One of the benefits of being a D-list blogger is that I dont get PZ-esque traffic. This means that every once in a while, I can click on my SiteMeter and catch some fun hits-- someone at the NIH, someone living in Figi, its entertaining :P
Its been really fun this past month or so to see all the site hits from Premise Media (LOL! LOSERS!). They started about a month ago, after I posted the 'Inner Life'-Dembski time line. From someone in Vancouver. I happened to be chatting with Peter Irons at the time, and I was like 'Which one of those pieces of shit lives in Vancouver?'
Peter mentioned a name or two, including a computer animator, Mike Edmondson. "Computer animator!" we exclaimed, "Wonder if he is our 'man'?" So Peter dropped Mr. Edmondson a note:
...Mr. Edmondson promptly replied:
2. As part of this employment, you produced, through digital technology in your studio, a segment of the "Expelled" film, purporting to show the operations of cellular mechanisms, particularly the "walking" models of kinesic activities.
3. I have been advised by several specialists in cellular biology that the segment you created copied, virtually without any changes, significant portions of a video entitled "The Inner Life of the Cell," produced by the XVIVO company in Connecticut, under contract to Harvard University.
...
I did not create or have anything to do with the animation in question.So the guy ('the dude', if you will) who is listed at the computer animator for EXPELLED did not make the Frankenstein 'Inner Life'. Well, okay, there is lots of computer stuff to do-- graphics and such, so I believe(d) Edmondson.
Dude appears to be a genuine computer animator, so I believe him. Copy someone elses shit, and you will never work again, plus I assume there is something about honor in art and being original.Nows where things get weird. One month ago when I looked at Edmondsons 'LinkedIn' business site it said:
... employment since August 2007 as "Digital Artist/Animator at Premise Media creating animations for the film Expelled and a five minute animated propositional piece.Here it is now.
One month ago, Edmondsons photo and biography were on the Premise Media web page. Now, this is all the evidence I can find he is (was?) associated with them:
How very, very odd.
I can think of two reasons for Mr. Edmondsons disappearance.
Scenario #1-- Edmondson had nothing to do with EXPELLEDs plagiarism. He did not know the animation in the film was stolen. When he found out from Peter, he found my blog, and emailed Premise-TARDS for an explanation. When the theft was confirmed, Edmondson declared he wanted nothing to do with EXPELLED-- take his name off everything. If there is a stolen computer animation in EXPELLED, and he is listed as the EXPELLED computer animator, he will never work again. Edmondson is an honest guy trying to run his own business and did the right thing.
Scenario #2-- Edmondson is 'the dude.' Premise media, in their frenzy to wipe hard drives and shred notes, is expunging the history of Edmondson from Premise.
If its the former, I urge Mr. Edmondson to contact me or Peter. We can help you.
If its the latter? *flips off Edmondson*
EDITED 6:15 pm-- Edmontons name was removed from Premise/EXPELLED at his request.
*blink*
EDITED 4-13-08-- Edmondson is a cool dude-- His videos online are friggen hysterical. How he got tangled up with EXPELLites we may never know, but lay off ol dude :)
125 comments:
After looking through his company website, I'm leaning toward option #1. He seems to specialize in relatively old-school animation techniques married to digital filming and editing.
His resume does list a stint at Electronic Arts, but as an editor rather than an animator. It's also notable that his resume doesn't claim any experience with 3D rendering and whatnot. Expelled is notably absent as well.
On the other hand, it appears that his site hasn't been changed for a good long while.
Interesting. But even more interesting:
I happened to be chatting with Peter Irons at the time, and I was like 'Which one of those pieces of shit lives in Vancouver?'
Peter mentioned a name or two...
So...does Peter Irons just happen to know who all the employees of Premise Media are, and where they live? Does Peter Irons know all? Is Peter Irons the real intelligent designer, and is he pissed off with the IDists because they are making him (ie, God) look like an idiot?
Hey ERV, keep it coming. I was doing a little research on IMDB today and I found a "Tom Whaley" listed as an animator for Expelled.
Please pass this info along if they don't already know about it.
Also, try the Wayback Machine to search previous website versions. I already tried for the .swf file on Premisemedia.com previously - unfortunately no record of it.
The thing is, as soon as this goes into the theater, if it does anytime soon, we can read it off the trailing credits. Funny thing, though, I bet that if they remove the animation, they won't change the credits, so we can still find out.
Abbie,
You're terrific!!
Abbie the Creationist-Slayer!! It could be a movie some day!
You suggested that Premise is destroying evidence of its copyright infringement. Destroying evidence when a lawsuit is imminent is a felony.
SC
One of the benefits of being a D-list blogger
[...]
I happened to be chatting with Peter Irons at the time [...]
Heh.
How modest.
Execellent job!
(Shirakawasuna)
Evidence!
Google still seems to have a recollection of his connection to Premise Media!
Now, if you check the source of the main page at www.premisemedia.com, you'll see him listed as "Michael Edmondson Animator A Vancouver Film School graduate, Michael has been animating and making films since 1996. His films have played in film festivals across Canada and won awards for directing, editing and sound design. His company, Float On Films offers stop-motion and flash animation services."
So he clearly is connected, but perhaps only in the flash presentations?
His comments wouldn't actually exclude this being the case, so far as I can tell.
So, poor guy! He idley does a search on his name & Premise or Expelled, comes across your blog, and realizes where those sketches they told him to animate came from.... and he realizes his good reputation could be mud through no fault of his own. The DI has left him Exposed. So he starts deleting things... and there goes a chunk of his experience credits.
That's how I imagine it.
Yes, it does look like the guy is legitimate, and didn't realize what was going on. From what I've seen it looks like he's not "the dude," and now has to "lose" the experience he got with Premise. Sucks too, I'm sure he didn't realize what was going on until it was too late.
ERV-
On the review of Expelled from Variety, it shows this:
lead animator, Joseph Condeelis; animation, Light Prods., Out of Our Mind Studios
Where in the world is he?
OK, potentially moonbat theory time. I went and checked out some of Mr. Edmondson's photography. There's some good stuff there. Anyway, I ran into this oddity:
http://tinyurl.com/6oojnx
I thought, hmm, kinda like the "Beware the Believers" thing.
So, I browse on and then find there's about a million pictures of a dog, sometimes two, or maybe even more. But they almost all look like this (with a couple other breeds in there for variety):
http://tinyurl.com/3v9ljd
OK, weird, I think. That looks a hell of a lot like the dog Dick to the Dawk to the Ph.D gives the boot to.
Then, you know, he's unhappily associated with Expelled, does flash and other animation for a living, and he's from Vancouver, and there's a response vid on YouTube which claims to have snared the mysterious randomslice's IP address, which a GeoIP search places in Vancouver. That's here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q2fDVRnCSlM
It's still totally circumstantial, and I'm definitely not sold on it, but it certainly is suggestive and makes Mr. Edmondson a viable randomslice suspect.
ERV-
Check out this web site of the dude listed as lead animator for expelled=
http://www.lightproductionsvideo.com/
I'm sure that David Bolinsky can rest easy now. We are not dealing with just any 3rd rate animator here, this dude has done the video work for not only the Hickory Chair Company, but the Hickory Sportsman's Club as well.
He also does weddings.
This dude Joseph Condeelis was the cinematographer for Privleged Planet, maybe he knows where Dembski found that copy of Inner Life without the credits and copyright info.
It is always possible that whatever Premise Media did with their animation constitutes "fair use" of the Harvard animation.
In which case, all this would be a fuss over nothing.
"It is always possible that whatever Premise Media did with their animation constitutes "fair use" of the Harvard animation."
That would have to be an alternate universe where blatant plagiarism counts as "fair use".
In other words, no, really it isn't.
Hrm...the dog from the link Thomas provided and the dog in the Believers video are identical. Look at the dog's right ear in each.
Looks to me like you're barkin' up the wrong tree. Seems you've found the animator of the infamous randomslice Believers video.
Can't wait to see the flick next week. I'm curious to see if the Believers clip is in it...I'm guessing it will be.
I'm still baffled as to why on earth the pro-Darwin crowd thought the Believers video was anything but poking fun of the establishment.
"I'm still baffled as to why on earth the pro-Darwin crowd thought the Believers video was anything but poking fun of the establishment."
Although that was admittedly very embarrassing to watch, I think a lot of people confused the self-parodying nature of the conspiracy theory behind the video with an attempt to parody creationism. A la Poe's law, it is difficult to tell the difference.
Not similar, it's the same dog. Here's a freeze of the Beware the Believers vid. The way the hair falls over the dog's right ear is identical.
http://tinyurl.com/6locyw
Excellent detective work, Thomas S. Howard!
Anonymous:
It is always possible that whatever Premise Media did with their animation constitutes "fair use" of the Harvard animation.
If they were providing critical commentary on some portion of the animation, then it might be possible to assert fair use. I get the impression that they used it more like how Dembski used it in his talk - to convey information about the workings of the cell. In addition, if they had planned to assert "fair use", why would they have made the knock-off version. If they had a legitimate "fair use" claim, then they could have used (bits of) the original. Making this copy doesn't strengthen their "fair use" claim, as best I understand it.
Kevin Miller (screenwriter for premise media) is from Abbotsford BC....which is just outside Vancouver. It is highly possible his social circle, and the social circle of Michael Edmondson are intertwined.
So - could the rap video be that "propositional piece"? (What is a "propositional piece", anyway?)
the inoculated mind: Funny thing, though, I bet that if they remove the animation, they won't change the credits, so we can still find out.
So you think they wouldn't learn from the episode with Dembski's book?
Apparently, I provided some happiness to FtK. Sorry about that. Unintended consequence.
Doesn't really qualify as collateral damage....
Dislateral reparation? Ye....no..that sucks.
Sorry to be (kind of) off topic, but:
Might I suggest that “someone” (perhaps a group effort) work up a brief flyer to hand out to people going to see Expelled. It should be non-snarky, non-confrontational, with some simple points and web addresses to go to for more information: e.g.
“Intelligent design is not science. It is a political movement, and is in fact anti-science. It can not be tested scientifically, and as a result has not made any contributions to scientific progress or understanding. See talkorigins, etc. for more information”
and of course some clarifications on the false martyrhood of Crocker, Sternberg and Gonzalez
“Crocker taught long discredited, non-scientific ideas in a science classroom as if they were true, and her contract was thus justly not renewed” “Sternberg was never actually employed by the SMithsonian, and did not lose any of his research privileges, despite allowing, while he was the editor, a junk science article to be published in a scientific journal with close ties to the Smithsonian.” “Gonzalez was denied tenure for standard reasons: his publication record trailed off soon after he was hired, he did not secure any significant grant money, he did not produce any graduate students and he conducted very little new research. Assistant professors are denied tenure every day all over the country for these same reasons.”
anyone care to add?
"Apparently, I provided some happiness to FtK. Sorry about that. Unintended consequence."
You don't want me to be happy? I'm crushed! Crushed, I tell you.
Forthekids said...
"You don't want me to be happy? I'm crushed! Crushed, I tell you."
No, no. See, it's not that I don't want you to be happy. It's just that I'd rather not be causally responsible for any of your happiness.
lol....I see.
You keep putting out posts like this and you won't be a 'D' blog for long.
Why, you've even drawn FtK here from places he normally gets kicked in the ass.
Seriously, your work is much appreciated (even if it occasionally draws the fruitcakes).
Mike Edmondson is probably in hiding after catching wind that the PT-mafia is trying to Sternberg him.
It is also interesting that more evolanders are finally starting to see that the Age of the Machine video wasn't quite as flattering as they once thought it was. (Of course, some of the brighter evolanders seemed to figure it out right away.)
It is also interesting that more evolanders are finally starting to see that the Age of the Machine video wasn't quite as flattering as they once thought it was.
It's interesting that creolanders can't see the difference between "I find this funny" and "I find this flattering". The vast majority of 'evolanders' have said the former, not the latter.
hey erv,
love your work. have you thought about setting up an RSS feed?
Gary, dude, I'm a *she*.
I like ready ERV's blog...highly entertaining - like a soap opera.
I haven't noticed any damage she's actually done yet, but I know you remain hopeful.
It is also interesting that more evolanders are finally starting to see that the Age of the Machine video wasn't quite as flattering as they once thought it was. (Of course, some of the brighter evolanders seemed to figure it out right away.)
Ah, little Willy, at least you are consistent, I suppose.
What, exactly, does the intention of the video have to do with whether it was flattering or not? That is surely a matter of opinion and I happen to think that it was fantastic satire, regardless of whether it was intentionally so.
You see, it doesn't change the facts. Scientists are not being thrown out of labs for sympathizing with ID. Richard Dawkins does not consider that all religious people are stupid, and science is not some big robot that crushes all opposition. They are all creationist lies.
So, whether it was meant to satirize the creationist position, or whether it was meant to be an accurate portrayal, is actually irrelevant. The facts turn it in to a parody, regardless.
Of course, in Bizarro world, where everything is twisted 180 degrees and the Flintstones is thought of as a documentary, I suppose that it may be seen as unflattering. There's very little that I can do about that.
The video was brilliant, regardless of the intention of the creators, and it parodied the creationist position quite beautifully, if you ask me, while turning Dickie D and PZ in to phattest lyricists that science has ever seen.
"It's interesting that creolanders can't see the difference between "I find this funny" and "I find this flattering". The vast majority of 'evolanders' have said the former, not the latter."
Please provide your tabulations.
"The video was brilliant, regardless of the intention of the creators, and it parodied the creationist position quite beautifully, if you ask me, while turning Dickie D and PZ in to phattest lyricists that science has ever seen."
More evidence that evolanders see what they want and not what is.
Mr. Wallace, are you seriously arguing that if Edmondson made the "Beware the Believers" video under contract for the Expelled people that this fact alone somehow fundamentally alters the video's effect?
The thing is funny, period. The net effect has been to serve as a general parody of the cre-evo wars and a targeted but not hostile parody of the biologist/atheist "superstars." The allegiances of viewers have tended to color which side they credit it to, but the net opinion seems to be that it's roughly neutral, and damn funny. For every forehead stamped "expelled" and "Big Science Machine" there's a "Stooges of popes" and a "reporting idiocy isn't really squealing." If it was meant to be a devastating smackdown, it failed. It reads more as a roast. As Damian says, it's interesting that you don't see the difference between funny and flattering.
I second the kudos to Mr. Howard for working this out...this sure does seem to strongly suggest Edmondson is the creator. If Edmondson really is distancing himself from Expelled for ethical reasons, and if he was the primary creative input on the parody, then I think the man deserves enormous respect. If I was in the market for something like this, I'd hire him in an instant.
Whatever will those mischievious miscreants at Premise Media do next?
I can hardly believe you dopes haven't figured out you're being led around like a flock of dodos following trails of breadcrumbs.
ROFLMAO!
Yeah, Davescot, just like that Dover-trap you geniuses sprang on us. How did that work out for y'all again?
If Edmondson made the "Beware the Believers" video for Premise Media and is now regretting his connection with them, I hope he will in future use his powers for good and not for evil.
Droppings from Cloudcuckooland:
More evidence that evolanders see what they want and not what is.
Little Willie, from the start, most of the people who found that video enjoyable also expressed that idea that it was not friendly. They just found it funny and catchy. All you need to do is check out the comments left at Youtube, Pharyngula or Dawkins' site.
It is the height of comedy what you said though. Your perspective is so twisted, you can look straight ahead and see your own ass.
(Please tell me I am suffering a mental breakdown for using the word "ass". It makes me smile.)
re; Dover
That's SO 2005
zzzzzzzzzzzzzzz......
DaveScot,
Yeah, yeah, we are well aware of your forecasting abilities. Unless Judge Jones wants to cut his career off at the knees he isn’t going to rule against the wishes of his political allies.
Droppings from Cloudcuckooland:
re; Dover
That's SO 2005
zzzzzzzzzzzzzzz......
Please ignore my past mistakes. This for sure I got it right.
Wait a second, if it is not right to use your past against you, it is also time to shut up about Darwin, Are you able to do so. The theory of evolution can get along fine with out Darwin. Can your arguments against evolution go on with out that straw man.
That is so 1859.
@ T. S. Howard: In your poking around @ Edmondson's photography, did you get any clues to who's in the audience 18 seconds in? I still wonder whose faces those are.
"That's SO 2005"
Therein lies the hilarity you get with creationists. Short-term memory makes them think they are making headway even though reality is very different. I suppose anything longer than 'goddidit' is too taxing to remember?
Clearly the Davester wants us to believe that the ID forces have created an elaborate plan to humiliate those of us with the capacity for critical thinking.
They'll spring their trap on April 18, ushering in a new era where ID is science and gravity is the strongest force in the universe.
I can hardly believe you dopes haven't figured out you're being led around like a flock of dodos following trails of breadcrumbs.
"We stopped our car on the railroad tracks on purpose!"
So...does Peter Irons just happen to know who all the employees of Premise Media are, and where they live?...
He sees you when you're sleeping. He knows when you're awake...
The video's effect was buzz. It was probably its purpose as well. My guess is that Edmonson is distancing himself as bait (per DaveScot), or out of fear of being Sternberged.
mmmmmmmm..... bacon and cheese Sternburgers..... *drool*
"bacon and cheese Sternburgers"
Be careful Abbie - I've heard that 'Sternburgers' are copyrighted by Goddidit Inc and the 'bacon and cheese' flavour would obviously be seen as a derivative work!!
I think there is something in Leviticus about not mixing Bacon and cheese.
Looks like Mike has folded up his website: http://www.floatonfilms.com
Congratulations ERV, assuming this is what you were after.
Abbie, are you cravin bacon?
Little Willie, what you are calling persecution, rational people call a correction in procedure.
There'll be blue words over
The verdict at Dover
From Davescot
Just you wait and see...
Droppings from Cloudcuckooland:
Congratulations ERV, assuming this is what you were after.
Hey Abbie, speaking as a lesbian, which gives me the power to destroy civilization, welcome to the power abusing club.
ERV-
I thought you were a vegetarian
"I thought you were a vegetarian"
That would explain why she's so good at taking down creationists - they have no brains either.
Getting "Sternberged" as in keeping you job and benefits after you have done wrong?
Hey Ftk how many times does Dembski, Behe, Dave, Mark Mathis and all the DI crowd have to lie before you get a clue.
The inherint humour in all this is that these guys don't even bother trying anymore
I think being Sternberged means going from being a third-rate scientist in a clerical position at NIH with a hobby of indulging, and possibly sharing, Creationists' fantasies, to being wined and dined by Fox news and Coral Ridge Ministries, flown around by the DI, giving lectures to fundies and interviews for hefty fees, and possibly getting a do-nothing job for life at some Christian college. Not a bad deal if you're into that kind of stuff.
"I think there is something in Leviticus about not mixing Bacon and cheese."
ROTFLMAO
"Hey Ftk how many times does Dembski, Behe, Dave, Mark Mathis and all the DI crowd have to lie before you get a clue."
Funny, I guess I've missed the "lies". Seems to me that the last guy who was caught red faced "lying" was Dick to the Dock at the Expelled sneak peak. Seems he’s been spreading some crazy ones lately. Though his lies don't seem to bother any of you in the least.
Look, like Dave said, you people are playing right into the hands of the Expelled producers. Bitch and holler all you like, that movie is going to be released in less than a week and thanks to you guys, people are curious as hell about it. I’m guessing they’re going to have a fair turnout opening weekend.
Something else I think you’re missing is that most Americans don’t reject design, and when they get a load of the kind of stuff I read at your blogs on a daily basis, they’re going to start asking more questions about what is going on in academia today. I think you’re forgetting that most of the bloggers and readers of the scienceblog sites you all like to hang out at are primarily composed of hard core atheists and strong agnostics. You tell each other hard great you are and how stupid everyone else is, but that kind of attitude is going to come back to haunt you. Big time. And, the strong atheist bent on so many of your posts and comments is also going to bite you in the butt.
But, then again, perhaps I’m all wrong....time will tell.
"Seems to me that the last guy who was caught red faced "lying" was Dick to the Dock at the Expelled sneak peak. Seems he’s been spreading some crazy ones lately. Though his lies don't seem to bother any of you in the least."
Such as?
Funny, I guess I've missed the "lies". Seems to me that the last guy who was caught red faced "lying" was Dick to the Dock at the Expelled sneak peak. Seems he’s been spreading some crazy ones lately. Though his lies don't seem to bother any of you in the least.
Can you be a bit more specific, FtK? What did Dawkins lie about? It's a pretty strong accusation. Do tell us.
Droppings from Cloudcuckooland:
Seems to me that the last guy who was caught red faced "lying" was Dick to the Dock at the Expelled sneak peak.
How many times does this need to be repeated. The invitations were open access. As for Dawkins signing in with his first name while using his middle name, that is hardly deception. Plenty of people go by their middle name while they sign with their first. My mother does this.
But because we are talking about honesty here, I want you to point out how Darwin was embraced by the Nazi? I have read many books about that regime, Darwin is never a major subject.
So, FtK, are histoians like Ian Kershaw covering up this connection for the sake of evolutionary biologists. And please, do not say "Only the strong survive." That is Herbert Spencer and he came up with that before Darwin published his book.
Something else I think you’re missing is that most Americans don’t reject design
Hey, Europeans don't reject design either, if it's about furniture. Keep design in IKEA and other places where it's useful, unlike in science.
Ftk,
Well we have Mathis (through Stein) saying that Sternberg was fired when he wasn't. Mathis saying the Hitler was an atheist when he wasn't. We have Mathis lying about PZs expulsion. We have Mathis lying about the movie originally (So that the scientists did not get a chance to discuss ID). Shall we continue, I know you know most of them because of your time at ATBC.
No no no...you're forgetting, they're not lies when they're for Jesus!
But registering in an open-access system? TOTALLY lying. Especially when a group of fools meant the system to be closed, but, well...kinda forgot to do any actual closing.
"Keep design in IKEA and other places where it's useful, unlike in science."
*Shakes head*
Windy,
Care to restate that? Perhaps the other supposed scientists here can correct Windy.
"The invitations were open access."
Janine,
First, it was an "RSVP" system, not an invitation system. Second, it was a private screening at the MOA. Third, it was unprotected, not open access; it was no more open access than when I leave my house unlocked.
Little Willie, it was open access. But you have to maintain the evolutionists are thugs and have only the worst intentions for the likes of you.
Believe it or not, the only thing I want is to be little you.
Perhaps your allies better learn how to use their websites in order to keep events like this from happening again.
Dumbass.
Care to restate that? Perhaps the other supposed scientists here can correct Windy.
What! Surely you don't deny that IKEA produces useful designs!
(PS: how do you propose to "correct" a play on words? LOL.)
That anonymous comment was mine, sorry.
ForTheLies whined: You tell each other hard great you are and how stupid everyone else is, but that kind of attitude is going to come back to haunt you.
The best way to avoid being called stupid is to refrain from saying stupid things. (Like the above. What does "hard great" mean?) It's simple: don't like being called stupid -> stop acting stupid.
The point is, absolutely everything you've had to say on this subject has been 180 degrees in opposition to facts on record, while, in full-on projection mode, you accuse the people who are and have been truthful about things all along, like Dawkins, of being liars.
Case in point: PZ Myers signed up to attend the screening the same way anyone else who wanted to go signed up: by filling out the form on the website. The form allowed attendees to bring a guest (without requiring that guest be named), so PZ signed up a guest and invited Dawkins. This is all on record.
PZ was ejected because Mark Mathis does not want anyone attending Expelled screenings who is a knowledgeable scientist who can refute its claims. The whole "gatecrashing" story was a desperate spin control campaign put forth after the embarrassing fiasco involving PZ's expulsion from the screening, and Mathis's laughable incompetence in failing to recognize Dawkins in line with him.
In short, no "gatecrashing" occurred, and in fact, a pattern of "expelling" other scientists from screenings is also a matter of public record. For example, Scienceblogger John Lynch, who also followed all the instructions on the Expelled website to sign up, was sent an email telling him the April 3 screening had been cancelled...when it fact, it was not. The producers simply lied to him to keep any legitimate scientists from attending.
So the public record clearly shows: it's been Expelled and its producers, promoters, and supporters who have been lying habitually and pathologically about the whole business virtually every time they get the chance. The actual scientists — Dawkins, Myers, Lynch — have been assiduously truthful. Those are just the facts. Whine all you like, but they are.
And you know they are, which is why you do such morally bankrupt things as accusing Dawkins of "spreading some crazy ones," and then run and hide under your desk when asked to back that up. You can't and you know it, but since the only way to defend your ideological edifice is to lie with every breath, you basically have to do it, as if by reflex.
As long as you keep up such egregious behavior, expect to be treated without respect here. You have only yourself to blame. As for the arrogant attitude you think we all have, well, it's past time you grew up and stopped being such a cry baby. We call 'em like we see 'em, and if you can't take the honesty, then the sad fact is that, where adult traits like ethics, responsibility and integrity are concerned, you've failed to launch. By embracing religion as a substitute for assuming the ethics and responsibilities of adulthood, you're left morally adrift and intellectually crippled, your only defense an increasingly shrill retreat into anger, indignation, and "same to you but more of it" every time your considerable character flaws are exposed.
I don't think you're "stupid," actually. It's just that like so many religious fundamentalists, you're so enslaved to and blinded by your religious ideology that, in classic Orwellian fashion, black becomes white, war becomes peace, and freedom becomes slavery in your worldview. Whatever is a scientific fact pertaining to evolutionary biology will be branded a lie by you, and whatever is a bald-faced lie from anti-science religious extremists will be embraced as a courageous truth. You've simply been brainwashed to the point where reality and fantasy are not really discernible to you, and truths are things you judge solely by the degree to which they prop up your religious beliefs. (The fact that that you will almost certainly respond to this by projecting back upon me all of these points I have described regarding you, as demonstrated by your actual writings here, will merely prove my point.)
You have my sympathies, you really do. A mind is a terrible thing to waste, as the saying goes, and it seems yours never had a chance.
If I may add, in response to the inevitable objections:
Expelled's people sent invitational emails, but made no effort to keep registration closed in ANY way, even verbally. They simply (idiotically) assumed that, when their efforts to control the audiences had already become a prominent issue, the only registrants would be the ones who were emailed. They also idiotically assumed that the only people who would get invitation emails would be allies, when plenty of us Evilutionists had already signed up for their mailing lists. But most amusing of all, visitors to open, unsecured Expelled websites could find the registration all by themselves, complete with an invitation to use it.
I know it galls you that your friends weren't able to expel your enemies this time because of their own stupidity, but please, don't take it out on us.
Physicalist said: "@ T. S. Howard: In your poking around @ Edmondson's photography, did you get any clues to who's in the audience 18 seconds in? I still wonder whose faces those are."
Not really. A couple people here and there kinda, and I stress, kinda, look like a few of the audience, but that's about it. Nothing like the numerous dog photos. There are however, some cool shots of cephalopods and other critters at various aquariums and beaches. And flowers. Lots of flowers, often macro shots. He seems to be something of an amateur botanist.
Well my obvious internet crush has now sucked in my wife. Now you have two members of the BigDumbChimp family with ERV crushes. I'll work on Sullivan the lab and Bandit the Huskey next.
I give you "Five Stars" for this blog's recent efforts!
Maybe if the 'Expelled' movie needs a bit of filler footage, they could quickly interview me [a very tiny cog in Big Science - albeit one that blogger John Wilkins can vouch has addressed a World Genetics Congress...] on how evolution of vertebrate immunty is reflected in the genome so that Stein can mock me going "Buhler?? ... Buhler!!!"
He really should have that line in this movie, don't ya think?)
You *sooooo* own their bases!
One of the benefits of being a D-list blogger
You will always be a C-list to me!
If you ever want to complain about being a D-List blogger or anything like that, just compare yourself to me and you'll feel immeasurably better. I'm not even in the fucking alpha-numerics for chrissakes, at best I'm a #-list blogger. Maybe a !-list blogger on a day where I get Pharyngulated.
Poor delusional creationists.
Has it occurred to none of them that fascist Nazi Germany represented a right-wing, totalitarian state?
Not exactly the liberal "church of Darwin" about which Ann Coulter rants.
It's going to be fun to watch Expelled! open on Friday to a withering fire of public criticism as guaranteed by our First Amendment right of free speech. No hand-picked audiences where critics have been expelled.
Yes, let's teach the controversy by all means. I just hope that Sternberg, Crocker, Gonzalez and all the other "martyrs" can get time off from their jobs to see the film.
Funny, I guess I've missed the "lies". Seems to me that the last guy who was caught red faced "lying" was Dick to the Dock at the Expelled sneak peak. Seems he’s been spreading some crazy ones lately. Though his lies don't seem to bother any of you in the least.
Lies?
Let's just run through what happened.
Like a lot of others, PZ got an email inviting him to go to a website where he could put his name down to attend a private screening of Expelled.
The invitation allowed him to bring some guests.
The guests did not have to be named.
PZ signed up quite openly under his own name.
He went along on the day of the screening with members of his family and guests who included Richard Dawkins.
PZ was pulled out of line and ordered to leave by a security guard apparently on the orders of Mark Mathis.
The remainder of his party were allowed into the theater.
Richard Dawkins had his passport out, ready to show it if asked, but was waved on through.
No lies. No deception. No gatecrashing.
Just some people left with richly-deserved egg on their faces.
The only liars here are followers of a faith which has a specific commandment against lying.
Personally, I am finding it a bit freaky the extent to which people are trying to dig out and expose details of an individual. And a bit ashamed of myself for reading it all so obsessively.
The Youtube video was the worst, with trap in the email.
On the other hand... Kudos to Mike, or whoever else did "Beware the Believers". It was very clever piece of work and I remain lost in admiration. Also, as parody of a number of clearly identified individuals, the video producer can't really in fairness demand anonymity. Whoever produced it should really have come out and identified themselves at the same time; most people are going to be complimentary.
But for others here... I recommend going easy on trying to hunt up and publish information about individuals. It doesn't look all that good, particularly in the context of the Expelled movie with its theme of persecution.
(Shirakawasuna)
Sorry for the parentheses, I'm trying to figure out how to get it to display my nick and not my first name...
Wow, this thread is huuuuge now!
It's amazing how little research people like FtK and WW are willing to do. They try so hard to cover up their ignorance with condescension and arrogance ;).
Here's what you got when you signed up for their screenings. It's essentially open access with a supposed list at the door, *assuming* we believe what they say. At this point, that's a pretty stupid assumption, but we can definitely hold it against them.
So, see where it doesn't say, 'wait for another email while we screen you!' or 'please RSVP' and instead informs you that your request has been confirmed, you won't need a ticket, your name will be checked at the door? That would be the important part to take with you and attempt to mesh with the lies you've gotten from Mathis. Do a good job, I love the rationalizations!
FTK rants:
"I haven't noticed any damage she's actually done yet, but I know you remain hopeful."
Not that you would notice. Too bad that exposing the lies and dishonesty of your heroes has no efect on you.
A rational, intelligent person might, maybe, look for new heroes...
Hey - did you know that slimy Sally thinks that Jesus might have been a XX male?
And even manly [sic] Dave Springer makes an appearance!
Wow - all the sleaze is oozing out of the woodwork.
As far as being led around, well, Davey 'extreme mesomorph built like a pee-wee football linebacker afraid to meet face-to-face with a professional clown' Springer, none of us are gullible enough to think that ID is a viable scientific alternative to anything.
Slink back to fellating Billy 'Ted Haggard of information theory' Dembski.
FtK seems to have a short memory re lies by creationists. I could point her to a thread at AtBC where Reciprocating Bill led her patiently through a series of posts documenting how Behe lied UNDER OATH about his knowledge in regard to the evolution of the immune system. And that's just one example where the lies of creationists have been plainly made visible to her; plenty of other examples could be provided as well. But no matter. Lies are OK if the people being lied to are just atheists and materialists, right?
And you gotta love this statement from FortTopeKa - But, then again, perhaps I’m all wrong....time will tell.
Time will indeed tell, but I'll bet you a bottle of single-malt scotch that she will never figure it out, or admit it.
Duae Quartunciae said...:
"But for others here... I recommend going easy on trying to hunt up and publish information about individuals. It doesn't look all that good, particularly in the context of the Expelled movie with its theme of persecution."
OK, as one of those others, I'll explain how I came up with the notion that "Beware" was possibly Edmondson's work. Couple clarifications first:
1. I still don't consider it "proven" that he is, but am now inclined to think it quite likely
2. I wasn't actually trying to "hunt" anything or expose the guy, if you want to label it as such. I was just looking at some guy's photo blog.
Anyway, I read ERV's stuff fairly often, and I'm interested in the whole Expelled/XVIVO deal, so this entry caught my eye. She posted a link to Edmondson's LinkedIn page, which has links to his business site and his photo blog. I perused the former, offered a comment on what I'd read there, and then out of idle curiosity, checked out his photo blog. He's a pretty good photographer, so I kept looking, and saw this image :
http://tinyurl.com/6oojnx
(What's strange is, I just went back to check if I was remembering it right that the pic was on the front page only to find he's now removed the image. It was on the blog's front page, but now all that's left is the quondam entry's subject line. You can still access it directly with the URL I posted, however.)
So, I had just recently re-watched "Beware the Believers", because it's still fucking funny as hell, and in the little "Related" sidebar was "randomslice exposed". Again, curiosity won, and I watched it. At the time, I thought it was a bit silly, mainly because of who it pointed the finger at, but also because it's way too long for the amount of info it actually contains and, well, boring. In fact, it still is.
Right. So, umm, back to me looking at the image above a couple days later, at which time it struck me as similar to "Beware". Then, continuing to browse for browsing's sake, I found a bunch of dog photos of what looked to be that dog. There actually was a dog pic on the front page with the weird flash animation thing, but I didn't even notice it until I went back to get a URL.
Anway, I then remembered the "randomslice exposed" thing tracing the IP back to Vancouver.
And, since I had only ended up at the photo blog
because of this post of ERV's about what the flash-and-other-animation-forms-literate Edmondson's involvement with Expelled was, and which also mentioned that he lived in Vancouver...well, you know, not exactly rocket surgery to figure out he might be the guy.
No persecution required, or actually, effort. It really was just a case of seeing the dog and thinking "Hey, wait a minute..."
So, yeah.
If any of you intellectually damaged peons ever work up the nerve to break free from the flock of indoctrinated sheep known as Darwinists, you're welcome to join the brilliant minds at Uncommon Descent. We don't sit around and make up stories about fictitious fossil records all day, we're actually out there searching for the truth, learning and discovering things so far advanced from Darwinism that it's a crime you people are even considered scientists.
Anyways, it's just a friendly invite. If the idea of opening your prejudiced minds scares you, then it's alright if you decline.
Theory of Evolution
1859-2008
R.I.P.
And for the record, the cell animation has been discussed thoroughly over at Uncommon Descent. It's been verified that XVIVO has absolutely no case against Expelled, and that Expelled was actually playing with them for additional exposure. That's why Bolinsky scampered off with his tail tucked firmly between his legs.
If any of you intellectually damaged peons ever work up the nerve to break free from the flock of indoctrinated sheep known as Darwinists, you're welcome to join the brilliant minds at Uncommon Descent. We don't sit around and make up stories about fictitious fossil records all day, we're actually out there searching for the truth, learning and discovering things so far advanced from Darwinism that it's a crime you people are even considered scientists.
Anyways, it's just a friendly invite. If the idea of opening your prejudiced minds scares you, then it's alright if you decline.
Bwahahahaha! More of us, intellectually damaged peons, have been banned at the echo chamber known as UD than there are current members there.
And your research has apparently gone so well that the one and only ID journal PCID published its last issues three years ago.
You're a hell of a comedian, whoever you are.
The UD shill sounds a bit like the always incoherent Keith E.
And I had no idea that UD discussions constituted legally binding judgment.
"..you're welcome to join the brilliant minds at Uncommon Descent."
Brilliant minds like Dumbski who has his work slapped down by a court and responds with a farting parody of the judge? Very smart.
"Where in the World is Mike Edmondson?"
Maybe he's hiding with all the transitional fossils?
That would explain why you Darwinists can't seem to find him.
God I'm brilliant.
From Sean P. Means of The Salt Lake Tribune:
Every semi-knowledgeable moviegoer and reader of movie criticism knows what the words "not screened for critics" means: The movie is a dog.
"Not screened for critics" means a movie is so terrible that the studio will take its chances, deprive itself of free publicity, and go without release-date reviews. Considering the garbage the studios will show us critics ahead of time (such as the gruesomely lurid "Street Kings" or the laughably stupid "10,000 B.C."), to keep a movie away from critics is usually a sign that things are really, really bad.
Maybe he's hiding with all the transitional fossils?
So you think he's hiding in one of the many natural history museums around the globe?
"So you think he's hiding in one of the many natural history museums around the globe?"
This really is turning into a game of Carmen Sandiego...
If any of you intellectually damaged peons ever work up the nerve to break free from the flock of indoctrinated sheep known as Darwinists, you're welcome to join the brilliant minds at Uncommon Descent.
Welcome? Yeah, right.
I tried posting there for a while, until my posts suddenly stopped appearing.
The only people welcome there are jarheads, crackpot Canadians and Dembskophants.
As for "brilliant minds at Uncommon Descent" like Ghandi said about Western civilization "It would be a good idea."
We don't sit around and make up stories about fictitious fossil records all day,...
Actually, that's exactly what you do - when you're not smelling each other's navel lint and scratching each other's egos.
...we're actually out there searching for the truth...
Oh, you're out there alright.
...learning and discovering things so far advanced from Darwinism that it's a crime you people are even considered scientists.
One thing. Name just one thing you've discovered that isn't a figment of your own imaginations.
Anyways, it's just a friendly invite.
Oh, yeah, real friendly! Toe the party line or Dave 'Jarhead' Springer tosses you out on your ear.
Theory of Evolution
1859-2008
R.I.P.
In your dreams!
Dover! Dover! Dover!
"So you think he's hiding in one of the many natural history museums around the globe?"
Indeed, the ignorance of Darwinists is ever abounding to the glory of Saint Charles.
Transitionals? In museums? No but you're joking right?
Read Gould. Or any other honest paleontologist. Why do you think Gould had to come up with punctuated equilibria to save his atheist views from disaster?
There are only nicely lined up skulls and quaint diagrams invented by assuming the theory to be true and then speculating on why one fossil ought to be viewed as transitional. "Shove those bones into our theory somehow!" Yes, "life will find a way"
----------
And "...(a group effort) work up a brief flyer to hand out to people going to see Expelled"
Yes do so please! And don't forget to wear your "Darwin loves you" duds with cute little hats and timbrels.
You could sing hymns to the saint - chanting "There is no God and Dick Dawkins is his prophet". Or maybe chant Francis Cricks famous "Biologists must constantly keep in mind that what they see was not designed, but rather evolved."
Gee, I wonder why he said that.
You could even get your Darwin groupies to sing,
"By faith we believe the transitionals will be found
By faith believers will continue to abound
Frogs to princes we believe
Evolve from kisses we conceive
From mud to rabbits, plants and bugs
To lizards birds and Darwin thugs...
For we know that 'no design is science while actual design is an untestable religious appeal to the supernatural'."
Darwinists need to consider the words of Sir Fred Hoyle:
"So it came about from 1860 onward that new believers became in a sense mentally ill, or, more precisely, either you became mentally ill or you quitted the subject of biology, as I had done in my early teens. The trouble for young biologists was that, with everyone around them ill, it became impossible for them to think they were well unless they were ill, which again is a situation you can read all about in the columns of Nature." (Hoyle, F., "Mathematics of Evolution," [1987], Acorn Enterprises: Memphis TN, 1999, pp.3-4).
"Transitionals? In museums? No but you're joking right?"
Nope. Here are a couple of striking examples available online
"Read Gould. Or any other honest paleontologist. Why do you think Gould had to come up with punctuated equilibria to save his atheist views from disaster?"
Yawn.
hitch,
If archaeopteryx and tiktaalik are not transitional fossils, then I don't know what is. What do you expect to see? A centaur?
As to Hoyle, he wasn't exactly an expert in biology. He was an astrophysicist, and a highly opinionated one. He didn't believe in the big bang, either. That doesn't mean squat these days: an expanding universe is a fact of life.
And the LORD of Tubes did say unto them:
Feedest thou not the troll
http://tiny.cc/yIfOk
Myspace animation by Mr Edmonson, might be of interest. It features a cat that looks a little like Dog, or is that doG?
Wowsie.... Some UD douchebag demonstrates how completely gullible and ignorant the lackwits who think ID is scientifically viable really are....
Probably one of Davey 'I'm ascared of a clown' Springer's "boys"...
http://uk.youtube.com/user/floatonfilms
Here is "Float on Film"'s youtube page, it has several 'favourites' 4 of which are "Dick to the Dawk" with a further one about it.
Good job, Mod, that's a pretty good piece of evidence. What are the chances...
@DMSO
With regard to this:
“Gonzalez was denied tenure for standard reasons: his publication record trailed off soon after he was hired,"
Gonzalez is a first-rate scientist who had about 70 peer-reviewed publications by the time of his tenure-review, far more than needed for getting tenure (certainly more than the Darwinist idol PZ "steel toes" Myers).
And, when you go from being a post-doctoral researcher to being an assistant professor (which involves teaching, student adevising, and administrative work as well as research) then your research will trail off. This is normal and expected, and citing it is merely an act of desperation by people who want to deny jobs to pro-ID scientists.
"...he did not secure any significant grant money,"
What are you talking about? He got a Templeton Grant, and those are pretty significant. And since when was getting grant money a requirement for tenure at Iowa State, anyway?
" he did not produce any graduate students and he conducted very little new research."
He was at Iowa State for six years, and the typical Phd. takes about seven years these days. This is unsurprising, and has nothing to do with tenure review.
"Assistant professors are denied tenure every day all over the country for these same reasons.”
They are denied tenure for affiliation with ID...that is true.
You could sing hymns to the saint - chanting "There is no God and Dick Dawkins is his prophet".
Don't be silly. We'll have no false prophets here, thank you very much.
Hi Thomas... in reply to your comment posted 9:17am: I don't think Mike has cause for complaint, assuming that he did produce "Beware the Believers". It's a bit cheap to make a parody lampooning individuals in the public eye while remaining anonymous oneself. It would be better to step forward and take the credit.
I'm glad ERV is in touch, and supportive. I don't think any harm has been done. I've been looking around also, and found some more smoking guns for myself, which have since been listed in the comment stream here by others.
I am just a bit queasy about publishing what is found out online; and recommend a little caution, that's all. I really encourage Mike to speak up for himself!
It would be better to step forward and take the credit.
I don't think the animator should be embarrassed at all.
I can't say the same for the people who commissioned it.
I am assuming that it was commissioned. I wonder how much they paid for it.
They are denied tenure for affiliation with ID...that is true.
Big Gadget, this is Little Tool. We've got ourselves a situation.
Anonymous wrote:
“Gonzalez was denied tenure for standard reasons: his publication record trailed off soon after he was hired,"
Gonzalez is a first-rate scientist who had about 70 peer-reviewed publications by the time of his tenure-review, far more than needed for getting tenure
What he did as a postdoc is what got him the job. But once he got the job, the onus on him was to perform. So what he did before was irrelevant.
(certainly more than the Darwinist idol PZ "steel toes" Myers).
If he wanted to get a job at a small regional university, Gonzalez's publication record might have been adequate. (Of course, he would be judged on his teaching and service achievements).
And, when you go from being a post-doctoral researcher to being an assistant professor (which involves teaching, student adevising,[sic] and administrative work as well as research) then your research will trail off. This is normal and expected, and citing it is merely an act of desperation by people who want to deny jobs to pro-ID scientists.
Trail off? Not really, not to the extent that his did. Not at a research university.
"...he did not secure any significant grant money,"
What are you talking about? He got a Templeton Grant, and those are pretty significant. And since when was getting grant money a requirement for tenure at Iowa State, anyway?
He said significant. He got a little money to write a book. He didn't get money for telescope time, which meant that he couldn't do any significant research.
Getting grant money is a expectation at a research university. While in some fields you can get by with little grant money, that isn't true in astronomy.
" he did not produce any graduate students and he conducted very little new research."
He was at Iowa State for six years, and the typical Phd. takes about seven years these days. This is unsurprising, and has nothing to do with tenure review.
Again, it takes money to support graduate students. To say that six years isn't enough time to finish would be meaningful if he had a host of graduate students well on their way to graduation. But he didn't, did he? If you don't have money to support them, there's no way for them to ever graduate.
Gonzalez is a first-rate scientist who had about 70 peer-reviewed publications by the time of his tenure-review, far more than needed for getting tenure (certainly more than the Darwinist idol PZ "steel toes" Myers).
I followed Gonzalez's case pretty closely and discussed it with astronomers in my own department who had known him for a while. Gonzalez had a pretty good record as a postdoc at the University of Washington. As an assistant professor, he didn't do so well.
And, when you go from being a post-doctoral researcher to being an assistant professor (which involves teaching, student adevising, and administrative work as well as research) then your research will trail off. This is normal and expected, and citing it is merely an act of desperation by people who want to deny jobs to pro-ID scientists.
This is only partly true: your research productivity suffers in the first two-three years because you are building a lab and getting your graduate students up to speed. But by your 6th year your students should be busily working and you should be writing papers. I have been a junior faculty member for 6 years and I publish twice as many papers as in my postdoc years.
"...he did not secure any significant grant money,"
What are you talking about? He got a Templeton Grant, and those are pretty significant. And since when was getting grant money a requirement for tenure at Iowa State, anyway?
The Templeton grant was worth $58K, a sum that can sustain you for one year (one month summer salary plus a grad student). As an observational astronomer, Gonzalez needed much more than that. And yes, Gonzalez's colleagues do have grants from places like the NSF and DOE: Iowa State Physics and Astronomy is a pretty strong department research-wise.
" he did not produce any graduate students and he conducted very little new research."
He was at Iowa State for six years, and the typical Phd. takes about seven years these days. This is unsurprising, and has nothing to do with tenure review.
It's true that it typically takes 6-7 years to get a Ph. D. However, the first couple of years are spent taking classes and working as a teaching assistant. Research begins usually in the third year and it takes 4-5 years from there to get a Ph. D. That means that Gonzalez had ample time to graduate one or two students. At any rate, your graduate students are supposed to be getting published at that stage. Was that the case?
"Read Gould."
--- Yes, that would be a good idea for anyone without the desire to be laughed at by educated people. I await someone touting Gould to have actually read his works for comprehension, as it's just so stupidly obvious that he's talking about speciation (and thus transitions during speciation events). PE is not a 'rescue' from a lack of anything, either. It was based on positive fossil evidence showing statis between speciation. Again, silly creationists would know this if they were to read him for comprehension.
Expelled is blowing the cover on the lies and prejudice that have polluted science for decades now. The juvenile attitudes of people like Richard Dawkins and Eugenie Scott are embarrassing to anyone with a sense of decency, but not to their obedient followers.
This is science folks. It's about learning, discovering, and finding the truth, even if that truth is clearly leading towards your worst nightmare (God). Instead, these juvenile delinquents trapped inside 50-something year old's bodies have turned it into a high school-like atmosphere full of childish insults and "cliques". Pathetic.
If there was the overwhelming amount of evidence for evolution that the flock insist there is, there wouldn't be so much dissent. Dissent from non-religious, unbiased, aganeda-less scientists like Paul Davies. Common sense tells us where there's smoke, there's fire. And thankfully Expelled has finally addressed this situation.
And on a side note, the only theory of Evolution that makes an ounce of sense is Mike Gene's theory of front-loaded evolution. I suggest you all educate yourself by reading The Design Matrix. If you have an open-mind (doubtful) it will blow you away.
Shorter Dr. Jammer: I have become convinced that Expelled is the third testament.
It seems to me that more than anything else, this video from the Expelled people does nothing more than to demonstrate clearly that the people behind it know NOTHING about science.
If William Dembski is correct, and, as posted on uncommondescent, " I expect that the producers made their video close enough to the Harvard video to get tongues awagging but different enough so that they are unexposed"
then that's pretty damning of their scientific literacy.
It seems logical enough: they have a video of the insides of a cell; we'll make one too, and we'll make it really similar, so that it causes a furor, but in fact we know that the insides of a cell can't be copyrighted, and we'll be fine.
That's all well and good if they were making a video about the physics behind squeezing toothpaste out of a tube; one video will look much like the other, and even if they look REALLY similar, it's pretty much because toothpaste is always going to look like that when coming out of a tube.
But the interior of a cell is different. As pointed out by Bolinsky, the amount of effort into that video was HUGE: many many people were involved, and consulted, and hundreds of major decisions had to be made about what was left in, what was left out, and how certain things would be visualised and brought to life. It took months and months. A cell doesn't "look like that" inside, it is one group of artists' and scientists' choices and artistic decisions that have created that particular view to demonstrate certain aspects of it.
The ID people seem to have just thought "oh, that's what a cell looks like, everyone knows that, so if we make one that looks the same, we can hardly be infriging upon something people have created. It's a cell. Let them whinge."
They would have thought that because they actually have no-idea of the science behind it, and I really hope they will be caught out on it.
You can see them on the uncommondescent blog going on about how "a cell isn't copyright", in which case they're seriously missing the whole point, and indeed displaying masses of ignorance.
Althought their questions about the copyright ownership seems valid enough: is it XVIVO or Harvard that should be doing the litigation?
This is science folks.
Really? Show it to me.
Note to self: Do not piss off Martin Wagner... ever. Just... don't!
(BTW: well said, sir!)
--Raynfala
Dr. Jammer,
If Expelled really was "blowing the cover on the lies" and whatnot, why is it based entirely on lies, misinformation, and morally reprehensible actions?
I've yet to see a part of the movie that doesn't include at least one of the above. Does the fact that this is a pseudo-science movie trying to push your dogma as a scientific fact make it suddenly ok to break the commandments given to you? How about the various teachings of Christ?
I have nothing against creationists and ID people that can speak and reason rationally, but the fanatics that basically break every tenet of their faith just to make some BS argument against proven science disgust me and all the truly religious people I know. Do us all a favor and quit the fanaticism. The lying, cheating, stealing, etc that it seems to mandate you do does nothing to help anyone. Get out there and do some real science, with real facts if you want to combat Evolution, don't bother with these half-assed videos that receive brainless props from you addle-brained fanatics.
@ Dr. Jammer:
No science isn't about dogma and truth, it is about verifiable knowledge and observable facts.
Perhaps you don't see the humor in protesting about dissent as creationists want to pound "the controversy", but scientific discourse happens when a field is dynamic as biology is on evolutionary mechanisms. There is no "dissent" on the observable fact of evolution however, as your own example shows.
And I assume you also don't see the humor in promoting Expelled that attempts to criticize evolution, while at the same time promote some pseudoscientific drivel on evolution as driven by frontloading. If it is science you would present a mechanism and make some predictions. But you don't.
I'm sure others have done this before, but I'll add my voice to the many.
I'd like to call out to all the ID/creationist people out there who feel like they've been wronged and unable to present their science, I'd like you to present your science that has been suppressed. I'd like to see your researched facts and predictions based on those facts. I want to see some real world example of actual science done by one of you that isn't just "goddidit" crap hidden in a bunch of fancy words.
Since there's been some people from uncommon dissent posting here, I'm sure that this won't be hard to do if any real ID science exists, since you UD people kick and scream about the real science being done by ID people that has to be covered up by the "evil Darwinists."
I've even set up a junk email account that can handle any spam that comes from being posted on a blog, or more likely the bible spam you'll send that has no science but that you somehow think will convince me you're right without any science. The account is [email protected]
Bonus mini-game, 5 points to the first person who guesses from my email why bible spam will not convince me.
Just in case Anonymous returns, here is the reality of the tenure denial of Guillermo Gonzalez:
A Graphic/Timeline of Gonzalez's Publication Drop
Compare and contrast with Sean B. Carroll
From Ed Brayton's blog (Dispatches):
"Here's a perfect example in the same field: Sean Carroll (not the same as above) of Cosmic Variance. Sean was denied tenure by the University of Chicago despite an incredibly impressive publication record and reputation as a scholar. He's published dozens of papers in the top journals in his field, as well as acting as a referee for many of the top journals. He's organized academic conferences all over the world. He's taught at and delivered seminars in his field at the finest universities, including Harvard, MIT, Brown and Princeton.
Given Dr. Carroll's exceptional track record of scholarship, there is no earthly reason why he should have been denied tenure at any university in the world. But he was. Did he whine endlessly about how persecuted he was? Nope. Here's his response:
"The bad news is that I've been denied tenure at Chicago. It came as a complete surprise, I hadn't anticipated any problems at all. But apparently there are a few of our faculty who don't think much of my research. A stylistic clash, I imagine. And a handful of dissenters is all it takes to derail a tenure case. I don't think there are many people in the outside world who believe that the University of Chicago is better off without me than with me, but there seems to be an anomalously high concentration of them among my own colleagues."
That's it. So what did he do then? He went and got another appointment at another world class institution, CalTech."
I'd like to thank Dr Jammer for doing all the hard work on this post. Just a few tweaks and it works fine...
"Expelled Exposed is blowing the cover on the lies and prejudice that have polluted Intelligent Design for decades now. The juvenile attitudes of people like William Dembski and DaveScot Springer are embarrassing to anyone with a sense of decency, but not to their obedient followers.
This is science folks. It's about learning, discovering, and finding the truth, even if that truth is clearly leading towards your worst nightmare (no God). Instead, these juvenile delinquents trapped inside 50-something year old's bodies have turned it into a high school-like atmosphere full of childish insults and "cliques". Pathetic.
If there was the overwhelming amount of evidence for Intelligent Design that the flock insist there is, there wouldn't be so much dissent. Dissent from non-religious, unbiased, aganeda-less scientists like Paul Davies. Common sense tells us where there's smoke, there's fire. And thankfully Expelled Exposed has finally addressed this situation.
And on a side note, the only theory of evolution that makes an ounce of sense is Charles Darwn's theory of evolution through natural selection. I suggest you all educate yourself by reading On The Origin Of Species. If you have an open-mind (doubtful) it will blow you away."
Given Dr. Carroll's exceptional track record of scholarship, there is no earthly reason why he should have been denied tenure at any university in the world. But he was.
There can be only one explanation: Carroll is a closet ID'ist. /sarcasm
Damian:
The Sean B. Carroll, whose publication record you link to is the evo devo scientist, not the astronomer.
NP said:
"Damian:
The Sean B. Carroll, whose publication record you link to is the evo devo scientist, not the astronomer."
Yup, which is why I said, "Sean Carroll (not the same as above) of Cosmic Variance."
Hi from the NIH!
Damian:
Oops, I glossed over that. The graphic showing Gonzalez's publication record is quite informative, but I don't know if its fair to compare the publication records of two scientists in different fields.
If I have time, I might try and look to see if I can make a graphic of the other Sean Carroll's publication record, or of another physicist or astronomer who was also denied tenure. That would be a more useful comparison.
Post a Comment