I'm gonna be a ☆ MOVIE STAR ☆

The incredible thing about Expelled is that we don't resort to manipulating our interviews for the purpose of achieving the 'shock effect,' something that has become common in documentary film these days," said Walt Ruloff, co-founder of Premise Media and co-Executive Producer.

Well done on your big break. With this and the lawsuit, you're becoming quite the household name.

Well, PZ, looks like you had the same experience I had. I also am willing to appear in productions that take a different side of an issue than I do, but I expect candor. My release says they can use "...footage and materials in and in connection with the development, production, distribution and/or exploitation of the feature length documentary tentatively entitled Crossroads...and/or any other production...."

It's the "and any other production" that I am sure they will call attention to. Yet there is evidence that this documentary was in the offing for over a year -- possibly even a year and a half -- and they didn't know that the topic of the movie would be entirely different from Crossroads? Changing a title is one thing, but to change the whole subject of the movie from a general c/e theme to one of scientific persecution of those poor (but brave and noble)ID proponents against the Godless and dogmatic Darwinists, is quite a change.

One would have thought that by February or so of this year they might have figured out the theme. And then been a bit more honest with the subjects of the movie.

BTW, NCSE got a lot less $ for this program than you did! You must really be important! (Note to reader: it is rare to be compensated for being filmed for a documentary: I can count on one hand the number of times it has happened to me in 20 years, and still have fingers left over). (Further note: all my honoraria go to NCSE.)

My honorarium went directly to the University of Wisconsin Madison to pay a small part of my son's tuition.

It gets even worse, PZ.

Sal is the audio editor.

Sal also did the editing for "The Lost Dutchman's Quote Mine," "Yours, Quote Mine and Ours," and "That Old Gang of Quote Mine."

Anticlimax! I thought you were going to sue them for 15 mill.

The tactics and pretenses used to secure the interviews certainly sound underhanded. I'm concerned that the movie/documentary will worsen the culture war and make good honest dialogue between the sides even more difficult. I guess time will tell.

Perhaps from now on, folks should demand a contract placing the entire interview in the public domain, and giving a complete copy to the interviewee, so that a copy of the tapes can be posted to show exactly what was deleted and what was selected. It wouldn't stop them, but it would make for some entertaining video shorts corresponding to the classic "here's what they quoted and here's what they said."

This reminds me of those college kids who tried to sue Borat for showing their racist comments in his movie. Since they signed a contract, there wasn't anything they could do about it. I just hope that PZ didn't make any comments that he might learn to regret (like some random pro-atheist comment that they could twist into saying that all 'evilutionists' think all religion should be ended).

As for bringing up Dawkins' infamous "pause", as PZ put it... the reason why it's so infamous isn't because they doctored the tape, but because he actually DID pause for an awkward, extended time. Here's Brayton's post from several years ago where he discusses looking at the original tape: http://scienceblogs.com/dispatches/2004/02/the_richard_dawkins_incident_1.php

Tying this back to PZ's interview... If they quote-mine or doctor the interview, then by all means slam them for it, and slam them HARD. But if they take something that was said and use it, in context, to make PZ (and by extension all who are pro-evolution) look hateful towards those who are religious, then you really cannot blame them for doing so. After all, they really don't care about facts, just faith.

And I sincerely hope that PZ talked only about evolution and not atheism... because right now I'm imagining that Dembski, Behe and the others are licking their chops at the idea of being able to claim "proof" for the dichotomy that Christians must either choose faith or science. Simply put: Given this either/or choice, even the well-educated, moderate Christians will tend to put their faith above reason.

I just hope that PZ didn’t make any comments that he might learn to regret (like some random pro-atheist comment that they could twist into saying that all ‘evilutionists’ think all religion should be ended).

Doesn't matter. If no such comments were made, they'll create one in editing.

If they quote-mine or doctor the tape, Coin, then by all means... let's slam them HARD for doing so, and not let them get away with it.

PZ-- They came out to Morris, set up cameras and gear in my lab, and we did an interview for a few hours.

So who is funding the movie?

The only time as a producer that you are ever allowed to be dishonest about your intentions regarding an interview is for purposes of a comedy (think the Daily Show or Borat), never for a straight-up documentary. I was disgusted to hear about this level of deceit.

PZ, did you get the feeling during the interview that there was any kind of slant to the questioning?

Phatty, IANAL, but if PZ's release form was similar to Eugenie Scotts, then that part that goes "...footage and materials in and in connection with the development, production, distribution and/or exploitation of the feature length documentary tentatively entitled Crossroads... and/or any other production... ." means that from a legal standpoint, they WERE being honest... in that PZ knew (or should have known) that they had the right to use the interview for something that he wasn't anticipating.

Tying this back to PZ’s interview… If they quote-mine or doctor the interview, then by all means slam them for it, and slam them HARD. But if they take something that was said and use it, in context, to make PZ (and by extension all who are pro-evolution) look hateful towards those who are religious, then you really cannot blame them for doing so.

— doctorgoo

Well, PZ, looks like you had the same experience I had. I also am willing to appear in productions that take a different side of an issue than I do, but I expect candor. My release says they can use “…footage and materials in and in connection with the development, production, distribution and/or exploitation of the feature length documentary tentatively entitled Crossroads…and/or any other production….” It’s the “and any other production” that I am sure they will call attention to. Yet there is evidence that this documentary was in the offing for over a year – possibly even a year and a half – and they didn’t know that the topic of the movie would be entirely different from Crossroads? Changing a title is one thing, but to change the whole subject of the movie from a general c/e theme to one of scientific persecution of those poor (but brave and noble)ID proponents against the Godless and dogmatic Darwinists, is quite a change. One would have thought that by February or so of this year they might have figured out the theme. And then been a bit more honest with the subjects of the movie.

The only time as a producer that you are ever allowed to be dishonest about your intentions regarding an interview is for purposes of a comedy (think the Daily Show or Borat), never for a straight-up documentary. I was disgusted to hear about this level of deceit.

...and/or any other production...

This is the sort of experience which makes me really annoyed when I see the sorts of “Christians never lie, why would we lie? God doesn’t like liars, it’s atheists who lie because they have no moral foundations” arguments all over creationism-evolution discussions. There was one on the BBC board today: http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/mbreligion/F2213235?thr…

— Albion

Why would a non-theist be moral and remain a non-theist anyway?

Re: this whole "and/or any other production" issue... Any lawyers (preferably entertainment lawyers) out there who can clarify what this means?

Either way... this is just another example of why people should read and understand any contract they sign before they sign it.

If they quote-mine or doctor the tape, Coin, then by all means… let’s slam them HARD for doing so, and not let them get away with it.

No doubt the filmmakers wont care they'll make their money. But I don't know that the people like the denizens of UD are crowing about. One thing that seems to come through with many ex-fundie stories is that it was the dishonesty that hastened the deconversion. Every time a lie is put out there by the ID/Creationist crowd, it is seriously debunked by the reality police. This in turn makes it easier for fundies that are interested in the truth (and I think the majority of people are fair dinkum) to find the truth. This would be especially the case the media thinks it would make an interesting story.

According to some of the coverage that I've seen about the screening or promotion of this "documentary" at the DI recently, the film does claim that atheism provides no moral foundation for humanity, only God can do that.

It is funny how the producers have to lie and act so unethically in order to make a movie that claims that only people like them have morals.

Too bad we don't have a reference copy of the interview to check for manipulations in editing.

Another phrase for such false pretenses is "bearing false witness," and it is the phrase which seems most appropriate in this case. (I suspect Mark Mathis will claim that he did not, ultra-technically, lie.) No matter how anti-religious the producers make PZ look, it should be trivial to support the case that the producers are far more anti-religious themselves.

I'm sure that the Discovery Institute, honest and respectable scientific organization that it is, will be quick to repudiate the dishonesty involved in the production of this film.
Right?

RIGHT?

Ben Stein has an introductory remark at the “EXPELLED” Ben's Blog website:

http://expelledthemovie.com/blog/2007/08/21/bens-blog/#more-4

It says in part:

“This includes the ability to inquire whether a higher power, a being greater than man, is involved with how the universe operates. This has always been basic to science. ALWAYS.
Some of the greatest scientists of all time, including Galileo, Newton, Einstein, operated under the hypothesis that their work was to understand the principles and phenomena as designed by a creator.”

Yes I do believe that Newton ascribed some unexplained motion of the planets to God and then God was knocked out of the explanation by Einstein. Ben went on to add:

“Operating under that hypothesis, they discovered the most important laws of motion, gravity, thermodynamics, relativity, and even economics.

Now, I am sorry to say, freedom of inquiry in science is being suppressed.
Under a new anti-religious dogmatism, scientists and educators are not allowed to even think thoughts that involve an intelligent creator. Do you realize that some of the leading lights of “anti-intelligent design” would not allow a scientist who merely believed in the possibility of an intelligent designer/creator to work for him… EVEN IF HE NEVER MENTIONED the possibility of intelligent design in the universe? EVEN FOR HIS VERY THOUGHTS… HE WOULD BE BANNED.

In today’s world, at least in America, an Einstein or a Newton or a Galileo would probably not be allowed to receive grants to study or to publish his research.

They cannot even mention the possibility that–as Newton or Galileo believed–these laws were created by God or a higher being. They could get fired, lose tenure, have their grants cut off.”

Sorry Ben, can you explain why Einstein operated within a framework not unlike today’s America where he did study, receive grants and publish? And Ben, wasn't Galileo imprisoned by the church because he had to work in a world dominated by a theistic worldview? Might he not have fared better in today’s America?

Can anyone even verify that the Brilliant Ben Stein even wrote and signed this feeble reasoning?

Oi vey!

Reed-- According to some of the coverage that I’ve seen about the screening or promotion of this “documentary” at the DI recently, the film does claim that atheism provides no moral foundation for humanity, only God can do that. It is funny how the producers have to lie and act so unethically in order to make a movie that claims that only people like them have morals.

Can anyone even verify that the Brilliant Ben Stein even wrote and signed this feeble reasoning?

Obviously they're lining up notable scientist/educators who are also atheists so that they can be seen stating that evolution proves God doesn't exist, Q.E.D. Obviously they're dishonest enough to doctor Dr. Scott's interview to make it appear she's stating that. It wouldn't take too much doctoring for Dawkin's to say it, and it seems PZ would pay them for a chance to state it outright, in context, as aggressively as possible, while implicitly representing the entire scientific community. Bet Ken Miller (either one), or Francis Collins will not be interviewed. It would appear that they believe that PZ is at least as useful to them as anyone on their side. They ain't so dumb.

The Ramtha cultists who produced the awful documentary "What the Bleep do we know" took similar advantage of their interviewees. Religious maniacs can justify almost any means to an end.

Rampant Films HQ is in Sherman Oaks in the Valley...PZ should consider himself lucky if his footage only ends up in a boring Ben Stein creationist vehicle and not...something more hardcore.

That's a rather stupid thing to say, since I do not think nor do I say that evolution proves god cannot exist; if you'd read Dawkins' book, you know he doesn't claim that either.

Ever and again it all comes down to the same old thing: Honesty.

A Billy Joel song comes to mind . . .

A Billy Joel song comes to mind …

If everyone interviewed can show doucmentation that they were interviewed under false pretenses, I am pretty sure the average citizen would not be able to justify deceit for the gain the movie is attempting to obtain.

There must have been a sale on bigotry today. From Uncommon Descent:

Why would a non-theist be moral and remain a non-theist anyway?

— secondclass

I am a YEC. I have to say I think it was wrong to gain interviews under false pretenses.

Not all creationists are dishonest, just as not all atheists are nutcases.

Yes, but all YEC's are (puts hand over mouth) NUMFMMFMF!

At your convenience I would like to discuss our project with you

Not all creationists are dishonest, just as not all atheists are nutcases.

— Alan Grey

So who is funding the movie? Some people with deep pockets are throwing quite a bit of cash at this thing, and I can assure you that it didn't end up in my hands.

— PZ Myers

Expelled?
Behe, Lönnig, Sternberg, Gonzalez and Crocker?

You may want to find out where they ended up after being expelled. A German special on Lönnig's life as an expelled scientist can be seen here.

Sorry if a comment from me should appear several times, but I got an Moveable Type Error message repeatedly so I tried to post it again and again

Ben Stein's email address: BenStein99@aol.com
I linked to expelled yesterday from the Pandas Thumb post on PZ's lawsuit. Actually, I linked first to the website from Rev. Paul T. Hipple. Go to Hipple's website and you will find a link to expelled (and a whole lot of stupidity). I got so pissed off, I emailed Ben Stein last night warning him of creationist dishonesty. This was before I read this post today. I know it probably did not do any good, but I felt better. I also reminded him of the Clergy Letter Project, that many republicans (such as George Will) know evolution is true, and that the entire Dover school board went from Republican to Democrat in a Republican dominated voting district. He might not even read the emails, but I find it is totally ironic that such deception was used by those claiming to be of high moral values. http://www.benstein.com/email.html

And consider that Stein is (or was) a contributor to Penthouse magazine (which has pictures of nekkid people!) I thought God's chosen holy folks didn't like such things.

Ben Stein is a moron. Not in the insult sense but in the literal sense. He is dumb.

A year or two ago, there was an essay online about something financial related that was so vapid and idiotic that I made a special point of looking up the author. It was someone unknown to me at the time called Ben Stein. Life is short and there is no point reading nonsense by dummies more than once.

It is a small world that he shows up now in connection with the IDists. In view of my now validated judgement of his intelligence it isn't at all surprising.

This is another example of the fact that you cannot trust the "Christian" media. I know this personally. Many years ago in Lima Ohio I was recruited to be the evolutionist in a debate with Duane Gish. I let the debate organizers know that I would have some projection slides to illustrate my presentation. When I arrived I was informed that the local Christian radio station would record our debate and later rebroadcast the whole thing. "No problem," I said. When the rebroadcast occurred, everything Dr. Gish said (he had no visuals) was included, but half of my presentation was edited out. They deleted everything I said while a projection slide was being shown to the audience, because the radio audience couldn't see the slides.

A few years later I participated in another debate with a local member of the Creation Research Society, this time on my campus. The local Lima Ohio, Christian TV station phoned me and asked if they could come and video the debate for later broadcast. Having been stung once by the Christian media I said, "Sure, as long as you agree to either broadcast our debate unedited or to give me a veto over any editing you want to do." The TV station immediately rejected my terms, so I told them they could not come to campus and video my debate.

Tell 'em your fee is $15 million!

Edwin,

Thanks for actually trying to help Ben. Pointing out the clergy and conservatives who accept good science was a nice touch (one I use often). I hope that he notices yours among the deluge of other emails dismissing him as a “fundie” or “right-winger” (or worse).

These relentless scam artists have been able to temporarily fool Al Gore and Ted Kennedy, so it should not be hard to con a nonscientist who is more likely to be in the company of those who peddle anti-evolution sound bites.

I do have to wonder, though, if his role of a very dull and nerdy science teacher in “The Wonder Years” was in part driven by a personal disrespect of science. I for one would have turned down the role because of the stereotype that it promotes.

I'll be watching the editing of the clips carefully. In order to get you to say "Evolution is...only...a theory. It...didn't happen", they just need to carefully edit you saying "Evolution is not "only a theory". It is a theory in the scientific sense, one that has been tested and proven itself, and has made predictions and had them confirmed. If that didn't happen it wouldn't have the universal support of biologists everywhere" :)

For videos of some of the worst arguments against evolution ever formulated (as well as entertaining responses to them), check out my most recent blog entry at http://exploringourmatrix.blogspot.com/2007/08/banana-and-peanut-butter-arguments-on.html I hope the clips there provide a bit of levity at what could be a stressful time.

Well done on your big break. With this and the lawsuit, you’re becoming quite the household name.

— Matt J

Take a look at http://www.evolutionnews.org/2007/08/hollywood_gets_the_message_abo.html. The Discovery Institute is quite pleased about the movie: "Hollywood Gets the Message About Suppression of Intelligent Design."

I'll be watching the editing of the clips carefully. In order to get you to say "Evolution is...only...a theory. It...didn't happen", they just need to carefully edit you saying "Evolution is not "only a theory". It is a theory in the scientific sense, one that has been tested and proven itself, and has made predictions and had them confirmed. If that didn't happen it wouldn't have the universal support of biologists everywhere" :)

For videos of some of the worst arguments against evolution ever formulated (as well as entertaining responses to them), check out my most recent blog entry at http://exploringourmatrix.blogspot.com/2007/08/banana-and-peanut-butter-arguments-on.html I hope the clips there provide a bit of levity at what could be a stressful time.

I think this film needs to be taken very seriously.

I've repeatedly pointed out that my problem is with efforts to teach sectarian pseudoscience in public schools, or otherwise use it to influence public policy. I don't care about the personal beliefs of others, least of all those of Ben Stein.

But the clear effort of this film is to spread lies about mainstream science, in order to advance the cause of creationism/ID in public education and public policy.

This is a very slick propaganda job. This is, unfortunately, not some Ken Ham travesty that we can safely laugh at.

Probably the very best way to respond would be to get cracking and expose the lies in venues that are as public and "glamorous" as the film itself.

I would honestly suggest that some serious, commercially successful film-makers need to step up to the plate and get started on a "counter-film".

Catching people in lies and holding them up to ridicule (NOT ridiculing them, but catching them making themselves ridiculous) is what is needed.

We may be able to count on the Daily Show to ridicule this thing, but it must be getting to be a strain for a comedy show to be forced to single-handedly save American Civilization over and over again.

On the plus side, this is very close to being a desperate last ditch effort by ID. If this film ends up being perceived as ridiculous or lying by the public at large, that may honestly be the stake that makes ID (using that particular name and cast of characters) stop rising from the grave. (Sure it will be reincarnated with a different name, in an even more watered down version, later, but that's another day's problem.)

This is both a serious offensive by ID, and a potentially fatal defeat. This may, irony of ironies, be their "Waterloo".

>Why were they so dishonest about it?

You mean like the NCSE editing at wikipedia? COI Likely

Of course, they did apologize: NCSE apology

And were instructed to remember to use accounts to mask their use of wikipedia to promote evolution.

BTW, Do you edit at wikipedia on evolution related articles?

he staff list is still inaccurate. --[[User:Wesley R. Elsberry|Wesley R. Elsberry]] 06:50, 16 July 2007 (UTC) == NCSE edit of the article == On August 9, 2007, the article was anonymously edited from NCSE's dotted quad. Although the edit was minor and factual, updating the lists of NCSE's staff and supporters, it might conceivably be regarded as a violation of Wikipedia policies, such as WP:AUTO. Hence NCSE staff members have been instructed not to edit any Wikipedia entries anonymously, and to familiarize themselves with and observe all applicable policies while editing Wikipedia. [[User:Glenn Branch|Glenn Branch]] 21:40, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Please, please, please don't post a report on this noticeboard unless there is actually a problem with tendentious editing. Uncontroversial edits that improve and update our articles are not a problem. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 14:51, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Harold: But the clear effort of this film is to spread lies about mainstream science, in order to advance the cause of creationism/ID in public education and public policy. This is a very slick propaganda job. This is, unfortunately, not some Ken Ham travesty that we can safely laugh at.

This movie theme is a Big Lie all by itself. One of the Big Lies that the fundie cultist leadership repeats to the rank and file over and over, is that "Christians are a persecuted minority." Any day now Moslems or Atheists or Vampires or somebody is going to take over the USA and do something horrible like teach science to children in public schools.

The truth as usual is 180 degrees the opposite. Xians self identified make up 82% of the US population. (Source Gallup, GSS poll). The fundies controlled the US congress up until 2006, own the president, and almost have a majority of the supreme court. The US has been sliding into theocracy steadily for a decade now. There is a persecuted minority in this situation and it is anybody but the cult Xians.

The News links on the "Expelled" website are an interesting collection. In addition to their own press release, there are two from Discovery.org, two from reputable newspapers that actually contain anti-ID material, one from BeliefNet that admits to the overtly Christian nature of the film (unlike the websites for the film and the production company), and one quasi-scholarly tome on good things that were initially rejected and ridiculed (that lists Darwinism as one such idea). Either they didn't vet these articles very carefully, or the film may turn out to be a self-parody (not that it's possible to always tell the difference, or whether that's the intention of these folks).

We need to see the film first to conclude that it is another creo lie festival. None of us are that clairvoyant as to know what is in it.

We need to see the film first to conclude that it is another creo lie festival. None of us are that clairvoyant as to know what is in it.

>They are interviewing Richard Sternberg and Guillermo Gonzalez. Sternberg’s claims during the peer-review controversy and Gonzalez’ claims during the tenure controversy have already been debunked.

Where was Sternberg's claim debunked? He followed the peer review process, and refused to disclose (quite rightly) the identities of the peer reviewers (protecting them, no doubt, from retaliation).

Intelligent Design and academic freedom(Or lack there of). From NPR. I am surprised you guys haven't lynched Barbara Hagerty yet. Get a rope.

What's the big deal? This isn't the first film produced by the Liars-for-Jesus movement and it won't be the last. Are people worried about the credibility offered by a guy who played a science teacher?

Reminds me of the Simpson's episode: "Here's an actor playing a scientist. Let's hear what he has to say about [the three eyed fish]."

Or, yet another Simpsons episode: "Just ask this scientician."

>Further note: all my honoraria go to NCSE.

That is, my dear, because the NCSE is your church.

You go PZ !!!!!!! It would have been a much better interview if they had just come up front and let you know their intent. Man that would have been the kind of interview we all like to see.....

That is, my dear, because the NCSE is your church.

Depends on how you define church. For instance if I define my hat as my church, then indeed my hat would be my church. Thanks for playing.

My church it has three corners,
Three corners has my church...

I don't mind sharing my views with creationists, and do so all the time. By filming under false pretenses, much like the example of the case of Richard Dawkins' infamous "pause", they've undercut their own credibility … not that that will matter. I suspect their audience will not question whatever mangling of the video that they carry out, and the subterfuges used to make it will not be brought up.

"That being said, my best guess is that it is undoubtedly a massive pack of lies that Joseph Goebbels would be proud of. To take one example, they are claiming the Einstein and Galileo were discriminated against by science for being religious. Total lies. Galileo was almost burnt at the stake by the Catholic church for claiming that the earth orbited the sun. Grigorio Bruno wasn’t so lucky. He was actually burnt at the stake for making the same claim."

Oh puhleaze! The only lies are yours.

"they are claiming the Einstein and Galileo were discriminated against by science for being religious"

No. They claim no such thing. You lied.

"Galileo was almost burnt at the stake by the Catholic church for claiming that the earth orbited the sun. Grigorio Bruno wasn’t so lucky. He was actually burnt at the stake for making the same claim."

There is no evidence that Giordano (not "Grigorio") Bruno was burnt for "making the same claim". You lied.

“they are claiming the Einstein and Galileo were discriminated against by science for being religious” No. They claim no such thing. You lied.

— meme

In today’s world, at least in America, an Einstein or a Newton or a Galileo would probably not be allowed to receive grants to study or to publish his research. They cannot even mention the possibility that–as Newton or Galileo believed–these laws were created by God or a higher being. They could get fired, lose tenure, have their grants cut off. This can happen. It has happened.

“Galileo was almost burnt at the stake by the Catholic church for claiming that the earth orbited the sun. Grigorio Bruno wasn’t so lucky. He was actually burnt at the stake for making the same claim.” There is no evidence that Giordano (not “Grigorio”) Bruno was burnt for “making the same claim”. You lied.

Where was Sternberg’s claim debunked? He followed the peer review process

"QuestionAndBeSkeptical"

Legion?

>>He followed the peer review process

>Prove it.

Nice try. You prove he did not.

>Why did he bypass the other editors, as was required by the journal?

But this is too easy to resist.

"Contrary to typical editorial practices, the paper was published without review by any associate editor;"

Do you know where that came from? "Typical editorial practices" is not a synonym for "required editorial practices". Excluding a junior associate editor does not thwart the peer review process (though it might hurt a junior POV pusher's feelings). Failing to have an article peer reviewed would be quite a different matter, and though such allegations are bandied about, no *proof* has been forthcoming.

Wikipedia: With the loss of many of his defenders in Rome because of Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World Systems, Galileo was ordered to stand trial on suspicion of heresy in 1633. The sentence of the Inquisition was in three essential parts: Galileo was required to recant his heliocentric ideas; the idea that the Sun is stationary was condemned as "formally heretical." However, while there is no doubt that Pope Urban VIII and the vast majority of Church officials did not believe in heliocentrism, Catholic doctrine is defined by the pope when he speaks ex cathedra (from the Chair of Saint Peter) in matters of faith and morals. While Church officials did condemn Galileo, heliocentrism was never formally or officially condemned by the Catholic Church, except insofar as it held (for instance, in the formal condemnation of Galileo) that "The proposition that the sun is in the center of the world and immovable from its place is absurd, philosophically false, and formally heretical; because it is expressly contrary to Holy Scriptures", and the converse as to the Sun's not revolving around the Earth.[21] He was ordered imprisoned; the sentence was later commuted to house arrest. His offending Dialogue was banned; and in an action not announced at the trial, publication of any of his works was forbidden, including any he might write in the future.[22]

In Praise of Folly from wwww.weirdload.com: Giordano Bruno and the Magical Reformation A remarkable thinker, burned at the stake, whose vision of the cosmos may yet be proved correct ***deleted for space and copyright On February 17, in the year of grace 1600, near the very spot where Julius Caesar was murdered, the Roman Inquisition put to the flames with all due ceremony the mystical philosopher and visionary, Giordano Bruno, as an obstinate heretic. ****DELETED for space His cosmological theories, hard for his contemporaries to understand, are almost incomprehensible today. They embraced ancient Hermetic wisdom as well as the most recent discoveries of science. Long before Galileo, Bruno outspokenly supported the Copernican theory of the Earth's motion around the Sun. He is chiefly remembered today for his belief, so prophetically far ahead of his time, of the infinite number of living and populated worlds. And it was probably the example of his horrible fate that wisely persuaded Galileo more than anything else to recant the pernicious error of heliocentrism. Though Pope John Paul II formally removed the taint of heresy from Galileo, there has been no indication that Bruno would ever be rehabilitated, even during the Pope's so-called "apology" for the sins of the Church. Interestingly, the precise reasons for Bruno's burning remain secret to this day.Continues

>>He followed the peer review process

>Prove it.

Nice try. You prove he did not.

>Why did he bypass the other editors, as was required by the journal?

But this is too easy to resist.

"Contrary to typical editorial practices, the paper was published without
review by any associate editor;"

Do you know where that came from? "Typical editorial practices" is not a synonym for "required editorial practices". Excluding a junior associate editor does not thwart the peer review process (though it might hurt a junior POV pusher's
feelings). Failing to have an article peer reviewed would be quite a different matter, and though such allegations are bandied about, no *proof* has been forthcoming.

That IP address is the NCSE office IP address. They've been apprised as of 2007/08/17 of the WP:COI and WP:AUTO policies, and have publicly apologized for any appearance of impropriety, and have implemented an organizational policy upholding Wikipedia policies and integrity. Beyond that, if one looks at the content of the edits made from that IP, one does not find any pattern of egregious POV changes to articles. The "Daisey cutter" user, on the other hand, has a specific agenda in trying to denigrate NCSE, and is using Wikipedia procedures to try to falsely impugn their actions and, apparently, put articles about NCSE at risk of major change or deletion. A perusal of "Daisey cutter"'s contributions shows that NCSE-related editing comes close to be the only thing on Wikipedia that user has been interested in. --Wesley R. Elsberry 11:00, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

In today’s world, at least in America, an Einstein or a Newton or a Galileo would probably not be allowed to receive grants to study or to publish his research. They cannot even mention the possibility that–as Newton or Galileo believed–these laws were created by God or a higher being. They could get fired, lose tenure, have their grants cut off. This can happen. It has happened.

Re "Galileo was required to recant his heliocentric ideas; the idea that the Sun is stationary was condemned as “formally heretical.”"

The sun isn't stationary - it orbits within the galaxy. ;)

Henry

Ben Stein???: In today’s world, at least in America, an Einstein or a Newton or a Galileo would probably not be allowed to receive grants to study or to publish his research. They cannot even mention the possibility that–as Newton or Galileo believed–these laws were created by God or a higher being. They could get fired, lose tenure, have their grants cut off. This can happen. It has happened.

So what he says is that Galileo or Einstein would have been discriminated against by science had they been publishing today, but luckily they lived in the heady days of intellectual freedom of the 16th and early 20th centuries. Not quite what Raven said, so Raven does appear to have made a mistake here, but is what Stein actually said particularly any better?

>It isn’t even legal much less done to even ask someone what their religion is in a grant application or to discriminate against someone on the basis of religion.

Hmn. Wasn't Sterberg subjected to such questions?

>For real scientists it is simply irrelevant and of no interest or consequence.

Ah, the ideal world....but it sounds more like a No true Scotsman fallacy.

>>He followed the peer review process >Prove it. Nice try. You prove he did not.

Contrary to typical editorial practices, the paper was published without review by any associate editor;” Do you know where that came from? “Typical editorial practices” is not a synonym for “required editorial practices”. Excluding a junior associate editor does not thwart the peer review process (though it might hurt a junior POV pusher’s feelings). Failing to have an article peer reviewed would be quite a different matter, and though such allegations are bandied about, no *proof* has been forthcoming.

My suspicion is that "Expelled," like most anti-evolution activists antics these days, will be more for the purpose of baiting critics to shoot themselves in the foot, than to reinforce any misconceptions that most people already have (remember that 60-70% of the people favor "teach the controversy," including ~20% that accepts evolution).

I urge you all to take Eugenie Scott's warning to "diffuse the religion issue," and her recommendation to get IDers to say exactly "what happened when" in biological history. Get them to show how they evade the hard questions, instead of definding evolution against "don't ask, don't tell." Finally, let's stop keeping it such a secret who really advocates censorship.

But if they take something that was said and use it, in context, to make PZ (and by extension all who are pro-evolution) look hateful towards those who are religious, then you really cannot blame them for doing so.

Instead of demanding to get a copy of their videotape of the interview, you can simply set up your own camcorder & film the event yourself. Then, if it turns out you've been set up, post your copy of the interview in full. It's your independently-shot tape of the event, hence your copyright, no?

Just to be pedantic about Bruno: there is little evidence that he was condemned for his heliocentrism. The Copernican theory was only declared formally heretical in 1613 (?I think?) in direct reaction to the writings of Galileo and some of his supporters, concerning the interpretation of some biblical passages (the sun standing still for Joshua, etc.) The issue was more about the license to interpret biblical passages according to one's own lights, something that had been specifically condemned by the Council of Trent as dangerously Protestant.

In the 1590s, there was no concern within the upper hierarchy of the Church about heliocentrism. There was some philosophical resistance to the idea, sure; but it just hadn't crossed the radar of the Inquisition or the Index. There were also, it must be stressed, many strong supporters of the theory who were well-placed in the church. Many of Galileo's intellectual circle, who wrote on his behalf, were monks and priests. Bruno, on the other hand, was condemned for his Lucretian atomism, into which materialism he mixed a heady dose of vitalism: the resulting cocktail was a gorgeous pantheism of dizzying, cosmic infinities.

A sign of the difference between the cases of Bruno and Galileo: Bruno's Ash Wednesday Supper (Cena delle Ceneri) describes an evening in London, at the home of Sir Fulke Greville, in which Bruno humiliated some stuffy Oxford dons with his knowledge of Copernicus, earning the applause of the cream of the London intelligentsia. The Inquisition grilled Bruno about this, but had little interest in the Copernicanism. In fact, they refused to accept that he sat around all evening gabbing about astronomy. Surely religious matters must have been discussed with these Protestant heretics? And when Bruno wrote that they had wine together - did that mean that he participated in a heretical Eucharist? (In the end, Bruno lamely had to admit that the meeting really took place at the French embassy where he was lodging, and the bit about all the smart Englishmen being humiliated/amazed by his learning was pure fantasy).

I recently spent some time in Rome, and paid my respects as I always do at the statue of Giordano Bruno, erected in the Campo de' Fiori at the spot that he was burnt. I read this poem, which always gets me choked up.

Phatty, IANAL, but if PZ’s release form was similar to Eugenie Scotts, then that part that goes “…footage and materials in and in connection with the development, production, distribution and/or exploitation of the feature length documentary tentatively entitled Crossroads… and/or any other production….” means that from a legal standpoint, they WERE being honest… in that PZ knew (or should have known) that they had the right to use the interview for something that he wasn’t anticipating.

Altabin: Just to be pedantic about Bruno: there is little evidence that he was condemned for his heliocentrism.

Wikipedia: However, the page of the Vatican Secret Archives about Bruno's trial provides a different perspective: "In the same rooms where Giordano Bruno was questioned, for the same important reasons of the relationship between science and faith, at the dawning of the new astronomy and at the decline of Aristotle’s philosophy, sixteen years later, Cardinal Bellarmino, who then contested Bruno’s heretical theses, summoned Galileo Galilei, who also faced a famous inquisitorial trial, which, luckily for him, ended with a simple abjuration." [9]

Freethought Today Vol 19, #9 Was Catholic Hitler "anti-christian" On the trail of bogus quotes: Richard Carrier Excerp: "Surveying Hitler's remarks on religion in the Table Talk, Jochmann remarks that "Hitler was by no means unreligious." It is the Genoud-Trevor-Roper text that distorts this picture far beyond that, painting Hitler as a quasi-atheistic anti-Christian. It is clear that Picker and Jochmann have the correct text and Trevor-Roper's is entirely untrustworthy. Hitler was no more anti-Christian than your run-of-the-mill Protestant bigot. His Christianity was odd, surely, but so is that of many die-hard believers today."

Nice dodge. You made a claim.

— Zarquon

Sternberg’s claims during the peer-review controversy...have already been debunked.

— Paradox

Also if Sternberg and others want to claim the authority of 'peer review' for whatsisname’s paper, they have to be able to demonstrate that fact. The absence of evidence is evidence of absence.

— Zarquon

Nice dodge. You made a claim.

— Zarquon

Sternberg’s claims during the peer-review controversy...have already been debunked.

— Paradox

Also if Sternberg and others want to claim the authority of 'peer review' for whatsisname’s paper, they have to be able to demonstrate that fact. The absence of evidence is evidence of absence.

— Zarquon

Nice dodge. You made a claim.

— Zarquon

Sternberg’s claims during the peer-review controversy...have already been debunked.

— Paradox

Also if Sternberg and others want to claim the authority of 'peer review' for whatsisname’s paper, they have to be able to demonstrate that fact. The absence of evidence is evidence of absence.

— Zarquon

from the Secret Vatican Archives SUMMARY OF THE TRIAL AGAINST GIORDANO BRUNO Rome, 1597 Paper volume, 320x240mm, ff. 429 (ancient, partly wrong numbering and not inclusive of many white folios), bound in parchment; on the back: VARIA. Censurae. ASV, Misc., Arm. X, 205, ff. 230v?231r In one of the volumes of the fond “Miscellanea Armadi” (Arm. X, 205), maybe made up of the collection of different documents by the famous canonist Francisco Peña, Auditor and then Dean of the Rota (he died in 1612), there is a precious document, searched for a long time, then kept secret for a long time and finally found on the 15th November 1940 in the Pius IX fond after 15 years of unsuccessful investigation by the Prefect of the Vatican Archives, Angelo Mercati: the summary of the trial against Giordano Bruno. Thanks to Angelo Mercati, the summary was published, with a long and sound introduction issued in 1942. Since the volume or the volumes of the Roman trial against Giordano Bruno (1548-1600), once kept in the archives of the Holy Office, were irremediably lost, this document, which derives from the originals (on the margins of the document you often find citations of the pages of the lost trial), is the most precious testimonies we have to understand the long and troublesome inquisitorial event the famous Dominican friar underwent. Some abstracts of Giordano Bruno’s works, his interrogations, some of the records of the Venetian trial in 1592 against the famous preacher and some other documents copied from the original trial converged in the summary, which was probably used by the Assessor of the Holy Office of that period. The humane vicissitudes of Giordano Bruno ended with the Roman trial (1593-1600) and with the sentence of proven heresy, which, due to his resolute and extreme statement of not being guilty, changed into capital punishment, executed at Campo de’ Fiori on the 17th February 1600. In one of the last interrogations before the execution of the sentence (maybe in April 1599), the Dominican friar was questioned by the judges of the Holy Office on his cosmogony conception, supported above all in the “La cena delle Ceneri”(Ash-Wednesday Dinner) and in the “De l’infinito universo et mundi”. Even then, he defended his theories as scientifically founded and by no means against the Holy Scriptures (left side, from the first line: Circa motum terrae, f. 287, sic dicit: Prima generalmente dico ch’il mo*t*o et la cosa del moto della terra e della immobilità del firmamento o cielo sono da me prodotte con le sue raggioni et autorità le quali sono certe, e non pregiudicano all’autorità della divina scrittura [...]. Quanto al sole dico che niente manco nasce e tramonta, né lo vedemo nascere e tramontare, perché la terra se gira circa il proprio centro, che s’intenda nascere e tramontare [... ]). (Circa motum terrae, f. 287, sic dicit: Firstly, I say that the theories on the movement of the earth and on the immobility of the firmament or sky are by me produced on a reasoned and sure basis, which doesn’t undermine the authority of the Holy Sciptures […]. With regard to the sun, I say that it doesn’t rise or set, nor do we see it rise or set, because, if the earth rotates on his axis, what do we mean by rising and setting[…]). In the same rooms where Giordano Bruno was questioned, for the same important reasons of the relationship between science and faith, at the dawning of the new astronomy and at the decline of Aristotle’s philosophy, sixteen years later, Cardinal Bellarmino, who then contested Bruno’s heretical theses, summoned Galileo Galilei, who also faced a famous inquisitorial trial, which, luckily for him, ended with a simple abjuration.

My apologies for misspelling Dr. Myers' last name, the multiple re-posts, and failure to sufficiently copy edit in general.

My apologies for misspelling Dr. Myers’ last name, the multiple re-posts, and failure to sufficiently copy edit in general.

QuestionAndBeSkeptical: He followed the peer review process Zarquon: Prove it. QuestionAndBeSkeptical: Nice try. You prove he did not. Zarquon: Nice dodge. You made a claim QuestionAndBeSkeptical: Nice dodge back at you. Paradox made the claim.

As for bringing up Dawkins’ infamous “pause”, as PZ put it… the reason why it’s so infamous isn’t because they doctored the tape, but because he actually DID pause for an awkward, extended time. Here’s Brayton’s post from several years ago where he discusses looking at the original tape

I think it is you who do not understand. Peer reviewers are typically anonymous. (Hey, there is that word, typical. When Sternberg does not do what is professed to be typical at the PBSW, by excluding an associate editor, this is an unforgivable sin to the Culte de la Raison And when Sternberg protects the anonymity of the peer reviewers, as is in fact typical, this too is an unforgivable sin.

Something that used to be typical for the Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington was publishing annually the list of names of peer reviewers lending their services to the journal.

That didn't happen for 2004's peer reviewers.

If the Biological Society of Washington does decide to publish the 2004 list of peer reviewers, I imagine "Daisey cutter" and other sockpuppets will have a huge hissy fit.

Prove me wrong, PZ Meyers, agree to a debate with Michael Behe or some other articulate ID proponent this fall on campus.

I challenged the evolutionist myth that peer review was not done.

The best way to "challenge" us is by showing us the peer-reviewed paper(s) that disprove evolution or support ID. In fact, it's the only way to back up an assertion that such peer-reviewed work exists; anyone who wants us to believe such an assertion MUST prove it, by showing us the work, or at least a URL where we can find it. Your failure to do so proves your assertion is false. Period. Now go back to bed.

Re: Sternberg.

The PBSW editorial board has confirmed that the paper was indeed reviewed, and that the reviewers, with some caveats apparently, agreed with publication. That's not an issue. What we don't know is whether Sternberg selected ID-friendly reviewers to ensure acceptance.

Several factors strongly suggest that the entire submission and publication process was to a large extent pre-arranged:
- PBSW is an obscure journal that Meyer was very unlikely to ever have heard of, if it wasn't for Sternberg, and normally does not publish material related to the topic of Meyer's review (information and origin of phyla);
- PBSW happened to be, only for a short time window, under editorship of an ID-friendly editor when Meyer submitted his paper;
- Meyer and the DI had extensive previous contacts with Sternberg, even inviting him to a closed-door ID meeting;
- Sternberg was slated to attend an ID conference in Finland with another DI fellow shortly after the paper publication process, to which once can surmise he was invited because of his DI connections (he certainly wasn't a household name in ID/Creationism before this all affair broke out);
- Sternberg conducted the editorship process with unusual secrecy and lack of transparency, an especially unwise choice considering that he must have understood that the paper was controversial, that the DI was going to trumpet it as some sort of seminal achievement, and that it presented obvious issues of conflict of interest and professional credibility with regard to his interactions with Meyer, the DI and other Creationist organizations;
- PBSW had very qualified editors (much more so than Sternberg himself) who could have easily overseen the review process for or with Sternberg, but whom Sternberg never even alerted of the submission.

These, and the fact that Sternberg seemed less than forthcoming after the predictable brouhaha erupted, do not inspire confidence in his handling the manuscript without cherry-picking ID-friendly reviewers. This is also heightened by the fact that not even one of the reviewers has spontaneously come forward to take ownership of their professional judgment of Meyer's paper (which is something I would have strongly expected). Furthermore, to my knowledge Sternberg has never denied that ID-friendly attitude played a role in his selection of reviewers, and in fact indirectly admitted as much by saying that he thought professional ethics required him "to find peer reviewers who are not prejudiced or hostile to a particular author or his/her ideas". The latter is nonsense, btw - an editor should select reviewers based primarily on specific competence, and blindly to opinions. Of course, an author can explicitly ask that a few colleagues, usually direct competitors, are excluded from review (and even journals that allow this do not guarantee it), but one cannot exclude an entire category of reviewers, and only ask to select from a small pool of "friendlies", nor should an editor make that choice for the author.

That said, PBSW is protecting reviewer anonimity, and correctly so in my opinion. But while it's unlikely that we will know the truth any time soon, it is perfectly reasonable to suspect that the review process was somehow rigged.

why would he agree to an in person conversation?

These, and the fact that Sternberg seemed less than forthcoming after the predictable brouhaha erupted, do not inspire confidence in his handling the manuscript without cherry-picking ID-friendly reviewers.

Wikipedia: Sternberg has repeatedly refused to identify the "four well-qualified biologists", citing personal concerns over professional repercussions for them. Identifying the reviewers would have allowed the journal's board to validate Sternberg's claim to objectivity in having the article considered meritorious for publication. The reviewers of Sternberg's own published paper[8] were Sternberg's fellow Baraminology Study Group peer Todd Wodd, and prominent intelligent design proponents Paul Nelson and Jonathan Wells[9][10] both of whom are Fellows of the Discovery Institute,[11] hub of the intelligent design movement.

wikipedia: Further examination of the article revealed that it was substantially similar to previously published articles.[12]

That said, PBSW is protecting reviewer anonimity, and correctly so in my opinion. But while it’s unlikely that we will know the truth any time soon, it is perfectly reasonable to suspect that the review process was somehow rigged.

— Andrea Bottaro

Andrea Botarro: That said, PBSW is protecting reviewer anonimity, and correctly so in my opinion.

Wikipedia: Sternberg has repeatedly refused to identify the “four well-qualified biologists”, citing personal concerns over professional repercussions for them.

I also agree that it is reasonable from my perspective to have suspicions in this case; there is enough to raise the eyebrows of the anti-ID crowd (but not enough to lynch, in my opinion).

I do want to emphasize that in my view Sternberg was unfairly targeted because, while anti-ID scientists were reasonable to suspect cherry picking of peer reviewers and the like, nothing could be proven,

and so punishment took a petty and vitriolic course.

This is how mobs operate, and the affair demonstrates that mobs can form, even among venerated scientists.

Nobody has to be apologetic about evolutionary theory, it is the best explanation of the data we have so far.
As far as Sternberg is concerned, while ID activists have made a lot about what happened to him, the simple fact is that the evidence stands for itself even though the republican majority at that time decided to give it its 'spin'. The emails in the appendix of the document clearly show the whole story.

But then again martyrdom is all that is left for ID since it obviously has failed to reach even a minimal level of scientific relevance let alone respectability.

I also agree that it is reasonable from my perspective to have suspicions in this case; there is enough to raise the eyebrows of the anti-ID crowd (but not enough to lynch, in my opinion).

I do want to emphasize that in my view Sternberg was unfairly targeted because, while anti-ID scientists were reasonable to suspect cherry picking of peer reviewers and the like, nothing could be proven,

and so punishment took a petty and vitriolic course.

This is how mobs operate, and the affair demonstrates that mobs can form, even among venerated scientists.

I also agree that it is reasonable from my perspective to have suspicions in this case; there is enough to raise the eyebrows of the anti-ID crowd (but not enough to lynch, in my opinion).

I do want to emphasize that in my view Sternberg was unfairly targeted because, while anti-ID scientists were reasonable to suspect cherry picking of peer reviewers and the like, nothing could be proven,

and so punishment took a petty and vitriolic course.

This is how mobs operate, and the affair demonstrates that mobs can form, even among venerated scientists.

Sorry about the multiple posts. It seems that now the page where it says that your comments are being held for one's being a first time poster means something different than the odd meanings it has gathered in the past, like that they are in fact being posted.

And so it goes with PT's random server.

Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/2kxyc7

What, and you didn't even get to argue with Ben Stein himself? Now that would have been fun! What a rip-off...

raven: The expectation of anonymity is between authors and reviewers. There is absolutely no expectation that the reviewers won’t be known to the journal, journal editors, board, publishers, and any other interested and relevant party. In fact the expectation is the exact opposite for reasons of quality control and transparency.

QUABS: I also agree that it is reasonable from my perspective to have suspicions in this case; there is enough to raise the eyebrows of the anti-ID crowd (but not enough to lynch, in my opinion). I do want to emphasize that in my view Sternberg was unfairly targeted because, while anti-ID scientists were reasonable to suspect cherry picking of peer reviewers and the like, nothing could be proven, and so punishment took a petty and vitriolic course. This is how mobs operate, and the affair demonstrates that mobs can form, even among venerated scientists.

Andrea Bottaro: It is my understanding that the PBSW editors are aware of who the reviewers are, since they looked at the files and agreed that a) the reviews were genuine, and b) they overall favored publication.

evolutionary apologists

There is an interesting review of the "Smithsonian-Sternberg affair" at http://www.conservapedia.com/Smithsonian-Sternberg_affair.

(For your second chuckle of the day, check out the Conservapedia article on "Kangaroos" at http://www.conservapedia.com/Kangaroo. The latter part of the article is particularly enlightening.)

Re "Inasmuch as 99% of the animals who supposedly got on the Big Boat died on the Boat or shortly afterwards and are now extinct, this is going to be difficult. "

Yeah, they needed a bigger boat. ;)

Re "Nobody has to be apologetic about evolutionary theory, it is the best explanation of the data we have so far."

Yep. All one has to do is describe the relevant patterns in the evidence (nested hierarchy, etc.), and how those patterns are expected if the theory is correct, and where contradictory evidence could have been found if it were wrong.

(IOW - philosophy and world-views are irrelevant.)

Henry

OK, looks like Wikipedia might have got it wrong.

The other issue raised by Wikipedia was that the paper was substantially identical to other published papers. This in itself is a violation of any journal’s guidelines and cause for a pointed reprimand in print and banning for a lengthy or indefinite period. Given Sternberg’s apparent close association with Meyers and the creos, he should have known that already and as an editor rejected the paper at the start. Meyers certainly knew it.

According to wikipedia, Sternberg is a baraminologist, a pseudoscientific field involved with enumerating the numbers of “kinds” mentioned in the Big Boat story.

The reason that the Smithsonian affair is important to staunch evolutionists is because it thwarts the "intelligent design is not a science because it has not been published in a peer reviewed scientific journal" argument (used to censor high school science teachers from disclosing the existence of intelligent design). Chemists would not be throwing such hissy fits if an alchemist managed to sneak a alchemy paper through a peer review process.

I now leave Panda's thumb to their normally scheduled evolutionist apologetics.

because it thwarts the “intelligent design is not a science because it has not been published in a peer reviewed scientific journal” argument

The reason that the Smithsonian affair is important to staunch evolutionists is because it thwarts the “intelligent design is not a science because it has not been published in a peer reviewed scientific journal” argument (used to censor high school science teachers from disclosing the existence of intelligent design). Chemists would not be throwing such hissy fits if an alchemist managed to sneak a alchemy paper through a peer review process.

I[t] makes for good fundraising though."

— PvM

the other notable evolutionist myth (the Scopes trial).

...oh, and btw, when you use credulity to describe anything other than what creationists live on, you do a disservice to the term.

The reason that the Smithsonian affair is important to staunch evolutionists...

I agree with another contributor who stated that those who wish to intellectually defend the Theory of Evolution should feel free to add avoid pejorative inquiries and insinuations when dealing with the skeptical willfully ignorant.

I agree with another contributor who stated that those who wish to intellectually defend the Theory of Evolution should feel free to add avoid pejorative inquiries and insinuations when dealing with the skeptical willfully ignorant.

their normally scheduled evolutionist apologetics.

The reason that the Smithsonian affair is important to staunch evolutionists is because it thwarts the “intelligent design is not a science because it has not been published in a peer reviewed scientific journal” argument (used to censor high school science teachers from disclosing the existence of intelligent design). Chemists would not be throwing such hissy fits if an alchemist managed to sneak a alchemy paper through a peer review process.

Being controversial I'm going to mention the film again. PZ was asking about the backers. I wrote about this film on TO a while ago after following up a link from O'Leary. The thrust from Denyse seemed to suggest that it wasn't even about anything presented to PZ by Mathis. Instead it was more a case that the film was to focus on the Sternberg, Gonzalez 'exclusion' from the academic world. I doubt we'll see much discussion about the actual validity of ID - not that there's much to discuss anyway.

TO thread is here:
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/browse_frm/thread/10d507105ea486b9/e2c4a7b2fc5e89d4#e2c4a7b2fc5e89d4

Sternberg Peer Review Controversy, Wikipedia: Sternberg has repeatedly refused to identify the "four well-qualified biologists", citing personal concerns over professional repercussions for them. Identifying the reviewers would have allowed the journal's board to validate Sternberg's claim to objectivity in having the article considered meritorious for publication. The reviewers of Sternberg's own published paper[8] were Sternberg's fellow Baraminology Study Group peer Todd Wodd, and prominent intelligent design proponents Paul Nelson and Jonathan Wells[9][10] both of whom are Fellows of the Discovery Institute,[11] hub of the intelligent design movement.

raven:
I see, I was only looking at the main "Richard Sternberg" entry.

The passage you highlight in the quote is also problematic, unfortunately. Those 3 people listed as "reviewers" were not actual peer-reviewers on Sternberg's ANYAS paper, they were just people Sternberg himself thanked in the paper's Acknowledgments section for critically reading the pre-submission manuscript and presumably making suggestions for its improvement (or not, in this specific case - haha). That is standard practice in science papers, and of course pre-publication reviewers tend to be friends/associates of the authors (after all, you are asking someone to spend their precious time helping you for no return whatsoever). Sternberg is free to choose any dolt he wants as a critical reader of his manuscripts. The actual peer-reviewers for Sternberg's paper where selected by the ANYAS volume editors, and their names are confidential (indeed, it is generally considered inappropriate to assign as peer-reviewers people who are listed in a manuscript's Acknowledgements, because of potential conflicts of interest, so we can in fact be fairly sure that those 3 people did not peer-review Sternberg's ANYAS paper).

Bottom line, you cant necessarily trust Wiki on everything. It's not peer-reviewed, you know.

now the delusional are saying the Scopes trial was a myth?

— Sir_Toejam

Bottom line, you cant necessarily trust Wiki on everything. It's not peer-reviewed, you know.

— Andrea Bottaro

ID isn't science because…

— Henry J

The reason why "evolutionists" became upset at Meyer's paper was because there was very strong indication, as you agreed, that it was published by dishonest means. As a rule, science can tolerate fools, but not liars.

— Andrea Bottaro

Such temerity; such arrogant ignorance. See Summer for the Gods: The Scopes Trial and America’s Continuing Debate over Science and Religion and compare to film Inherit the Wind (a film that fills Oliver Stone with envy). Until Larson’s book, Scopes trial lore was something out of the Ministry for Public Enlightenment.

ID isn’t science because its supporters haven’t described a recurring pattern of evidence that could be explained by the concept of life* being deliberately engineered by some agency.

Ignorning what I said doesn't even address it, let alone refute it.

Henry

About the Scopes trial... Ray Ginger's "Six Days or Forever?" certainly didn't have any confusion between the real events at Dayton, Tennessee and Hollywood scripts, since the Hollywood scripting hadn't entered into cultural knowledge when Ginger was researching it. Further, Stephen Jay Gould wrote several essays for Natural History delving into the differences between "Inherit the Wind" and the history of the Scopes trial back in the 1970s and early 1980s.

Wikipedia cites panda’s thumb as a source, which is scary considering the number of times panda’s thumb regulars have been wrong on this page alone.

It is a mutual citation scheme. Panda’s thumb cites wikipedia, wikipedia cites panda’s thumb, and when NPR tells the truth on Sternberg, the Smithsonian affair is deemed a minor tempest in a teapot.

I agreed empathetically that it was reasonable on the part of evolutionists to question the means. But the fact that the mob gossiped and lynched based on mere understandable skepticism (as opposed to proof) does make those scientists and their defenders appear petty niggling.

Regarding science and liars: And Dr. Kaushik Deb seems to be doing well as a principal scientist despite this.

It is no coincidence that the same persons (PZ Myers and E.C. Scott) who claim to be too stupid to understand the meaning of release contracts also credulously believe in the theory of evolution.

After reading this, I couldn't dispell one question in mind...

What does PZ Mayers intend to do with a jacuzzi filled with green M&Ms?

That answer will cost you $15 million.

The reason that the Smithsonian affair is important to staunch evolutionists is because it thwarts the “intelligent design is not a science because it has not been published in a peer reviewed scientific journal” argument

(used to censor high school science teachers from disclosing the existence of intelligent design).

Chemists would not be throwing such hissy fits if an alchemist managed to sneak a alchemy paper through a peer review process.

Has anyone noticed how fast trolls undercuts their own argument by repeating unsupported (or even invalidated) claims in the face of criticism?

Pathetic stupid liar. How is it that you people don’t get that every time you open your mouths, you undermine your cause?

The reason that the Smithsonian affair is important to staunch evolutionists is because it thwarts the “intelligent design is not a science because it has not been published in a peer reviewed scientific journal” argument

Chemists would ot be throwing such hissy fits if an alchemist managed to sneak a alchemy paper through a peer review process.

It is no coincidence that the same persons (PZ Myers and E.C. Scott) who claim to be too stupid to understand the meaning of release contracts

also credulously believe in the theory of evolution

I am sure you would not judge Dembski based on the insanity of some of the comments on his blog (and those passed strict censorship, too!).

To offer an analogy WRT scientific credibility and publication in journals:

Publication in scientific journals is one measure of credibility. The measurement and the actual phenomenon are two different things. Confusing the measurement with the reality is like putting your thumb on the thermometer and claiming that doing so warms the room. It doesn't warm the room, it cheats the measurement. This is, in effect, what Sternberg has been accused of.

Excellent, Bill. IDiots like QABS point to Meyer's paper, and Behe's paper on bacteria in dirt that demonstrates the opposite of his thesis, as if the mere fact of an IDiot being published in a peer reviewed journal makes IDiocy science. This is a cargo cult -- they are vaguely familiar with the form, but have no comprehension of the content or function of science. It is their desperation for that cargo that drives them to make such a big deal about Meyer, or about Guillermo Gonzalez being denied tenure. And when we point out the fabric of lies they weave in that desperation, they try to turn that around and transform it into "The reason that the Smithsonian affair is important to staunch evolutionists" -- as if the validity of the ToE in some way depends on "the Smithsonian affair"!

Glen Davidson, Bill Gascoyne, Popper's Ghost,

I don't think 'cargo-cult' is the only explanation of the creationists' fixation on getting into peer-reviewed journals (although I like the term, PG.)
I believe the courts have used publication in peer-reviewed journals as part of a legal definition of science for the purposes of what can be taught in public schools.
In other words, they are trying to confuse the issues, in preparation for their next court battle. It's so easy to get dragged into their attacks on science and forget that their real target is the constitution of the United States.

I never said anything about "only", but I do think it is clear that QABS has a cargo-cult view of science, and I doubt that s/he is personally involved in laying the groundwork for future court battles.

Also, some of that cargo is legal qualification, but they (and some on our side as well) have a cargo cult view of the law, too. "the courts have used publication in peer-reviewed journals as part of a legal definition of science" -- yes, part of, just as a guy standing on a runway waving batons is part of what it takes for cargo planes to land.

A search through PubMed fails to find evidence of their scholarship within the peer-reviewed scientific literature.

— Attie, Sober, Numbers, et al

A final indicator of how ID has failed to demonstrate scientific warrant is the complete absence of peer-reviewed publications supporting the theory.

— Judge Jones

I never said anything about “only”, but I do think it is clear that QABS has a cargo-cult view of science

— Popper's Ghost

Popper's Ghost--
You and I have a different emphasis, but no real disagreement here, except possibly on whether QABS "is personally involved in laying the groundwork for future court battles."
So much of that snarky, snide, put-down attitude comes out of the Disco Institute that when I see it I immediately suspect the worst.

I believe the courts have used publication in peer-reviewed journals as part of a legal definition of science for the purposes of what can be taught in public schools.

I don’t think ‘cargo-cult’ is the only explanation of the creationists’ fixation on getting into peer-reviewed journals (although I like the term, PG.) I believe the courts have used publication in peer-reviewed journals as part of a legal definition of science for the purposes of what can be taught in public schools.

In other words, they are trying to confuse the issues, in preparation for their next court battle.

It’s so easy to get dragged into their attacks on science and forget that their real target is the constitution of the United States.

Yes, they are. But don’t confuse the necessary conditions of science, namely peer review, with what truly makes science what it is, which is the reproduction of results by other scientists.

— Glen Davidson

that is, for example, extrapolating observed natural selection as an explanation for fossils.

Or common ancestry as an explanation for nested hierarchy - try to twist that into “metaphysics”.

But regarding reproducibility, do you mean reproducibility of the story that weaves facts together, or reproducibility of only the facts,

and claiming ipso facto ToE is true

(akin to a well-composed conspiracy theory)

that is, for example, extrapolating observed natural selection as an explanation for fossils.

There is a difference, and the difference is science versus metaphysics (did you catch that Popper’s ghost?)

Or extrapolatin

But regarding reproducibility, do you mean reproducibility of the story that weaves facts together, or reproducibility of only the facts,

and claiming ipso facto ToE is true

(akin to a well-composed conspiracy theory)

that is, for example, extrapolating observed natural selection as an explanation for fossils.

There is a difference, and the difference is science versus metaphysics (did you catch that Popper’s ghost?)

Or extrapolating natural selection to explain all observed diversity of life.

Natural selection is one piece of the explanation in the current theory. It's not the whole explanation by itself.

Glen Davidson,

You wrote, "don’t confuse the necessary conditions of science, namely peer review, with what truly makes science what it is, which is the reproduction of results by other scientists."

No, I would never do that. I did a study of a university chemistry department while in grad school in sociology. What I discovered was that replication of results went on obsessively. Researchers ran fleets of identical and almost-identical experiments. And here's the thing-- only a small minority of those replicated experiments were, in QABS's words, "reproducibility of only the facts." Most of the replications were slight variations, in order to test "reproducibility of the story that weaves facts together." Or, as people with more grasp of science than QABS would say, to make sure the data actually supported their hypothesis, not some alternative explanation.

I haven't studied a biology lab in anything like that detail, but from what I do know about biological research, it has the same-- texture, if you will-- of endless checks and rechecks, many of them designed specifically to test between alternative theoretical positions.

I think that's one reason people who aren't familiar with science think modern evolutionary theory can be knocked down with one, clever counter-point. Like the timespan of the earth, the sheer number of studies and replications runs up against the incapacity of the human brain to visualize very large numbers.

Which is why, to bring this back on topic, the courts have to rely partly on markers like peer-reviewed literature to define what is or isn't science.

I want to thank PZ Myers and the posters here for bringing to my attention the less than honest tactics being used to gather information for this movie. As I am a Christian some people among my acquaintances will be hyped up about this movie. I will be sure to let them know that they need to be careful about how much credibility to give this production.

Wait, so you are saying that you were tricked into taking cheap shots at proponents of ID? Also, the movie's description in the email sent to you isnt THAT far off: "questions about the disconnect/controversy that exists in America between Evolution, Creationism and the Intelligent Design movement." Man, I'm sorry, but it really seems to me as if this page itself is guilty of the very things the movie is attempting to expose! The disdain and contempt you show towards this film (a film about the fact that the scientific community looks down on ID proponents with disdain) proves the necessity for this film. I'm definitely looking forward to it.

AC,

Sounds to me like the movie is guilty of the things it is supposedly trying to expose.

Mr Stanton,

That is interesting. How so?

AC,

If you repeately interview people under false pretenses, deliberately hide your real agenda, edit their responses without feedback and use it against their wishes to exploit innocent people, it seems to me that you should not react incredulously when they ligitimately object to your immoral and dishonest behavior. This seems to be especially true when the movie in question is supposedly an attempt to expose the dishonest behavior of the people you are lying to.

Of course that't just my opinion, I could be wrong. If you disagree, perhaps you wouldn't mind being interviewed on your thoughts regarding creationism. I would just ask you to sign a release form first stating that your comments can be edited in any way I choose and used for whatever purpose I desire.

Please read http://www.amazon.com/Logic-Scientific-Discovery-Routledge-Classics/dp/0415278449The Logic of Scientific Discovery and then get back to me on what science is and is not. I don't expect you agree with Karl Popper, and other philosophers of science certainly disagree with Popper, but this name calling seems to be masking ignorance, or seems to be a sign of jihad-like defense of the theory of evolution. It is certainly not rational or reasoned.

YOWZA! Whats with the animosity? A couple of comments...

1. You must have me mistaken for another AC. I'm just a regular guy who ran accross this board and found it ironic that someone representing the scientific community is showing contempt and even ridiculing a film that claims that the scientific shows contempt and even ridicules anything to do with ID.

2. People on this forum keep claiming that the filmakers of a documentary (about the the disconnect/controversy that exists in America between Evolution, Creationism and the Intelligent Design movement) are interviewing people under false pretenses. What are the false pretenses? The false pretense is that they are telling the interviewees that the film is about...ughh..hmm..about the the disconnect/controversy that exists in America between Evolution, Creationism and the Intelligent Design movement. How utterly deceitful!? Seriously, what is the false pretense? The movie title change? The fact that the movie, during the 2 years it was in production, "naturally evolved" from its original premise? Why did it naturally evolve in the specific way that it did? Perhaps it was because they noticed the utter disgust with which Darwinianists view ID proponents? An utter disgust that is clearly evident even in this very forum.

Then you claim that they have edited the interviewees responses without feedback, yet, we havent even seen the movie so we have no idea whether or not they were fair and faitful in their editing.

Wait a second. I got a question for any Darwinian in general.

If God exists and created this place, are there any possible scientific tests that could reflect this? Or are our scientific methods set up in such a way where they cant possibly ever point to God?

PS: I know that God exists and created all things but for your sake I say 'If' :)

Quoting AC.

'Wait a second. I got a question for any Darwinian in general.

If God exists and created this place, are there any possible scientific tests that could reflect this? Or are our scientific methods set up in such a way where they cant possibly ever point to God?

PS: I know that God exists and created all things but for your sake I say ‘If’ :)'

I'm not a scientist, but I'll give this a go.

There could never be any test for god per se, as god must be supernatural, and science can only test the natural. However, it MIGHT be possible to test for certain actions god does, because by acting upon the natural world the act becomes a natural one. Vis a vis, by forcing something natural to happen, it would automatically qualify as having a natural effect, and therefore the effect, and what preceeded it can be tested.

Prayer, for example, is possible to test, because if prayer works on healing people (which it supposedly does) then it would be possible to test this act. This would not be a test for god, but for the effects of said deity.

A few small points I wish to enquire from you.

Darwinist isn't really a term, for one, people are not defined by who they agree (in some respects) with in the scientific world, one cannot be a Teslaist, or a Hawkingist. Secondly, Darwin made some errors in his works, but the basic prinicpal, common descent, mutation+NS etc are still agreed upon to be correct, but are not 100% of the theory.

Also, I wonder, you state you KNOW God exists. What leads you to be able to state this with utter certainty?

I agree that peer review does not establish science (I don’t think peer review of material before publication is even a necessary condition, though it is often useful to readers of such published material).

Most of the replications were slight variations, in order to test “reproducibility of the story that weaves facts together.” Or, as people with more grasp of science than QABS would say, to make sure the data actually supported their hypothesis, not some alternative explanation.

Seriously, what is the false pretense? The movie title change? The fact that the movie, during the 2 years it was in production, “naturally evolved” from its original premise?

If God created the world then the world itself is an "action God does" which you said MIGHT be possible to test. In which case the whole natural world MIGHT be able to be tested for His fingerprints. No?

As far as prayer, testing it would only be possible if God played along. If for some reason He did not want to be found through the "prayer test" He could simply just not heal those involved in the test (or cause the testers to test those whom He wasnt going to heal anyway). He doesnt heal everyone you know (Paul pleaded for a healing that God didnt grant him). Also, most of the time, God works through what you would called "natural" means. For example, I pray that God provide me my daily bread, and He does! How? By raising up men and women that devote their lives to producing the bread, and bringing it to supermarkets. And by providing me with a job that allows me to make enough money to buy a car so that I can go to the supermarket and pick up a loaf.

I'll explain what I mean by Darwinist. By Darwinist I am referring to anyone who believes that Albert Einstein, my dog Sonny, a whale shark, a parakeet, and a banana tree (all living things right?) all share a common ancestor... a paramecium (or whatever).

As far as my certainty in God, it must be stated that I was by no means a God-seeker. I had my own ideas on how my life would play out and they did not involve "God" (lest He cramp my lifestyle of women, drugs, drinks, parties, bars etc). Anyhow, about 3 years I found myself in a helpless and hopeless predicament in which my only hope was the possible existence of God. With nowhere to turn I picked up a Bible, for the first time sincerely wanting to know if it was real or not. All I can say is that God revealed Himself to me through the Bible. Through the Bible, I had a personal experience that drastically changed my life. It was Through my reading of the Bible that I was shown that I was a hell-deserving sinner who had sinned against a holy and pure God. I had turned my back on the God who gave me life and went my own way. A way that consisted of adultery, blasphemy, deceit, theft, ungratefulness, and hatred. But it was through the Word, that God revealed to me that although I deserved hell for my sins, Christ came into the world to die the death that I deserve, so that He can present me before God blameless and holy. And that on the third day, He rose again. It was then that I repented and believed on Him for the forgiveness of sins and the gift of everlasting life. I had always had some kind of mental belief in God, but on that day when He saved me, I passed from the realm of belief into the realm of experience. Inow knew, and know, that Christ died for me and that I have eternal life.

I know that my experience with God is not enough to convince you. But I do know that this convincing life changing experience was the direct result of a sincere reading of the Bible. If you ever want to know for yourself you will have to humble yourself and open up that Book! I would suggest you do so soon, because once you die its too late. Once you die, comes the judgment and then eternity in either a blissful heaven or in the flames of hell.

Interesting (not strictly related) thought...

I have an atheist friend who says that he will NEVER EVER believe in anything supernatural. Even if He saw a Buick pop out of thin air, he said that he would know that said "miracle" would have a natural explanation and that someday science would figure out. Yikes! His is not a matter of "lack of evidence", its a matter of unvillingness to believe (at the heart level). Basically, his presupposition (that only the natural exists) would not allow him to believe in God even if God were standing right in his face. I hope you are not like him.

As far as prayer, testing it would only be possible if God played along.

But He was wounded for our transgressions, He was bruised for our iniquities; The chastisement for our peace was upon Him, And by His stripes we are healed. 6 All we like sheep have gone astray; We have turned, every one, to his own way; And the LORD has laid on Him the iniquity of us all. 7 He was oppressed and He was afflicted, Yet He opened not His mouth; He was led as a lamb to the slaughter, And as a sheep before its shearers is silent, So He opened not His mouth. 8 He was taken from prison and from judgment, And who will declare His generation? For He was cut off from the land of the living; For the transgressions of My people He was stricken. 9 And they[a] made His grave with the wicked— But with the rich at His death, Because He had done no violence, Nor was any deceit in His mouth. 10 Yet it pleased the LORD to bruise Him; He has put Him to grief. When You make His soul an offering for sin, He shall see His seed, He shall prolong His days, And the pleasure of the LORD shall prosper in His hand.

— Isaiah

...Isaiah 53...

— AC

Was there really a Man two thousands years ago that fulfilled this? I know there was such a Man because He has saved my soul, but these are the questions I would be asking myself if I were you!

Hey man, so you really do not think it is possible for us to come up with a scientific way to test for intelligence?

AC wrote:

"Then you claim that they have edited the interviewees responses without feedback, yet, we havent even seen the movie so we have no idea whether or not they were fair and faitful in their editing."

If it was a surprise to the people interviewed that they appeared in the movie, then their comments were obviously edited without feedback. Now, what do you suppose the odds are that the people interviewed will actually be happy with the way the editing was done? Why do you suppose they were not told the true agenda aof the project in the first place? If it turns out that they are happy with the editing, I will happily retract my statement. Why do you assume the editing was done fairly? Do you really believe that the process started out unbiased and the evolved into ID propaganda for some good reason?

The animosity displayed towards creationists is almost universally justified. If you have been following the "debate" for very long then you know that the normal operating procedure for creationists is to be as dishonest a possible and then claim the moral high ground. Take for example the testimony of the school board members in the Dover trial. They lied under oath. This is entirely typical. Creationists constantly use discredited arguments, lie about facts and use personal attacks. Why should we not respond appropriately?

Thank you for your concern. And your question is pretty good. If you can identify some physical effect which would follow from Jesus having fulfilled Isaiah’s prophecy, you would make your faith testable. But so far you haven’t suggested anything.

Yes, I think there are meaningful tests one can perform to test the characteristics of this intelligence.

If it was a surprise to the people interviewed that they appeared in the movie, then their comments were obviously edited without feedback.

Why do you assume the editing was done fairly?

...but those first few hundreds of monotheistic Jews who began worshipping a Man joyfully, to the point of death, because of their conviction that they had witnessed His fulfillment of this prophecy?

If their inteview does reflect this, then putting it in a movie about the scientific communitys contempt and disgust for ID is warranted.

AC wrote:

"Just because they are surprised of the title change and the direction that the final cut of the movie took DOES NOT mean that their comments where misedited."

Agreed. It simply means that they were never given the chance to object to the way in which the editing was done. I wonder why?

The point is that if the movie is attempting to show that scientists have contempt for creationists, about the only way they could make this come out in intervierws was to lie to the interviewees about the purpose of the film. Of course they could then take the quotes out of context to show the contempt without showing the justifiable reasons for it. Quote mining and out of contexzt quoting is common place for creationists. So much so that there is an entire section of talk origins devoted to it.

It is true, I do suspect the worst. It is true, I do have contempt for dishonesty. I have had enough experience with creationists to know that those who oppose real science deserve ridicule. If they don't want our contempt, all they have to do is start behaving honestly, as the Bible commands.

…but those first few hundreds of monotheistic Jews who began worshipping a Man joyfully, to the point of death, because of their conviction that they had witnessed His fulfillment of this prophecy?

— I said

That’s pretty good, actually, but you’ll have to explain how that would be a test of “God exists, and he created this place.” As in, do you think that if the early church did not exist it would disprove the existence of God and His Creation?

Quoting AC.
'Well if it were true that Christ fullfilled such a prophecy, a prophecy about His death,burial, and resurrection, then it would obviously prove that Christ is who He said He is, that is God. And if He claimed that the Bible is His Word, and in the Bible He claims to have created the world, then… we should believe Him.'

Or alternatively he, or more likely others, fitted his story to fit the prophecies which were easily accessable at the time.

Records of a mans supposed life written well after the fact that could quite easily have been altered to fit old prophecies are evidence of nothing.

Incidentally, the ID movement isn't reviled by science because it mentions the supernatural, it's reviled because they try to push their nonsense into science without having any research to back it up.

Re Isaiah Chapter 53 verses 5 through 10 -

I wonder if those who call that a prophecy about Jesus may have neglected to read chapter 52 of that book?

That looks to me like a case of taking something way out of context.

Henry

See what I wrote above:

1 Awake, awake! Put on your strength, O Zion; Put on your beautiful garments, O Jerusalem, the holy city! For the uncircumcised and the unclean Shall no longer come to you. 2 Shake yourself from the dust, arise; Sit down, O Jerusalem! Loose yourself from the bonds of your neck, O captive daughter of Zion! 3 For thus says the LORD: “ You have sold yourselves for nothing, And you shall be redeemed without money.” 4 For thus says the Lord GOD: “ My people went down at first Into Egypt to dwell there; Then the Assyrian oppressed them without cause. 5 Now therefore, what have I here,” says the LORD, “ That My people are taken away for nothing? Those who rule over them Make them wail,” says the LORD, “ And My name is blasphemed continually every day. 6 Therefore My people shall know My name; Therefore they shall know in that day That I am He who speaks: ‘ Behold, it is I.’” 7 How beautiful upon the mountains Are the feet of him who brings good news, Who proclaims peace, Who brings glad tidings of good things, Who proclaims salvation, Who says to Zion, “ Your God reigns!” 8 Your watchmen shall lift up their voices, With their voices they shall sing together; For they shall see eye to eye When the LORD brings back Zion. 9 Break forth into joy, sing together, You waste places of Jerusalem! For the LORD has comforted His people, He has redeemed Jerusalem. 10 The LORD has made bare His holy arm In the eyes of all the nations; And all the ends of the earth shall see The salvation of our God. 11 Depart! Depart! Go out from there, Touch no unclean thing; Go out from the midst of her, Be clean, You who bear the vessels of the LORD. 12 For you shall not go out with haste, Nor go by flight; For the LORD will go before you, And the God of Israel will be your rear guard. 13 Behold, My Servant shall deal prudently; He shall be exalted and extolled and be very high. 14 Just as many were astonished at you, So His visage was marred more than any man, And His form more than the sons of men; 15 So shall He sprinkle[b] many nations. Kings shall shut their mouths at Him; For what had not been told them they shall see, And what they had not heard they shall consider.

— Isaiah

1 Who has believed our report? And to whom has the arm of the LORD been revealed? 2 For He shall grow up before Him as a tender plant, And as a root out of dry ground. He has no form or comeliness; And when we see Him, There is no beauty that we should desire Him. 3 He is despised and rejected by men, A Man of sorrows and acquainted with grief. And we hid, as it were, our faces from Him; He was despised, and we did not esteem Him. 4 Surely He has borne our griefs And carried our sorrows; Yet we esteemed Him stricken, Smitten by God, and afflicted. 5 But He was wounded for our transgressions, He was bruised for our iniquities; The chastisement for our peace was upon Him, And by His stripes we are healed. 6 All we like sheep have gone astray; We have turned, every one, to his own way; And the LORD has laid on Him the iniquity of us all. 7 He was oppressed and He was afflicted, Yet He opened not His mouth; He was led as a lamb to the slaughter, And as a sheep before its shearers is silent, So He opened not His mouth. 8 He was taken from prison and from judgment, And who will declare His generation? For He was cut off from the land of the living; For the transgressions of My people He was stricken. 9 And they[a] made His grave with the wicked— But with the rich at His death, Because He had done no violence, Nor was any deceit in His mouth. 10 Yet it pleased the LORD to bruise Him; He has put Him to grief. When You make His soul an offering for sin, He shall see His seed, He shall prolong His days, And the pleasure of the LORD shall prosper in His hand. 11 He shall see the labor of His soul,[b]and be satisfied. By His knowledge My righteous Servant shall justify many, For He shall bear their iniquities. 12 Therefore I will divide Him a portion with the great, And He shall divide the spoil with the strong, Because He poured out His soul unto death, And He was numbered with the transgressors, And He bore the sin of many, And made intercession for the transgressors.

— Isaiah

Was there really a Man 2,000 years ago that was crucified under Pontius Pilate whose followers gave their lives for their conviction that He had fulfilled this?

Was there really a Man 2,000 years ago that was crucified under Pontius Pilate whose followers gave their lives for their conviction that He had fulfilled this?

— I

A man??? Those two chapters are talking about the city of Jerusalem.

— Henry

3 He is despised and rejected by men, A Man of sorrows and acquainted with grief. And we hid, as it were, our faces from Him; He was despised, and we did not esteem Him.

— Isaiah

We are interested in asking you a number of questions about the disconnect/controversy that exists in America between Evolution, Creationism and the Intelligent Design movement.

The film confronts scientists such as Richard Dawkins, author of The God Delusion, influential biologist and atheist blogger PZ Myers and Eugenie Scott, head of the National Center for Science Education. The creators of Expelled crossed the globe over a two-year period, interviewing scores of scientists, doctors, philosophers and public leaders. The result is a startling revelation that freedom of thought and freedom of inquiry have been expelled from publicly-funded high schools, universities and research institutions.

What's with the "said" boilerplate? Wouldn't "wrote" or "typed" be better?

Anyway, for an alternative perspective in the war on religion, take a look at this: World Net Daily's Ben Stein to battle Darwin in major film

Regarding Richard 'von' Sternberg:

Having labored a mere few cubicles away from Dr. vS for awhile at NCBI, I can report that he was considered a bit of a creep by his nearest co-workers, noted especially for his frequent long and loud phone conversations with his wife, as well as for his deep-fried religiosity. This was all *before* the publication fracas, mind you. After that came to light, the fact that he worked in the *taxonomy* division of NCBI was especially galling. He certainly wasn't fired, though; the only upshot I ever heard about was that his wife left him. I hope he isn't going to blame that on 'Darwinists' too, in this upcming farce of a movie.

Around that time I began looking him up online, and found his connection to the Baraminology nonsense. One finds that the cagey Dr. vS claims to be something called a 'Process Structuralist' --

I defy anyone to parse 'Process structuralism" as he presents it, such that it isn't a smarmy, coy, and pretentious new stand-in for 'Intelligent Design' (which as we know, replaced 'creationism)', especially combined with his interest in 'Baraminology':

"I subscribe to a school of biological thought often termed “process structuralism.” Process or biological structuralism is concerned with understanding the formal, generative rules underlying organic forms, and focuses on the system architectures of organisms and their interrelationships. Structuralist analysis is generally ahistorical, systems-oriented, and non-evolutionary (not anti-evolutionary). Both creationism and neo-Darwinism are, in contrast, emphatically historicist with one positing extreme polyphyly (de novo creation of species) and the other radical monophyly (common descent). Since the structuralist perspective runs somewhat perpendicular to the origins debate, creationists and evolutionists tend to see it as inimical to their positions. The truth is structuralism has little at stake in the origins issue, leaving a person like myself free to dialogue with all parties. For this reason, I frequently discourse with ultra-Darwinians, macromutationists, self-organization theorists, complexity theorists, intelligent design advocates, theistic evolutionists, and young-earth creationists without necessarily agreeing with any of their views.

Structuralism does, however, provide an important perspective on the origins debate. Structuralists' lack of commitment to an historical theory of biology allows them to explore the historical evidence more objectively. Moreover, because they focus on formal analysis, struturalists are far more open than neo-Darwinians to the powerful evidence for continuity within species (forms) and discontinuity between and among species. They also allow themselves to wonder about the cause of the amazing repetition of forms across the biological world rather than being forced by prior commitments to accept a major neo-Darwinian epicycle known as "convergent evolution.""

I'm sure they do.