A brochure? For free? Sign me up!

Over at Shifting Baselines, Randy Olson, writer/director of Flock of Dodos,  has just reported some shocking news:

To counter the blockbuster power of "Expelled," the National Science Foundation, NAS and AAAS are organizing a panel discussion about putting together a committee to look into the possibility of creating a brochure that tells the public how to make a website for a petition that says evolution is fun.

Wow. Perhaps the Expelled team can counter that with a leaflet. Or maybe a flyer.

One thing I respect about Randy Olson is that he calls things as he sees them. This is the second time he's done that in terms of Expelled, and he's already getting raked over the coals for it. (The last time the commenters at Pharyngula encouraged him to drink himself to death.) Thankfully criticism doesn't seem to bother Randy or science writer Chris Mooney, who saw the film with Randy today. And I'll bet they actually bought tickets for it rather than buying tickets for another movie and then sneaking in to Expelled instead (as many other people have confessed to doing).

I realize that neither Randy nor Chris are fans of Expelled or the ideas it represents. But at least they're not trying to deny or explain away the film's impact. And as far as I've observed, they both seem to agree with Shifting Baselines commentor Greg Wright, who says, "Being right doesn't matter if you come off as a prick." Something for you trolls to think about.

Comments

[Rich]

But Kevin, there is no primary evidence linking Darwin to Hitler, but lots linking him to creationism. Then we have artificial selection not being natural selection, the knowledge of that and genocide (in the biblical tradition) predating Darwin by Millenia...and of course that arguing to consequences doesn't actually change the reality of the fact of evolution. We've told you this lots of times. You haven't responded.

[Glen Davidson]

"In fact, there are numerous examples: Ben Kiernan's recent, massive book on the subject documents several, beginning with the Roman extermination of Carthage in 149-46 BCE."

Indeed, the Armenian genocide, by a nominally secular but practically quite a religious state, Turkey, seems to have been the prototype that the Nazis looked to (especially in noticing that virtually nothing was done to stop it).

But what is surprising about everything scholarly being twisted by these people? Seriously, if you're going to rely on prejudice instead of evidence in the question of origins, you have no reason to look to anything but prejudice when history is the issue.

This is why "Expelled" will eventually be tacitly or explicitly repudiated by the IDists sometime in the future (after they've gotten sales and contributions from it, naturally). Even though ID, or whatever its successor might be, will be as intellectually dishonest as ID has been in all areas scholarly, the fact that "Expelled" is such an egregious example of intellectual dishonesty will mean that it will have to be shunted aside by future creationists at some point.

Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/2kxyc7

[Glen Davidson]

Since the whole Nazi issue came up again, I'll cross-post what I originally put onto Talkorigins:

Actually, Behe's version of ID (which is the one that bites the bullets that other IDists faint to do) is what most suggests that human life is of no value. He has the Designer specifically and exquisitely designing P. falciparum and the anopheles mosquitos to bring death and misery to millions of children, and of course adults as well.

That is evidently the purpose behind P. falciparum, above all. In this manner, the Designer (supposing it exists) has killed far more people than Hitler and Stalin put together ever did. The very author of humanity deliberately designed P. falciparum for no reason except to harm and to kill humans. This suggests that there is a divine mandate to kill humans, for the designer of these beings designed agents to kill same.

The fact of the matter is that evolutionary theory is amoral, unable to give value to humans, unable to take it away, and certainly with no inherent means to sanction the killing of Jews, slavs, and gypsies. Of the two theories in the public eye, only ID gives purpose to agents of death, such as P. falciparum, and anopheles mosquitos. So the one idea that really suggests that killing humans is at least all right, and perhaps even a way of mimicking what the divine does in killing humans, is ID.

Glen Davidson
http://tinyurl.com/2kxyc7

[Mark]

The notion that, as Miller, Mathis and Stein claim, "Darwinism" was a "necessary condition" for Nazism and the Holocaust is pretty clearly false. If it were true, we would not see any examples of genocide, attempted or completed, in world history prior to 1859. In fact, there are numerous examples: Ben Kiernan's recent, massive book on the subject documents several, beginning with the Roman extermination of Carthage in 149-46 BCE.

So my serious question to you, Kevin, is this:

-Why do you make a slanderous falsehood a central argument of your film?

[Glen Davidson]

Well there you are, Kevin sneers that "Big Science" is just going to make a brochure.

My God, what a police state "Darwinism" has produced, these ignoramuses put out a $3.5 million picture, and we have the NCSE website, the AAAS pointing out what a dishonest travesty it is, and maybe a brochure. I hope you have plenty of guns, Kevin, because it looks like you're being severely threatened.

And that's just it, of course. Kevin can't keep his stories straight, because he'll immediately shift from our being evil totalitarian Nazis, to a sneer that we really aren't doing much of anything. You know that even he knows he's being disingenuous, on some level or other (likely beneath the denial).

My Lord, the oppression these people suffer!

Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/2kxyc7

[John]

Kevin wrote:
"But Hitler needed Darwinism to add scientific legitimacy to his pre-existing hatreds."

Hitler explicitly rejected Darwin's theory of common descent. Every aspect of Hitler's rationale for genocide was consistent with what creationists and ID proponents believe to be true about evolution within a species.

How could Hitler have needed "Darwinism" (your use of the term shows your dishonesty, btw) if Hitler, along with you and virtually all ID advocates, explicitly rejected Darwin's most important contribution to biology?

"He found his overriding ethic in the notion of "survival of the fittest.""

This is completely dishonest for two very important reasons:

1) Darwin clearly rejected using his theory as a foundation for ethics. This is another reason why your label "Darwinism" represents a completely deliberate attempt to deceive your audience, Kevin.

2) Natural selection is about reproduction of the fittest, not survival. Darwin went into great detail on sexual selection, which directly contradicts your fake quote.

[Eric]

I give DaveScot over at UD (an ID proponent) a lot of credit for coming out against the premise of the film (which is essentially: from Darwin to Hitler)

"If there’s any real case to be made for Darwin and the holocaust it’s the opposite of what’s messaged in Expelled. The holocaust resulted from a failure to heed Darwin’s warning that eugenics could only be practiced by sacrificing the noblest part of our nature, the very part and only part that separates us from other animals. Those responsible for the holocaust, beginning with the eugenics movement in America, were the true animals. Those opposed were nobler than the animals."

http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/a-complete-darwin-quote-with-a-brief-translation/

[MachiavelliDiscourse]

Kudos to Kevin for finally answering some questions.

Kevin:
"But Hitler needed Darwinism to add scientific legitimacy to his pre-existing hatreds."

That's just an assertion. Why didn't the Turks need Darwinism to slaughter the Armenians? Why didn't the many other genocides in history require such scientific legitimacy. You need to elaborate on what was so special about the Nazis.

Kevin:
"...but Hitler rejected Christian ethics as weak and unnatural. He found his overriding ethic in the notion of "survival of the fittest.""

Hitler never fully rejected his Christianity and often invoked it as justification for his struggle against the Jews. The Nazis burned copies of Darwin's books and rejected the notion that humans shared a common ancestor with chimpanzees. We've documented all of the above previously.

And "survival of the fittest" was coined by Herbert Spencer, not Darwin. Social Darwinism should be renamed Social Spencerism.

Kevin:
"If that was the law of nature, that should be the law of society."

That's a non-sequitur and you've failed to provide evidence that Hitler believed this to be true. Even if he did this would still not make sense from a scientific perspective since society is part of nature and would not need any additional encouragement to behave naturally.

Kevin:
"I've never seen the slides she used in class"

Why not? They've been posted up on the internet. Your research is looking a little superficial and biased. Her slides are embarrassingly wrong on several points. She even refers to Archaeopteryx as a "reptobird" and suggests that it is a fake - a claim that has been debunked for several decades. This level of incompetence is a sufficient reason to fire someone from their post. But she wasn't even fired.

[Eric]

Kevin,

How many times is Darwin, Natural Selection or Evolution mentioned in Mein Kampf? If it had a huge influence on his ethics (as you claim above) wouldn't he have at least given those topics a paragraph or a sentence?

http://richarddawkins.net/article,2488,Open-Letter-to-a-victim-of-Ben-Steins-lying-propaganda,Richard-Dawkins

[MachiavelliDiscourse]

Greg:
"It's really sad that everyone these days has to be an opponent in a bare-knuckle brawl rather than a colleague one disagrees with."

I wouldn't put up with this behaviour from work colleagues. If you decide to lie, cheat, and steal then you have to accept the consequences. I'm not interested in appeasing people who want to give me a bloody nose.

[Cheezits]

"But Hitler needed Darwinism to add scientific legitimacy to his pre-existing hatreds."

I find it a little hard to see why he needed any (apparent) scientific legitimacy for what he did. People in power rarely need the stamp of science to rationalize their actions.

I was kind of hoping for an answer to #7 because that is one of the things I find the most suspicious about the whole operation.

[Kevin Miller]

Ellazim asked:

1. If Darwinism was a necessary condition for the development of the Nazi state then why didn't similar political movements take hold in the other countries that accepted evolutionary theory?

It's the distinction between sufficient and necessary. As David Berlinski makes clear in the film, no one is saying that everyone who believes in Darwinism is a Nazi. But Hitler needed Darwinism to add scientific legitimacy to his pre-existing hatreds. It also had a huge influence on his ethics. A lot of people want to point to Lutheranism to explain his anti-semitism. That may be true, but Hitler rejected Christian ethics as weak and unnatural. He found his overriding ethic in the notion of "survival of the fittest." If that was the law of nature, that should be the law of society. So he began to see the struggle between races very much like a struggle between species.

2. What were the other essential building blocks for the Nazi state? I think the primary one was a sense of humiliation sparked by their defeat in WWI and the onerous burden of responsibility and reparation placed upon them by the Treaty of Versaille. The Great Depression created a desperate feeling in Germany. Not only was the country isolated politically, it was suffering from the same economic crisis that was striking everywhere else in the world. Hitler was seen as the man who could reverse this slide and raise Germany back to a place of prominence in the world.

3. Was Sternberg fired from his position? No.

4. Was the conclusion of the "congressional investigation" into the Sternberg matter consistent with the data presented in the appendix to the report? Yes and no. The seventy or so pages of e-mails definitely reflect the level of anxiety the Sternberg situation created for those in the Smithsonian and elsewhere. But there's no way they can capture the anger and insinuation Sternberg faced at work every day as a result of the incident. That is well documented by Sternberg and Sauder, and I have no reason to doubt them as credible witnesses. In no way did going public about this help Sternberg's career, so he has not motivation for lying that I can see. His life has been hell ever since this incident.

5. As Gonzales has now accepted a position at Grove College how was his career hampered by being refused tenure at Iowa State? I'm not familiar enough with the rankings between these two colleges to offer an informed assessment. But I think it's pretty obvious that getting denied tenure never looks as good on your resume as receiving tenure.

6. What specifically was Crocker teaching her students? I've never seen the slides she used in class, but she claims to have mentioned Intelligent Design on a couple of occasions as an alternative to classical Neo-Darwinism. This was done toward the end of her cell biology course. She has letters from students that say afterwards they had no idea which side of the debate she was on.

7. Why was the domain "expelledthemovie.com" registered before many of the interviews for the film were conducted but no domain for "crossroads" was? I'm sorry, but I was not involved in those decisions. All I can say is that the name of the film was a subject of much contention amongst our team until very late in the game.

8. Why were some advance screenings rescheduled but only some of the prospective attendees informed? Once again, that is a question best addressed to our PR firm, not to the screenwriter.

[Cheezits]

"You'd never tolerate this kind of behavior amongst your own children, would you?"

Have you ever given any specific example of what behavior you're objecting to? Your sweeping generalizations here don't tell me anything useful.

[ellazimm]

Greg: Do you agree with Darrel Manson's review as far as his general points are concerned?

[Greg Wright]

"if someone throws mud in your face and you throw some back then it's hardly fair to focus on the retaliation."

The question was raised, "How can we better respond?" and I offered opinions in response to that query.

I wasn't offering opinions about the movie. For me, that's called "a review," and I wrote one. Kevin found it pretty disappointing, even if he liked a line or two of it.

And believe me, I've offered the producers and promoters of Expelled plenty of opinions about what they could have done better, too.

And, since you bring it up, I'm not a subscriber to the "eye for an eye" philosophy. Sorry. Even my mom, who was about the furthest thing possible from a scientist, knew a thing or two about lemmings and cliffs. She would have called "He started it!" the response of a petulant child; and I think she was right. Sorry.

It's really sad that everyone these days has to be an opponent in a bare-knuckle brawl rather than a colleague one disagrees with.

You'd never tolerate this kind of behavior amongst your own children, would you? Personally, I believe the same principles that run families should run countries. Call me naive or stupid; so be it.

Truth will out, yes; but dead horses have gotten kind of past the point of caring about truth.

So in the interest of giving the dead horse a break, I'll leave it at that. If anyone's got further complaints for me, I'm pretty easy to find.

I'm also perfectly willing to share more about how to work toward solutions, too.

[MachiavelliDiscourse]

Greg:
"Now, if you want to ignore the crummy behavior that's been exhibited here and elsewhere, that's fine."

Well, if someone throws mud in your face and you throw some back then it's hardly fair to focus on the retaliation. When your opponent is shamelessly exploiting the deaths of millions of people to score a few political points then I think the gloves are off. It's hard to tip-toe around that kind of appalling behaviour.

But I agree that perception certainly matters. The dishonest, sleazy behaviour of the makers of Expelled certainly is going to sway public perception. The average creationist in the street would not condone the unethical practices employed by the Expelled crew and that fact works in our favour.

And the truth has a funny way of coming out in the end.

[Cheezits]

"...I've been very careful not so single anyone out for criticism."

Well then how the heck are we supposed to know whose crummy behavior you are talking about?? *whap whap whap*

[Greg Wright]

Mach, you've obviously missed my point. I'm not smearing everyone who comments here with the same brush, and I've been very careful not so single anyone out for criticism. And I've been very careful to point out the criticism cuts both ways.

If you're at all familiar with my Internet presence, you know that I've exhibited my own share of bad behavior over the years, so I'm not exempt from the criticism either. No stone-throwing here.

Now, if you want to ignore the crummy behavior that's been exhibited here and elsewhere, that's fine. I just don't know why you'd want to.

I'm talking about perception, anyway -- not reality. And perception is often more powerful than truth.

Of course I agree with Cheezits -- being right certainly matters. Truth matters. But experience tells us that, in the court of public opinion, that's sadly not what usually wins.

[Cheezits]

"If all anyone sees is ranting against enemies... That's more like spoiled brat than Jesus."

Thptptpt. Anyone can say that about anyone else, can't they? Anyone can appear as a "prick" if you decide you don't like them.

Being right *does* matter.

Seems like we have a difference of opinion as to who is acting like a brat here! Kevin keeps dismissing everyone who disagrees with him as "trolls". (At least, I guess that's who he's talking about since I don't think he named names.) In the internet world "troll" refers to someone who posts obnoxious crap for the sole purpose of getting attention. They may not even mean what they say. Posting reasonable questions/concerns/criticism is not trolling behavior.

Making a movie full of lies and distortions, linking scientists with Naziism, and crowing about getting negative reviews from "the right people" - that IS trolling.

[MachiavelliDiscourse]

Greg, you've essentially labeled everyone that comments on Kevin's blog as hateful, small-minded, and naive. I resent that since I have offered to answer in detail Kevin's questions about science (an offer he has ignored) and since I have been patient in waiting for answers to my own questions.

It's too easy to dismiss people's criticism because you don't like the manner it is delivered in. That's a cop out. And it's unhelpful to throw everyone into the same box when some of us are trying to communicate what biology is really about.

[Greg Wright]

Geez, Cheezits; of course it's worse to be both wrong and a prick. But I wasn't making an observation about those folks.

I also observed in further comments on Olson's blog that the capacity for being a prick is pretty universal, so rest assured the comment applies equally to bad behavior on all sides.

And trust me -- as an editor and pastor, I've seen enough over the years to have my fill.

When it comes to Jesus... The reason people took notice when Jesus railed was that he was already known as a man of peace and understanding. When he ranted, it mattered. And he ranted against his peers, not against his enemies.

If all anyone sees is ranting against enemies... That's more like spoiled brat than Jesus.

Bad comparison, Cheezits.

[Cheezits]

"Being right doesn't matter if you come off as a prick."

So, if you just label people as "pricks" or "trolls", you are excused from considering whether they may be right? :-D

Jesus didn't play nicey-nice with hypocrites, why should we?

[BathTub]

Sorry now you've asked too many questions.

[MachiavelliDiscourse]

Randy:
"There should be five popular pro-evolution movies at the box office right now, instead of none."

At what point did science become a PR battle? At what point did scientists become movie-makers and entertainers? Speaking as a UK resident and scientist, all of this is just plain bizarre. Randy seems like a nice guy with good intentions but I don't think he's seeing the bigger picture.

Biology education is pretty poor in America. If your movie manages to worsen it a little then you will have been successful. But this will have a small impact on science. The majority of American academics are foreigners (as is the case here, too). And the schools in America that typically produce academics will not be moved by your propaganda.

So, all in all, the unfortunate effect of your film will be to slightly widen the gap between the educated and the ignorant. This is undesirable but the effect on science is slight. I became interested in this nonsense because of the disgusting slander contained in the film, not because I think the film is a threat to good science.

There is one sense in which I agree with Randy, however. Since science education is so poor in certain parts of America it would be a good idea to try to make science interesting and accessible to the general public. But I think this needed to be done anyway.

[ellazimm]

Let's not forget that you have put off answering one question indefinitely. I can't believe it's going to take you 'til this Autumn to explain to us which aspects of evolutionary theory were essential for the construction of the Nazi ideology. Sigh.

How about this question: if "Dawrinism" was a necessary condition for the development of the Nazi state then why didn't similar political movements take hold in the other countries that accepting evolutionary theory?

Or: what were the other essential building blocks for the Nazi state?

Or how about this question: Was Sternberg fired from his position?

Or: Was the conclusion of the "congressional investigation" into the Sternberg matter consistent with the data presented in the appendix to the report?

Or: As Gonzales has now accepted a position at Grove College how was his career hampered by being refused tenure at Iowa State?

Or: What specifically was Crocker teaching her students?

Or: Why was the domain "expelledthemovie.com" registered before many of the interviews for the film were conducted but no domain for "crossroads" was?

Or: why were some advance screenings rescheduled but only some of the prospective attendees informed?

Shall I go on?