351. Open Letter to a victim of Ben Stein's lying propaganda

Comment #165593 by Quine on April 21, 2008 at 6:39 pm

Thanks, 82_28, a powerful scene indeed.

352. Open Letter to a victim of Ben Stein's lying propaganda

Comment #165582 by Quine on April 21, 2008 at 6:05 pm

Comment #165558 by ficklefiend:

Quine posted a couple of links on the comments, and I scrolled through ... This has put me in a pessimistic mood. I hope this letter gets a response because it seems there's a long way to go still.

353. Open Letter to a victim of Ben Stein's lying propaganda

Comment #165525 by Quine on April 21, 2008 at 2:55 pm

So why do you believe in evolution?

354. Open Letter to a victim of Ben Stein's lying propaganda

Comment #165520 by Quine on April 21, 2008 at 2:52 pm

Another particularly ignorant piece of crap mentions Prof. Dawkins by name.

Edit: same old crap from D'Souza.

355. Open Letter to a victim of Ben Stein's lying propaganda

Comment #165477 by Quine on April 21, 2008 at 1:57 pm

Comment #165464 by al-rawandi:

Quine,

You can't use the Sorites Paradox on a creationist. That isn't fair.

356. Open Letter to a victim of Ben Stein's lying propaganda

Comment #165457 by Quine on April 21, 2008 at 1:40 pm

TheTrughID, first answer this question: if I start with a small pile of sand and add grains of sand, at which grain does the pile become a sand dune?

357. Open Letter to a victim of Ben Stein's lying propaganda

Comment #165411 by Quine on April 21, 2008 at 12:55 pm

Excellent comment, Steve. I almost asked the nut over on the Lying for Jesus thread if he and his gun club friends were getting ready to defend the country by shooting all the birds.

358. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #165397 by Quine on April 21, 2008 at 12:41 pm

navyjack95, thank you for establishing the validity here on the Lying for Jesus thread. You have helped us all appreciate the importance of actually thinking.

359. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #165366 by Quine on April 21, 2008 at 11:49 am

Here, navyjake95, read a press piece with some real intelligence in it.

360. Sexpelled: No Intercourse Allowed

Comment #165347 by Quine on April 21, 2008 at 11:30 am

The view counter at YouTube just went over 100,000.

361. Open Letter to a victim of Ben Stein's lying propaganda

Comment #165343 by Quine on April 21, 2008 at 11:26 am

The 'Right to Life' folks link into Expelled with this piece:

The monotone teacher from "Ferris Bueller's Day Off" may just have something new to teach us all -- especially when it comes to the root causes of the culture of death.

362. Beware the Believers

Comment #165339 by Quine on April 21, 2008 at 11:12 am

Made by Michael Edmondson
See story at Pharyngula

363. Open Letter to a victim of Ben Stein's lying propaganda

Comment #164937 by Quine on April 20, 2008 at 9:29 pm

Comment #164913 by Layla Nasreddin

Damn, Quine, how can you continue reading that crap?

364. Open Letter to a victim of Ben Stein's lying propaganda

Comment #164888 by Quine on April 20, 2008 at 7:52 pm

More crap.

365. Open Letter to a victim of Ben Stein's lying propaganda

Comment #164818 by Quine on April 20, 2008 at 6:10 pm

Film reviewer maligned for exposing Expelled.

366. Open Letter to a victim of Ben Stein's lying propaganda

Comment #164798 by Quine on April 20, 2008 at 5:38 pm

Hmmmm, also see The Origins of Virtue by Matt Ridley.

367. Open Letter to a victim of Ben Stein's lying propaganda

Comment #164775 by Quine on April 20, 2008 at 5:11 pm

And it is being used by others as a touchstone, as in this piece of crap and this other piece of crap.

Edit: The latter piece of crap actually goes after Prof. Dawkins by name, based on the movie, while admitting not having seen the movie.

368. Open Letter to a victim of Ben Stein's lying propaganda

Comment #164740 by Quine on April 20, 2008 at 4:33 pm

Due to the poor condition of our science education system, the opportunity existed for Ben Stein and his associates to use intellectual vandalism to make a quick buck, and thus they have done so. It always costs society to repair the damage from vandalism, and I see the letter from J. as an example of someone from a family twice wronged.

369. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #164688 by Quine on April 20, 2008 at 2:12 pm

... but I have no real recollection.

370. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #164681 by Quine on April 20, 2008 at 2:04 pm

... (sorry Quine and Frankus, but you were ahead of the game, and I needed some time to get out other thoughts)

371. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #164560 by Quine on April 20, 2008 at 12:12 pm

Kardashovel, could you please explain why you think your future deity would be, necessarily, a decedent of ours, versus any other evolved life form from anywhere else in the Universe (a very big place). Also, do you expect it to also go back in time and resurrect you into some kind of paradise, and if so, why would it bother to do so?

372. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #164219 by Quine on April 19, 2008 at 6:06 pm

Part of the psychology of the religious mind is the idea that the words of their scriptures have supernatural powers. This leads to the expectation that volumes of such, cut and pasted into blogs, will magically change people's minds. That this does not have the expected result is simply disregarded in line with the human tendency for minimization of cognitive dissonance by filtering for only the "evidence" desired.

373. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #164174 by Quine on April 19, 2008 at 4:59 pm

Comment #164050 by phasmagigas

... that scripture is soon to be hurled.

374. Sexpelled: No Intercourse Allowed

Comment #164151 by Quine on April 19, 2008 at 4:21 pm

Go, Go, Go. Sexpelled picked up on wired dot com.

375. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #164149 by Quine on April 19, 2008 at 4:10 pm

I find the concepts of falsifiability and testability so detached from the religious mind that it creates a deep weakness. These days, when the religious say something to me such as, "So, you believe in evolution?" I reflexively fire back, "I don't have to believe in evolution; I can check it." So far, this has completely left them standing on the back foot with a dazed expression.

376. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #164088 by Quine on April 19, 2008 at 1:55 pm

Remnant, try to get a grip on the difference between science and non-science. This is the well known Demarcation Problem as notably advanced by Popper and then Kuhn. Education is free on the web and neuroplasticity extends into later life, so do make an effort to improve yourself.

377. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #163968 by Quine on April 19, 2008 at 11:35 am

So pacman71192, while you are taking a mental trip into probability, let us look at just one of the probabilistic issues of your existence i.e. paternal cell probability. I am just going to do a very rough order of magnitude calculation; men produce from 10⁸ to 10⁹ sperm cells per day, for at least 30 years or about 10⁴ days. Taking the lower end of sperm production to account for decrease with age, this is 10⁸ X 10⁴ = 10¹² total sperm cells to choose one of to make you.

Of course, your father had to have had a father, so if we look at your paternal cell probability from back a generation we get one in 10¹² X 10¹² = 10²⁴, but if we were going back 100 generations (about 2000 years), that probability drops to one in 10¹²⁰⁰. I note that you listed a probability of one in 10⁴⁹ as past the realm of possibility, therefore your own standard makes you impossible.

I suggest you get a copy of Climbing Mount Improbable and do some reading about the fallacy of retrospective probability.

378. Flea of the week

Comment #163716 by Quine on April 18, 2008 at 9:19 pm

Paula, vent away - as much as you want, whenever you want - we all owe you.

379. The Child Preachers

Comment #163703 by Quine on April 18, 2008 at 8:15 pm

Too sad for words.

380. Sexpelled: No Intercourse Allowed

Comment #163347 by Quine on April 18, 2008 at 8:20 am

381. Sexpelled: No Intercourse Allowed

Comment #163081 by Quine on April 18, 2008 at 1:01 am

"And the Stork shall bear a nine-bladed sword. Nine-bladed! Not two or five or seven, but nine, ..."

382. Yoko Ono, Filmmakers Caught in 'Expelled' Flap

Comment #163076 by Quine on April 18, 2008 at 12:49 am

Santi, if the truth about nature leads to Nazi atrocities, then yes, we need to talk about that and see what we can do as a society. However, pretending that the truth is not the truth is no long term solution.

Many of us followed the Dover trial closely in which we saw the unmasking of the duplicitous and mendacious actions of the ID proponents. This has made us sensitive to trickery. The tricks used by the Expelled producers have been right in line with these forebodings. It looks like more "wedge" tactics to win political battles in a culture war where their side simply does not have the truth to fall back upon.

Please excuse any 'rough' treatment you may have received here. If you have not done so, please read one of the books chronicling the Dover trial (or watch the excellent NOVA program). Look into the false front at the Discovery Institute. And in the case of Expelled, listen to the Mathis interview at Scientific American. There is deep deception going on, political agendas, and some second rate (i.e. not willing to get proper IP releases) film makers looking to get a few fast bucks out of the sheeple.

383. Yoko Ono, Filmmakers Caught in 'Expelled' Flap

Comment #162986 by Quine on April 17, 2008 at 6:52 pm

More crap as the Discovery Institute crows over the "gala premiere" of Expelled in Dallas.

384. Sexpelled: No Intercourse Allowed

Comment #162922 by Quine on April 17, 2008 at 5:05 pm

Yes, Styrer-, you and everyone else. There is a great opportunity in the next 12 to 18 hours before the US release to massively stuff email boxes with the youtube link. Some work is involved, but what a net stunt it would be.

[Edit: If you search for the Expelled reviews in the on-line press you will find many have comment sections where you can post this youtube link, as well as at anything on youtube linked to Expelled.]

385. Sexpelled: No Intercourse Allowed

Comment #162911 by Quine on April 17, 2008 at 4:48 pm

Styrer-:

Well, my humble little assistance is to e-mail the youtube link to everyone in my contacts file.

Little person power!

386. Yoko Ono, Filmmakers Caught in 'Expelled' Flap

Comment #162904 by Quine on April 17, 2008 at 4:36 pm

While I am on the subject of crap, this particularly nasty piece of quote mining just popped up at the Discovery Institute. It includes:

"Almost all the major ingredients of Hitlerism are in Darwin."

387. Sexpelled: No Intercourse Allowed

Comment #162895 by Quine on April 17, 2008 at 4:20 pm

Thanks, sarah95, for the youtube post. Anyone know how to help this go viral?

388. Sexpelled: No Intercourse Allowed

Comment #162879 by Quine on April 17, 2008 at 4:02 pm

"But who delivers the stork?" --- YES!!

389. Yoko Ono, Filmmakers Caught in 'Expelled' Flap

Comment #162862 by Quine on April 17, 2008 at 3:35 pm

This Star Tribune piece only gave them half a star on a 4 star scale and ended with:

"After an hour and a half, my faith in Darwin was shaken because, judging by what was on screen, we haven't evolved one blessed bit."

390. Yoko Ono, Filmmakers Caught in 'Expelled' Flap

Comment #162847 by Quine on April 17, 2008 at 2:50 pm

Finally, let me say this. I find the tone of this discussion becoming a bit heated. Let's take it down a notch. I respect what you have to say, I just don't agree with it. I've kept my posts free of inflammatory adjectives and personally directed rhetorical comments. I ask for the same in return.

391. Victims: Pope Benedict Protects Accused Pedophile Bishops

Comment #162833 by Quine on April 17, 2008 at 2:27 pm

Did you know that the Bush administration sided for immunity from legal action against the Pope?

392. Yoko Ono, Filmmakers Caught in 'Expelled' Flap

Comment #162809 by Quine on April 17, 2008 at 1:43 pm

Also unfortunate, Bruce Chapman, president of Discovery Institute, got this crap into the Seattle Times today.

P.S. A nice counterbalance just went up at the Chicago Tribune that lists the stars of the film as "Ben Stein, Richard Dawkins, Joseph Stalin, Adolf Hitler."

393. Yoko Ono, Filmmakers Caught in 'Expelled' Flap

Comment #162799 by Quine on April 17, 2008 at 1:28 pm

The thing has yet to open and it already is providing for crap like this which claims the movie "pulls their fancy pants down and spanks em good."

P.S. And more crap like this.

394. Yoko Ono, Filmmakers Caught in 'Expelled' Flap

Comment #162772 by Quine on April 17, 2008 at 12:39 pm

The Expelled guys may get away under a satire ruling. However, if the distribution does go forward, and Yoko experiences a loss of income because Imagine is linked to Nazi atrocities by these falsehoods, then (after the fact) she can take action against them under the libel laws. I do not see this as likely, but if it comes to pass, these jerks should be held responsible for the damage that they do to any reputation that was in their way. (I have mentioned this before with regard to the reputation of Prof. Dawkins.)

P.S. How long do you think the Disney lawyers would have sat still if Stein had had Mickey Mouse goose stepping his way through a concentration camp?

395. Yoko Ono, Filmmakers Caught in 'Expelled' Flap

Comment #162741 by Quine on April 17, 2008 at 11:42 am

The clips from Gibson's film used in The God Who Wasn't There were to document (time, actually) the senseless use of blood gushing special effects. This was clear criticism under Fair Use. The Lennon song has nothing to do with the alleged job loss of these academics (not playing in the background in the dean's office), or the opportunity to criticize Darwin in the establishment, or the scientific validity of Evolution. The use of the song is just to tart up the movie, so Fair Use is not clear (but they may get away with it).

This is another example of the religion "wedge." They are claiming that they are standing up for scientific freedom, but are against the song because it suggests "imagine no religion." They are hypocrites form the tops of their heads right down to the tips of their self-righteous toes.

396. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #162322 by Quine on April 16, 2008 at 3:20 pm

Cartomancer, the deletion of his comment history makes me doubt that he is playing DR. However, if so, it would be nice if he PMed a few of us to let us in on it (hint hint).

397. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #161443 by Quine on April 15, 2008 at 9:53 am

( G-d??? What is that by the way, are you so scared of your god that you can't even type his name?)

398. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #160947 by Quine on April 14, 2008 at 3:12 pm

Comment #160773 by Bonzai

epeeist

,.. enough about the philosophy of science to know that Intelligent Design isn't science (though you would want a professional philosopher like MPhil, Quine or Spinoza if you want more depth).

No you don't. "Professional" philosophers have a tendency to be tricked by their own words. You don't need to know the big words to make a sound argument. Kant said such and such, according to so and so doctrine blah blah are basically invoking authorities to cover the lack of argument,--though often done just as a way to show off, in that case they are unnecessary distractions.

Often such doctrines are accompanied by defiant attacks on the scientific establishment. Science is said to be in the hands of vested interests. Now there have indeed been vested interests that have blocked progress; so such attacks can strike a responsive cord. But there seems to be no end to how far such accusations can go. Not long ago there was a pamphlet available that "proved" π to be expressible as a fraction. The scientific aristocracy, so it claimed, had had its purposes in suppressing this result. But now, for a small price, the truth was out.

When it is a mathematical truth that is assailed there is likely to be a definitive way of settling the issue; so, happily, it is with π. For many doctrines, though, there is this protective argument: you (pointing to the follower of the scientific establishment) can't disprove it! And to be sure, many of these theories that lie on or beyond the fringe of believability cannot be definitively shown to be wrong. Indeed many of them are cast in terms that are so cloudy that it is hard to know what would count as a refutation of them; for they are not intelligible in the first place. And here the naivete of the believer may blend with his instinct for giant-killing. He thinks that the fact that his belief can't be knocked all the way over is additional ground for embracing it; and he may rejoice in finding that all the mighty scientists can't put him down. A victory, of sorts, over those in power.

399. Richard Dawkins' secular army must be stopped. God is behind some of our greatest art

Comment #160319 by Quine on April 14, 2008 at 12:07 am

Well, there goes Santa as an art subject.

400. A New Flea

Comment #160171 by Quine on April 13, 2008 at 7:00 pm

According to this posting the following is coming up:

DEALING WITH DAWKINS That may, or may not, be what we eventually call an evening
lecture on Wednesday December 3rd to be given by Keith Ward, but Richard Dawkins has
questioned both the truth and the morality of Christian faith and Keith Ward has written responses to him. Keith Ward was Regius Professor of Divinity in the University of Oxford. He is Joint President of the World Congress of Faiths, Professor of Divinity at Gresham College in London, and a fellow of the British Academy. He is also an excellent communicator and well worth listening to. This evening is aimed particularly at Christians who want to think about some of the critiques of Christian faith made by Dawkins and others and how to respond to them. The lecture will be chaired by the Bishop of Bedford, Rt Revd Richard Inwood, and be held at Priory Methodist
Church, Newnham Ave, Bedford.