nigh7dagger, on 03/21/2008, -2/+1Don't be mean to him, guys. He and his mom stayed up all night thinking that one up.
- TobiasTheCommie, on 03/21/2008, -10/+101This is hilarious, and just goes to show that the most fundamentalist Christians have an extreme double standard..
A movie, called expelled, and then they expel one of the scientists they interviewed for the movie, from a screening of the movie...
How two faced can you be..
How stupid can you be..- d0onut, on 03/21/2008, -7/+38"How stupid can you be.." Umm, they're creationists.
- nigh7dagger, on 03/21/2008, -14/+2That was a good one. I mean, insulting creationism on Digg? Damn, I wish I had as much guts as you do. And that was a clever way to insult them. I mean...can you teach me your ways, master?
- kingmanic, on 03/21/2008, -2/+13In any forum i visit; if I find a creationist all I can do is insult them. They are simply to thick to argue with. I've wasted thousands of pages of texts, hundreds of hours researching evidence but you can't reason someone out of a position they didn't reason themselves to re-iterate a common quote. So you mercilessly ridicule them for the incredibly stupid position they have taken.
- shodanx, on 03/21/2008, -4/+1let's all go to conservapedia and wreck up the place christian mob-style
- nigh7dagger, on 03/21/2008, -14/+2That was a good one. I mean, insulting creationism on Digg? Damn, I wish I had as much guts as you do. And that was a clever way to insult them. I mean...can you teach me your ways, master?
- booyaben, on 03/21/2008, -10/+0You are everything thats wrong with Atheists. Calling people's beliefs stupid and being a condescending asshole only proves the common stereotypes people have with Atheism. I am a Christian and i do believe what they did here was wrong and should be spoken out against, however I am very well educated and the more I learn about physics the more I see it as proof there must be a divine being.......and anyone who thinks otherwise is just stupid :P
- TobiasTheCommie, on 03/22/2008, -0/+1i said "fundementalist" christians. Not normal run of the mill christians, i have nothing against christians who go about their own business. But once you become fanatical i deserve the right to call them out on their double standard.
If you are neither fanatical nor fundamentalist, then the comment doesn't apply to you.
If i say "Fundementalist Muslims are a bane to society" does that in any way mean that i hate all muslims? or the muslim religion?
No, it means that i don't like the fanatics. It is ONLY the fanatics that are a problem. Not the people who read the book and believe without trying to convert, and without forcing their religion on others...
Sorry if you felt insulted by my above comment, but it wasn't meant as an attack on all christians, just the fanatics.
- TobiasTheCommie, on 03/22/2008, -0/+1i said "fundementalist" christians. Not normal run of the mill christians, i have nothing against christians who go about their own business. But once you become fanatical i deserve the right to call them out on their double standard.
- d0onut, on 03/21/2008, -7/+38"How stupid can you be.." Umm, they're creationists.
- PrimateInRepose, on 03/21/2008, -4/+33Too bad. I understand its a great comedy, and now he will only see it in video
- gwbohn, on 03/21/2008, -3/+4As the DI and its 'fellows' become more open with their opinions the more foolish they appear. I suspect this will be blogged by none other than C. Luskin and he will do the DI proud as he makes them look the fools they are.
The timing of this is perfect.
Now it's up to PZ and Dawkins to make the most of this. - deege, on 03/21/2008, -7/+9Funniest. Story. Evar.
- hackthesystem, on 03/21/2008, -4/+6Haha, funny stuff.
- Owned1Up, on 03/21/2008, -8/+28we're no strangers to love....
- bryik, on 03/21/2008, -3/+16....you know the rules....
- makkaveli19, on 03/21/2008, -3/+16and so do i....
- edein, on 03/21/2008, -2/+12text-base rickrolled... you guys got me :*(
- makkaveli19, on 03/21/2008, -3/+16and so do i....
- bryik, on 03/21/2008, -3/+16....you know the rules....
- adam1185, on 03/21/2008, -12/+6Here's an update:
http://www.antievolution.org/cgi-bin/ikonboard/iko ...- adam1185, on 03/21/2008, -1/+17woops, got cut off:
http://tinyurl.com/3ans3c- d0onut, on 03/21/2008, -0/+1I believe the writer was Canadian.
- shodanx, on 03/21/2008, -0/+0EH ?
- adam1185, on 03/21/2008, -1/+17woops, got cut off:
- Sryden42, on 03/21/2008, -4/+3Sadly, this just makes me want to watch their ***** film; while having never heard of it before I wouldn't have cared. No such thing as bad publicity I guess.
Still, hypocrisy to the max, hilarious.- radix2, on 03/22/2008, -0/+2watch it by all means. But via a torrent (for the purpose of education and criticism of course)
- brstilson, on 03/21/2008, -5/+77I lol at people who think Ben Stein is some sort of academic or scientist because he wears thick glasses and a bow tie and speaks with a boring, monotone voice. The guy is a right-wing nutjob. He was Nixon's speechwriter for goodness sake.
- brstilson, on 03/21/2008, -1/+25I also forgot to mention that it seems Stein is presenting himself as a scientist in this movie, a "rebel" scientist of sorts. It'd be like me making a movie and playing a "rebel" mathematician that insists 3+3 equals 7 because 6 is ungodly.
- L0t3k, on 03/21/2008, -13/+1Or like Al Gore making a movie on climate change?
- Phyraxus, on 03/21/2008, -0/+6Oh yeah, your definitely a hater.
- starkruzr, on 03/21/2008, -0/+9Al Gore actually did the research and talked to real scientists. The same cannot be said for Ben Stein.
- L0t3k, on 03/21/2008, -13/+1Or like Al Gore making a movie on climate change?
- starkruzr, on 03/21/2008, -3/+7Stein is actually absolutely ***** brilliant. It's a shame he uses his powers for evil, though.
- DukeMojo, on 03/21/2008, -1/+4No, Stein is book smart. My brother is walk-into-wall stupid but he can remember some of the most arbitrary lessons.
- NSResponder, on 03/21/2008, -0/+1If you think Stein is "briilaint", then you really need to find a smarter crowd to hang out with.
-jcr
- NSResponder, on 03/21/2008, -0/+2For the record, Nixon was a pinko. He devalued the currency, and instituted wage and price controls to try to prevent the market from coping with the inflation he facilitated.
Look up what Barry Goldwater had to say about Nixon to see what a real conservative thought of Tricky Dick.
-jcr- shodanx, on 03/21/2008, -0/+1not to mention a certain hotel-related scandal
- NSResponder, on 03/21/2008, -0/+1Watergate didn't really have much to do with Nixon being a right- or left-winger. That was plain old criminal activity.
-jcr
- NSResponder, on 03/21/2008, -0/+1Watergate didn't really have much to do with Nixon being a right- or left-winger. That was plain old criminal activity.
- shodanx, on 03/21/2008, -0/+1not to mention a certain hotel-related scandal
- bsalus01, on 03/21/2008, -2/+1you do realize that stein has a phd and was a professor at one time. and that nixon more of a centrists during his time. he created the epa and osha, hardly a right wing nut job. not to mention colbert was a big fan of nixon growing up. so many presidents have been involved in conspiracies he just got caught as it was widely publicized.
- zeebo, on 03/21/2008, -0/+2He was no centrist, he was a rather extremist authoritarian. He gave the government a lot more control over everyones daily lives.
- brstilson, on 03/21/2008, -1/+25I also forgot to mention that it seems Stein is presenting himself as a scientist in this movie, a "rebel" scientist of sorts. It'd be like me making a movie and playing a "rebel" mathematician that insists 3+3 equals 7 because 6 is ungodly.
- Chainheart, on 03/21/2008, -6/+23It's going to be terrible. I expect nothing less than condescending *****, copious amounts of straw men arguments, and self-victimization/pity. ***** Ben Stein
- keinsignal, on 03/21/2008, -0/+0Yep, you pretty much nailed it. Congratulations, you saved yourself 10 bucks!
See http://blogs.orlandosentinel.com/entertainment_mov ... for a review
- keinsignal, on 03/21/2008, -0/+0Yep, you pretty much nailed it. Congratulations, you saved yourself 10 bucks!
- Shoebox639, on 03/21/2008, -7/+40Hey, the Flying Spaghetti Monster acts in mysterious ways.
no wait... or was it Thor?- sickswaystop, on 03/21/2008, -1/+4its both, actually its anything.. and thats the point hahah
- shodanx, on 03/21/2008, -0/+1RAmen
- Squidwalk, on 03/21/2008, -0/+1It was Baldr dude, these are Christians we're talking about ^^
- Kregg17, on 03/21/2008, -4/+17Remember yesterday when you asked me the definition of irony was?
- xmizzbojanglesx, on 03/21/2008, -4/+8This is hilarious considering I just got out of my human evolution class in which we read "The Ancestor's Tale" by Dawkins. I forwarded that article to my professor :P
- kinseyincanada, on 03/21/2008, -39/+5well first off the fact that he wasnt let into the movie is stupid but, it seems here that no one really knows what this movie is about http://ca.youtube.com/watch?v=zh35qLYM424 the trailer seems to make it out to be, just for people to consider the idea of creationism in a scientific method that should be studied, they are not trying to prove it, they are simply trying to make people think about it as an theory in a scientific method. I know Digg usually hates everything even remotly considered to be close to religion but you have to see the other side, this movie is not propaganda it seems like a interesting idea and i would like to see it.
- jstone, on 03/21/2008, -1/+24"they are simply trying to make people think about it as an theory in a scientific method."
Well, there's a big problem with that: ID isn't actually scientific. The Discovery Institute's claims are impossible to scientifically verify, so they don't attempt to do so. Instead, the DI has come up with a few arguments that sound good to the general population, though actual evolutionary theorists can easily disprove them. They then present these arguments to average people, and more or less state that "evolution has a hard time explaining this and this, so therefore you have to give equal weight to our mythology." That method of 'reasoning' is absolutely not accepted by the scientific method; an opposing theory having holes lends absolutely no credibility to your own.- kinseyincanada, on 03/21/2008, -7/+3well i agree that the Discovery's Institutes claims are false and should not be taken as fact, i just believe that we should never stop questioning and examining every single possible way of how life was created but in a scientific way.
- Matri, on 03/21/2008, -1/+2In order to stand up to scrutiny and examinations, proof needs to be brought forward. You said it yourself, they aren't even trying to prove it.
I can put out a video about how important it is to teach that my invisible leprechaun friend made the universe, but until I bring forward the proof you can't seriously expect the leprechaun to be accepted as a scientific theory?- kinseyincanada, on 03/21/2008, -0/+2i completely agree that it shouldn't be accepted all i am trying to say is that we shouldnt stop asking question about how we got here is all.
- Matri, on 03/21/2008, -1/+1That question is not in the realm of evolution to answer.
- johnnysaucepn, on 03/21/2008, -0/+1Nah, how we got here is entirely possible to question. Why we got here is the one that's impossible.
If science had ever stopped looking for answers, we wouldn't be in this situation now. There are some people out there that are uncomfortable with the answers that are being produced. - DCGUY12, on 03/21/2008, -1/+1Agreed, and Intelligent Design Stifles looking for answers, because the answer always is, "God Did it."
- Matri, on 03/21/2008, -1/+2In order to stand up to scrutiny and examinations, proof needs to be brought forward. You said it yourself, they aren't even trying to prove it.
- kinseyincanada, on 03/21/2008, -7/+3well i agree that the Discovery's Institutes claims are false and should not be taken as fact, i just believe that we should never stop questioning and examining every single possible way of how life was created but in a scientific way.
- solidcube, on 03/21/2008, -5/+9Go back to your musty cloister, icky creationist.
- kinseyincanada, on 03/21/2008, -4/+4well i actually fully belive in evolution and am an atheist all im saying is that we should never stop questioning, if Intelligent Design can be tested under the scientific method then we should go for it. This film seems to be trying to stop the censorship of those who believe differently then i do.
- FiZzZiKaL, on 03/21/2008, -1/+2So you're an Agnostic?
- kinseyincanada, on 03/21/2008, -4/+3no i just simply think that we should just stop questioning things, is all, we should study both, and not try to censor those who think differently then us is all.
- EdSG, on 03/21/2008, -1/+3The thing is: questioning is how science works, not just saying "whoa! shiny! it moost be designed!1~1!"
And I don't think anyone here thinks seriously about censoring, it probably will be the best thing it ever happened to Intelligent Design, and it will be it's demise. Such un/anti-scientific theory along with "Creation science" won't last long. - Phyraxus, on 03/21/2008, -1/+3They aren't being censored. Intelligent design has been taken into consideration and has failed miserably. Mostly because it CAN'T be tested under the scientific method. They need to move on.
- Matri, on 03/21/2008, -2/+2"Intelligent" (and I use the term loosely) Design has yet to bring forward a single piece of evidence.
It is such a perfect xerox of creationism that all the "proof" it has can be corroborated in a single, unverified book the fundamentalists like to call their "bible". - zeebo, on 03/21/2008, -1/+2The whole problem is that Intelligent Design cannot be scientifically tested. It makes no specific testable claims, it makes no predictions about what evidence might be found to add further support to it, and having been throuroughly refuted they've propped it back up and given it a fresh coat of paint time and again to try to claim that this time they've got it right.
- FiZzZiKaL, on 03/21/2008, -1/+2So you're an Agnostic?
- kinseyincanada, on 03/21/2008, -4/+4well i actually fully belive in evolution and am an atheist all im saying is that we should never stop questioning, if Intelligent Design can be tested under the scientific method then we should go for it. This film seems to be trying to stop the censorship of those who believe differently then i do.
- bigbadgoat, on 03/21/2008, -4/+13Okay, lets apply the scientific method to creationism.
Creationism: The idea that a god created the earth, the universe and everything in it.
Hold up, first we need to have evidence there is a god before we can assume that the entity made anything.
What? No evidence that a god exists or ever existed?
THEN THROW OUT THE ***** IDEA!
I'm sorry, there's no room for blind faith in science.
problem solved.- bsalus01, on 03/21/2008, -3/+3creation and evolution both suffer from the same problem. the beginning. well where did the energy for the big bang originate from?
creationists: god where did god come from? we don't know we can't understand god.
evolutionists: we don't know. (and any idea of colliding manifolds or time loops just pushes the question back further, it doesn't solve it.)
you have no evidence that energy can come from nothingness so by your hypothesis you should throw out evolution until you can prove that.- zeebo, on 03/21/2008, -0/+3Evolution has nothing to do with the big bang.
- bsalus01, on 03/21/2008, -3/+2true, but those who believe that there is a god but that god did not create man are in the vast minority, even just among evolutionists.
and even if you exclude the origin of the universe you still have the same problem with the beginning of the first cell.
there is no evolutionary explanation of how life came from non-life. when scientists can make a cell in a lab just from raw elements then it is worth a serious investigation. so far all we can create are amino acids and a few basic proteins, not anything resembling a cell. - bigbadgoat, on 03/21/2008, -1/+2Actually there is an evolutionary explanation as to how life came from non-life. In fact they even ran an experiment and proved it to be possible. I don't know a whole lot about it, but then again I'm not an expert on evolution, and I don't claim to be, I'm actually a computer engineer.
But here's the beauty of it. If I want to become an expert, there's nothing stoping me from learning the science behind the experiment and performing it myself and verifying it myself.
However, its just one possible explanation as to how life could have started, but its the only one that we've actually verified. So thats what scientists are going with until they come up with something better. If they find out they're wrong, they'll throw out this old explanation and take the new evidence to come up with a better explanation.
If some evidence some to light that refutes the creationist theory, you guys are stuck with your thumbs up your asses, and try to make ***** claims like fossils were put on earth to "test your faith", since your god cannot be wrong. - turkoftheplains, on 03/22/2008, -0/+2bsalus01 is using the Creationist's best friend, the Argument From Ignorance: "You can't prove this subpoint of this point? Aha! You must be wrong, which makes me right!" Can you make a positive, testable hypothesis and back it up with proof, instead of basing your entire argument on refuting individual pieces of someone else's?
The Expelled folks really seem to resent the fact that scientists (Theist, Atheist, or Hypnotoad) are so obnoxiously stubborn about evaluating ideas based on the evidence to support them and their ability to generate valid, testable predictions. Sounds like a conspiracy, just like the moon landing, right?
- bsalus01, on 03/21/2008, -3/+2true, but those who believe that there is a god but that god did not create man are in the vast minority, even just among evolutionists.
- zeebo, on 03/21/2008, -0/+3Evolution has nothing to do with the big bang.
- bsalus01, on 03/21/2008, -3/+3creation and evolution both suffer from the same problem. the beginning. well where did the energy for the big bang originate from?
- turkoftheplains, on 03/21/2008, -2/+14Show me testable hypotheses Intelligent Design has generated, then show me rigorous experiments it has performed to test them, then finally use them to make a convincing case for that Intelligent Design has greater explanatory and predictive power than Darwinism.
If this film did that, I (and every other reasonable, scientifically-minded person) would accept Intelligent Design with open arms. Based on everything I've read, it doesn't even attempt to do that, instead believing-- like the Young Earth Creationists it tries so hard to distance itself from (even while they support and promote it)-- that Intelligent Design has some sort of special entitlement that allows it to bypass the rules of science. If scientists don't bite, they must be members of some sort of conspiracy against Intelligent Design.
If the Discovery Institute really had anything legitimate to say, they wouldn't have to resort to this sort of tripe.
And if I ever meet Ben Stein in the street, I'll be sure to let him know what he can do with his $5000.- kinseyincanada, on 03/21/2008, -10/+3This film in my viewpoint is not about proving that Creationism is right, its more about the censorship of those who believe in creationism are facing, and even thou you and i don't believe in creationism there is no way that we can say that someone does not have the right to believe in it.
- bigbadgoat, on 03/21/2008, -2/+7Censorship? Hardly.
Say someone wants to ignore all logic and evidence and proclaim the sky is actually yellow, not blue. Because of this, people refuse to take him seriously or publish paper about it where here makes a bunch of false assumptions and presents no evidence, thats not censorship, thats a reasonable approach to the situation.
Scientists don't give Creationism and creationists the time of day or take them seriously because it isn't worth their time or reputation to even pretend to entertain something so refutable and unverifiable when there are alternatives with significant evidence to support them. - Matri, on 03/21/2008, -1/+4I have no problem with whatever they want to believe in.
But when they start going into schools to teach that scientifically tested and verifiable theories are false, and that unverifiable, unreliable, untestable hokey is the absolute unmutable truth because their outdated book told them so, well... In that case I am afraid I will have to disagree.
If we allow this willful ignorance to continue to propagate, we will be plunged back into the Bronze Age. - johnnysaucepn, on 03/21/2008, -1/+1There is no censorship, only paranoia (in the best of cases) and wilful attempts to manipulate public opinion to defame reputable academia (in the worst). It's no different than the crackpots who come up with infinite energy sources or the source of eternal life, who claim they're begin kept down by the oil and pharma industries.
- turkoftheplains, on 03/22/2008, -0/+1If all of my hypotheses consisted of "nuh-uh, Darwin's theory can't explain what THAT monkey just did" and "cucumber-zucchini ≥ 7.2", then I'd be laughed out of science too.
If these people had anything legitimate to add, they could add it while playing by the rules (and maybe even use some sort of "scientific method.") This film is ample evidence of the fact that Intelligent Design has no shortage of funds-- it just seems to be more interested in spending them on public relations than on, you know, actually doing anything useful.
- bigbadgoat, on 03/21/2008, -2/+7Censorship? Hardly.
- kinseyincanada, on 03/21/2008, -10/+3This film in my viewpoint is not about proving that Creationism is right, its more about the censorship of those who believe in creationism are facing, and even thou you and i don't believe in creationism there is no way that we can say that someone does not have the right to believe in it.
- IrisMR, on 03/21/2008, -1/+2Oh yea baby. It's not as if they haven't tried to "prove" their stuff before heh? This is nothing new, just the same old ***** they always pull. Retarded "proofs" that can be easily proven wrong by someone with a couple minutes. But then they just go around running in circles with their ears plugged and chant "LALALALA SCIENCE IS WRONG GOD ROCKS YOU CAN'T PROVE US WRONG!"
- SupaFurry, on 03/21/2008, -0/+1"God did it" is, and will never be, a scientific conclusion, hypothesis, theory or idea.
- jstone, on 03/21/2008, -1/+24"they are simply trying to make people think about it as an theory in a scientific method."
- Monkeywithacold, on 03/21/2008, -11/+15It will probably be about as misleading as zeitgeist was.
- Caleb666, on 03/21/2008, -0/+9Why was this dugg down? Zeitgeist was hogwash. Anyone who's seen it and actually believed what he was told is an incredulous douche.
- Squidwalk, on 03/21/2008, -0/+2Agreed, Zeitgeist gives a bad name to all of the reasonable people that have similar but better arguments. You mention Joseph Campbell to a Christian now and they act like you just watched Zeitgeist. That's actually how I found out about the movie!
- AtheistRev, on 03/21/2008, -0/+3The 911 and Federal Reserve stuff seemed to be a leap, but what part of the "history of religion" section was hogwash? I checked on a few of the comments such as the similarities between Horus and Jesus....and these were dead on.
http://www.atheistrevolution.com
- Caleb666, on 03/21/2008, -0/+9Why was this dugg down? Zeitgeist was hogwash. Anyone who's seen it and actually believed what he was told is an incredulous douche.
- Chaostician, on 03/21/2008, -7/+47Dawkins actually appeared at the University of Texas, my university, yesterday, and I was fortunate enough to see him. He actually mentioned this movie, saying he was duped into appearing in it and that he was given no indication that the movie was unfriendly to science. He also mentioned that anyone allowed to see it thus far has had to sign a non discloser agreement, so no one can mention anything about the film. I move that we boycott this movie and refuse to contribute any money via ticket sales to their organization.
I'm all for torrenting it though for the sake of ridicule- Monkeywithacold, on 03/21/2008, -25/+4You didn't miss anything. I have seen him speak, he talked about science for a minute or two, which was awesome...But for the next 35 minutes rambled on about how there could be no god.
I personally don't like him much. He is a great scientist, but ***** philosopher.- bigbadgoat, on 03/21/2008, -3/+19He's not a philosopher.
He simply requires proof to believe something to be true.- L0t3k, on 03/21/2008, -19/+2He is neither. What he is, is a media whore.
- Chaostician, on 03/21/2008, -2/+5I said I was fortunate enough to see him, although there were many who weren't. The line to get in had several thousand people in it; unfortunately the auditorium only held 1250 people. Apparently even people who got in line an hour early weren't there soon enough. Luckily I had a reserved ticket because I'm a member of Atheist Longhorns, who sponsored the event.
- chikkychappy, on 03/23/2008, -2/+0i don't understand why monkeywithacold is being dugg down. i'm an atheist through and through, but come on, dawkins really is an attention whore. he should stop dabbling with philosophy (which he knows nothing about) and go back to your forte, evolution.
- bigbadgoat, on 03/21/2008, -3/+19He's not a philosopher.
- gldfshnpcklejar, on 03/21/2008, -2/+9I went as well and thought it was amazing. He is a very intelligent, funny and down to earth man. Go Atheist Longhorns!
- hauntedchippy, on 03/21/2008, -1/+6Don't even torrent it. They don't care about ticket money they just want it to get exposure, don't help them.
- Logicexe, on 03/21/2008, -0/+8You know what sucks about this movie, whether it fails or succeeds it's going to be spun in the Discovery Institutes's favor.
***** ticket sales? Well that's because the evil folks at BIG science are suppressing our message and discouraging people from watching the movie! What are they afraid of? The Truth?!
Great ticket sales! See, we're legitimate! The people have finally woken up and demand to know the truth from scientists. We're winning!
I say you go see it in theaters if you want, download it if you want because no matter what you do they'll turn into a positive. - DreKor, on 03/21/2008, -2/+1I like that everyone is so indignant about this movie and that you want to boycott it. Were you seriously going to see it before this happened? If everybody could just learn to leave everyone else's religion alone, this would be a better place.
- Logicexe, on 03/21/2008, -0/+4Except that we're not dealing with religion here, we're dealing with science and religious ideology masquerading as science trying to subvert proper science education.
- WTFologist, on 04/02/2008, -0/+0Except the prevalent attitudes here, which are beneath the writers' presumed rational stance, break down into the following categories: 1) It'll probably be ... 2) all those stupid Christians/Creos/Doffuses... 3) Haw, haw I'm still ROFL
Yes, PZ's ironic experience is - humorous. But most of these posts are not. How ironic it is that the majority of posters in this topic think you're so smart while you jump to conclusions and resort to crass name-calling, making a public mockery of yourselves. Bravo.
- WTFologist, on 04/02/2008, -0/+0Except the prevalent attitudes here, which are beneath the writers' presumed rational stance, break down into the following categories: 1) It'll probably be ... 2) all those stupid Christians/Creos/Doffuses... 3) Haw, haw I'm still ROFL
- Logicexe, on 03/21/2008, -0/+4Except that we're not dealing with religion here, we're dealing with science and religious ideology masquerading as science trying to subvert proper science education.
- Monkeywithacold, on 03/21/2008, -25/+4You didn't miss anything. I have seen him speak, he talked about science for a minute or two, which was awesome...But for the next 35 minutes rambled on about how there could be no god.
- IDGA, on 03/21/2008, -9/+10Oh wow, this is just too hilarious. It is so unbelievable how STUPID and hypocritical the IDists are. But then again, that's to be expected. If they knew ANYTHING about intelligence, they wouldn't be IDists in the fist place.
- geniescott, on 03/21/2008, -2/+44Actually, Kinseyincanada, we know quite a bit about this movie, from people who were accidently let in, and who wrote about it. Read the reviews at www.expelledexposed.com. More to come.
Eugenie (one of the bad guys in the movie)- ivanisavich, on 03/21/2008, -2/+15Eugenie Scott??
Big fan of yours! If this is your real account, just saying hi :D- geniescott, on 03/21/2008, -1/+16Yes, this is my account. Nice to meet you!
Eugenie (Genie)- Phyraxus, on 03/21/2008, -0/+9HI!! =)
- dvide, on 03/21/2008, -0/+10Hey it's Eugenie Scott on digg, fantastic! Voice of reason
- geniescott, on 03/21/2008, -1/+16Yes, this is my account. Nice to meet you!
- llanitedave, on 03/21/2008, -17/+3OMG -- A thousand apologies! I meant to hit the thumbs-up button and accidentally marked you down instead!
Give me a -10, please! - deBeuk, on 03/21/2008, -2/+6Eugenie Scott, you're one of my heroes.
- chirwan, on 03/21/2008, -2/+2Great to see you here :)
- Logicexe, on 03/21/2008, -2/+2Holy Cow it's Eugenie Scott! < 3
- offcenter, on 03/21/2008, -3/+2Scott, you people have brought this on yourselves. Embrace, extend and extinguish would have been the wiser route to take with teh fundies. Bitterness breeds irritation -- thanks for helping fracture the culture further.
But then existential threats _are_ quite the bother.- Logicexe, on 03/21/2008, -1/+4Brought this on themselves? For standing up in favor of proper science methodology and not pandering to religious ideology masquerading as science? For not allowing religious ideology in science classrooms?
If anyone's fracturing the culture, it's the people who can't accept the reality of evolution.- offcenter, on 03/21/2008, -3/+1When you start gaming the system, blacklisting people, you're no better than the Roman Catholic Church circa 1616.
The establishment is facing an existential threat, and they botched the response. And instead of backing off and dealing with the realities of their philosophical position -- they want put their heads down and BS their way through.
The strong arm approach is not going to work -- it's never worked sustainably at any point in history -- eventually the barbarians come over the wall. They are playing for time and this will look like hell in the history books.
Shame on all of them.
New occasions teach new duties; Time makes ancient good uncouth;
They must upward still, and onward, who would keep abreast of Truth;
Lo, before us gleam her camp-fires! we ourselves must Pilgrims be,
Launch our Mayflower, and steer boldly through the desperate winter sea,
Nor attempt the Future’s portal with the Past’s blood-rusted key.- Logicexe, on 03/21/2008, -1/+1What the hell are you even talking about? What blacklists? What strong arm tactics? Writing books and blog posts count as strong arm tactics now?
- offcenter, on 03/21/2008, -1/+1Due to her experience, I think the question is more appropriately directed at Ms. Scott.
- Logicexe, on 03/21/2008, -0/+1No, I want to hear your answer. What strong arm tactics have scientists been using? What blacklists are they using? What is the existential threat? How have they been gaming the system?
Go on, you've been outspoken so far, why stop now that it actually comes to posting some content instead of vague accusations? - offcenter, on 03/21/2008, -1/+1Sorry, I don't do the "argument by endless clarification" thing. If you don't get it now, you'll just have to wait.
- Logicexe, on 03/21/2008, -0/+1I'm sorry but asking you to substantiate your accusations with actual evidence or examples is not "argument by endless clarification."
- offcenter, on 03/21/2008, -3/+1When you start gaming the system, blacklisting people, you're no better than the Roman Catholic Church circa 1616.
- Logicexe, on 03/21/2008, -1/+4Brought this on themselves? For standing up in favor of proper science methodology and not pandering to religious ideology masquerading as science? For not allowing religious ideology in science classrooms?
- KidDirty, on 03/21/2008, -0/+2Ha! A celebrity digg comment. Awesome!
I thought that you were great on P&T's *****!
- ivanisavich, on 03/21/2008, -2/+15Eugenie Scott??
- macweirdo42, on 03/21/2008, -3/+3Oh, sonuvabitch! And to think, all day today, I had this weird, inexplicable urge to go to the mall, but I ended up deciding against it. I mean, damn, I missed out on all this fun. Shoulda known... Well, lesson learned, the next time I get a strange, inexplicable feeling that I should go someplace, I'm not gonna ignore it.
- stranger, on 03/21/2008, -0/+2That must've been God telling you to go. Yeah, I wouldn't ignore it next time.
- darkane, on 03/21/2008, -15/+5Buried for an inexcusable use of commas in the description.
- IrisMR, on 03/21/2008, -1/+3Yea, because the little description posted by another guy is totally worth a burial. It's the main article that is important, el genius.
- motbob, on 03/21/2008, -6/+34That's like keeping Draco Malfoy out of heaven, but letting Hitler slip past.
- DukeMojo, on 03/21/2008, -2/+2Work on your analogies.
- Bologner, on 03/21/2008, -1/+2No, that one was pretty spot on.
- IrisMR, on 03/21/2008, -1/+1Yea, spot on. To these guys, dawkins is the equivalent of Hitler. They're quite something...
- becknell, on 03/21/2008, -0/+1I would put P.Z. higher up on their hit list than Draco.
- Shady77, on 03/21/2008, -0/+1Hey, Godwin's law!
- DukeMojo, on 03/21/2008, -2/+2Work on your analogies.
- treyevans, on 03/21/2008, -0/+2funny, but wtf are you talking about in the description?
- FDL1, on 03/21/2008, -0/+1I was going to ask the same question. I thought I was having a stroke or something.
I had to read it maybe five times. Complex sentence is complex.
- FDL1, on 03/21/2008, -0/+1I was going to ask the same question. I thought I was having a stroke or something.
- joepacific, on 03/21/2008, -10/+22THOSE FASCIST ***** THREW PZ OUT OF THE THEATRE RIGHT IN FRONT OF ME! The only reason that they didn't throw Dawkins out is that they were apparently too ***** stupid to recognize him! They didn't even recognize him when he sat through the film - not until he rose to speak, after being called on - by said producer, MARK MATHIS - at the Q&A. Holy *****, the blood drained from his face then!
(from http://www.antievolution.org/cgi-bin/ikonboard/iko ...- Matri, on 03/21/2008, -1/+2Please tell me you captured that on video. It would be priceless!
- IrisMR, on 03/21/2008, -0/+3Unfortunately he couldn't have captured that on video, they didn't allow any recording devices. If he would've taken out a camera, he would've been thrown out along with PZ by the rent-a-cop...
- lohphat, on 03/21/2008, -6/+2On what grounds can the police be used to prohibit a free US citizen from seeing a film? I think the municipality has just made a VERY EXPENSIVE mistake.
- dreid1987, on 03/21/2008, -2/+5As stupid as it is, theaters are private property. Management can ban whomever they wish.
- signal15, on 03/21/2008, -0/+2This is true.... unless that decision is based race, religion, or color. It is arguable that they violated the law in this case because they kicked her out because of religious views.
- Logicexe, on 03/21/2008, -1/+1Science and Evolution are not religions (despite what some of the more wacked out creationists would like you to believe). The organizers were in their right to keep PZ out of the theater if that's what they wanted, it's just kinda ironic and stupid considering the subject matter of their movie.
- signal15, on 03/21/2008, -0/+2This is true.... unless that decision is based race, religion, or color. It is arguable that they violated the law in this case because they kicked her out because of religious views.
- Techcrewrocks, on 04/01/2008, -0/+0I thought it was mall Security that escorted him out. The police couldn't do anything because they can't stop a security guard from doing his or her job. Plus they weren't even present at the time of the incident.
- dreid1987, on 03/21/2008, -2/+5As stupid as it is, theaters are private property. Management can ban whomever they wish.
- kob0724, on 03/21/2008, -36/+7*sigh* Once again...As a liberal Christian who finds nothing mutually exclusive (and everything quite satisfying) about a non-literal reading of the Bible and the theory of evolution it saddens me to see the immaturity, anger, and hate the constantly occurs on BOTH sides of this futile argument. An argument that completely misses the point...
- Phyraxus, on 03/21/2008, -2/+11That's great and all, you being able to believe in god and science at the same time. (Although, personally, I find that there must be some kind of mental disconnect in order to believe both at once [doublethink]) But alot of people don't, and impede science in the process. That is why their position must be utterly destroyed.
- OneHine, on 03/21/2008, -2/+19"...it saddens me to see the immaturity, anger, and hate the constantly occurs on BOTH sides of this futile argument."
Both sides? Excuse me, but when was the last time you saw scientists try to get an anti-scientific mythology taught in science classes? When was the last time you saw scientists dishonestly equate their opponents to Nazis? When was the last time you saw scientists declare that anyone who disagreed with them deserved to be tortured?
I know it's popular to declare that scientists are no better than fundamentalists and that the truth is "somewhere in the middle", but it's pure, unadulterated *****. - IrisMR, on 03/21/2008, -2/+5Futile argument? Well, let's see.. these creationists want to shove their faith nonsense into fact based science classrooms. Sounds pretty severe to me.
- Squidwalk, on 03/21/2008, -1/+3When it comes down to it, Christianity kills. There are lots of well-meaning Christians, but there are even more who are war-hawks, bigots, and anti-medicals. The Vatican just proclaimed last week that contraception, abortion, and genetic manipulation are now deadly sins. I'll leave the abortion one alone, but contraception and gene therapy are serious medical issues. Anyone who thinks abstinence is even remotely possible is lying to them self. Just the STI-related consequences of that will cause thousands of horrible deaths!
I really wish there was a way to ensure that Christians behave in reasonable ways, as I'm sure you do, but there are far too many dangerous ones to leave them unopposed. If you're a moral person, you should try to keep these people from harming others.
- jasonlfunk, on 03/21/2008, -16/+2Interesting. I'm looking forward to seeing the film. I understand that this seems pretty ridiculous if it is true, but there are always two sides to every story. I'll suspend judgment... it just seems too perfect.
- kingmanic, on 03/21/2008, -1/+2There is not 2 sides to every story there is what happened and then there is the multitude of ***** people remember. The memory of any event is onyl a weak approximation to what actually happened. Usually it's many side where there is a multitude of weak and stupid variations on the truth and a few fairly accurate versions.
- StevesJobs, on 03/21/2008, -17/+5If i wasn't an atheist I would think that Richard Dawkins is God.
- d0onut, on 03/21/2008, -8/+1It's ok guys, he took the Hipocritic Oath.
- Sanswoo, on 03/21/2008, -6/+6How can you not miss Dawkins??
Glad to know that irony is still alive!- Squidwalk, on 03/21/2008, -0/+1I was thinking about that too. I wonder if they head Dawkins was going to be there, but they mistakenly ousted his guest because they thought PZ Myers was Dawkins =)
- flip2trip, on 03/21/2008, -55/+4I feel sorry for you people--you accuse people who believe in God and intelligent design of being morons, and yet you believe we all came from some little piece of protoplasm--just add millions of years, and you get humans and all the other billions of life forms on the planet--now you tell me who is believing in fairy tales? Oh yeah, and where did that little piece of protoplasm come from? Evolution brings up more questions than answers. At the very least, there is room for discussion--what are the evolutionists so afraid of?
- Chainheart, on 03/21/2008, -5/+28Evolution doesn't say suggest that we came from apes a protoplasm - the archeology and genes do. Evolution merely attempts to explain how. Before you attempt to contrive your polemics, educate what you are preaching on. Furthermore, you do not understand that science does not care what human intuition says about a particular hypothesis. Your intuition tells you that evolution sounds ridiculous and unworthy of belief while science examines each claim fairly and asks for evidence.
What are the "evolutionists" afraid of? Nothing I suppose, your ilk are the ones making completely misinformed movies laden with paranoia and straw man arguments behind the facade of victimization. - Whackly, on 03/21/2008, -4/+17I don't think people who believe in evolution would generally fall on their swords for your "little pieces of protoplasm" theory. We know that life started many millions of years ago and "little pieces of protoplasm" is a scenario that is possible according to the best scienctific information available. Who knows. Maybe life rode in on an asteroid formed by the ejection of feces from an interstellar spacecraft pirated by hyperintelligent lint-monsters. What we do know is that it happened millions of years ago and not 6000 years ago and that it didn't happen because a omnipotent megalomaniac needed worshippers to feel secure.
- Whackly, on 03/22/2008, -0/+1should have said "interdimensional ark missle built by phychic choad weasels"
- IDGA, on 03/21/2008, -3/+11You are the one who believes that humans came from dust some infinitely complex entity breathed into. Oh yeah, and where did this infinitely complex being came from? Did an incredibly complex and powerful entity just pop out of nonexistence? Ha!
As for where the "protoplasm" came from? the same place things like geodes come from- chemicals interacting with other chemicals over long periods of time to create increasing complexity through millions of tiny little steps.
And about what we're afraid of? Nothing you could say that's for sure. It is the IDists who are preventing the discussion from happening. - PeppermintPig, on 03/21/2008, -0/+13If a theory is not informative, then what's the point?
Sure, there's room for discussion, but you have to bring something to the table. Discoveries may result in a feeling of wonder, but you have to be careful not to make wild assumptions based on wonder alone. - villageatheist, on 03/21/2008, -5/+24you know, i thought i was going to resist writing something demeaning but then i clicked on your profile and your favorite story is: "more proof that barack obama is a racist", at which point i realized that YOU ARE DESTROYING AMERICA.....GET A GODDAMN EDUCATION
- Phyraxus, on 03/21/2008, -0/+5More education never hurt anyone.
- gwbohn, on 03/21/2008, -3/+8Its obvious from this post that you have little if any knowledge or understanding of evolution and the issues surrounding it. All of science brings more questions than answers, that has always been the case and is hardly a stroke against it. More than just biology responds to trial and error processes based on incremental and cumulative changes.
Evolutionary proponents are not afraid of creationism, we are simply tired of debunking the same nonsense and illogic over and over again. We are also ***** that a pseudo-science like ID is trying to circumvent the tried and true methods and checks that have made modern science work as successfully as it has in order to get their nonsense put into the education system. Frustration and anger are not equivalent to fear.
However the actions of CrIDers in using politics and propaganda to push forward their ideas instead of using research, publication and peer review shows a deep seated fear of the success of science.. - millerftw, on 03/21/2008, -4/+5Maybe afraid that "god did it" will cripple scientific thinking.
- Phyraxus, on 03/21/2008, -0/+5Unfortunately, it already has (e.g. stem cell research, cloning, etc.).
- eir574, on 03/21/2008, -2/+4Some people confuse philosophy/religion and science. Scientific theories should be debated scientifically. Whether it detracts from life's purpose (or something else along those lines) i's a philosophical question, and even if we could somehow show that evolution does diminish our humanity, that doesn't make it wrong.
Also, evolutionary theory does not go all the way back to the beginnings of the universe. It has a certain starting point. It picks up after the appearance of the first life forms on this planet. Whatever theory you believe accounts for how the universe got to that starting point, whether it's religious, scientific, or something else entirely, is consistent with evolution. - starkruzr, on 03/21/2008, -1/+5I believe in God and evolution, because I fee
- Chainheart, on 03/21/2008, -5/+28Evolution doesn't say suggest that we came from apes a protoplasm - the archeology and genes do. Evolution merely attempts to explain how. Before you attempt to contrive your polemics, educate what you are preaching on. Furthermore, you do not understand that science does not care what human intuition says about a particular hypothesis. Your intuition tells you that evolution sounds ridiculous and unworthy of belief while science examines each claim fairly and asks for evidence.