The point of predictions is to do them before the event occurs. This way, if I am correct, I can gloat about it later, saying, “See? See? I told you this would happen!” And if it turns out I am completely off the mark, I can bury it with some blog entry about Paul not being a Pharisee and hope my gaffe is quickly forgotten.
I predict Expelled the Movie will be both a colossal failure and a resounding success. Seems a pretty safe prediction, doesn’t it! *grin*
First—the colossal failure. It will bomb financially. It will obtain the most financial success in its opening weekend (not breaking the top 10 movie-makers) and then will quickly fade to oblivion by the next weekend. Out on DVD by Memorial Day 2008, I should think.
The reason for this? I know my (former) fellow Christians. They are cheap and this is as uninteresting to them as it is the rest of the world.
I am sorry, but Christians are cheap. My proof on this point is my interaction with numerous wait staff. Ask any person who has ever waited on tables for a living and ask them the worst tippers. Invariably they will tell you it is the Christian crowd on Sunday afternoon and worse!--the Baptists on Sunday evening. (The only ones left with a Sunday Evening service.)
As humans, we are cheap enough. There is a reason the number of sales of movie tickets have declined for the past years—DVD’s. Compare (for me):
Movie Tickets: Three Adults ($24), Two kids ($10)
Popcorn & Pop: Three Super Saver Package ($24)
Candy: Four ($10)
I can take my family and easily spend $68 without blinking. Now consider waiting a month or so:
DVD: $16
Pizza: Two ($11)
Pop: 24 cans ($5)
Candy: 3 bags ($9)
Microwave Popcorn: 10 bags ($8)
I have stuffed my family, with pop, popcorn, and pizza left over for $50. AND I can watch the movie again whenever I want. AND I can pause it and go to the bathroom. (See “Pop.”) How many Creationists are thinking of seeing this moving and then thinking of all the “stewardship” points they get for waiting for it to come out on DVD?
Secondly, I wonder how many Creationists are really interested in this movie. Let’s face it; the third worst killer word for a Movie is “Documentary.”* As a teenager, did you want to get together with your friends and see a…documentary? Naw—you wanted “Prom Night!” There the Creationist will be…clutching their $68 and thinking “’Expelled,’ which I know I should see, and would earn me God-points, but gosh-darn-it, ‘Leatherheads’ is showing at the same time. And God wants me to have a laugh. I will get it on DVD when it comes out…”
Not to mention this is April—spring is in the air, lawn work needs to be done, soccer games attended. Maybe next week. If it rains…or when it comes out on DVD.
I don’t see the excitement generated to go out on a spring day to see a documentary. In which the narrator is infamous for speaking in a monotone!!
Yes, I know every Christian film-maker is hoping to replicate “The Passion of the Christ.” They won’t admit it out loud (Pride being one of the seven deadly sins) but the desire is still there. This is no “Passion.”
“The Passion” was a phenomena. A rare occurrence. In the Christian community, it become more than a movie, it became “AN EVENT.” People were buying blocks of tickets and holding get-togethers afterwards. People were talking in church about movie times. Pastors were telling people to go in bulletins.
People who would never darken the door of a movie theater 10 years ago were buying movie tickets for friends. Tales were spread across e-mails about murderers confessing crimes after seeing the thing. And people openly weeping and becoming Christians right there on pop-sticky floors. Rumors had it Satan even went to see it! (And objected to his portrayal in the movie. He thought Jack Nicholson was more suited for the role.)
Is that sort of hype being generated about Expelled? I am a bit out-of-touch, but I haven’t seen the e-mails (I’m still on the mailing list.) I haven’t seen the hype. Because it is a documentary.
Plus, in “The Passion” people knew the story. They knew the happy ending. They knew this was the triumph of Christianity, with all its gore and pain. Here they know the story (face it—they know all creationists are being terribly persecuted by the science community. They’ve heard there is talk of bringing back burning at the stake…) but how interesting IS the story? Movies are about pictures and presentation and blood flying and grimaces and pain in the eyes and glorious Color. A story with a monotone narrator about some Ph.D. who we don’t care whether they obtained tenure—is that the making of a movie?
And THAT is why it will be a resounding success. Creationists don’t need to go see the movie. All they need is to know it was made. That some “smart” people somewhere said something which aligns with what the creationists thinks is justification enough to ratify the Creationist’s position in their mind.
This movie will become the proverbial “they” in statements such as “They don’t let creationists become professors” or “They have a conspiracy to keep the failed theory of evolution alive” or whatever else ”They” need be accused of.
How do we know it’s true? Because there is a movie about it! Sure, the creationist won’t actually see the movie, or study the other side which is presented, or look things up, or read a book. Oh, no! None of that is necessary. Why? ‘Cause some smart people said it, so it must be true.
I’ve watched this happen over and over. When discussing topics surrounding the Bible, I will ask a question of the Christian. And many times it has been said to me, “People smarter than YOU have studied it, and remained Christians.” True enough—but what have they studied? What is the argument? What are the competing claims?
All many Christians want is the reassurance that somebody, somewhere studied something and that somebody has an I.Q. or a degree or a talent, and that is good enough to satisfy them.
And this movie is just that “somebody.”
So my prediction? Bomb financially; haunt us for decades.
*The second worst is “Indie” and the worst of all time is “Sub-titled.”
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I dunno. I think it will get a BO bump from churches buying blocks of tickets for their youth groups (how many starving kids could you have fed for that money?), but will quickly fade into obscurity. "Expelled" has a tiny target audience who, like you point out, probably won't fork out the cash for it. It also doesn't have the huge media blitz that "Passion" got. Ben Stein is no Mel Gibson.
ReplyDeleteBased on what I have seen from the evangelical bloggers, they are all absolutely convinced that everything in the movie is true even if they have seen nothing more than the trailers. Why would they spend the money to learn something they already know when they could go see something entertaining?
ReplyDeleteI'm thinking someone might question why your prediction is based on Christians and Christian culture, when the movie's creator is not a Christian and does not wish to promote (specifically) Christian views.
ReplyDeleteOf course, the answer is that, regardless of the background and ideology of the film's maker, the largest population in the US that is likely to be sympathetic to the film's message is going to be evangelical, bible-literalist Christians, which will far outweigh the Orthodox Judaiist demographic, I'd think.
And certainly, the most readily available, drooling hype for the movie is from Evangelical Christian sources.
flycandler, I disagree that it's a "tiny target audience". Studies indicate that the majority of the nation believes that evolution is a hoax. Perhaps they are in the minority in the communities where you and I live, but it doesn't take much searching to think of entire states where the viewpoint is common enough to compensate for our communities.
My wife is South Asian (and I'm interested in South Asian culture); I have no small few subtitled indie documentaries.
ReplyDeleteOf course, it's well-known and entirely uncontroversial that I'm a seriously weird individual.
I actually know people for whom viewing "The Passion" was the first step out the church door. That movie stuck people's noses in what they believed and it woke some of my friends up. This was most definitely not the film's intent.
ReplyDeleteIn many ways, I see this new intellectual atrocity as a similar train-wreck for the pious. Some more people are going to see that the emperor has no clothes in theatres this Friday.
I'll go on record and agree with your prediction. Apologetics is very interesting to people that are really into apologetics. They think other Christians are also really excited about it, because when they talk about it with them they seem interested. But they're not interested enough to go to this movie.
ReplyDeleteMicah, I live in Georgia for heaven's sake. There's a megachurch pastor who regularly buys radio airtime with his flock's tithing to give pithy dismissals of evolutionary theory ("it's like a tornado in a junkyard creating a 747").
ReplyDeleteHowever, there are some important differences in the audience for "Passion" and that for "Expelled". For one, the Roman Catholics. They flocked to "Passion" (though Toni Morrison said in an interview that she was bored--it was the Stations of the Cross from her childhood all over again), but most Catholics (following the lead from the Vatican) don't really care about the evolution fight.
A lot of mainstream Protestants don't really care, either. A lot of middle class parents, the ones who sent their kids en masse to "Passion", are lukewarm about the issue, and tend to fall on the side of "if I want my daughter to be a doctor, she's gonna have to study this stuff".
Dobson/Robertson/Haggard hyperconservative evangelicalism seems to be on the decline (thank God) in favor of the Osteen/Warren "soft" evangelicalism. These folks may still have their doubts about evolution, but like The Gay and The Fetus, they are starting to turn their focus away from it.
A majority of Americans believe in alien abduction. Was that what drove people to go see "Close Encounters"?
I'm being Pollyanaish I know, but give a Presbyterian living in the Deep South a chance to dream.
"All many Christians want is the reassurance that somebody, somewhere studied something and that somebody has an I.Q. or a degree or a talent, and that is good enough to satisfy them." (Dagoods)
ReplyDeleteLOL...this was pretty funny but the part about satan seeing the movie was pure genius.
But I think your prediction will be quite accurate - seems like you have a good read of the times. It's an interesting movie (for now) - but it's not so much a universal topic many people care about (those in the know in this area have some reason to see it).
Thought I'd come by and say 'hi' - it's been a while plus you commented and reminded me to check ya out!
Hi Dagoods,
ReplyDeleteI just watched the movie at our local Regal Cinemas and I found it to be very fair to all sides. The finale between Ben Stein and Richard Dawkins had the audience in hysterics laughing. At the end the audience applauded.
The point of the film is to expose the flaw that there can be no proposition of any intelligence behind science and how scientists and even journmalists are penalized for suggesting the link of natural processes to a intelligence.
And, contrary to my good friend societyvs, I don't think you have a good read of the times, dagoods.
Darwinian Evolution is giving way to yet another new and more complete view of science. What we see is the death throes of the entrenched establishment. Kuhn's theory of scientific revolutions is coming true yet again. I took a bunch of notes and I'll be blogging my review in the next few days. Toodle-loo.
Hey Jim, I'm curious as to how many people were in your theater. I've heard reports of as few as 4 people in an urban city at a 10PM showing, but also 400 sold out tickets at a really conservative area in Texas.
ReplyDeleteAs far as ID goes, actually ID is perfectly fine in schools. In philosophy classes. The problem that it needs to overcome, but can never overcome because of its very definition is that it invokes the supernatural. Because science cannot observe the supernatural, it cannot make any claims on it, either for or against. Therefore anything that invokes the supernatural cannot, by definition, ever become science.
Yes, this also applies to the atheists *cough*Dawkins*cough* who believe that scientific discoveries are somehow proof that God no longer exists. That's great if they believe that, but it also belongs in philosophy class.
Hi Dracil
ReplyDeleteThere were about 30-40 at a 9:45 pm showing. Here's a link to Box Office Mojo's Expelled page if you want to follow the box office.
My review is posted on my site. It was well done but not perfect. I found the Darwin to Hitler detour (about 15-20 minutes of the movie) to be unhelpful. The more I thought of it, the more I'm convinced it was unnecessary and also unfair.
I think we should follow where our observations take us. And you're absolutely right that philosophy belongs in philosophy class. The only problem is that each scientist has a philosophy but no one should be punished for that. Punishment should be for showing a blatant disregard for the scientific method.
Because science cannot observe the supernatural, it cannot make any claims on it, either for or against. Therefore anything that invokes the supernatural cannot, by definition, ever become science.
That is because the supernatural cannot be tested in a laboratory. However, the design of life clearly exists and is seen in living organisms perpetually. If we look at the evidence and apply to it a philosophy that it must have come about by chance, it effectively removes a dimension of exploration from the scientific method. At some point will you not stop asking questins and start dictating unscientific answers?
The problem with Natural Selection has been out there for a long time. It simply doesn't explain sufficiently what we see now and more and more. There is another driving force that is information based. Scientists are getting closer to defining what that force is and understanding how it works.
There is one other point I'd like to make. You wrote Because science cannot observe the supernatural, it cannot make any claims on it, either for or against
Agreed, again. But what if scientific evidence points to the supernatural, what then? Do we stop looking? Do we dismiss or recast the evidence to fit our paradigm? That is what I think is happening. What do you think?
Jim, by definition, science cannot point to the supernatural. You may get sick of hearing it, but it's only because it's absolutely true: the place to discuss speculation about the supernatural in school is in philosophy class, not biology class.
ReplyDeleteThe problem with Natural Selection has been out there for a long time. It simply doesn't explain sufficiently what we see now and more and more. There is another driving force that is information based. Scientists are getting closer to defining what that force is and understanding how it works.
This is complete and utter bullpuckey. You're assuming a "design" and an "information based driving force" that no rational biologist is saying is there.
I think the more interesting question is why so many religious people (evangelical Christians in particular) are so bound and determined to have "scientists" validate their faiths for them. At some point, faith stops being faith. Science seeks to remove questions of faith through experimentation and evidence. Why would a person of faith try to do that to God?
Incidentally, according to Variety, the holy writ of the show biz industry, "Expelled" came to number 8 this weekend, behind "The Forbidden Kingdom", "Forgetting Sarah Marshall", "Prom Night", "88 Minutes", "Nim's Island", "21", "Street Kings", and "Horton Hears a Who". It outperformed "Leatherheads" by just $131,056. It grossed $3,152,896.
By comparison, "The Nativity Story" grossed $8 million its first weekend, and "Passion of the Christ" about $125 million in its first five days (which started on a Wednesday).
Mmm…
ReplyDeleteBut technically the movie did break the Top Ten. And at $3.1 Million on the opening weekend, its future is all but certain to hold financial viability.
Turns out I was wrong about it being a monetary flop. Ah well—thus ends my short-lived occupation as a soothsayer.
I do think those who hold to evolution should take this as a warning sign. Far more than the statistics and surveys as to the majority of Americans who do not believe in evolution.
You're right again Dagoods. Christians are "cheap."
ReplyDeleteHeck, they only tip God 10%...wait staff is up to 20% thesedays. Can't tip people more than God, so instead of raising God's tip...
Fly wrote--You're assuming a "design" and an "information based driving force" that no rational biologist is saying is there.
ReplyDeleteThen how on earth does it work, Fly? Check out this cell replication video. This is the same cell ("gemule")that Darwin assumed was empty.
And these ID scientists. Are they cranks or Gallileos? I think we should fund research that reveals new information regardless of whether the scientists favors evolution or ID. I find it irrational that these scientists are being blacklisted.
I don't even think this is about biblical creationism at all. It is a good hypothesis that something is behind the cell as "production factory" we see today. Dawkins even admitted in the film (and in other writings) that we could have been planted by extra-terrestrials.
Any case, those are my thoughts. Take care, all.
Jim Jordan: I think we should fund research that reveals new information regardless of whether the scientists favors evolution or ID.
ReplyDelete*shrug* So research it. What’s preventing you?
Oh…wait…I know…”Intelligent Design” does not present any testable hypothesis to research!
Ask yourself this simple question: “What test can we use to determine the difference between a designed object and a non-designed object?” Until that question can be answered, there is no research to be performed. We wouldn’t even know what objects we should be researching, nor what data we should be collecting, nor what information we should be recording, etc.
Luckily for us, there is ongoing funded research that IS revealing new information. Just happens that information continues to support evolution. Sorry.
Jim Jordan: Dawkins even admitted in the film (and in other writings) that we could have been planted by extra-terrestrials.
While I don’t support Dawkins’ method of presentation, and don’t agree with everything he says, I really REALLY do not support my blog being used to misrepresent his full statement on the subject. For any lurker who is interested in what Dawkins actually says, please read his article (appropriately titled)
”Lying for Jesus?”
Since the days when someone first figured out that the sun was not a chariot being pulled across the sky by Helios, science has been replacing supernatural explanations with natural ones. I admire the optimism of a scientist who thinks he can make it go the other direction, but he shouldn't find it suprising that universities don't want to fund his research.
ReplyDeleteHi Dagoods
ReplyDeleteIf the scientists are contributing to their field of research, why should anyone care what school of thought they come from? Stein is right. This is an ideological wall in big science. The blacklisted scientists had successful careers prior to their suggesting ID.
You wrote--Ask yourself this simple question: “What test can we use to determine the difference between a designed object and a non-designed object?”
Well, then, we better shut down the SETI project that searches the sky for intelligent patterns of radiowaves. They believe that one can see intelligent design. According to this "science cannot hint that God exists" demagoguery one must not look for Intelligent Designs. SETI is an anomaly in science then. It is an ideological concept that one cannot see ID or expect to see it.
On your other point, so Stein lied when Dawkins said...what? He said the same things to Bill O'Reilly about the possibility of God. Was O'Reilly lying too? Isn't lying usually done by the person talking?
Just my thoughts. I'd still like you to answer the question, "If a scientist contributes to his or her field, does it matter their school of thought?" Take care.
Uhh, Jim Jordan? A brief skim of a few SETI sites indicates they are looking for signals on narrow-band frequencies, and looking for signals of certain strength. In other words, they do devise a test to differentiate between all signals and signals from intelligent life. They have a method. The use it to determine “this signal is not from intelligent life” as compared to “this signal is from intelligent life.”
ReplyDeleteYou really don’t get this whole “science/test” thing, do you?
Jim Jordan: The blacklisted scientists had successful careers prior to their suggesting that one cannot see ID or expect to see it. Stein lied about the possibility of God. Isn't lying usually done by the person talking?
Those are your words. Quoted 100% accurately, in the exact same order given. But is that what you said? (I left the ellipses out to compare to the movie, which I presume does not inform the audience where the edits were made.)
You also don’t get this whole “editing/taking words out of context/failing to give the whole quote” thing, either, do you? Can you give me a cite where Dawkins wrote we could have been planted by alien beings? And then review the whole context of what he wrote?
You have a funny penchant of refusing to answer my questions, but then demanding I answer yours. *shrug* I’ll play along. Again.
Jim Jordan: "If a scientist contributes to his or her field, does it matter their school of thought?"
Nope. You DO know Kenneth Miller is a theist, right? Yet manages to contribute a lot to his field. Or Dr. Collins. Or any number of theistic scientists who contribute to their field. And I don’t care if some scientist wants to believe in intelligent design and program the next greatest system in competition with Microsoft. Or contribute to biology. Or whatever.
And if you, Jim Jordan, want to fund some scientist to research the new idea of Intelligent Design—go right ahead.
But before we start funding, we ought to know what we are researching, don’t you think? So I will ask my question again. To be ignored again. (Usually it takes me three times to get you to answer, and this is only two.)
“What test can we use to determine the difference between a designed object and a non-designed object?”
Jim, I don't know why you keep bringing up complex biological functions as the proof of the existence of God. I've said it once and I'll say it again: making such claims only points to the scientific ignorance of the person making the claim. Biologists do understand how cell replication works and have pretty good explanations of how it works on a molecular level and also how it got to the point where it is now. Big hint: mitochondria.
ReplyDeleteAnother problem is that for every Galileo, there were 10,000 cranks known as alchemists who were convinced that it was possible, by introduction of sulphur and mercury and heat, to turn lead into gold. Many claimed success. Should we consider the concept of chemical elements to be mere "theory" and be "openminded" to the possibilities that one could change one element into another through chemical reaction?
The "debate" is over and has been for over a century. "Scientists" who are not biologists who claim, unscientifically, that the complexity of cell replication to the layman is somehow proof of God are just as likely to be dismissed by other scientists as are those who claim that they can turn lead into gold by adding mercury and popping it all into the microwave.
Yes, science has a bias against the supernatural. Sorry you don't like it, but it is what it is. If you want to discuss God, you will need to do so in the context of (horror) religion and philosophy.
And no, from what I understand, the various SETI projects (for all their flaws) were never intent on hearing from God, but from other beings who had also figured out how to modulate electromagnetic radiation in a way to transmit data across distance.
Here's an experiment you can try, Jim! Tune an AM radio to 1290 kHz between 3 and 6 PM and you will get startling proof of intelligent life in West Palm Beach!
Irrelevant questions are not worth answering, Dagoods.
ReplyDelete“What test can we use to determine the difference between a designed object and a non-designed object?”
Design is evident in all things. You follow the designed objects where they take you and record the information. Evolutionists and ID proponents don't treat evidence any differently, so the blacklisting of ID proponents is ideological.
Can you give me a cite where Dawkins wrote we could have been planted by alien beings?
That's a question that has an answer. Follow the link you gave us and read it.
Flycandler, here's a blog post by an atheist I think will interest you.
Jim Jordan: Irrelevant questions are not worth answering, Dagoods.
ReplyDeleteI generally figure if the other person thinks enough to ask it, the least I can do is give an answer. You seem to have lost even the scantiest courtesy anymore, Jim Jordan.
Jim Jordan: Design is evident in all things.
And therein is Intelligent Design’s problem. I think most (if not all) intelligent designers would state that. Therefore there is no test to determine the difference between designed objects and non-designed objects because ALL tests would ALL show ALL objects as “designed.”
It becomes an untestable theory! Which is why it fails to qualify as science. If we cannot tell the difference between a designed object and a non-designed object (since ALL objects look the same) then we cannot claim an object is “designed” over the possibility it is not designed.
As to Dawkins and my link, let’s compare to see whether you misrepresented Dawkins’ position, shall we?:
Jim Jordan: Dawkins even admitted in the film (and in other writings) that we could have been planted by extra-terrestrials.
Richard Dawkins: Another example. Toward the end of his interview with me, Stein asked whether I could think of any circumstances whatsoever under which intelligent design might have occurred. It's the kind of challenge I relish, and I set myself the task of imagining the most plausible scenario I could. I wanted to give ID its best shot, however poor that best shot might be. I must have been feeling magnanimous that day, because I was aware that the leading advocates of Intelligent Design are very fond of protesting that they are not talking about God as the designer, but about some unnamed and unspecified intelligence, which might even be an alien from another planet. Indeed, this is the only way they differentiate themselves from fundamentalist creationists, and they do it only when they need to, in order to weasel their way around church/state separation laws. So, bending over backwards to accommodate the IDiots ("oh NOOOOO, of course we aren't talking about God, this is SCIENCE") and bending over backwards to make the best case I could for intelligent design, I constructed a science fiction scenario. Like Michael Ruse (as I surmise) I still hadn't rumbled Stein, and I was charitable enough to think he was an honestly stupid man, sincerely seeking enlightenment from a scientist. I patiently explained to him that life could conceivably have been seeded on Earth by an alien intelligence from another planet (Francis Crick and Leslie Orgel suggested something similar -- semi tongue-in-cheek). The conclusion I was heading towards was that, even in the highly unlikely event that some such 'Directed Panspermia' was responsible for designing life on this planet, the alien beings would THEMSELVES have to have evolved, if not by Darwinian selection, by some equivalent 'crane' (to quote Dan Dennett). My point here was that design can never be an ULTIMATE explanation for organized complexity. Even if life on Earth was seeded by intelligent designers on another planet, and even if the alien life form was itself seeded four billion years earlier, the regress must ultimately be terminated (and we have only some 13 billion years to play with because of the finite age of the universe). Organized complexity cannot just spontaneously happen. That, for goodness sake, is the creationists' whole point, when they bang on about eyes and bacterial flagella! Evolution by natural selection is the only known process whereby organized complexity can ultimately come into being. Organized complexity -- and that includes everything capable of designing anything intelligently -- comes LATE into the universe. It cannot exist at the beginning, as I have explained again and again in my writings.
This 'Ultimate 747' argument, as I called it in The God Delusion, may or may not persuade you. That is not my concern here. My concern here is that my science fiction thought experiment -- however implausible -- was designed to illustrate intelligent design's closest approach to being plausible. I was most emphaticaly NOT saying that I believed the thought experiment. Quite the contrary. I do not believe it (and I don't think Francis Crick believed it either). I was bending over backwards to make the best case I could for a form of intelligent design. And my clear implication was that the best case I could make was a very implausible case indeed. In other words, I was using the thought experiment as a way of demonstrating strong opposition to all theories of intelligent design.
Well, you will have guessed how Mathis/Stein handled this. I won't get the exact words right (we were forbidden to bring in recording devices on pain of a $250,000 fine, chillingly announced by some unnamed Gauleiter before the film began), but Stein said something like this. "What? Richard Dawkins BELIEVES IN INTELLIGENT DESIGN." "Richard Dawkins BELIEVES IN ALIENS FROM OUTER SPACE." I can't remember whether this was the moment in the film where we were regaled with another Lord Privy Seal cut to an old science fiction movie with some kind of android figure – that may have been used in the service of trying to ridicule Francis Crick (again, dutiful titters from the partisan audience). [emphasis added]
Now—was Dawkins saying HE believed alien-planting could have occurred, or he was putting together a “science fiction scenario” for what INTELLIGENT DESIGNERS believed?
No need to copy and paste the whole Jew "Lying For Jesus" article, Dagoods. He said life could have been planted by aliens but that ultimately life would have come from whatever, anything but God, of course. "I must have been feeling magnanimous that day" isn't a strong enough antedote in my opinion. Plus he repeated that it could happen (panspermia) in the movie and in his article. So I don't get the point.
ReplyDeleteSorry if I don't sound courteous at times. I'll try harder, but often times the answer to a question is another question and at other times there is now answer because the question is flawed.
To clarify one point, if a scientist does a research project, publishes his data and then goes home and writes how it shows ID, should he lose his job? Oh, and are you going to see the movie?
Jim, if you're that poor a reader, I don't see why anyone should consider continuing what's obviously a pointless conversation. If you have to base your arguments on a severely twisted assertion of what Dawkins said, instead of what he actually said, quite simply, you've lost.
ReplyDeleteThere is a huge difference between saying that something is, by a stretch of the imagination, conceivable, and saying that it is at all plausible—much less making him out to actually believe it.
The question was Can you give me a cite where Dawkins wrote we could have been planted by alien beings?
ReplyDeleteDawkins' answer was The conclusion I was heading towards was that, even in the highly unlikely event that some such 'Directed Panspermia' was responsible for designing life on this planet, the alien beings would THEMSELVES have to have evolved, if not by Darwinian selection, by some equivalent 'crane'
That's fine coming from an evolutionist. Don't we pride ourselves in genetically modifying animals and plants? His anti-ID worldview is still the same which he then clarifies...
Dawkins--My point here was that design can never be an ULTIMATE explanation for organized complexity.
Why then? Would it not be scientific? Is that the problem? I think that's circular reasoning. It sounds more like a legal technicality. I think its also a philosophical point. And the reason that these scientists are being railroaded is not because of their work but because of their worldview.
And I'll leave it at that. This is an atheist website and my point of view cannot win. So I'm not going to beat a dead horse. Cheers.
Why should I care what an atheist thinks about a dispute between a self-identified "Arminian" and a self-identified "Calvinist"? I don't care what a fundamentalist Christian thinks about an argument between a self-identified Tendai and a self-identified Zen Buddhist, either.
ReplyDeleteAs far as the "documentary" goes, here are some comparisons of opening-weekend BO receipts per theater:
"Fahrenheit 9/11": 27,558
"March of the Penguins": 6,305
"Sicko": 5,128
"Madonna: Truth or Dare": 6,060 (adj)
"Tupac: Resurrection": 5,783
"Expelled": $2,824
I decided to simplify the list for fairness by excluding those movies whose "opening" is limited to a handful of theaters to get the average numbers up (this is an old movie studio trick). These are all from the past five years or so, with the exception of "Truth or Dare", which had been one of the top grossing documentaries of all time (and a surprising product placement for Evian).