As part of the Expelled Exposed site, there are a series of educational videos to counter creationist claims. They’re short, simple, and easy to understand.
Pharyngula
Evolution, development, and random biological ejaculations from a godless liberal
As part of the Expelled Exposed site, there are a series of educational videos to counter creationist claims. They’re short, simple, and easy to understand.
I’m afraid that, for IDiots, “easy to understand” just translates to “easy to misunderstand.”
Also, is this post screwing up the page format for anyone else? I’m using Firefox 2.0.0.1 on a Mac.
Ew, a Mac. It’s Firefox, it works in IE7 but not my FF 2.0
I sense a formatting disturbance in the blog force…
We need the all powerful PZ to set things right! Is everyone ready to pray?
I think the disturbance is because PZ said “dieties” in the previous post. The formatting gods are angry.
Ack! It’s a deleterious mutation in the page code! The site has reduced fitness!
If you’re on a Mac you aught to be using Safari.
It is wonky on Firefox, but works fine in Opera. I don’t use IE so I think that I have IE6 or so and don’t know if it works on that.
But what about the gap between the cupped pigment spot and the even more cupped pigment spot? Wouldn’t evolution need to have created a slightly more cupped pigment spot?
No, no, that’s way too unlikely.
I prefer to believe an immortal entity killed himself to pay himself a perceived debt on behalf of a naive third party and periodically shows up to remind us of his munificence by silk screening his unknown yet widely represented visage upon toast, mildew stains, and driveway oil stains.
It was a typo in the class spec. It’s fixed now.
Really, I’m getting punchy. I’m working my way through a stack of lab reports right now, and I think my brain is beginning to disintegrate.
Really, I’m getting punchy.
Aha, see what happens when you adopt evolution as your moral creed! Everything goes; violence, poor web formatting. You need some form of absolute morality to keep you in check there angry man! :D
They won’t even look at it twice – Eugenie Scott is a member of the Evilutionist Intelligencia!
My mistress’ eyes are nothing like the spot
Some mussels have to tell the dark from light;
A complex lens, this mollusk it has not–
One could not claim a mussel has true sight.
I have seen pigment cups for eyes in snails
But no such eyes my beauty doth possess–
To see a light’s direction, sans details
Is not the job of her eyes, I confess.
Nor pinhole lens, nor any incomplete
Approximation of her perfect eye;
No trail of clues to offer a concrete
Explanatory theory to apply.
And yet, all data points to one solution–
The eyes I love arose through evolution.
http://digitalcuttlefish.blogspot.com/2008/05/apology-130-to-william-shakespeare.html
It’s a good simple explanation but there is some confusion that could easily be generated when the narator goes from talking about evolution of mollusc eyes to embryonic development. It begins to sound like they are making an embryonic recapitulation argument a la Haekel, which you and I know they are not, but which a creokook would definitely pick up on to discredit the video. I have to say I’m suprised it wasn’t caught by the creator of the video given the target audience.
Oh, goody goody! Purdy pit-chers, I get it! er…gawd didn’t do it? Now we’re in trouble. Science is going to hell!
Ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny!!11111
Cuttlefish, that just made my day. Shakespeare would be proud.
Latest spin from the producers of Expelled –
“Expelled made history this weekend as it skyrocketed into place as the 13th highest grossing documentary film of all time. Since its release on April 18, the film has earned an astounding $6.6 million while only in its 3rd week in the box office.”
HEY MOM – WE’RE NUMBER 13!, WE’RE NUMBER 13!
Mark Mathis, Where are you going now that Expelled is finished?
“I’m going to Disneyland”
That was cool. The only nitpick I have is they went pretty abruptly from the pinhole to the primitive lens. That’s where the more sophisticated creationists are going to go “see, here’s where the designer poofed in an entirely new organ, the lens, out of nothing!”
(More sophisticated creationists. . . . Did I just write that?)
More sophisticated creationists. . . . Did I just write that?
Sophistry is related. So, close enough :)
That would be the 13th highest grossing film claiming to be a documentary.
The real question to be answered is how does it rate compared to other propaganda films. The best I can come up with are things like Reefer Madness or Why We Must Fight.
Maybe someone else can suggest a film that is comparable in the quantity and quality(!) of lies being told.
Maybe someone else can suggest a film that is comparable in the quantity and quality(!) of lies being told.
Rambo IV?
Yeah, I thought that too. They could have been a bit more careful to mention that the eye’s evolution and the eye’s development in one organism are different processes. I mean, it’s obvious, but if you’re gonna try to counter creationism you’re gonna have to deal with people misunderstanding the obvious.
“If it can grow, it can evolve.”
Smart lady. She really does her best to simplify it so even creationists can comprehend.
I was startled by the reference to the eye of a fetus, and I’m not even a biologist! So my question is, what was the point of mentioning the development of the eye in utero?
I just happened to see that while channel surfing in the break room.
It reminded me of Julia Sweeny’s answer to the IDiot’s question, “What good is 1/10th of an eye?”
JS: “It is 1/10th as good”
From ‘Letting go of God’ a very funny CD.
I’m going to have to go with that TV movie the Swiftboaters made around 2004…
If $6.6 million is the net, then that’s pretty pathetic.
If $6.6 million is the gross, then it lost money.
In either case, “13th highest grossing doc. of all time” is flat out bullshit.
Yeah yeah yeah. I wanna see a BoxOfficeMojo chart that displayes grosses adjusted for inflation. I wanna see everything “in year 2000 dollars” [for example]. I wanna see number of tickets sold, both gross and per-screen. How many people paid to see it?
“Astounding”? Yes! Especially since this total is approximately half of what Mark Mathis said he hoped for during the opening weekend.
At 1:51 the narrator clearly says, “just as the eyes of Moloch’s have over thousands of years.” (hear it for yourself).
Moloch is the ancient Hebrew/Canaanite god also known as Baal.
Something is up at NCSE.
I like the way the embryonic development sketches show the retina and optic nerve originating as an outcropping from the forebrain. When my patients ask if I can see into their brains during ophthalmoscopy, I tell them, “in a way, yes…”
Moloch is the ancient Hebrew/Canaanite god also known as Baal.
Something is up at NCSE.
bloody pagans!
OTOH, you don’t think they meant Moloch horridus, do you?
I totally discount that that was a simple mispronunciation of “molluscs”.
:p
Sad thing is that as atheists we’ll never be able to tell them “told you so!”
Newest blog related, plus link to Expelled Exposed! =D
http://copache.wordpress.com/2008/05/07/the-unending-battle/
I heard him say ‘molluscs over thousands of years’ which is a howler. I presume he intended to say ‘over thousands of millions of years’ or something. I am surprised that was not picked up. Sloppy people, sloppy.
I thought the development point was well made, they do not claim recapitulation, at least not properly, it was that if we can understand how eyes develop without anything miraculous then why can’t they have evolved? which is actually a good argument.
Did anyone else find the audio to be soft?
Also, I decided to post on an interesting discrepancy that should probably be looked into by Expelled Exposed if they haven’t already.
Check it: http://copache.wordpress.com/2008/05/07/microevolution/
“If it can grow, it can evolve.”
Well, I just hope I can evolve into one superhuman person then with special eyes. I mean I want to see microbes without a microscope. Wait! I might need a doctorate to be able to do that.
I use Firefox 3 beta, which works on this site, but has problems on some others. In that case I use Safari for Windows which seems to work in all cases.
Bonjour,
This evolution of the eye is easy to understand and quite convincing anyway.
There are however questions of a more complicated kind. Take for instance mammals like wales or dolphins. They seem to have been evolved from a wolf-like animal living somewhere near a shore. BUT HOW DID THIS ANIMAL WENT INITIALLY INTO THE WATER???
How happened the first step?? In case you have some explanation I would be very thankful to hear about that.
Georg
By dipping their paw in first, like getting into an outdoor swimming pool. “Oooh, oooh, it’s too cold!”
And probably an inflatable ring for safety.
If eyes came from cells……..how come there are still cells?
Georg, there are many animals that live on the land and hunt food in the water (bears catching salmon, for instance). Its not too much of a stretch of the imagination for many people to realize that whale ancestors probably took a similar route – going into the water for short times to catch fish as a successful hunting strategy, with those animals who were able to swim better being the ones that were the most successful and left the most descendants. In such a scenario it is almost inevitable, given the correct environment (a ready supply of fish and little or no competitors) that whale ancestors would eventually become fully aquatic.
“BUT HOW DID THIS ANIMAL WENT INITIALLY INTO THE WATER???”
Snout first.
One good thing, and one good thing only, has come out of the creationist/intelligent design movement – that is that science has responded by actually taking some time to explain evolution to the public in ways they probably would not have done otherwise.
This video is excellent, and there have been others like it, responing to the creation science nuts with fascinating explanations that make things clear to non-scientists.
Pity, but it would probably not have happened otherwise. I think in many respects science should try harder to make its findings clearer to the public for its own sake, not just because they have to respond to nuts. This not only goes for evolution, but physics, astronomy and other sciences.
The public does pay for much of scientific research after all, so I think they deserve to be better informed. Perhaps more science really would mean less superstition.
#40 Georg,
Here is a good place for information on whale evolution:
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC216_1.html
And be nice, guys. Don’t be mean. We don’t have to be mean because, remember, no matter where you go, there you are.
I like when she said at 2:15 :
Google “chevrotain”.
Then google “Indohyus“.
Georg – there is a transitional species called Ambulocetus (walking whale) which looked looked a lot like a crocodile and presumably was a similar aquatic and nearshore ambush from the water predator.
Check out the Wikipedia article on Evolution of cetaceans.
CANNONBALL!!!!!
I can’t see Eugenie Scott without picturing her in a bikini rubbing her stomach.
Damn you, Mark Edmondon! You have ruined life!
I assume they walked in face forward like my dog does. But it was 40 million years ago so who knows? Maybe they jumped in or backed in. Or even just fell in.
I’d like to see the NCSE make a clip describing the science behind the age of the world. Big numbers are difficult to wrap your head around, especially if you’re coming from a “6000 year” belief structure. Evolution can appear to be counter-intuitive to our every day experience.
The video could have made it clearer (say with some light ray arrows) how a cupped spot facilitates directional light detection. It may not be obvious to some.
My favorite one-liner for the silly claim that intermediate stages in eye evolution are no good to the organism is the old quote from Erasmus:
“In the country of the blind, the one-eyed man is king.”
But this video does it much better…
It looks like they’re poised to beat out Roger and Me this week, so I boldly predict that in their next press release they will trumpet the fact that they have passed a Michael Moore film in earnings.
That said, the movie is tailing off fast — projecting the box office from prior weeks, and even with the extremely generous assumption that it loses no more screens, it still won’t make $8 million by the end of next week. And I can’t imagine it sticking around in the theatres much after that — it’s already only making about $25 per showing during the week, its weekend take is down to a measely 20% of its opening, and the summer blockbuster season is upon us. What reasonable theatre owner is going to run Expelled and make less than $100 per weekend showing when they could be running Iron Man or Speed Racer to packed houses?
I figure this thing ends it entire theatrical run with less than $8 million. For those keeping score, that is significantly less that the producer predicted for its opening weekend.
The mollusk eye evolved over thousands of years? The timing seems a bit off.
I don’t mind inference of evolution from embryology (it isn’t ontogeny recapitulates ontology as a law, merely recognition that pathways are often preserved to some degree), but I do wish it were treated as more hypothetical. Yes, that is how eyes could have evolved, but we don’t really know that it’s how they did evolve. One could argue that this is a “just-so” story, though it is not if one is simply using to indicate that there are no show-stoppers to evolving an eye.
It might have helped to have pointed out that a lens appearing in a small animal might be fairly easy to evolve. Our lens suddenly appearing in a previously pinhole eye would be quite unlikely, because materials that are transparent through the depth of the lens don’t exist in our bodies except in the lens. In a small eye, though, a small lens might be made out of materials that are opaque at depth, but transparent enough to make the small lens needed. A spherical non-focusing lens would be useful and easy to evolve, as well.
That might have been too much complication for such a short clip, though.
Glen Davidson
http://tinyurl.com/2kxyc7
#13, CuttleFish, you are brilliant in a disturbingly geeky way.
I have to apologize, this was the best compliment I could give. I do not have a fragment of your talent.
@#56 Tulse —
I wouldn’t be so sure of that. While R&M only made $6,706,368 in its 1989-1990 theatrical release, when adjusted for inflation that becomes $11,613,182 (I used 1989, but you get similar results using 1990). That’s significantly more than your < 8 mill prediction. Of course, little details like economics won't trouble Stein and his cohorts, but there you have it.
In my #59, the last sentence of the first paragraph was supposed to be: “That’s significantly more than your less than 8 mill prediction.” My use of the forward carat sign for “less than” caused that part of the sentence to be left out due to funky HTML formatting….
Hey, that’s my old PI (Ken Dill)!
I got a call from Eugenie Scott yesterday, as she was trying to track down Ken for a quote in a press release they wanted to put out. Now I know what the press release was about!
You’re absolutely right, but inflation-adjusted figures are almost never used when reporting box-office (e.g, you’ll rarely hear someone describe Gone with the Wind as the biggest grossing film of all time). Of course, the inflation-adjusted figure is really a relative measure of admissions, which is what I think is the most important metric, so yes, in that sense, Expelled is well behind Roger and Me.
By any metric, however, I think it is hard to say it is anything but a flop — perhaps not as big a flop as we would have liked, but a flop nonetheless (and regardless how others might choose to frame it).
#13 (the one and only) Cuttlefish, OM.
Bravo! Bravo!
If they do do a film on the age of the earth, can you do it to Barrett-Browning’s scheme? Paleochronology would jive nicely along the lines of “How do I love thee? Let me count the ways. &c &c.
I think.
As a non-artist with a tin ear.
Yay! Eugenie Scott, bringing the sexie back…er, I mean, SCIENCE. Straightforward and simply understood. Bravo!
It’s a good video, but I’ve always found with that explanation that the appearance of the lens is a pretty large leap. Does anyone know of some of the theories on how that developed?
A focussing lens is a pretty complex piece of machinery that warrants several conceptual stages on it’s development as well, I find.
The only thing I don’t like is the web address: evolutioniscool.com
While I’m of the sort that does find evolution, and its study and evidence, supremely cool, I wouldn’t like to be advertising evolution as a social trend or popular meme, something that teens can “relate” to or connect with, like “not smoking” or “levi’s buttonfly’s”.
It just feels a little pandering, which is what the other side is so quick to do. On the other hand, I understand that the scientific community does need to develop a better publicity machine, in terms of dispersing good and accurate information to the average citizen. So I know that things like this need to be tried.
I just don’t want teens to think I want them to learn evolution because it’s “cool”. I want them to learn it because it’s what we know about biology. Anyway, for coolness factor, you can’t beat invisible mega-bosses duking it out amongst humanity with talking snakes and wars and fiery swords.
Heh…. “Read the Bible! You’ll get…. 14 experience points!”
paz
But it was 40 million years ago so who knows? Maybe they jumped in or backed in. Or even just fell in.
or maybe they just stood still and the water gradually rose up around them…
I have no comment on the eye video, but I do have a comment about Expelled. I was at a luncheon with some women today and the topic of the movie came up. Two of them talked about wanting to see it as they had only just started to hear about it from their friends. It has already left our local theaters. My opinion is that there is still a market for the movie. There was never a single mention of it at the church where I attend prior to its opening, contradicting some of the comments that I had seen that thought churches would advertise it to their attendees. Once the lawsuit is resolved there might be a new group who is curious to see it.
Even some fundie religions found it lame. The mainstream Xian majority would be appalled. Hard to imagine that the fundies could imagine such a thing as too many lies but some did.
Anyone with a brain finds Expelled a blood libel on our civilization. Look, if you, LVC, don’t want to live in the 21st century fine. By now the majority are so sick of you fundie morons that a collection for a biblical reserve would net hundreds of billions of bucks. There you could live a bronze age existence, watch half your kids die before 1, and die yourself at 35. Without those annoying products of science like electricity, computers, long lives, clean drinking water, indoor plumbing and so on.
Walk the talk Louise. Live like a barbarian barely out of the stone age and leave the rest of us the hell alone.
hmm I looked at LVC’s previous posts on Pharyngula, and I’m not sure she’s really the Death Cult Fanatic type, ala Kenny.
could be wrong.
However, I am curious as to why she thinks there would be some change in interest in the film AFTER the lawsuit.
in fact, it’s more likely the lawsuits draw attention to it.
once the lawsuits are resolved, it will be forgotten even faster than it is currently.
as to:
contradicting some of the comments that I had seen that thought churches would advertise it to their attendees.
she is mistaking what actually happened. It wasn’t that many THOUGHT that there would be advertisements in churches, it’s that many SAW that it WAS being advertised in churches.
that it wasn’t in LVC’s particular little hole in the wall is hardly relevant to the overall issue of where the film was being advertised.
Raven @ #69 Did you morph into Holbach?
Dodged the question and issues with a weak ad hominem insult. Stein, Mathis, and the Expelled just strung some outrageous lies together. As John Derbyshire pointed out as well as many Xians, this is just a blood libel on the basis and crowning acheivement of our civilization. FWIW, JD is a far right wing writer for Buckley’s National Review. Even he thought it was trash.
So Louise, have you morphed into a Steinoid Liar for Jesus? Do you really believe “science leads you to killing” as Stein said on Trinity BN TV. And no one will prevent you from rejecting the products of science and living a bronze age subsistence life style, it is a free country.
This is the paradox of the fundie cultists. They enjoy a 21st century life style provided by the golden goose of science. While simultaneously taking pot shots at the golden goose in an incomprehensible attempt to kill it.
Georg @ #40:
Do the words “dog-paddle” mean anything to you?
IDiotic propaganda:
$6.6 million? In three weeks? That’s “astounding”? Hell, the advertising budget was probably several times that! Actual successful movies get tens of millions on OPENING WEEKEND! Ass Prod Mathis said he was expecting an opening weekend gross TWICE what it took them three weeks to make. It’s a dismal failure, and they’re just spinning like crazy.
And of course they’re not going to bother adjusting for inflation or the price of tickets, because that might result in some accurate data. And we all know that’s anathema to creationists.
A more informative video is:
The Seeing Eye (Parts 1 & 2)
http://www.answersingenesis.org/media/video/ondemand/seeing-eye/seeing-eye
with Dr. David Menton
A more informative video
ROFLMAO
that’s a gud un.
if by information you mean misinformation, then yeah, there’s sure a whole lot of misinformation in that vid with creationist Menton.
btw, is this the Menton to which you refer?
http://www.pandasthumb.org/archives/2007/03/aig-on-tiktaali.html
I’m sure it is.
please, rather than drive by and try to take a dump here, why don’t you actually compare the information presented in both, point per point.
show us why the AIG video is “more informative”.
you won’t because you can’t.
simple as that.