Some may recall that early on his Tonight Show career, talk show host Jay Leno was not above a covert operation:
Jay Leno has admitted that soon after he debuted as host of the Tonight show, he was so worried about negative critical and audience reaction -- and about being replaced -- that he hid in the closets of NBC executives so that he could eavesdrop on their conversations about him.
Now, low and behold, Science Blogger and All-Around Evil Atheist Conspirator PZ Myers has pulled a similar stunt. The gall! The chutzpah! The envy that I'm feeling!
Separated at birth?(Be warned: the comments are a bit hot and heavy. I probably should've distinguished between Dr. Myers's opportunity to be a 'fly on the wall'---which I did envy----and the way he reacted. But, as I see it, I might have well reacted the same way under the circumstances. We're all capable of being provoked,and I certainly provoked some commenters, sad to say)
57 comments:
Now, if Dembski had pulled a stunt like that, you'd be madder than hell right now.
The fact that PZ listened in is no biggy...plenty of Darwinists were no doubt listening in on that conference call. But, the fact that he redialed so he could break in on the call? That is really pushing the limits of moral correctness.
Like I said, Darwinists would eat Dembski alive for a stunt like that. But, then again, PZ can do no wrong in your eyes...pull off the blinder, hon.
But, the fact that he redialed so he could break in on the call? That is really pushing the limits of moral correctness.
Granted. And bragging about bad behavior pushes the limit, as well. Or, in my case, chuckling as I imagine another case of discomfiture on the part of the 'Expelled' clan. But, last time I checked, lashing the money-changers with a rope of cords is pushing the envelope, too.
We could play 'he said, she said' all night, but at the end of the day it's difficult to ask anyone who cares about science education to sit quietly while people we believe to be liars continue to say what we believe to be falsehoods.
Like I said, Darwinists would eat Dembski alive for a stunt like that. But, then again, PZ can do no wrong in your eyes...pull off the blinder, hon.
Well, you've got me there. I am inclined to give PZ the benefit of the doubt, due in part to the fact that I feel I've been treated fairly by him. You clearly have had a different experience!
As far as Dembski goes, he doesn't irritate me as much as he frosts the Panda's Thumb gang, for the following reasons:
1) His arguments are abtruse and esoteric, and thus of limited utility to the ID cause, and certainly nothing I'm going to encounter in a high school class;
2) Unlike Dembski and the PT people, I'm not an academic, so his arguments don't constitute a turf war;
3) I don't recall Dembski ever misleading anyone as to his intent or as motivation. He stumbled somewhat with his use of the Xvivo video, but he hasn't been charged with any crime and it could simply be a case of poor judgement, no malice implied. So I wouldn't come out and brand Dembski as dishonest or manipulative. But I do see those tendencies other DI folk, such as Wells, and I do see that in some of the conduct of the 'Expelled' team.
I'm mad at him for doing it. It was a stupid thing to do. He played right into Expelled's latest spin about him being a sneaky, underhanded and a gate-crasher.
Dembski's not above moving the goal posts in kilometer chunks, though. For example, he has a book entitled No Free Lunch in which he argues that the so-called "No Free Lunch" theorems in search theory show that Darwinian evolution can't occur. When one of the mathematicians who proved the theorems showed that Dembski was blowing smoke (in an essay called William Dembski's Treatment of the No Free Lunch Theorems is Written in Jello) Dembski then claimed that the NFL theorems weren't really part of his argument after all, and that he was really arguing something else.
Esoteric, maybe, but intellectually dishonest.
"But, last time I checked, lashing the money-changers with a rope of cords is pushing the envelope, too."
Wow...comparing PZ to Christ is *truly* off the charts.
I'm done here, and I'd appreciate you not commenting at my blog any more either. I'm about open inquiry, asking questions, and supporting academic freedom. You're obviously not, and you have the audacity to call those who disagree with you dishonest "liars".
Good luck with PZ, your Christ like mentor.
Thing though, it's not disagreement that is the problem with creationists, it's the bald face lies they propagate to further an agenda that seeks to make people stupid.
"Darwinists would eat Dembski alive for a stunt like that."
Eat Dembski alive? And risk food poisoning? Pleh. :-)
Scott Hatfield:
But, last time I checked, lashing the money-changers with a rope of cords is pushing the envelope, too.
I'm compelled to agree with Forthekids. That was way over the top, and demonstrates your hypocrisy runs deeper than I imagined.
It doesn't matter in which church pew you sit or how many interfaith groups you attend, etc. True Christians exhibit evidence (fruit of the Holy Spirit, Gal 5) of a transformed life, a transformation (Rom 12:2) and regeneration (Tit 3:5) made by Jesus Christ. I don't see evidence of that transformation in you Scott. Perhaps it's genuinely there and just stunted, time will tell. But take care that your professions to date of being Christian weren't merely for public consumption.
There will come a day when Jesus will ask you, "Scott, what were you thinking?" Be sure He'll be asking as your savior and not your judge.
Oh, come on, FTK. The Expelled people read the "call in to talk" number out loud before the press conference began.
This is like their claiming that having a newspaper movie reviewer actually watch their movie constitutes a "security breach!"
This is like their claiming that the sign-up website that anyone could access (and that PZ used) was "proprietary." (I do not think that words means what they think it means.)
Their notion of "security" for a movie they're touting so strenuously, so desperately, so publicly is so completely incompetent that I have trouble feeling sorry for them when they get punked by the mischief-makers they seem to attract.
Elf_Sternberg:
Their notion of "security" for a movie they're touting so strenuously, so desperately, so publicly is so completely incompetent that I have trouble feeling sorry for them when they get punked by the mischief-makers they seem to attract.
Their "security" and "incompetance" was no different than that employed for private screenings of "The Passion of the Christ" and earnings conference calls used by hundreds of US companies daily.
That PZ Myer's had to misrepresent himself as having been invited to the former and a media partner to the latter, both of which he has admitted, only underscores his willful deception. If anybody has established themselves as a liar by their own acts, it is PZ Myers.
Come on, FTK. PZ phoned in a few minutes early, most likely to make sure he didn't miss the beginning, and happened to hear the cdesign proponentsists mention the code out loud. That's not his fault.
When he couldn't stand the lies anymore, he said so.
Ironically, it seems like I have to teach you a little theology. Suddenly coming in and beating people up is way outside the bounds of common decency. So why was it the right thing to do? Not because Jesus is Jesus and therefore allowed to do anything. No: because it was a public statement against hypocrisy, which is a good thing.
Now consider the fact that PZ didn't even touch anyone. All he did was speak.
If some other hypocrites lied, and Dembski spoke up against it in public, I would praise Dembski for it. Why not?
And where is the automatic horror in comparing people to Jesus? Aren't we all supposed to emulate him? Aren't we all supposed to not lie? Aren't we all supposed to not be hypocrites?
That PZ Myer's had to misrepresent himself as having been invited to the former and a media partner to the latter, both of which he has admitted
Show me the misrepresentations, why they are in fact misrepresentations, and the admission.
Will be difficult. For the screening, no invitation was necessary: there was and still is a public website where anyone can enter their name and the number of their guests to register. This is what PZ did. Where is the problem?
(And why were the cdesign proponentsists too stupid to recognize Dawkins?)
What other people think about this:
Okay, that's it, I've finally reached the point where I'm convinced beyond all doubt that the Disco 'Tute is an elaborate hoax.
I mean, even a stopped clock is right twice a day. No one, not even operating out of total ignorance and by complete chance, can screw up as many things as they have. Behe's self-defeating testimony during Kitzmiller v. Dover should have been a clue ("It would not be fruitful," ha! Get the fruit fly reference?), obtaining Ben Stein as their spokesperson was starting to get a bit heavy-handed, and "failing" to recognize Dawkins probably had the perpetrators hugging themselves and giggling.
Nope, they're just trying to see how many fish they can get on the same hook. Nobody could be that stupid and cross the street safely. Nobody. PZ, you should be ashamed of yourself. It's like making fun of the special class kids.
But just in case, I'll buy you a few rounds if you ever find yourself (with horror, most likely) in North Carolina. This has been a hoot!
-- Just Al
I'm beginning to see a pattern here...
Uncommon Descent - critical posts are disappeared
thinkingchristian - critical posters are blocked and comments are closed
Evolution News and Views - no comments allowed
Kevin Wirth's blog - no comments allowed
Expelled private previews - no criticism allowed (except they are not very good at managing their selected viewers)
Expelled private press conference - questions only by email and stage managed (except they are not very good at restricting access)
Now people are entitled to their worldview, but not their own facts. I guess they feel more comfortable if they don't hear criticism.
I expect that in some cases the snake-oil salesman doesn't want you to know what is in the bottle.
-- DiscoveredJoys
David Marjanović:
And where is the automatic horror in comparing people to Jesus?
More to the point, where is the automatic horror in [a professor in the Theos of Jesus] comparing [an avowed a-Theos disbeliever in Jesus] to Jesus [Theos]?
You see nothing untoward in Scott Hatfield who claims to believe in the deity of Jesus Christ equating the actions of PZ Myers, an atheist, to the actions of Jesus, God incarnate?
David Marjanović:
For the screening, no invitation was necessary: there was and still is a public website where anyone can enter their name and the number of their guests to register. This is what PZ did. Where is the problem?
Because the public tour webage
http://rsvp.getexpelled.com/events/movies/expelled
did not list the "private screening" at the MN Bloomington AMC Mall of America 14 March 20.
That entry to which Myers RSVP without an invitation was at the unpublished "private screenings" webpage:
http://rsvp.getexpelled.com/events/special/expelled
The URLs are different and the listings were different abd the private screenings events were (and still are) clearly labeled "Private" at the top. Myers clearly chose the "Private" screenings and RSVP'd to an invitation he didn't have.
You see nothing untoward in Scott Hatfield who claims to believe in the deity of Jesus Christ equating the actions of PZ Myers, an atheist, to the actions of Jesus, God incarnate?
Starwind, it fills me with sorrow that you and ftk would take an off-hand comparison, reify it and then draw some faulty conclusion about my theology or my motives.
Anyone who knows me, including the skeptical commenters who've appeared in this site, recognize that I believe in Jesus Christ. PZ is not my idea of a 'Christ figure', nor, I suspect, anyone else's. The notion is absurd.
The point was that Jesus responded in an impolitic way, taking on the money-changers in their own lair. We Christians believe his frenzied response was justified because it was, as the Lord said, 'his Father's house' which they were corrupting. If an atheist attempted to discredit Jesus's ministry purely on this episode, we would rightly ask them to reread the Gospel in its full context and consider the case that Jesus was telling the truth about who He was and the authority he possessed.
In a far less weighty arena, Dr. Myers acted in an impolitic and aggressive way. It stretched the bounds of decorum and, as one commenter here noted, reinforces an impression that ID advocates would no doubt be tempted to adopt as a talking point: that of the 'gate-crashing' fanatic.
Well, if I had been in PZ's shoes I would've been tempted to listen in, as well, and if colleagues of mine were compared to the Nazis, well, I might've been tempted to object as well, invited or not, because the comparison is simply so vile. Perhaps, on second thought, it was foolish of me to envy PZ's choices; but I can certainly understand why he responded as he did.
If that makes me a hypocrite, guilty as charged. There is much more that I could say here, but it would serve no purpose other than to further anger fellow human beings who have convinced themselves that I am a hypocrite, or else deluded. Believe it or not, it really does sadden me that ftk writes:
I'm done here, and I'd appreciate you not commenting at my blog any more either.
Apparently I am now representative of an association so vile that I must be anathema. How this will benefit the free pursuit of knowledge is unclear to me.
You see nothing untoward in Scott Hatfield who claims to believe in the deity of Jesus Christ equating the actions of PZ Myers, an atheist, to the actions of Jesus, God incarnate?
I see nothing untoward in comparing one action to another action. I also think it's obvious nothing else was ever intended.
By your logic, nothing Jesus ever did could be compared to anything anyone else ever did.
PZ eats, it is written that Jesus ate... where is the horror?
I can also turn the whole thing around: Hitler was a vegetarian and didn't smoke.
In your place, I would be happy that "even" an atheist takes a stance against dishonesty and hypocrisy. I don't understand why you aren't.
the unpublished "private screenings" webpage:
http://rsvp.getexpelled.com/events/special/expelled
See? This is either dishonest or deeply ignorant. This page is neither protected by a password or anything, nor does it contain robot files that would protect it against being indexed by search engines. Google finds it. To call it "unpublished" is to spread a falsehood, knowingly or not. It is public.
Sources: 1 2
David Marjanović:
I see nothing untoward in comparing one action to another action. I also think it's obvious nothing else was ever intended.
But then we've already established that you aren't in possession of all the facts of one particular action, or if you are you've ignored some of them, or have been mislead by the very lies and hypocrisy you defend.
In your place, I would be happy that "even" an atheist takes a stance against dishonesty and hypocrisy. I don't understand why you aren't.
Because aside from being an atheist, Myers is also dishonest and hypocritical, none of which was Jesus, and Myers has zero credibility on anythng, even subject in which he might possess correct knowledge, he can be trusted to convey that knowledge honestly.
As for Scott Hatfield, I will continue with a wait and see posture, and judge whatever fruit falls.
Also, remember, PZ registered himself using his name, and nobody ever sent him an e-mail telling him the page was private, he shouldn't have discovered it, and he wasn't welcome at the screening and shouldn't come. No, his registration was accepted, and only when he showed up at the beginning of the screening to confirm his identity was he EXPELLED!.
This, ladies and gentlemen, is hypocrisy. How else could one call it?
But then we've already established that you aren't in possession of all the facts of one particular action
Such as?
Because aside from being an atheist, Myers is also dishonest and hypocritical
Show me.
and Myers has zero credibility on anythng, even subject in which he might possess correct knowledge, he can be trusted to convey that knowledge honestly.
That's what science is for: we don't need to accept arguments based on people's good reputations, we can look at the data and the methods ourselves.
Still, I don't understand what gives him "zero credibility on anyth[i]ng". Why all this hate? Is it fear?
David Marjanović:
See? This is either dishonest or deeply ignorant. This page is neither protected by a password or anything, nor does it contain robot files that would protect it against being indexed by search engines. Google finds it. To call it "unpublished" is to spread a falsehood, knowingly or not. It is public.
And that, I think fully establishes the depth of your own dishonesty.
That your criteria for "invitation" is that Google can crawl it. You ignored the words "Private" at the top and what RSVP means, and you didn't even have the intellectual honesty to concede at the onset that the only way to find the page (asided from having been invited to it by a legitimate invitation) is hope that Google would "publish" it.
But "crawled by google" doesn't equal "invited" or "public" nor negate "private", now does it.
And you purport to moralize on who can be equated to Jesus or allude such.
Good grief Scott, take a look a the people you defend and are likewise "of the world" .
If I had e-mailed Dembski an invitation to my press conference, and then after people had started to sign in (the system at least beeps when someone signs in, or in some cases announces them) I mentioned the secret unmuting code and then they used it, I'd be mad at myself for being so stupid--in between being ashamed of making them e-mail their questions so I could screen them. What kind of "press conference" was that, anyway?
David Marjanović:
But then we've already established that you aren't in possession of all the facts of one particular action
Such as?
Your omission of the distinction in the two webpages and the clear designation of "Private" on the one listing the screening to which Myers RSVP.
Wow, if ever I meet Scott in person, I'm going to have my security detail frisk him for nails.
As for this nonsense about invitations: the Expelled screening was wide open, available on the net, etc. The couple in front of us had their kids along with them; were they also Christian leaders?
I was invited to the conference call. They sent a generic invitation to the crew at the Panda's Thumb -- I'm a member, as are several other people who listened in. I also registered for that, which you had to do to get the phone number...nothing underhanded there.
Yes, I do agree that I was not invited to actually participate in the phone call. I broke through their barriers to do that. They then invited me to participate (I think the bad PR they got last week has them shy on booting people out now), but I did not. I told the listeners two things: that the Expelled people lied when they said their was no criticism of the substance of their film on the web, and that they lied in that substance when they claimed this absurd 'necessary' connection between "darwinism" and Hitler.
And then I got off and let them continue lying.
They can now try to defend their claims, but I doubt that they will.
By the way, another interesting datum: I don't think there were many major news sites tuned in to their phone call. The biggest news outlet that has contacted me so far is Wired; otherwise, it's mainly been small religious newspapers and web sites. I suspect my protest was a little bit pointless, because the major news sources have given up on Expelled already.
The entire crew of Panda's Thumb was invited as "media partners", and so was PZ. So how was he "misrepresenting" himself as a "media partner" if that's what they call him?
That your criteria for "invitation" is that Google can crawl it. You ignored the words "Private" at the top and what RSVP means, and you didn't even have the intellectual honesty to concede at the onset that the only way to find the page (asided from having been invited to it by a legitimate invitation) is hope that Google would "publish" it.
Do I need to repeat myself? He registered, under his own name of course, and his registration was accepted. Why was his registration accepted?
Once more: If his registration was not welcome, why was it accepted anyway?
And you purport to moralize on who can be equated to Jesus or allude such.
Then read for understanding. Nobody has been equated to Jesus -- one action by PZ has been compared to one action by Jesus.
Your omission of the distinction in the two webpages and the clear designation of "Private" on the one listing the screening to which Myers RSVP.
I am fully aware of that distinction -- it just isn't as big as you seem to think it is. "Private" means you can only attend the screening if your appeal to attend is granted by the owners -- PZ's appeal was granted.
Wow, if ever I meet Scott in person, I'm going to have my security detail frisk him for nails.
Nope. I'm no Carpenter, and neither are you.
(looking away, hands behind back, humming just a bit-too-casually)
I don't even see a hammer anywhere around here. Hey...your shoelace is untied.
pz:
As for this nonsense about invitations: the Expelled screening was wide open, available on the net, etc. The couple in front of us had their kids along with them; were they also Christian leaders?
Then you have an iron clad civil rights claim with damages against them, don't you.
All you need do is produce that invitation, or prove the screening wasn't private.
So let's see it PZ, show us all that invitation to a private screening to which you RSVPd. Not the confirmation of your RSVP mind you, but the original invitation that directed you to the "special" RSVP page of "private" screenings.
Or show us why you were RSVPing to a "Private sceening". Why weren't you RSVPing to the public tour page? Doesn't public mean "public"? How could you confuse "public tour" with "Private screening"?
Even David Marjanović notes:
"Private" means you can only attend the screening if your appeal to attend is granted by the owners -- PZ's appeal was granted.
Are you in the habit of appealing and RSVPing to theater management at websites before seeing a public movie, or just the Private screenings? Where is your "granted appeal" to attend, and why appeal at all if it is truely open to the public?
Let's see it.
Starwind: "Myers has zero credibility on anythng"
While I can certainly think of a few instances where Myers' anger has clouded his judgment and led him to say things that aren't true*, I haven't seen those instances pile up to the point where his credibility is all that close to zero. Care to give evidence for your case?
*If you are reading this, Dr. Myers, check your e-mail.
J. J. Ramsey:
Care to give evidence for your case?
You already excised the inconvenient portion of what I said was my "case" from your disingenuous misquote of me.
You seriously think I'll bother repeating, only for you to excise it further?
Starwind: "You already excised the inconvenient portion of what I said was my "case'"
Nonsense. Nothing that you wrote justifies the sweeping claim that Myers has zero credibility on anything. Now if you have evidence for that, bring it.
J. J. Ramsey:
Nothing that you wrote justifies the sweeping claim that Myers has zero credibility on anything.
And what was my entire unedited quote, in context?
Now if you have evidence for that, bring it
Well that is the argument you hope to have, but that isn't what I said, was it. No. You had to selectively cut & paste what I said to morph it into what you wished I'd said, didn't you.
Otherwise, you'll have to make your case by editting what I did write, won't you. And you can't do that, can you, or you would have by now, wouldn't you.
Are you in the habit of appealing and RSVPing to theater management at websites before seeing a public movie, or just the Private screenings? Where is your "granted appeal" to attend, and why appeal at all if it is truely open to the public?
Is there some kind of block in your brain? PZ registered online; that's his appeal. The registration was accepted; that's the granting part. Evidently, a human being read the list of registrations and decided which ones to accept. And then Mathis suddenly saw PZ (but not his guests, not even Dawkins) and expelled him.
Again: not invitation was required, but registration and acceptance of that registration. "Private" doesn't mean "invitation-only", it only means the organizers get to decide who of those who wants to attend is allowed to attend. And they allowed PZ to attend.
Starwind: "And what was my entire unedited quote, in context?"
Right here:
"Because aside from being an atheist, Myers is also dishonest and hypocritical, none of which was Jesus, and Myers has zero credibility on anythng, even subject in which he might possess correct knowledge, he can be trusted to convey that knowledge honestly."
Nowhere here is an indication that you did not make a sweeping claim. Care to educate us on where such an indication is?
David Marjanović:
"Private" doesn't mean "invitation-only", it only means the organizers get to decide who of those who wants to attend is allowed to attend. And they allowed PZ to attend.
No, they did not allow PZ Myers to attend, did they - LOL. The whole world including you knows that.
It is precisely that prevention from attending, the opposite of granting permission or inviting attendance, is what all your hypocritical, disingenuous, intellectually dishonest rucus is about, isn't it.
He was never invited to that private screening, he had nothing legitimately or rightfully acquired to which to RSVP, and he was denied attendance, as they were well within their rights to so deny.
J. J. Ramsey:
Nowhere here is an indication that you did not make a sweeping claim. Care to educate us on where such an indication is?
That would be the part:
Myers is also dishonest and hypocritical, none of which was Jesus, and Myers has zero credibility on anythng, even subject in which he might possess correct knowledge, he can [not] be trusted to convey that knowledge honestly.
He has already admitted to misrepresentations to participate in the conference call, he has pretended to not understand the distinctions between private screenings and public movies, he had evaded addressing any proof he received an invitation to that private screening as did other attendees of that same private screening, and he advocates firing teachers or researchers of information he doesn't agree with.
He can't be trusted to honestly convey facts inconvenient to his argument.
starwind, any chance you want to comment on the content of Scott's (and PZ's) criticism of the movie or are you only interested in pointing out that PZ took advantage of public information in a way that you find inappropriate.
PS: Winona State just won the Div II basketball National Title. Since Winona State is also part of the University of MN (just like Morris), I find it perfectly suitable to point this out!!
ftk
I'm done here, and I'd appreciate you not commenting at my blog any more either. I'm about open inquiry, asking questions, and supporting academic freedom.
Man, does it get much surreal than that?
Richard:
starwind, any chance you want to comment on the content of Scott's (and PZ's) criticism of the movie
I haven't seen the movie, so I'll withhold comment on whether it makes its case or not, fairly or distortedly, until I have.
starwind,
1) are you OK with the linking of the theory of evolution with Nazi Germany?
2) do you feel that scientists are being censored regarding the issue of evolution?
3) if so, do you feel that they have scientific evidence to support their position?
Richard:
1) are you OK with the linking of the theory of evolution with Nazi Germany?
In general, no. Are all Darwinists Nazi's? No. Were the Nazi's advocating Darwinian eugenics? Yes. Was Darwin responsible for Nazis? Hardly.
2) do you feel that scientists are being censored regarding the issue of evolution?
The broad-brush topic of evidence that contradicts macro-evolutionary claims as fact? Yes.
3) if so, do you feel that they have scientific evidence to support their position?
"They" meaning those with evidence that contradicts macro-evolutionaty theory? Some do, some would like to research further or vet their claims/suspicions.
No, they did not allow PZ Myers to attend, did they - LOL.
By accepting his registration, they did.
It just so happens that they later hypocritically reversed their decision.
He was never invited to that private screening,
Of course not. Nobody was invited. People registered, and the organizers decided which registrations to accept.
he had nothing legitimately or rightfully acquired to which to RSVP,
This is false, as has been repeatedly explained to you.
and he was denied attendance, as they were well within their rights to so deny.
Of course they were within their rights! Nobody has argued otherwise.
It's just hypocritical of them to expel someone because they fear he might not agree with them, and that from a film called "Expelled!" which claims to be about the expulsion of people for fear they might not agree with others. This hypocrisy is what we are all laughing at. I'm really surprised you still haven't noticed.
David Marjanović:
By accepting his registration, they did.
It wasn't a registration. It was an RSVP to an invitation he has yet to prove he rightfully received.
It just so happens that they later hypocritically reversed their decision.
lol - another "just so" story. When you can prove it, you be a hero and the star witness in Myers' civil rights lawsuit.
He has already admitted to misrepresentations to participate in the conference call
You keep repeating that. But it's still not true.
I even asked you for evidence that the representation is mis-. You keep ignoring this request, so I am forced to consider your claim unsupported.
and he advocates firing teachers or researchers of information he doesn't agree with.
Read what he has written about Gonzalez, Sternberg, and the other two or three cases. Pharyngula has a search function; use it.
Were the Nazi's advocating Darwinian eugenics? Yes.
What is "Darwinian eugenics"?
------------------------------
Also, I notice you talk about "macroevolution". What keeps "microevolution" from grading into "macroevolution" when enough time is available? Wouldn't that require a miracle?
Starwind, ummmm, I'm thinking you'd like to reword your phrase
"Are all Darwinists Nazi's? No."
As to macro-evolution, I could be off base here (I'm certainly not qualified on the topic) but I don't see evidence of evidence being denied. I don't doubt that anecdotally many research institutions would consider research into proving that there is a designer to be as worth while as proving that Newton was wrong with the basic laws of motion.
He has already admitted to misrepresentations to participate in the conference call
You keep repeating that. But it's still not true.
"PZ" said: "Yes, I do agree that I was not invited to actually participate in the phone call. I broke through their barriers to do that."
Surely, you'll not now dispute that such access to a public website is not a misrepresentation, and their mere presence here are legitmate proof, will you?
Well, I'd say it's been a pleasure, but it hasn't.
Adios folks.
I only have one comment to make and it regards the first post.
"if Dembski had done it" is a moot argument. If the (conference call) shoe had been on the other foot, Dembski would have been allowed to talk. Not "let's control the message so that no dissent can be heard".
starwind, I've tried to be as respectful as possible. I'd LIKE to see proof of God. I hope I didn't chase you out of here.
any chance you want to comment on the content of Scott's (and PZ's) criticism of the movie
Just wanted to point out to any readers that, unlike PZ, I haven't seen the film, and so I haven't criticized the film itself. My main interest at this point is the way the film was pitched to those interviewed, and whether or not it is being honestly promoted.
Many attendees blasted it on style and execution as well as content, but I'm in no position to agree or disagree. ID sympathizers had a different take on the merits of 'Expelled' on those terms, and again I have no opinion on any of that at this time. Besides, as I understand it, many of the screenings are 'rough cuts' and so the final product could be significantly different, better or worse.
Buck up, Scott. FtK's always flouncing off in a huff on some pretext or other.
She'll be back.
Unfortunately.
As for the Jesus and the moneychangers reference, it seemed straightforward to me. You were comparing an action of PZ's, which could be thought of as a bit OTT, with a story from the Bible about Christ acting the same.
No suggestion of PZ being Christ-like, although some of his followers sound like they're moving in that direction.
Of course, to an atheist the whole thing sounds like Trekkies going ballistic because you compared PZ to Mr Spock - who is God.
;-\ (That's supposed to represent Spock with the famous eyebrow raised quizzically BTW)
And you could argue that Trekkies have more reason because we have better evidence for the reality of Star Trek than we do for what's described in the Bible.
Scott Hatfield:
FYI, you have email.
Ironically, it seems like I have to teach you a little theology. Suddenly coming in and beating people up is way outside the bounds of common decency. So why was it the right thing to do? Not because Jesus is Jesus and therefore allowed to do anything. No: because it was a public statement against hypocrisy, which is a good thing.
Um, why is exchange of services in a temple hypocritical? Exploitative, maybe.
I found explanations online connecting the presence of money changers to the commandment in Exodus which requires an offering of exactly half a shekel (exact change, no foreign currency accepted!) The dove sellers also performed a service that templegoers obviously needed. Looks like Jesus is the hypocrite - it's his/Gods commandments that created the market, and then Jesus throws a fit when people are obtaining their scripture-mandated offerings conveniently at the temple! Classic 'not in my back yard' reaction.
windy:
Um, why is exchange of services in a temple hypocritical? Exploitative, maybe.
The practice had become highly exploitive. Keep in mind the "buyers" had travelled from afar at considerable personal expense to offer sacrfices, which sacrifiecs had to be unblemished and were nearly impossible for everyone to "bring from home". So they had to buy sacrifices and they had to pay in Temple coins, which had to first be converted from Roman coins.
The "sellers" were in league with the Temple authorties paying a kickback to be there, and they further were charging the mostly poor people exhorbitant conversion premiums on the coinage and then sold at considerable markup slightly blemished sacrifical animals (which were commensurately low cost to the sellers) and not appreciably different than what the worshippers could have brought themselves or bought more cheaply elsewhere, but the temple priests would only accept animals purchased in the outer court under the excuse other animals were blemished (damaged in transit).
The sellers had a captive audience of poor buyers who were trying to properly worship their God and were being cheated for doing so, all with the complicity of the Temple authorities. Jesus was properly incensed this was happening in His father's house, a house of prayer.
This has been a most exasperating thread, but also the most popular one in my blog's short history. I don't ordinarily get 5 comments per post, much less 50.
However, I don't think this post was either the kind of post that promotes science education, or a dialog between science and people of faith, which are the sort of things that I would like to push in this forum. In fact, this post seems to work against that, offering more heat than light. To the extent that I provoked people unnecessarily, I regret it.
Here we have a nation where science education is in crisis, and a culture war with deep division on topics impinged by religion, and yet most of my traffic the last two days has been driven by this kerfuffle. I sincerely thank the commenters on all sides, but I have to wonder if we are really satisfied with talking past each other.
Elf_Sternberg wrote Their notion of "security" for a movie they're touting so strenuously, so desperately, so publicly is so completely incompetent that I have trouble feeling sorry for them when they get punked by the mischief-makers they seem to attract.
Their incompetence extends to sending their Tempe, AZ, emailing list to John Lynch, an evolutionist and Scienceblogs blogger. They're past incompetent.
Post a Comment