Comments

  2. MikeM says

    I went to the grocery store a few minutes ago. In the checkout line, there was a slot for National Geographic magazine, but I already subscribe to it. Except… It wasn’t filled with National Geographic magazines; it was filled with Harvard Lampoon’s parody of National Geographic.

    “Paris Hilton by night.” That’s a mental image I did not need.

    And yes, I bought one.

    I wonder how many little old ladies got home and said, “Huh?”.

  3. Chuck says

    They’ll just deny the carbon dating is accurate. Too bad the trunks don’t live 8000 years with countable tree rings.

  8. FutureMD says

    Remember Baghdad Bob? I was thinking recently: what if his statements were meant as satire of the transparent lies coming out of our administration and none of us got the joke?

  9. says

    It seems to me that it’s only a matter of time before the cognitive dissonance neccesitated by thier untenable positions drives the religious right over the edge into outright violence against those with opposing views. That is why I am offering free martial arts lessons to any atheist in the Gary/Chicago area (sorry, no kids; I won’t be a babysitter). I have developed a curriculum that incorporates the best exercises and principles from traditional martial training and eliminates all the superstitious mumbo-jumbo. Contact me through youtube for details.

  12. says

    hey, DavidM–

    I know you’re a paleontologist, but I bet you know your way around the neontology world a bit, too.

    If you had an idea about squamous epithelial cell deveopment in carnivores at the gross anatomical/histological level, and you wanted to check it out with someone, where would you start? In other words, who do you think of when you think about the comparative anatomy of skin?

    I am looking at PubMed to see who’s active in that area, but just thought I’d check with you because you might know off the top of your head, too.

    and I certainly wouldn’t turn down any suggestions from anyone else, either, if anyone comes to mind.

    thx!

  14. myth says

    http://www.informz.net/pfm/archives/archive_585710.html

    Myth #1: Darwinists interviewed for this film were tricked into participating.

    Not so. Each scientist interviewed for Expelled, on both sides of the evolution debate, knew who would do the interview and what it was for. Each of them signed a release, allowing the producers to use the footage of their interviews.

    this was just a taste, be sure to read the rest.

  15. Mena says

    Did anyone watch Richard Dawkins on Real Time last night? I thought that it was an ok interview but I was hoping that he would have been on the panel.

  16. Damian says

    “Myth #1: Darwinists interviewed for this film were tricked into participating.

    Not so. Each scientist interviewed for Expelled, on both sides of the evolution debate, knew who would do the interview and what it was for. Each of them signed a release, allowing the producers to use the footage of their interview”

    It is not as though creationists have a long track record of lying through their teeth, is it? I notice that you haven’t provided any evidence for this claim?

    Oh, you’d like some evidence to the contrary?

    (1) A letter from the producer Mark Mathis, from April 2007, clearly stating that the film was to be called “Crossroads: The intersection of science and religion”, as well as the blurb from the Rampant Films website making out that the film was a neutral exploration:

    I’m gonna be a ☆ MOVIE STAR ☆.

    (2) The Expelled domain name was purchased well before those on the side of evolution had even been asked to participate. The Crossroads domain was never purchased:

    Busted: Expelled producers lied from the start

    (3) Ben Stein admits in an interview with WORLD that he knew what the film was about as early as 2006:

    “WORLD: How did you get involved with Expelled?

    STEIN: I was approached a couple of years ago by the producers, and they described to me the central issue of Expelled, which was about Darwinism and why it has such a lock on the academic establishment when the theory has so many holes. And why freedom of speech has been lost at so many colleges to the point where you can’t question even the slightest bit of Darwinism or your colleagues will spurn you, you’ll lose your job, and you’ll be publicly humiliated. As they sent me books and talked to me about these things I became more enthusiastic about participating.

    Plus I was never a big fan of Darwinism because it played such a large part in the Nazis’ Final Solution to their so-called “Jewish problem” and was so clearly instrumental in their rationalizing of the Holocaust. So I was primed to want to do a project on how Darwinism relates to fascism and to outline the flaws in Darwinism generally.”

    I have a personal interest in the end to all of this lying. Apart from the obvious ethical issues, the baby Jesus has been crying over Cheshire, England, for what seems like the last year. And non-stop as well! Please stop doing it, even if it is just for a few months this summer, so that I won’t get piss wet through, yet again. I beg you!

  17. says

    Myth @ 14

    Hahaahhhhahahahahahahahahahahahahahha, hheehhheeheheheheeehehehehehehe, haahhahahahahahahahahahahaahahahahahahah, heheheheheheehehehehe,heheeeeeeee!

    Your funny, cause your stupid.

  18. MikeM says

    I’m going to give myth @14 the benefit of the doubt here. I sincerely hope it’s justified.

    I went to the link, and he’s quoting the website verbatim. He hasn’t added his opinion to the commentary to which he’s referring (next time, blockquote it so it’s more clear, okay?).

    Myth #2 is, “This film is anti-science”, which anyone can see is not true. There’s a long paragraph afterward, which I refuse to add here, justifying this ludicrous claim, er, lie. From what I’ve read and seen so far, I do not think myth #2 from that article is a myth at all.

    All “myth” was doing was showing us the article. I hope.

    Tell me I’m right, myth. Please.

    And thanks for the link to what I think is a terrible article (and I think you were trying to show how terrible the article is).

    Change of topic (asked here because this is an open thread)…

    It seems to me that ID proponents are claiming that cells are intelligently designed (a premise I reject). Does anyone out there know if anyone is claiming elements and molecules are also intelligently designed? To me, that’d present a cunundrum: If atoms and molecules were designed by a supernatural force, wouldn’t that mean that such an agent would have been made without the benefit of chemistry?

    I read a long time ago in some stupid rag that “God is made of nothing; if He was made of something, that would imply that someone made Him, which clearly is not possible!”.

    (I had to point out that if He’s made of nothing, that implies that we cannot possibly have been made in his image, as claimed in the Big Black Book.)

    All this is my long-winded way to a question: Are websites run by chemists also under attack by the likes of the DI?

  19. says

    Ahem, excuse me, but in the interweb vernacular: LOL

    I just received an email from Gerry Rzeppa (of the $64,000 Dawkins challenge to answer a single question) to the contact address on my blog, asking me to… I’m not sure what exactly. Probably to write nice things about him on my blog. On my humorous fake (Cthulhu-inspired) news, sarcastic, satirical, definitely anti-creationist blog. I feel like I’ve been handed a wonderful, hilarious gift. I’ve just got to decide what to do with it.

  23. Reginald Selkirk says

    #13: Disconcerting as it may be to a vigorous Liberal like PZ, there is such a thing as right-wing criticism of ID , Expelled , and neocons in cahoots with fundamentalists

    There’s been some, they could use a lot more. The takeover of the Republican party by the religious right has sure made my voting decisions easier. When someone supports pseudoscience, they give me a ready excuse not to take the rest of their political positions seriously.

  24. Reginald Selkirk says

    Additional response to #13: I quite enjoyed that piece, but the comments following it are disappointing.

  27. mikel barrel says

    I agree the silver fish is pretty cool, especially the fact that their reproduction process is preceded by a love ‘dance’ involving three phases that can last for over an hour.cool!
    ====================
    mikel barrel
    http://www.widecircles.com