Roger Ebert, Defender of Evolution

Posted 4 April 2013 by Dave Thomas

As we reflect upon the amazing body of work left behind by this giant of the movie scene, readers of the Thumb should know (if they don't already) that Roger Ebert was a passionate defender of science, and of evolution in particular. His passion was not un-noticed by creationists (of both young-earth and intelligent design categories). William Dembski had this to say about Ebert in an Uncommon Descent blog from 2006:

Roger Ebert: Film Critic, Expert on Evolution, ID Basher, and Overall Supergenius ... ... Or is Ebert just another clueless bonehead whose imagined expertise is in exact disproportion to his actual knowledge ...

Here are some memorable comments by Ebert on creationism, evolution, and religion. Win Ben Stein's mind, December 3, 2008

The more you know about evolution, or simple logic, the more you are likely to be appalled by the film. No one with an ability for critical thinking could watch more than three minutes without becoming aware of its tactics. It isn't even subtle. Take its treatment of Dawkins, who throughout his interviews with Stein is honest, plain-spoken, and courteous. As Stein goes to interview him for the last time, we see a makeup artist carefully patting on rouge and dusting Dawkins' face. After he is prepared and composed, after the shine has been taken off his nose, here comes plain, down-to-earth, workaday Ben Stein. So we get the vain Dawkins with his effete makeup, talking to the ordinary Joe. I have done television interviews for more than 40 years. I have been on both ends of the questions. I have news for you. Everyone is made up before going on television. If they are not, they will look like death warmed over. There is not a person reading this right now who should go on camera without some kind of makeup. Even the obligatory "shocked neighbors" standing in their front yards after a murder usually have some powder brushed on by the camera person. Was Ben Stein wearing makeup? Of course he was. Did he whisper to his camera crew to roll while Dawkins was being made up? Of course he did. Otherwise, no camera operator on earth would have taped that. That incident dramatizes his approach throughout the film. If you want to study Gotcha! moments, start here.

How I believe in God, April 17, 2009

During in all the endless discussions on several threads of this blog about evolution, intelligent design, God and the afterworld, now numbering altogether around 3,500 comments, I have never said, although readers have freely informed me I am an atheist, an agnostic, or at the very least a secular humanist--which I am. If I were to say I don't believe God exists, that wouldn't mean I believe God doesn't exist. Nor does it mean I don't know, which implies that I could know. Let me rule out at once any God who has personally spoken to anyone or issued instructions to men. That some men believe they have been spoken to by God, I am certain. I do not believe Moses came down from the mountain with any tablets he did not go up with. I believe mankind in general evidently has a need to believe in higher powers and an existence not limited to the physical duration of the body. But these needs are hopes, and believing them doesn't make them true. ... No, I am not a Buddhist. I am not a believer, not an atheist, not an agnostic. I am still awake at night, asking how? I am more content with the question than I would be with an answer.

Darwin survives as the fittest, February 11, 2009

The True Believers. Found in both parties. One side declares God without any doubt does exist, and created the universe and everything in it. A much smaller subset of this group is convinced that God did this in fairly recent times--as little as 6,000 years ago, or in any event too recently for Darwin's evolutionary process to have had enough time to take place. The other side declares that God without any doubt does not exist, and it is equally certain. Both sides frequently quote the Bible, on the one hand citing its truth, on the other side citing its falsity. Christianity is the only religion involved; my blog has readers from all over the world, but apparently those from elsewhere find Intelligent Design a uniquely American notion.

The longest thread evolves, September 4, 2009

The zealots of Creationism are indefatigable. Even now there are attempts to legislate that the pseudo science of Intelligent Design must be taught in school systems as a "debate" with Evolution. In common sense terms, that debate was over a century ago. Yet there are votes out there for politicians who support such legislation, and at the 2008 GOP presidential debate, no less that three candidates said they do not believe in evolution. I suppose I should be gratified that there weren't more.

New Agers and Creationists should not be President, December 2, 2009

My only purpose today is to state early and often that if a Presidential candidate believes early humans used saddles to ride on the backs of dinosaurs, as they are depicted at the Creation Museum in Petersburg, Kentucky, that candidate should not be elected President. And if a candidate counts among close friends and advisors anyone in communication with the spirit world, that candidate should not be elected President. And if a candidate accounts for the fact that humanoid and dinosaur bones are never found at the same level in the fossil record by evoking the action of sediment after the Great Flood, that candidate should not be President. And if a candidate has a spirit guide, consults his or her Chart and takes more than a passing amusement in the horoscope, that candidate should not be elected President.

There's a category page linking these and other blogs, appropriately titled "Darwin My Hero". Comments about Roger Ebert are welcome. Comments that are nonsequiters, religious rants, or are otherwise irrelevant, will be tossed onto the Bathroom Wall.

52 Comments

https://me.yahoo.com/a/JxVN0eQFqtmgoY7wC1cZM44ET_iAanxHQmLgYgX_Zhn8#57cad · 4 April 2013

Aw, he could see through Dembski.

Poor poor Newton of information therapy. Will he never be appreciated for his accomplishments? Or, sadly, is he already fully appreciated for them, as he explores the bottom of Bible college "excellence"?

Glen Davidson

FL · 5 April 2013

Let me rule out at once any God who has personally spoken to anyone or issued instructions to men.

Yes, that's surely what I'm waiting for, Mr. Ebert. Let me hear your rational and/or scientific ruling out of "any God who has personally spoken to anyone or issued instructions to men"... ...Oh wait a minute, you never came up with a rationally supportable "ruling out" explanation on that one. That's one bar you skeptics simply can't jump. But if you're reading this from (well, whatever your new address happens to be, maybe we discuss that later), I'll always say sincere "thanks" to you, and your colleague Gene Siskel, for giving the 1983 black gospel documentary film "Gospel" a thumbs-up. Of course, all of those black gospel singers (James Cleveland, Walter Hawkins, The Mighty Clouds of Joy, The Clark Sisters, etc) believed in the existence of a supernatural God who actually created, spoke with and gave instructions to humans, but at least you showed a bit of fairness on that one. (Or maybe, as you said Mr. Ebert, you just liked the fact that they lacked the "we are the gods, you are the peons" attitude of the big rock-music stars.) Anyway, sincere thanks on that one. FL

EvoDevo · 5 April 2013

Malfunctioned Lunatic ('FL) said:
Let me rule out at once any God who has personally spoken to anyone or issued instructions to men.
Yes, that's surely what I'm waiting for, Mr. Ebert. Let me hear your rational and/or scientific ruling out of "any God who has personally spoken to anyone or issued instructions to men"... ...Oh wait a minute, you never came up with a rationally supportable "ruling out" explanation on that one. That's one bar you skeptics simply can't jump. But if you're reading this from (well, whatever your new address happens to be, maybe we discuss that later), I'll always say sincere "thanks" to you, and your colleague Gene Siskel, for giving the 1983 black gospel documentary film "Gospel" a thumbs-up. Of course, all of those black gospel singers (James Cleveland, Walter Hawkins, The Mighty Clouds of Joy, The Clark Sisters, etc) believed in the existence of a supernatural God who actually created, spoke with and gave instructions to humans, but at least you showed a bit of fairness on that one. (Or maybe, as you said Mr. Ebert, you just liked the fact that they lacked the "we are the gods, you are the peons" attitude of the big rock-music stars.) Anyway, sincere thanks on that one. FL

That's because, he's dead, ~~wise one~~ moronic bigot. By the way, it looks pretty ~~insane, asinine, moronic, irrational, pseudoscientific~~ rational, empirical, and scientific to me...

Dave Luckett · 5 April 2013

Being unable to rule God out on purely logical grounds is exactly the same as being unable to prove a universal negative. It's impossible, by definition.

That's why the rules of debate have always placed the burden of demonstration on the positive.

FL, of course, wishes to reverse this. Well, he would, wouldn't he?

DS · 5 April 2013

It takes a certain amount of courage to stand up to the religious bigots of the world, especially for such a public figure. Thank you Roger, you will be missed.

https://me.yahoo.com/a/FGBzQUZtsemthPseqYzKYHG1950GVQdQElnix0p2OwOZDtFTmQ--#98415 · 5 April 2013

As the likes of Ebert depart from this world, to face their reckoning in the next, those of us still on Earth can look forward to the gradual passing away of the "grea generation" Neo-Darwinist apologists that emerged in the 1960s and 1970s.

JimboK · 5 April 2013

This comment has been moved to The Bathroom Wall.

cwjolley · 5 April 2013

JimboK said: May your "reckoning" in the next world, if it exists, consist of being perpetually doused in HCl and then thrown into a wood chipper.

Doesn't wishing that on someone get you a place in the chipper queue also?

Dave Thomas · 5 April 2013

Can we switch from making afterlife snipes back to Ebert? Thanks.

apokryltaros · 5 April 2013

Roger Ebert was a keenly intelligent man on top of being a very brave man and a critic of more or less impeccable taste. He ought to be immortalized in song forever for his brutal flensing of Ben Stein and "Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed" alone.

Of course, there are those who would try to spit on Ebert's grave even before he's lowered into it for not mindlessly agreeing with their agendas or petty world biases, but, as FL has graciously demonstrated for us, they have nothing but hot air and dry mouths.

harold · 5 April 2013

I was guilty of ignoring Ebert for most of my life. I am a film lover but had come to assume that "film critics" in the mainstream media were hacks promoting mediocrity. They nearly all were, but Ebert wasn't. Sorry, one reply to FL -

Let me hear your rational and/or scientific ruling out of “any God who has personally spoken to anyone or issued instructions to men”…

Ebert may or may not have had that, but I don't, and have never claimed to. I cannot "rule out" the existence of a God who personally speaks to other people. However, I can rule in certain obvious facts about the physical world. Falling objects are equally accelerated by gravity, regardless of mass. The earth revolves around the sun. Living cells and viruses evolve. Period. There are an infinite number of potential religious beliefs that I cannot prove to be false. I can be sure that anyone who claims that life doesn't evolve, or that evolution isn't the best scientific explanation for the diversity and relatedness of life, is wrong. Wrong about science. Virtually certain to be deliberately ignorant of what they are talking about. This is not a comment about their religion. In fact, you don't meet them here, but I'm willing to bet that there are atheists who have wrong ideas about evolution. Evolution deniers are wrong about science. If their religious ideas require evolution denial, then I consider their religious ideas to be wrong, too. If not, hey, maybe their religion is right, even though their science denial is wrong. I'm not convinced, but I can't rule it all out. Science denial can be couched in religious terms, but at the end of the day it's just science denial. Almost no cigarettes/disease deniers ever invoked religion. Only a minority of climate change deniers invoke religion. Many HIV deniers invoke religion, but many don't. Almost all evolution deniers invoke religion, albeit often in a weaselly, "plausibly deniable" way (which is something that post-modern fundamentalists approve of, uniquely in the history of Christianity). However, it's all science denial.

harold · 5 April 2013

apokryltaros said: Roger Ebert was a keenly intelligent man on top of being a very brave man and a critic of more or less impeccable taste. He ought to be immortalized in song forever for his brutal flensing of Ben Stein and "Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed" alone. Of course, there are those who would try to spit on Ebert's grave even before he's lowered into it for not mindlessly agreeing with their agendas or petty world biases, but, as FL has graciously demonstrated for us, they have nothing but hot air and dry mouths.

I'm happy to note that in the end, the judgment of Ebert was silently endorsed by society. "Expelled" sank like a stone. And to some degree, so did Ben Stein. It's ironic. He wasn't a scientist, but he was a very successful character actor who played a scientist-like type on TV. Therefore, he and other creationists thought he would be the ideal guy for a clumsy science denial propaganda piece. But rather than giving credibility to the clumsy film, overall, he seems to have subtly but significantly damaged his own image.

https://me.yahoo.com/a/JxVN0eQFqtmgoY7wC1cZM44ET_iAanxHQmLgYgX_Zhn8#57cad · 5 April 2013

harold said:
apokryltaros said: Roger Ebert was a keenly intelligent man on top of being a very brave man and a critic of more or less impeccable taste. He ought to be immortalized in song forever for his brutal flensing of Ben Stein and "Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed" alone. Of course, there are those who would try to spit on Ebert's grave even before he's lowered into it for not mindlessly agreeing with their agendas or petty world biases, but, as FL has graciously demonstrated for us, they have nothing but hot air and dry mouths.
I'm happy to note that in the end, the judgment of Ebert was silently endorsed by society. "Expelled" sank like a stone. And to some degree, so did Ben Stein. It's ironic. He wasn't a scientist, but he was a very successful character actor who played a scientist-like type on TV. Therefore, he and other creationists thought he would be the ideal guy for a clumsy science denial propaganda piece. But rather than giving credibility to the clumsy film, overall, he seems to have subtly but significantly damaged his own image.

Stein: When we just saw that man, I think it was Mr. Myers [i.e. biologist P.Z. Myers], talking about how great scientists were, I was thinking to myself the last time any of my relatives saw scientists telling them what to do they were telling them to go to the showers to get gassed … that was horrifying beyond words, and that’s where science — in my opinion, this is just an opinion — that’s where science leads you. Crouch: That’s right. Stein: …Love of God and compassion and empathy leads you to a very glorious place, and science leads you to killing people.

Stein managed a lot of self-damage. I loved his plea that evolutionists allow explanations other than evolution for gravity. That is a grave problem for science! Glen Davidson

https://me.yahoo.com/a/JxVN0eQFqtmgoY7wC1cZM44ET_iAanxHQmLgYgX_Zhn8#57cad · 5 April 2013

I think that Stein's ignorant prattle also managed to damage Expelled, somewhat beyond what its own blatant ignorance, prejudice, and Godwinesque overkill did.

Glen Davidson

EvoDevo · 5 April 2013

https://me.yahoo.com/a/JxVN0eQFqtmgoY7wC1cZM44ET_iAanxHQmLgYgX_Zhn8#57cad said: I think that Stein's ignorant prattle also managed to damage Expelled, somewhat beyond what its own blatant ignorance, prejudice, and Godwinesque overkill did. Glen Davidson

So did Myers getting "expelled", so the film lives up to its name.:D

phhht · 5 April 2013

FL said:
Let me rule out at once any God who has personally spoken to anyone or issued instructions to men.
Yes, that's surely what I'm waiting for, Mr. Ebert. Let me hear your rational and/or scientific ruling out of "any God who has personally spoken to anyone or issued instructions to men"... ...Oh wait a minute, you never came up with a rationally supportable "ruling out" explanation on that one. That's one bar you skeptics simply can't jump.

It's not necessary to "rule out" talking gods, Flawd. They rule themselves out by not speaking to anybody but delusional loonies. They rule themselves out by hiding behind invisibility and undetectability and real-world impotence. They rule themselves out by permitting defenders as incompetent as you yourself are. That "bar" you mention is a beam in nobody's eye but your own.

Les Lane · 5 April 2013

Pat Robertson said the other day that miracles happen more often to the uneducated. In similar fashion I suspect that God speaks more often to the uneducated. He speaks constantly to some schizophrenics. He likely never speaks to members of the National Academy.

cwjolley · 5 April 2013

Dave Thomas said: Can we switch from making afterlife snipes back to Ebert? Thanks.

Good point. I admired his defenses of reason. Especially the "Expelled" ones RIP

https://www.google.com/accounts/o8/id?id=AItOawmqjYIkX4g0z1HJ2YVDD29LP_d1QJwibjA · 5 April 2013

" I am not a believer, not an atheist, not an agnostic. I am still awake at night, asking how? I am more content with the question than I would be with an answer."

I actually like that statement, especially the part about being more content with the question than with the answer. Life is full of ambiguity. Trying to impose rigid answers onto it will make you look foolish (or appeal to a certain mindset who will then vote you in so you can try and impose your rigidity onto the rest of the population who don't have that mindset).
-dan

Richard B. Hoppe · 5 April 2013

Ebert on his impending death:

I know it is coming, and I do not fear it, because I believe there is nothing on the other side of death to fear. I hope to be spared as much pain as possible on the approach path. I was perfectly content before I was born, and I think of death as the same state. I am grateful for the gifts of intelligence, love, wonder and laughter. You can’t say it wasn’t interesting. My lifetime’s memories are what I have brought home from the trip. I will require them for eternity no more than that little souvenir of the Eiffel Tower I brought home from Paris. ... Still, illness led me resolutely toward the contemplation of death. That led me to the subject of evolution, that most consoling of all the sciences, ...

Rikki_Tikki_Taalik · 5 April 2013

The Dr. Dr. said ...

Or is Ebert just another clueless bonehead whose imagined expertise is in exact disproportion to his actual knowledge.

Or is the above quote made by a man whose concoctions, and a steadfast refusal to deal with their inaccuracies, have painted him into a corner of irrelevance ? The word pout comes to mind. Ebert had your number Dr. Dr., as do many others.

John_S · 5 April 2013

FL said:Let me hear your rational and/or scientific ruling out of "any God who has personally spoken to anyone or issued instructions to men"...

Mohammed claimed to have personally spoken with God, too. He based the whole Quran on it. Will you accept that, too, and embrace Islam? Seeing or hearing God is something that’s too easy to fake, especially when God almost always seems to agree with the opinions of the person who claims to have seen Him. Dictators and busy-bodies who want to make rules for others have a lot of incentive to invent a supreme being whom they can then claim actually made the rules and will punish people for not following them. When people have a strong incentive to lie, you need to ask for a little more than their say-so. Can it be proved that no one has spoken to God? No, but if a thousand people make different claims about God, that's pretty good evidence that 999 of them are making it up. How do you pick the one (if any) who's telling the truth?

Steve P. · 5 April 2013

Movie critic Ebert 'defends' evolution? But I thought evolution did not need defending.

I guess a string of tantalizing hints does need polishing on a regular basis.

......no polisher left behind~~

https://me.yahoo.com/a/JxVN0eQFqtmgoY7wC1cZM44ET_iAanxHQmLgYgX_Zhn8#57cad · 5 April 2013

Steve P. said: Movie critic Ebert 'defends' evolution? But I thought evolution did not need defending. I guess a string of tantalizing hints does need polishing on a regular basis. ......no polisher left behind~~

Wow, it takes some mindlessness to write something that ignorant. Hm, did Galileo defend heliocentrism? Do physicists defend physics against crank ideas? Do archaeologists defend good science against ancient alien "theorists" and other bogus ideas? Only one truly interested in specious "arguments" would take the fact that he and others are dishonest about evolutionary science as "evidence" that the latter has something wrong with it. But nothing intelligent is written against evolution by the egregious Stevie, nor by any of the other haters of science where it goes against their wishes, so it's hardly surprising that something that lame is the best he can "think" of writing. Glen Davidson

Henry J · 5 April 2013

But I thought evolution did not need defending.

Among people who know the subject matter the question was settled over a century ago, and that hasn't changed. What does need defending is the education of those who don't know the subject matter.

Tenncrain · 6 April 2013

Steve P. said: But I thought evolution did not need defending.

It's much more of a political (many but not all politicians), theological (many but not all religious people), educational, and public relations problem. If one looks up mainstream science peer review journals like Nature or Evolution (click here), we find that evolution is rather taken for granted based on about a century and a half of strong scientific evidence. The scientific debate in such journals doesn't focus on if evolution has happened, but how. Biological evolution has multiple lines of independent scientific evidence (from comparative anatomy of living species, biogeography, comparative behaviorism among living species, the fossil record, more recently molecular genetics [especially "evo-devo"] ). However, you may - or not - know that all science is tentative. There are no absolute science theories, no absolute science laws, no absolute science facts. Thus, we are eagerly waiting for ‘scientists’ at AIG/ICR/the DI that are hard at work in the field and the laboratory (click here) to present all their evidence, it’s about 150 years in the making. We are waiting for these ‘scientists’ to routinely publish their results in mainstream science peer review journals, to routinely show up at mainstream science conferences to make their case. If anti-evolutionists do all this and convince the scientific consensus, anti-evolutionists could win a Nobel Prize or two and anti-evolutionism could rather automatically supplement or even replace evolution in school classrooms. After all, even natural selection itself was demonstrated to be wrong in some cases as long ago as the 1960s which shows that Neo-Darwinian evolutionary theory has had to be modified based on new scientific evidence. Science is a constantly changing journey toward the truth in the natural world, even if it's never a complete arrival at the truth. But it's not exactly a great sign when ID superstar Michael Behe admits under oath at Kitzmiller trial to agreeing with this statement:

"there are no peer reviewed articles by anyone advocating for intelligent design supported by pertinent experiments or calculations which provide detailed rigorous accounts of how intelligent design of any biological system occurred"

Behe also admitted that if the rules of science were relaxed to allow ID into the science class room, astrology (yes, astrology) would also qualify as a science theory. Even since the Kitzmiller trial, seems there has not exactly been an explosion of ID "research" despite the huge sums of money being pumped into the ID movement by the likes of billionaire Howard Ahmanson Jr. So, where's the science in ID?

Tenncrain · 6 April 2013

Dave, you might check if "A Masked Panda (8415)" is a certain banned poster

harold · 6 April 2013

Movie critic Ebert ‘defends’ evolution? But I thought evolution did not need defending.

Really? You thought that? What a bizarre thing to think. Of course scientific ideas need to be defended with evidence and logic. That's why I keep asking people who claim ID/creationism is science to show some evidence and logic. No coherent responses yet, but I'll keep trying. 1) Could any evidence convince you of the theory of evolution, and if so, what type of evidence is now lacking, that would convince you, if present? 2) The Supreme Court ruled against the direct teaching of Biblical Young Earth Creationism as science in public schools; however, if that ruling were overturned, which would you support more, teaching of ID, or direct teaching of Bible-based YEC? 3) Do you think it is important for opponents of the theory of evolution to fully understand the theory of evolution? If so, can you explain it, and if not, can you explain why not? 4) Who is the designer? How can we test your answer? 5) What did that designer do? How can we test your answer? 6) How did the designer do it? How can we test your answer? 7) When did the designer do it? How can we test your answer? 8) What is an example of something that was not designed by the designer? OTHERS - We all know that Steve P makes a huge number of shockingly wrong statements about the theory of evolution, and science in general. It's worth correcting them for the sake of third party readers. But let's remember, he isn't here to take an exam on evolutionary biology. He's here to claim that there is a case for ID/creationism as science. Yet all he does is claim that there is something wrong with the theory of evolution. Even if there were, why would his version of creationism "win" by default? Let's remember to try to get him to state his claims in a precise, understandable way, and show some evidence for them.

TomS · 6 April 2013

Take a look at the Wikipedia article on the Pythagorean Theorem. Note how many different proofs there are. If any one of those proofs is unquestionable, why are there so many? Does the PT need such a defense?

apokryltaros · 6 April 2013

Liar for Jesus said: Movie critic Ebert 'defends' evolution? But I thought evolution did not need defending.

Of course Evolutionary Biology needs defending from people, like you, FL or the makers of "EXPELLED" who attack science, scientists and other educators with lies, slander and propaganda.

I guess a string of tantalizing hints does need polishing on a regular basis. ......no polisher left behind~~

And the point of this underhanded insult is? I mean, besides to further cement that you're a craven, science-hating liar who enjoys slandering a corpse?

apokryltaros · 6 April 2013

If Roger Ebert and all the other defenders of Evolutionary Biology were wrong about "EXPELLED: No Intelligence Allowed," then the movie's makers wouldn't have needed to dishonestly slander Richard Dawkins as an evil fop, nor haul out the conflicting lie that Charles Darwin magically inspired both Hitler and Stalin to be assholes while dishonestly ignoring the promise to demonstrate how Intelligent Design really is an alternative explanation.

In fact, if it was true that Intelligent Design really is an alternative explanation, then the chuckleheads at the Discovery Institute wouldn't need to do any propaganda at all: William Dembski would actually show his magic calculations for his design filter, and Michael Behe would actually explain how to identify irreducibly complex structures behind throwing his hands up.

In fact, if it was true that Intelligent Design really is an alternative explanation, then we wouldn't even need Intelligent Design in the first place. Answers in Genesis and the Institute for Creation Research would be churning paper after paper showing people how the very ideas that God magically washed literally all terrestrial ecosystems out to sea in a divine temper-tantrum, then magically sorted all of the corpses not according to their hydrodynamic properties, or how all terrestrial animals could magically originate from pairs leaving from Noah's Ark in Mt Ararat 4,000 years ago are somehow logical, sane and coherent.

If it really was true that Intelligent Design really is an alternative explanation, then we wouldn't need Trolls for Jesus like SteveP, FL or Atheistoclast trying to take advantage of the death of a big Hollywood name in order to make their genitalia look unnaturally large and virile.

EvoDevo · 6 April 2013

Moron for Yahweh said: Movie critic Ebert 'defends' evolution? But I thought evolution did ~~not~~ need defending. I guess a string of tantalizing hints does need polishing on a regular basis. ......no polisher left behind~~

Just like Stanton Fink stated, "It needs defending from the likes of you, FL, or the makers (...) "Expelled"..." And, I fixed your sentence for you, moron.

harold · 6 April 2013

EvoDevo said:
Moron for Yahweh said: Movie critic Ebert 'defends' evolution? But I thought evolution did ~~not~~ need defending. I guess a string of tantalizing hints does need polishing on a regular basis. ......no polisher left behind~~
Just like Stanton Fink stated, "It needs defending from the likes of you, FL, or the makers (...) "Expelled"..." And, I fixed your sentence for you, moron.

Somehow people are missing the deeply moronic aspect of Steve P's comment. Yes, adequate teaching of the well-established teaching of evolution needs to be defended at the political and social level. But what makes the comment even more totally clueless is the implication that strong scientific ideas aren't defended scientifically. The theory of evolution has been successfully supported and defended. No science supporting person ever implied that the theory of evolution was a pronouncement from authority that should be accepted uncritically. No scientific idea is. That's a moronic straw man invented by Steve P. Scientific ideas always need to be defended by showing that they follow logically from the evidence. Biological evolution has been repeatedly defended, successfully, and is supported by multiple converging lines of evidence.

Ray Martinez · 6 April 2013

The Evolutionists are touting Ebert's pro-evolution stances and giving him plenty of praise for doing so.

What caused Ebert's fame? His scholarship? His intellectual prowess?

Since he was a movie critic and nothing else, who cares.

phhht · 6 April 2013

It's annoying, isn't it, Ray, when an intelligent, articulate, highly successful, widely respected person says publicly that you're full of shit.

Ray Martinez said: The Evolutionists are touting Ebert's pro-evolution stances and giving him plenty of praise for doing so. What caused Ebert's fame? His scholarship? His intellectual prowess? Since he was a movie critic and nothing else, who cares.

Dave Thomas · 6 April 2013

Ray Martinez said: The Evolutionists are touting Ebert's pro-evolution stances and giving him plenty of praise for doing so. What caused Ebert's fame? His scholarship? His intellectual prowess? Since he was a movie critic and nothing else, who cares.

He was a movie critic, who happened to understand science and biology better than a lot of people who don't or can't (i.e. Dembski et. al.)

Ray Martinez · 6 April 2013

Dave Thomas said:
Ray Martinez said: The Evolutionists are touting Ebert's pro-evolution stances and giving him plenty of praise for doing so. What caused Ebert's fame? His scholarship? His intellectual prowess? Since he was a movie critic and nothing else, who cares.
He was a movie critic, who happened to understand science and biology better than a lot of people who don't or can't (i.e. Dembski et. al.)

Dembski, since college, accepts Darwin's main conceptual claim (natural selection/species mutability) to exist in nature, the same responsible for a great amount of adaptive evolution as well. Dave: he's in YOUR camp, not ours. RM (Old Earth, Paleyan IDist, anti-evolutionist/species immutabilist)

DS · 6 April 2013

Ray Martinez said: The Evolutionists are touting Ebert's pro-evolution stances and giving him plenty of praise for doing so. What caused Ebert's fame? His scholarship? His intellectual prowess? Since he was a movie critic and nothing else, who cares.

SInce you are an ignorant twit, who cares? No one agrees wit you Ray, not movie critics, not creationists charlatans, nobody. Get a clue already.

Ray Martinez · 6 April 2013

This comment has been moved to The Bathroom Wall.

phhht · 6 April 2013

You wonder bitterly why anyone cares what Roger Ebert thinks. So Ray, tell me this. Why should anyone care what YOU think? Your notion of intelligent design is vacuous confabulation. There is no evidence for it, nobody can defend it against the mildest of scientific criticisms, for decades nobody has been able even to detect it, much less test it, and the people who advocate for it are all a priori religious believers. Your drive-by provocations here contain nothing but spite, pseudo-scientific mumbo jumbo, unsupported religious assertions, and futile, frustrated aggression. You're an annoying itch trying its best to get a scratch, Ray. If you were a mosquito, you'd have been reduced long since to a sticky red spot with legs sticking out of it.

Ray Martinez said: Since [Ebert] was a movie critic and nothing else, who cares.

DS · 6 April 2013

This comment has been moved to The Bathroom Wall.

phhht · 6 April 2013

This comment has been moved to The Bathroom Wall.

DS · 6 April 2013

This comment has been moved to The Bathroom Wall.

harold · 6 April 2013

This comment has been moved to The Bathroom Wall.

Rikki_Tikki_Taalik · 6 April 2013

Ray Martinez said: What caused Ebert's fame? His scholarship? His intellectual prowess?

Yes, a PhD and a Nobel laureate. Albeit he was not trained in the hard sciences. This is not a secret nor a newsflash.

Since he was a movie critic and nothing else, who cares.

Since ~~he was~~ Ray Martinez is a ~~movie critic~~ [fill in the blank] and nothing else, who cares. The irony, Ray haz it.

Rikki_Tikki_Taalik · 6 April 2013

Rikki_Tikki_Taalik said: Yes, a PhD and a Nobel laureate. Albeit he was not trained in the hard sciences. This is not a secret nor a newsflash.

Whoops, I take that back. He was a Pulitzer winner and I just learned he didn't complete his PhD due to financial circumstances, no Nobel. I had a brain fart there. My point about Ray still stands.

Dave Thomas · 6 April 2013

Please stay on topic, People.

Topic: Ebert.

Thanks, Dave

JimboK · 8 April 2013

Westboro Baptist hate-mongers are planning to protest at Ebert's funeral service. (Warning: the previous sentence links to the group's vitriolic press announcement.)

Story here: www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/04/08/roger-ebert-westboro-baptist-church_n_3037250.html I wish I lived closer to Chicago...

stevaroni · 8 April 2013

JimboK said: Westboro Baptist hate-mongers are planning to protest...

Sadly, this is becoming about as newsworthy as "Sun comes up".

Tenncrain · 8 April 2013

The Huffington Post report was updated to say no Westboro Baptist members showed up at Ebert's service. Same thing happened at Whitney Houston's funeral; a protest was announced but church members were a no-show there as well.

Bhakti Niskama Shanta · 22 April 2013

This comment has been moved to The Bathroom Wall.

Dave Thomas · 22 April 2013

OMG, creationist SPAM? Time to close this thread, it appears!