Otherwise Known As Kevin Miller (XI)

Peter McKnight and the "missing think"

No, that's not the name of my next movie. It's what I call Vancouver Sun journalist Peter McKnight's review of Expelled, starring Ben Stein. Like many of his peers, instead of merely providing a straight review of the film, McKnight chose instead to use it as a platform to expose his own poorly informed and yet strongly held views regarding the controversy over Intelligent Design.

Thankfully, there are several better informed Canadians who are able and willing to hold people like McKnight accountable. One of those people is AJ Derxsen, who kindly sent me the following response to McKnight's screed. There's no way the Sun will print this in its entirity, so I wanted to make it available here for McKnight's and my readers' benefit. Enjoy!

Download McKnight_rebuttal.pdf

Imagine that!

A federal judge on Monday freed the producers of Expelled to continue using a 15-second recording of John Lennon's "Imagine."A New York judge said the makers of Expelled had a right of "fair use" under copyright law to use a small portion of the work without Yoko Ono's permission. Read all about it here.

PZ wants to get it on

Displaying his typical charm and tolerance for those who don't share his views, PZ Myers has kindly suggested that we all "Fuck the National Day of Prayer." Good to know at least one person is occupying the moral high ground. Kind of lonely up there though, isn't it PZ?

Yoko say "Oh no!"

The Fair Use Project of Stanford Law School’s Center for Internet and Society today announced that it is signing on to defend Premise Media’s right to use a clip of John Lennon’s song “Imagine”  in its documentary, “Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed,” for the purposes of commentary and criticism. Read their press release.

Credit where credit is due

The guy in the red is none other than Matt Chandler, who wrote the lyrics for Beware the Believers. The guy beside him is Ben Huddleston, one of our cameramen. I took this photo at the premiere party for Expelled. And I would be remiss if I didn't mention that I was the one who recommended Matt for the job.

Just because you can never get too much Mathis

Here's a Q and A with him that was published today by the Waco Tribune.

And hey, here's something else to celebrate: Expelled moved from 13th to 12th position at the box office after Monday's results. Our total take is $5,455,051 so far. That puts us less than $1.3 million away from overtaking "Roger and Me" as the 5th highest grossing political documentary since 1982. If we surpass Moore's film, we'll also be the 12th highest grossing documentary overall. Not bad for a film that earned only 9% on Rottentomatoes.com.

Chuck Norris!

Walker, Texas Ranger, himself, offers a measured endorsement of Expelled.

Darbots take note

The Google-bombing has begun. Desperate times call for desperate measures, I guess. Go ahead, heed PZ's directive, trolls. Prove that everything Expelled says about the Darwinist machine is true.

The thing I don't understand is, if Expelled really is a "hideous little propaganda film," as PZ says, why is this action necessary?

Consensus science, the first refuge of scoundrels--and Wesley R. Elsberry

In light of a recent conversation we've been having both here on my blog and over at After the Bar Closes, I thought it fitting to post these words on consensus science from author Michael Crichton:

"Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled. Whenever you hear the consensus of scientists agrees on something or other, reach for your wallet, because you’re being had.

"Let’s be clear: the work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world. In science, consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus.

"And furthermore, the consensus of scientists has frequently been wrong. As they were wrong when they believed, earlier in my lifetime, that the continents did not move. So we must remember the immortal words of Mark Twain, who said, 'Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it is time to pause and reflect.'"

Taken from a speech Crichton gave called, "The Case for Skepticism on Global Warming." You can read the full text here.

Everyone who disagrees with me is stupid

Richard Dawkins is famous for the following statement:

It is absolutely safe to say that if you meet someone who claims not to believe in evolution, that person is ignorant, stupid or insane (or wicked, but I'd rather not consider that.)

At first blush, this seems like a pretty arrogant thing to say. Richard Dawkins has found the truth, and anyone who disagrees with him is either mentally or morally deficient. Then again, it also sounds like the utterance of a paranoiac, someone who is convinced that aliens are messing with his mind, and that the only reason others don't believe him is that the aliens got to them first.

But the more I've thought about this statement, the more I've begun to think that most people feel pretty much the same as Mr. Dawkins about the things they believe. If we believe something, likely it's because we've examined the evidence and have come to what we view as the only logical conclusion. Therefore, if people disagree with us, we tend to classify them in one of the following ways:

1. Stupid: They're not smart enough to realize the truth.
2. Ignorant: They could learn the truth, but they just haven't bothered or haven't had the opportunity. (We could also classify these people as lazy.)
3. Deluded: The truth is right in front of them, but due to some emotional or mental deficiency, they're unable to accept it.
4. Evil: They know the truth, but they ignore or suppress it because it will prevent them from carrying out their nefarious plans.

Take belief in God, for example. I come from a Christian background, so I can speak quite authoritatively about how a Christian feels when he or she encounters someone who doesn't believe in God. They typically assume one of the following:

1. This person simply isn't smart enough to know the truth. Hopefully God will have grace on him/her.
2. This person could grasp the truth if only he or she would read this book/listen to this sermon/have this experience.
3. This person could grasp the truth, but evil forces have blinded them to it. We must save this person from these evil forces.
4. This person knows the truth, but they ignore or suppress it because it will prevent them from carrying out their nefarious plans.

So I guess it's safe to assume that if Richard Dawkins is arrogant or paranoid, so are the rest of us. Perhaps that's another name for the human condition--"arrogant paranoism." This makes it a little easier to understand why debates over things like Intelligent Design get so heated and personal, because there's a lot more at stake here than science.

All of us make sense of the world in our own way, and we all believe we have found THE TRUTH. When forces rise up against us, it's only natural to assume that the people behind those forces are stupid, ignorant, deluded or evil. Because if they weren't, why else would they disagree with us?

Unfortunately, that doesn't bode well for us ever finding a speedy resolution to this or any other debate. But perhaps knowing that we're all in the same epistemological boat will give us something to hold onto when it really starts to rock.