Voter Homework, Sep. 9

Must read #1:
What's the Difference Between Palin and Muslim Fundamentalists? Lipstick.

Must read #2:
Ten Ways the McCain/Palin GOP Is Now Stealing the Ohio Vote
(This one really worries me, there has been hardly any talk about Republican voter suppression techniques and the proliferation of unreliable, unverifiable electronic voting machines in the MSM.)

Must read #3:
Palin Billed State for Nights Spent at Home (Change you can subsidize?)

Must read #4
Palin the "Fiscal Conservative", which contains this excellent observation by Ed Brayton of Dispatches:

Anyone who believes that Republicans really want smaller government is living in a fantasy world. They want more government, they just don't want to pay for it with higher taxes. And make no mistake, this is all quite intentional. It works like this: they drive up spending while cutting taxes, which drives up the debt. Then when the Democrats take office and are forced to raise taxes to pay off the debt they drove up, they scream "See, the Democrats want to raise your taxes!

Must read #5
Mirengoff on the Palin Effect at the RNC, where this Mirengoff fellow makes the following, honest observation about the Palin effect:

We conservatives have had a good time ridiculing the Obama phenomenon, especially its messianic feel -- the willingness of its adherents to pour so much hope and belief into such an empty, or at least incomplete, vessel -- and its elevation of "narrative" over substance.
It turns out that we were dying to have basically the same experience.

Once Again... The Delicate Curmudgeon

The Delicate Curmudgeon has deleted one of my posts from his website on accusation of leveling gratuitous insults. I was simply responding to his allegation that "[c]onception is the beginning of life. There is no controversy over this in the scientific literature." This is false, so I proceeded to explain my point of view on the matter.

Perhaps it was my use of the word Christocrats (which is not my term--I first found it explained in Rabbi James Rudin's The Baptizing of America), or perhaps the intimation that, just like for Obama, defining the moment when life begins is above the Curmudgeon's paygrade. Seems to me it's just another case of censorship aimed at protecting the pristine ears of his many ultraconservative readers. Those of you are interested can click the Read on link to learn more about the dispute.

---

"It is a scientific fact that human life begins at conception. It is not something dependent on biblical revelation, although the Bible makes this claim as well."

Contrary to the above statement, the problem is that the definition of conception varies greatly and is largely influenced by factors such as religious beliefs, which is why the American College of Obstetricans and Gynecologists prefers to define pregnancy, instead of conception.

If you take the definition of pregnancy that I quoted previously* (being that conception is insufficient in defining pregnancy, since neither ovulation nor fertilization alone constitute sufficient condition for a pregnancy), then implantation is taken to be the necessary condition for the beginning of pregnancy. In this sense, not only is the question "does life begin at conception" above Obama's pay grade, but also above Dr. Groothuis's.

Incidentally, if this definition of pregnancy is accepted, then it is impossible to understand the opposition of the religious right to such contraceptives as abortifacients, if taken before the time implantation is known occurs (at least eight days after fertilization).

From a logical and a practical point of view, it makes much more sense to use the ACOG definition. But it is quite obvious that many religious conservatives are not satisfied with a scientific discussion of pregnancy, sex-ed, etc, as their true intent is to stifle a woman's free expression of her sexuality and to constrict it to an anachronistic, but Biblical, version of sexuality.

George Orwell understood very well that authoritarian regimes, such as the one that many Christocrats advocate, seek to control and circumscribe sexuality, which one might argue is the ultimate boundary of self-expression.

---

*"When Is a Woman Pregnant?

To be sure, not every act of intercourse results in a pregnancy. First, ovulation (i.e., the monthly release of a woman's egg) must occur. Then, the egg must be fertilized. Fertilization describes the process by which a single sperm gradually penetrates the layers of an egg to form a new cell ("zygote"). This usually occurs in the fallopian tubes and can take up to 24 hours. There is only a short window during which an egg can be fertilized. If fertilization does not occur during that time, the egg dissolves and then hormonal changes trigger menstruation; however, if fertilization does occur, the zygote divides and differentiates into a "preembryo" while being carried down the fallopian tube toward the uterus. Implantation of the preembryo in the uterine lining begins about five days after fertilization. Implantation can be completed as early as eight days or as late as 18 days after fertilization, but usually takes about 14 days. Between one-third and one-half of all fertilized eggs never fully implant. A pregnancy is considered to be established only after implantation is complete."

Source: American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists.

---

(If the Delicate Curmudgeon has not deleted my other posts on the subject, you can find them here.)

McCain As Change Agent, According to Tom Toles

Tom Toles, editorial cartoonist for the Washington Post, published this masterful satire of McCain, the change agent, in the Sep. 5th issue.
(originally posted by the Washington Post here.)

Quote Collection on Patriotism

"Patriotism is supporting your country all the time, and your government when it deserves it." (Mark Twain)

"During times of war, hatred becomes quite respectable even though it has to masquerade often under the guise of patriotism." (Howard Thurman)

"Patriotism is your conviction that this country is superior to all others because you were born in it." (G.B. Shaw)

"Patriotism is an arbitrary veneration of real estate above principles." (George Jean Nathan)

"Unfortunately, religion, like patriotism, is easy to misuse for political purposes."(Kjell Magne Bondevik)

"Each nation feels superior to other nations. That breeds patriotism - and wars." (Dale Carnegie)

"Men in authority will always think that criticism of their policies is dangerous. They will always equate their policies with patriotism, and find criticism subversive." (Henry Steele Commager)

"True patriotism hates injustice in its own land more than anywhere else." (Clarence Darrow)

"Heroism on command, senseless violence, and all the loathsome nonsense that goes by the name of patriotism - how passionately I hate them!" (Albert Einstein)

Now compare those quotes with this one, from none other than Ann Coulter, right wingnut goddess:

"Liberals become indignant when you question their patriotism, but simultaneously work overtime to give terrorists a cushion for the next attack and laugh at dumb Americans who love their country and hate the enemy."

But no quote gives a better summation of how Bush, Rudy, John McSame and the Republican party have used patriotism since 9/11:

"Patriotism is the last refuge of the scoundrel." (Samuel Johnson)

'nuff said.

Absolute Must Read

Glenn Greenwald, of Salon.com, has a wonderfully insightful dissection of MSNBC's decision to demote Keith Olbermann (and Chris Matthews) from his role as co-anchor of MSNBC's political broadcasts.

It is truly one of the best articles I have read at crumbling the myth of "the liberal media."

P.S. My all-time favorite bumper sticker reads "The media are as liberal as the conservative corporations that own them."

The Reformed Maverick

As usual, The Daily Show does it best. Watch.

Frank Rich On McCain

Frank Rich's op-ed in Saturday's NY Times tells it like it is on McCain (and unmasks several incorrect/misleading/deceitful claims by McCain and his campaign in the process.) Don't forget to follow the links in Rich's op-ed, too.

The Beam In Your Own Eye

When you go around calling political opponents elitists (thus showing a) that you don't have a good grasp of the English language or, b) that you Rove-ingly redefine the true meaning of words in pursuit of your political aims), you had better make sure your wife's outfit on the convention stage does not cost more than the average suburban house with a yard and a three car garage, as the priceless commentator Ed Brayton points out at Dispatches from the Culture Wars. (Particularly if you yourself own seven or more homes, and don't even know it.)

What Won't McCain Do To Get Elected?

In his public appearances, Sen. McCain is quick to remind us that he supported the surge in Iraq when it was unpopular to do so, because he he would rather lose an election than his country lose a war. But everyone's principles have limits. Which is probably why John McBush, in a gigantic flip-flop, has decided to hire one of the guys instrumental in destroying his 2000 presidential bid. Makes you wonder about his integrity and his maverickness, doesn't it?

You can read the full story here. (Thanks to the always fabulous Dispatches from the Culture Wars for pointing out this story.)

Interesting Take On Bristol Palin's Pregnancy

This excerpt from an article regarding Bristol Palin's pregnancy strikes me as right on.

But the hypocrisy of so-called Conservatives in touting this circumstance as proof of family values, of conservative values, really roils me. The AP recently reported that John McCain not only has opposed federal spending on teen-prevention programs, he has also voted to oppose education and federal spending on contraceptives. Palin's own record shows the same at the state level. The idea that once a teenager, deprived of an education which teaches contraception, finds herself pregnant, is then expected to allow the embryo to come to term, to then either give it away or marry the father regardless of who, what or how he is doesn't rank among my values. To celebrate such practices as values to which we all should aspire, strikes me as worse than Palin's corruption charges and her petition to sue the government in order to keep polar bears off of the endangered species list.

You can read the whole article by Karen Dolan on Alternet.

Voter's Homework

Digging through the archives of Bill Moyers's broadcasts, I found this enlightening 2004 interview with Thomas Franks, author of the book What's The Matter With Kansas?

Comedy Central Wisdom

It's funny, you can watch CNN, MSNBC, Faux News and network news all day and all night, but you will never find better analysis of the McCain-Palin/RNC bullshit than on Comedy Central.



And when you are done, watch this....

Four War Years!

Elect McCain! Four war years! I am sorry, slip of the tongue. Understandable, given his casual attitude towards war with other countries. Remember this little incident? Hope you're on the bandwagon... If not, as McCain says, "get a life!" In fact, if you support McCain, why don't you go enlist as soon as you log off and wait to be shipped to a foreign country for four more years of fun?

Despicable Duplicity

Welcome to the School of Double Standards. And you want to elect the ticket this bunch of snake oilmen support?

That's The Ticket!

As usual, Stephen Colbert's right on the money. This time, it's about he hits the nail on the head regarding the Republican presidential ticket.



(The segment you need to watch starts at about 3:02, but it's not like the preceding part is not funny...)

Beyond The Palin

Looks like the background of McCain's politically calculated choice for VP is not as squeaky clean as one would hope for the supposedly über-moral, vice-maverick in chief. (And if anyone insists on calling McCain a "maverick" I cannot promise that I will not bury them under a mountain of epithets.)

From The Toronto Star

Thankfully, our neighbors to the North have a better grasp of the English language than we do, so much so that they take the time to explain the meaning of words and adjectives for our benefit in their newspapers. This just in about the true meaning of 'elite'.

The Real McCain

Think McCain's "one of us"? Maverick? Regular white guy? Think (not think again, as you obviously have not been thinking at all).

Watch.



Of course, many voters believe that Barack Obama is a Muslim, not an American citizen, hates America, is nazi and a communist, and wants to kill little babies so he can eat them, so I guess the chasm between McCain's election image and his real image is not their concern.

Also, according to Bush's definition of torture, McCain was not tortured as a POW. You can't have it both ways.

The KKK Factor

KKK: it does not just stand for the white supremacist faction that would dread an Obama presidency and is comprised of a larger number of people than you can imagine. It also stands for this: you elect another Republican, for the third consecutive term of a Republican Friedmanite in the White House, and you're out! As in down and out!

Here is a shocking fact, though not completely shocking, given the total cluelessness of the average American voter: a large number of whites is seriously thinking of voting for McCain come November, simply because Obama is black.

Most likely, many of these idiots do not necessarily share McCain's vision for the future of America, whatever that may be (probably a vision of tanks crawling all over the Middle East, fueled by the $10 a gallon oil that will be filling Republican coffers 'til the cows come home). Quite the contrary: many are probably middle to low class Americans who would greatly benefit from a president who thinks that the richest 1.5% in a nation should bear a larger share of the fiscal burden than the rest, who would benefit from easier and cheaper access to healthcare, renewable energy, education, housing, and so on. These people are probably crushed under the weight of their humongous mortgages and credit card debt, and yet they believe, because of the great job done by the ruthless and disgustingly vile neo-con propaganda apparatus and because of their own ignorant and self-defeating bias, that John McCain is more like them than Barack Obama.

So let me take a moment to these dangerous, ignorant voters who are thinking of cutting off their noses to spite their white faces:

Unless you were born to a four star admiral, or are the nephew of a US Army Brigadier, have a net worth of tens of millions of dollars and have remarried to the daughter of one of the largest beer distributors in the USA (a woman with a net worth of over $100 million), I have news for you: as little as you have in common with Barack Obama, including the color of the skin that you attribute so much importance to, you have even less in common with Sen. John McCain.

Sen. McCain is well aware of this fact, and his campaign of attacks against Sen. Obama is proof of it. None of the ads I have seen in my home state of Colorado give any specifics of what a McCain presidency would do for you, America's losers with delusions of grandeur. Rather, the ads are designed to scare you into thinking that President Obama would raise taxes on you and lead the country into an economic disaster. Never mind the fact that Sen. Obama would raise income taxes only on households making more than $250k a year, a category that comprises less approximately 1.5% of all taxpayers in the U.S. And never mind the fact that for the dictionary definition of economic disaster you need to look no further back than the current administration, which McCain has aided and abetted for the last eight years, in spite of his much hyped and little deserved reputation as a maverick.

In closing, you ignorant racist, I want to remind you of this: your vote will make many lives worse, including your own. And guess what: your white skin will not prevent your transformation into what you have worked so stubbornly to become: a slave to the people you helped put in charge, and a willing one at that.

The Misleading Curmudgeon

Dr. Groothuis, PhD, of The Constructive Curmudgeon and Denver Seminary, is a frequent guest of the Gino Geraci radio show, a Christocratic pulpit. Dr. Groothuis gleefully makes the most of all his appearances to attack liberal politics and politicians, and to peddle misinformation.

During his latest appearance, on Friday afternoon, he perpetuated a falsehood that I had already called him upon to correct on his blog. He again stated, incorrectly and with no regard for the truth or facts, that the last time he checked U.S. abortion laws were the most liberal on the planet (notice his leading use of the adjective liberal).

Perhaps Dr. Groothuis missed my correction of his March 08 post, which I also reprinted on my blog, in which case I hope that this post will serve as another reminder that he needs to update his knowledge. Or perhaps he is aware of my correction and has chosen to disregard it, in which case I guess he must think that god would endorse the protracted misinformation of one's readers and listeners (misinformation at best, wilful deceit at worst) if it is carried out in the service of the almighty, particularly when it may help to excite mindless Christians against a Democrat in an election. Call it a Hail Mary, if you like (or a Heil Cheney, if my suspicions on the professor are correct).

Dr. Groothuis: Doctor of Philosophy, Master of Deception.

Could Someone, Please?

My head's spinning.

Can someone please explain to me how President Bush and his alter-hawk and would-be successor John McBush be lecturing Russia about its aggression of Georgia?

How can these two, or anyone else, preach from their crumbling pulpit after their unwarranted, lie-based aggression of Iraq, and their stance against Iran? How can they lecture anyone about the value of diplomacy, their disappointment in Putin, and their condemnation of this aggression? Simply put, I think you have to be shameless hypocrites to do what they are doing.

Is John McBush really what we want after eight years of distortions, preachiness, and squandering of resources and goodwill? Can we be so duped as to elect the "worthy" successor to the man that dragged the reputation of the United States around the world in the gutter, and left its economy in shambles?

Ten Campaign Idiocies... And Counting

Interesting list of campaign misinformation, lies, and partisan misrepresentations (my favorites are 5, 6, and 10).

Can Christian Superstition Hurt McCain? (Keep Your Fingers Crossed)

Sometimes Christian superstition has a sweet side.

Foreign Policy Wonk or Donk?

Much has been made of McCain's experience, his understanding of history and foreign policy, and--conversely--of Barack Obama's inexperience. Except, of course, McCain keeps making egregious errors on foreign policy, the latest two this week: he mentioned the border between Iraq and Afghanistan (also known as, as Jon Stewart cuttingly remarked, "Iran") and then he compounded that error with another one about the history of "the surge" in Iraq. (And by the way, the insufferable Katie Couric censored the blunder.)

You can put these errors down to campaign fatigue, to old age, or to plain old ignorance. Whichever you prefer, beware of those out there who will tell you, without a hint of shame, that Obama is the wrong man because he lacks experience. As Obama said, if you want Washington experience, you deserve four more years of Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, and you would do well to vote for John McCon. Seemingly, though, most people have had enough of that kind of experience.

James Dobson's An Evangelical Fraud (2)

James Dobson is an Evangelical charlatan (there are many around, in case you haven't noticed) who will lie in the name of Jesus to advance his Christocratic agenda in the service of ideas that Jesus himself would abhorred and of people he would have kicked out of the temple. Jim Wallis knows it (read previous post), I know it, you know it, and guess who else does?

James Dobson's An Evangelical Fraud (1)

James Dobson is an Evangelical charlatan (there are many around, in case you haven't noticed) who will lie in the name of Jesus to advance his Christocratic agenda in the service of ideas that Jesus himself would abhorred and of people Jesus would have kicked out of the temple. And Jim Wallis knows it, though he won't quite spell it out.
Now Dobson, the Ph.D. from hell, is attacking Sen. Obama, saying he distorts Jesus's message in the name of politics. So Jim Wallis, bless his heart, wrote at length about who's distorting whose words in an article for Sojourners that I am reprinting below the fold because you need to read it--particularly if you teach your students at Denver Seminary and the readers of your blog that Obama is the devil and that the United States will never recover if he is elected (you know who you are).

---

Dobson and Obama: Who is 'Deliberately Distorting'?, by Rev. Jim Wallis.

James Dobson, of Focus on the Family Action, and his senior vice president of government and public policy, Tom Minnery, used their "Focus on the Family" radio show Tuesday to criticize Barack Obama's understanding of Christian faith. In the show, they describe Obama as "deliberately distorting the Bible," "dragging biblical understanding through the gutter," "willfully trying to confuse people," and having a "fruitcake interpretation of the Constitution."

The clear purpose of the show was to attack Barack Obama. On the show, Dobson says of himself, "I'm not a reverend. I'm not a minister. I'm not a theologian. I'm not an evangelist. I'm a psychologist. I have a Ph.D. in child development." Child psychologists don't insert themselves into partisan politics in the regular way that James Dobson does and has over many years as one of the premier leaders of the Religious Right. He has spoken about how often he talked to Republican leaders -- Karl Rove, administration strategists, and even President Bush himself. This year he tried to influence the outcome of the Republican primary by saying he would never vote for John McCain or the Republicans if they nominated him, then reversed himself and said he would vote after all but didn't say for whom. But why should America care about how a child psychologist votes?

James Dobson is insinuating himself into this presidential campaign, and his attacks against his fellow Christian, Barack Obama, should be seriously scrutinized. And because the basis for his attack on Obama is the speech the Illinois senator gave at our Sojourners/Call to Renewal event in 2006 (for the record, we also had Democrat Hillary Clinton and Republicans Rick Santorum and Sam Brownback speak that year), I have decided to respond to Dobson's attacks. In most every case they are themselves clear distortions of what Obama said in that speech. I was there for the speech; Dobson was not.

I haven't endorsed a candidate, but I do defend them when they are attacked in disingenuous ways, and this is one of those cases. You can read Obama's two-year-old speech, [audio link] which was widely publicized at the time, and you can see that Dobson either didn't understand it or is deliberately distorting it. There are two major problems with Dobson's attack on Obama.

First, Dobson and Minnery's language is simply inappropriate for religious leaders to use in an already divisive political campaign. We can agree or disagree on both biblical and political viewpoints, but our language should be respectful and civil, not attacking motives and beliefs.

Second, and perhaps most important, is the role of religion in politics. Dobson alleges that Obama is saying:

I [Dobson] can't seek to pass legislation, for example, that bans partial-birth abortion because there are people in the culture who don't see that as a moral issue. And if I can't get everyone to agree with me, it is undemocratic to try to pass legislation that I find offensive to the Scripture. ... What he's trying to say here is unless everybody agrees, we have no right to fight for what we believe.

Contrary to Dobson's charge, Obama strongly defended the right and necessity of people of faith in bringing their moral agenda to the public square, and he was specifically critical of many on the left and in his own Democratic Party for being uncomfortable with religion in politics.

Obama said that religion is and always has been a fundamental and absolutely essential source of morality for the nation, but he also said that "religion has no monopoly on morality," which is a point I often make. The United States is not the Christian theocracy that people like James Dobson seem to think it should be. Political appeals, even if rooted in religious convictions, must be argued on moral grounds rather than as sectarian religious demands -- so that the people (citizens), whether religious or not, may have the capacity to hear and respond. Religious convictions must be translated into moral arguments, which must win the political debate if they are to be implemented. Religious people don't get to win just because they are religious. They, like any other citizens, have to convince their fellow citizens that what they propose is best for the common good -- for all of us, not just for the religious.

Instead of saying that Christians must accept "the lowest common denominator of morality," as Dobson accused Obama of suggesting, or that people of faith shouldn't advocate for the things their convictions suggest, Obama was saying the exact opposite -- that Christians should offer their best moral compass to the nation but then engage in the kind of democratic dialogue that religious pluralism demands. Martin Luther King Jr. perhaps did this best, with his Bible in one hand and the Constitution in the other.

One more note. I personally disagree with how both the Democrats and Republicans have treated the moral issue of abortion and am hopeful that the movement toward a serious commitment for dramatic abortion reduction will re-shape both parties' language and positions. But that is the only "bloody notion" that Dobson mentions. What about the horrible bloody war in Iraq that Dobson apparently supports, or the 30,000 children who die each day globally of poverty and disease that Dobson never mentions, or the genocides in Darfur and other places? In making abortion the single life issue in politics and elections, leaders from the Religious Right like Dobson have violated the "consistent ethic of life" that we find, for example, in Catholic social teaching.

Dobson has also fought unsuccessfully to keep the issue of the environment and climate change, which many also now regard as a "life issue," off the evangelical agenda. Older Religious Right leaders are now being passed by a new generation of young evangelicals who believe that poverty, "creation care" of the environment, human trafficking, human rights, pandemic diseases such as HIV/AIDS, and the fundamental issues of war and peace are also "religious" and "moral" issues and now a part of a much wider and deeper agenda. That new evangelical agenda is a deep threat to Dobson and the power wielded by the Religious Right for so long. It puts many evangelical votes in play this election year, especially among a new generation who are no longer captive to the Religious Right. Perhaps that is the real reason for Dobson's attack on Barack Obama.

FAIR USE NOTICE
This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.

Tim Russert's Dead, Long Live Fox News!

I hope you did not get caught in the whirlpool of platitudes and servile eulogies spent in memory of Tim Russert, the great appeaser and serf to the powerful.

I know it is bad form to say bad things about the bad, but you can only really say good things about them if they did something worth praising, right? So, If you think Russert was an example for U.S. journalists to follow, read this. (Jon Swift, thankfully, is back from hiatus.)

If you want to know what aggressive interviewers do in the service of truth and their listeners, all you have to do is tune in to BBC World Service, and listen to interviewers embarrass their guests for their lies.

Obama on Religion and Society From 2006

Busy, busy, busy, but this is too important not to post. From an Obama 2006 speech, thoughts on religion and society. Via Pharyngula, a veritable mine of important information.

Voting Advice You Can Live Without

"Icahn Says Obama Would Be 'Terrible' U.S. President".

Yes, because when I decided who to vote for in an election, nothing sways me more than the judgment of corporate raiders and evangelical nutjobs.

Dinesh D'Souza's D'Shonest D'rivel

Dinesh D'Souza is an arrogant prick. He is also ignorant. And did I mention dishonest?

Less English

On TBS, I am not kidding: "More movie, less commercials." Really? Not fewer commercials, "less commercials"? Well I guess that's what I get for having "The Replacements" on.

Why Blog?

Different people blog for different reasons. Some blog because they have some genuine knowledge to contribute to society. Some blog because they want to have a forum for the discussion of ideas they are interested in. Some do because they like the idea of having a pulpit to preach from. Such is the case of The Constructive Curmudgeon, a blog run by Dr. Groothuis, a professor of philosophy at Denver Seminary. Its "mission statement" reads:

This is a forum for reflection on culture, ethics, philosophy, and theology. The views posted by me here are my own, and do not represent any institution with which I may be affiliated. Being a curmudgeon has nothing to do with rudeness or incivility, but means the willingness to sniff out the truth and expose lies and spin as best one can in humility.

Considering that Dr. Groothuis's stated aim is "to sniff out the truth and expose lies and spin as best one can in humility", it is hard to understand both why he chooses to disable comments on a growing number of his posts (up to and including deleting whole threads), and also why he insists on levelling baseless accusations against those he disagrees with (one might say despises). Take, as an example, Dr. Groothuis's list of ten reasons against voting for Sen. Obama in the November election (IF Obama is the candidate):

1. Far more abortions, and your tax dollars paying for it.
2. Defeat in Iraq and Afganistan [sic].
3. Coddling terrorists.
4. "Talking" to dictators.
5. Race based politics at every level.
6. Another 9/11 attack in the US.
7. Further legitimation of homosexual "unions."
8. More state spending and bigger national debt.
9. Unlimited support for embryonic stem cell research.
10. No securing of the national borders.

(You can find this list, if the post has not been deleted, here.)*
Keep in mind that the above list was posted by Dr. Groothuis in a thread he opened, which ended with the following quote:

America, wake up! Romantic and irrational idealism is not the stuff of American politics in a post-9/11 world. Don't take a leap of political faith. Think through all the issues rationally. Pursue political knowledge.

How ironic, eh?

This was my reply to the list:

1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 10 are baseless accusations, an example of reptilian logic. You either know it and are willfully misleading readers who are predisposed to take anything you say as "law", or don't know it and are inexcusably misinformed. Or maybe they are based on biblical prophecy, in which case you might want to illuminate your claims with examples.

4. Why the quotes on "Talking"? Reagan, Bush father and Bush son all talked to dictators. In foreign policy, you don't only talk to those who share your world view.

7. If you truly believe that gay marriages are going to bring down society as we know it, go to Holland, Belgium or Canada, then report back. I won't even dignify the thought of the slippery slope argument, because it is a ridiculous one.

8. a) In the wake of a president who has given us the biggest national debt in history, that is some accusation! b) In a time of financial crisis one might actually need to expand the national debt, to invest money and revive a floundering economy. Think New Deal.

So, expanding the national debt is not necessarily evil. It depends on whom it benefits (the nation at large or your cronies), and why you do it.

9. I can think of much worse uses of public money (for example, faith-based initiatives).

P.S. McCain WOULD actually speak to terrorists.

I post my reply to Dr. Groothuis's list here because, you guessed it, Dr. Groothuis saw it fit to delete it, and it alone among the responses to the original thread. Perhaps he did so because he objected to my use of the word reptilian (defined by Merriam Webster as "cold-bloodedly treacherous"), or perhaps it was my suggestion that Dr. Groothuis is either willfully deceiving his readers or that he is guiltily misinformed. Either way, it seems pretty thin-skinned to delete a response just because it highlights the baselessness of statements one made previously.

Some, no doubt, will defend Dr. Groothuis's decision, holding that my response was of the ad hominem kind or perhaps that I have crossed some line of respect or decency. In that case, I would like to ask them what standard of decency they are upholding when they fail to challenge Dr. Groothuis for saying that voting for Obama will lead to "another 9/11 attack in the US." I think reptilian is a more accurate description than decent for that kind of statement.

So, people blog for different reasons. The Constructive Curmudgeon looks more and more like a pulpit. The Daily Fuel is a forum. I will publish anything, short of spamming and obscenities, and I will respond to as much as I possibly can.

Perhaps I will be banned from The Constructive Curmudgeon. If so, I wouldn't be the first. But I do have one question for evangelical Christians like Dr. Groothuis: what specific teachings of Jesus are they promoting to the world when they censor or delete the speech of those who disagree with them?

----------------------------
* By the way, if you are interested in finding out what Obama actually thinks on some of the topics that Dr. Groothuis accuses him about, follow the links below. (I reserve the right to add to the list as time allows).

Obama on gay marriage
Obama on Iraq
Obama's fiscal policy (Contrast this with Republican fiscal policy, which has given us the largest deficits in U.S. history. The best "deficit" years since 1980? Under the lone Democratic president: Bill Clinton. See another interesting chart here.)
Obama on race
Obama on border security/immigration
And while it is impossible to judge Obama's performance on abortion until after he becomes President (one would hope), abortions have steadily declined in the United States since peaking in 1989 (under the other President Bush), including under President Clinton. While it is not clear how, Dr. Groothuis's truth sniffing nose, as is often the case, seems to have malfunctioned in service of the preconceived Rushdoonyist/Norquistian view of how society should work that he peddles on his blog.

Parroting Points

Someone in the Republican camp comes up with the talking points, and the minions parrot them. Sometimes they get caught doing so. Kudos to Chris Matthews (never thought I'd say that) for a job well done. Four more years of this crap, and I will choke on my own vomit.

Oh, How I Wish I Had The Wit

The Discoveryless Institute. (The folks who brought you Creationism in disguise, without the scientific research). Way to call a spade a spade!


(Only 9 hits on google so far, but I hope it becomes hugely popular, really fast!)

Was It Judicial Activism?

Yesterday, the Supreme Court of California struck down a ban on marriages between homosexuals. Immediately, Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council decried the decision as a typical case of judicial activism in which the court overrode the will of the people. Too bad, the Family Research Council actually fought to have the will of the majority overturned when "the people of Oregon passed a law authorizing voluntary assisted suicide for the terminally ill." (I know, the hypocrisy is stunning, but then we are talking about the Family Research Council and Tony Perkins.) You can read a perfectly scathing and brief account of the FRC's duplicity in this article, courtesy of Dispatches from the Culture Wars.

Keep in mind that if the will of the people were the law of the land, with no regard for the principle of equality between human beings written into U.S. law by people more enlightened than most Founding Fathers (ooh, sacrilege!), segregation would likely be alive and well in this country, not to mention child labor, no vote for women, etc. (And don't be fooled, that is exactly what the Rehnquist and the Roberts courts, with abominable Justices like Scalia and Thomas, stand for when they reject legal principles that have brought us equal rights for women, blacks, and homosexuals.)

Unlike most of the people who will come out to criticize the SCC's decision in the blogosphere, I actually had the good fortune of hearing the arguments made by both sides as C-Span broadcast the recorded SCC sessions a couple of months ago (and between 1 and 4 am, on a working day). I knew I needed to sleep, but the arguments presented were so fascinating that I was glued to the TV set. The line of questioning by the members of the *predominantly conservative* court and the arguments presented by the attorneys (particularly those by Therese Stewart) were riveting. Having heard the arguments, and the many references to other landmark cases in California's history, particularly those on interracial marriages (see references to Perez v. Sharp in the Court's opinion), the Court's decision seems right on the mark.

Finally, to preempt the claim that this decision should/will be reversed because it was rendered by a rather divided court (three of the seven justices concurring with Justice George, with two more both concurring and dissenting), let me quote one very important reference in the opinion to the Court's decision in the Perez case: "The decision in Perez, although rendered by a deeply divided court, is a judicial opinion whose legitimacy and constitutional soundness are by now universally recognized."

If you are interested, you can view the pdf here.

P.S. For the record: I am happily married (to a woman), have no stake in this fight (other than the fact that I would like to see fellow human beings be treated equally) and do not think that churches should be forced to marry homosexuals. May the unequal treatment of homosexuals, at least in the eyes of California law, rest in peace.

What's God So Angry For?

Remember, Katrina was punishment for New Orleans's godlessness. So what is God so angry about now?

Lying Liars: Ben Stein

Ben Stein lies about Richard Sternberg, one of the "victims of Darwinists" portrayed in the "hack-flick" Expelled. And Ed Brayton of Dispatches catches him doing it. Wanna know who else caught Stein lying? The Smithsonian Institution. Says who? The Smithsonian Institution, in a letter to the editors of Newsweek. (See For The Record, the last letter on the page).

One question:

If you made a movie aimed at showing that ID scientists/thinkers are victims of persecution by the "Darwinian establishment" wouldn't you want to make damn sure that the cases you present of alleged persecution stand up to scrutiny?
(Answer: not if your movie is about intelligent design, because you rely on the fact that the crowd you preach to is already predisposed to believe any horrible things you tell them about "Darwinists" without actually taking the time to check them. Let's be clear: this is not a crowd who holds facts in high regard in the first place.)

Another Creationist Fired?

This is the case of an Ohio teacher who has been ordered to remove all religious items(including the Bible and the Ten Commandments) from his classroom. But, as Pharyngula maintains, the teacher should be fired, not simply because he proselytizes in class, but because he teaches bad science.

Can Expelled 2: The Apocalypse be far away?

"Leader's Guide" Creationism

There is great article out on the blogsphere that demystifies the claim that intelligent design is not creationism in new clothes. It begins so:

While doing research for an earlier post I ran across a document called a “Leader’s Guide” on one of the official Expelled web-sites. This little bit of propaganda was created “to assist you with promoting the issues surrounding the film Expelled“, is filled to the brim with rhetoric, misinformation, out of context quotations, and half-truths that have been staples in the antievolutionist literature from long before the latest version, “intelligent design” evolved from it’s parent species “creation science” in the late 1980’s. To demonstrate the evolutionary link between these ideologies I will often follow quotes from the Guide (in blue for clarity) with quotes from pre-ID movement, “creation science” sources making identical, or nearly identical, statements.

You may read the rest of Expelled’s intelligent design theory - this IS your daddy’s creationism (Part I) here.

Once again, thanks to Pharyngula for pointing it out.

With Reviews Like These...

You can spare yourself the trouble of sitting through Expelled if you read these very detailed reviews/articles on the movie and its dishonesty. Thanks to Pharyngula for highlighting them.

• Intelligent design film far worse than stupid, by Arthur Kaplan, Ph.D., the director of the Center for Bioethics at the University of Pennsylvania.
  
• "Intelligent Design" Creationism Is An Immoral Fraud, by Sahotra Sarkar, Professor of Philosophy and Integrative Biology at the University of Texas, Austin
  
• Open Letter to a victim of Ben Stein's lying propaganda, by Prof. Richard Dawkins, Charles Simonyi Chair for the Public Understanding of Science at the University of Oxford
  

By the way, in recent posts I have referred to the movie as a hick-flick. I understand that, *unfortunately*, some of those who will see it and endorse its contentious, illogical, and false contents are not hicks. But the movie's intended audience, I suspect, is indeed a community of hicks, the vast number of evangelicals who have been persuaded that Jesus rode on a dinosaur's back (metaphorically speaking; their real understanding, that dinosaurs and humans have lived in cohabitation, is not much more comforting), that the Grand Canyon is the result of a forty days and forty night long deluge, that pairs of unevolved animals have trotted happily on Noah's ark and lived happily together on it (herbivores right next to carnivores), and so forth, all of which beliefs can be happily taught by reckless parents to many educationally abused children.

To those who are rejoicing in the quasi-flop of Expelled in movie theaters I say: what until the DVD comes out, then you will have a sense of exactly how many people have bought into the divisive, dishonest and deceitful rhetoric dished out to a largely scientifically illiterate public by the likes of Discovery Institute and its minions.

Hick-flick? Most likely. Hack-flick? Certainly.

A Response To Dr. Groothuis's "Break Down The Wall"

This is a point by point response to Dr. Groothuis's "Break Down The Wall", his thoughts on the movie Expelled, which he published on his own blog. Due to the length of my response, I have decided to post it here, so as to not "bog down" Dr. Groothuis's readers who may not be interested in my counterpoint.

P.S. Dr. Groothuis has already "updated and corrected" his post a couple of times, so it is possible that the quotes I give here are not the ones in the current version of his article. If you are interested, I have a copy of the version of the post that this response refers to.

---

=====================

Dr. Groothuis:

I have read "Break Down The Wall" on The Constructive Curmudgeon, and I have found several passages that I find to be highly debatable, misleading, or in need of further scrutiny. Since your review is long, and my counterpoint is longer, I have quoted passages below (in bold). Readers can find the full text of your review here.

1. We should break down the wall of censorship, intimidation, and retaliation that keeps intelligent design theory out of the academy.

False premise. You assume a wall that does not exist; at the very least, its existence has yet to be convincingly proven. Expelled does not live up to the task.

As repeatedly shown and substantiated by detractors of intelligent design, ID is just the latest incarnation of creationism, and does nothing more than attempt to smuggle God into the world of science, in spite of the claims by the Discovery Institute that "unlike creationism, the scientific theory of intelligent design is agnostic regarding the source of design and has no commitment to defending Genesis, the Bible or any other sacred text." This claim is directly refuted by the famous Wedge Strategy (pdf), which is the brainchild of Phillip E. Johnson of the Discovery Institute and which clearly states that one of its goals is "to replace materialistic explanations with the theistic understanding that nature and human beings are created by God".

So which is which? This seems to me a pretty fundamental piece of dishonesty by the men behind the Intelligent Design movement. The designer that the Discovery Institute and the scientists it parades in support of Intelligent Design is certainly the Christian God, which may explain the derision poured on Dawkins's suggestion in Expelled that the Intelligent Designer could be extraterrestrial intelligence, if we are willing to admit a designer. For Ben Stein, and for supporters of ID, the designer must clearly be God.

So, really, the only wall at issue here is the wall of separation between church and state, which creationists have tried to breach several times, most recently in circumstances that led to Kitzmiller v. Dover Board of Education, the trial that pitted a group of parents in a Pennsylvania town against the majority of the Dover Board of Education, intent on introducing intelligent design into the district's curriculum. Judge Jones, the Bush appointee who ruled for the plaintiffs in a trial which saw Michael Behe, of whom later, take the stand on behalf of the defendants, attached the unflattering judgment of "breathtaking inanity" to the Board's decision to push an "imprudent and unconstitutional policy" on the children and the parents of the Dover school district. (You can read Judge Jones's full opinion here.) The trial and its players are beautifully summarized in the documentary Judgment Day, for which PBS's Nova has won a Peabody award (one thing Expelled is sure not to win, since it hardly qualifies as a documentary.)

2. America has honored and must honor free speech if it is to remain America. That is the message of “Expelled”.

Another false premise.

There are whole websites, none too scientific to be honest, devoted to the promulgation of the ideas of intelligent design. Churches and pastors promote ID in church. You, Dr. Groothuis, are frequently found supporting the unscientific premises of intelligent design on the web, on radio stations and even in newspapers (the much-maligned media, which, according to you, is conspiring against ID). The fact that intelligent design does not find the room you seek in the mainstream media or in classrooms and universities, or that it does not earn the funding reserved instead for what you call "Darwinism", stems not from a conspiracy to suppress intelligent ideas, but from an attempt to prevent the contamination of the scientific process by religion, a combination that has had infamously poor results for science and for mankind (as my compatriot, Galileo Galilei, would readily attest.)

On funding, in particular, I trust the free-market to work well (proof that I am not a communist who is seeking to destroy America's economic system). If ID were a true scientific theory, it would attract serious scientific funding. Universities, pharmaceutical companies, biolabs, the agribusiness, all would rush to help ID if it held any promise of improving science. Perhaps even if it didn't, at least in the case of pharmaceutical companies, who could then fuse the placebo-like quality of many medications with the faith-based effect thereof.

Bear in mind that protection of free speech in employment is not absolute. If a Ford dealer said to customers that Ford engines are irreducibly complex and that they have been designed not by Ford engineers but by God, requiring a new engine to be dropped from the maker of the universe instead of the old one being repaired by Ford mechanics, the Ford Motor Company would do well to fire him with cause, and courts would uphold the company's decision, because that dealer's ideas, though protected to some extent by free speech, are not more important than the reputation of the car manufacturer*. The same goes for universities. When professors are hired, they agree to teach a curriculum, not to advance personal views that conflict with what they are supposed to teach. Universities, scientific publications, etc., have a sacrosanct right to defend their reputation by expunging crackpottery from their classrooms and their pages.

To the extent that universities are guilty of prejudging those who support ID as unfit to teach, the blame rests on the poor and scientifically unconvincing research proposed by supporters of ID as evidence.

* Now I know that this is a bad examples, because the reputation of American car companies is not exactly stellar, and sometimes it does look like the only one who knows how their engines work is God. But you get my point.

3. A reoccurring theme is that of the Berlin Wall keeping out Western ideas of freedom and keeping its prisoners locked into a dead and deadening ideology--Communism.

False premise. See 1, above. And also poisoning the well and guilt by association ("Darwinism is another dead and deadening ideology, like Communism.")

4. Those who have advocated ID or even allowed its ideas some voice in their classroom [sic] or in their journals have been excommunicated by the Darwinian priesthood. That language is strong, but utterly apt.

False premise.

First of all, the only priesthood in play here is the real one: the religious one. I find a certain irony in the fact that Dr. Groothuis uses the priesthood as an undesirable association for Darwinism. (The irony is analogous to the involuntary irony in the choice of a tagline for the movie Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed. I couldn't agree more.) [Emphasis mine.]

Secondly, his implication that science is a religion shows either a profound misunderstanding of the mechanisms by which science advances our knowledge of the natural world, or, worse, a willingness to mislead his more naive readers. Science, regardless what Dr. Groothuis thinks, does not thrive on dogma, particularly in the today's highly competitive global environment, where other nations would be only too happy to reap the fruits of America's choice to seed ignorance in its universities.

Science is built on observation, prediction, and experimentation.
Religion asks us to base our knowledge on a "sacred" text, which is subject to many different interpretations, depends on which translation we read, whose credibility (the credibility we as human beings afford it) rests largely on where we are born and not on the validity of the arguments in support of one religion over another, and, most of all, on the willingness to believe in that which cannot be proven.

5. A biology professor’s teaching contract is not renewed after she mentions ID in her class. Another professor’s web site is censored by Baylor (a Baptist school) because it advocated ID. The editor of a science journal is fired because he supervised the publication of an article by Stephen Meyer defending ID. Professor Guillermo Gonzalez, despite a stellar academic record as an astronomer (he discovered several new planets and wrote a textbook), was denied tenure because his book, The Privileged Planet, which argues that earth was designed. I will not give all the details here, but these stories are true and indicative of the sociology of knowledge at work.

The only reason that I cannot give you full details of why Dr. Groothuis's examples, taken from Expelled, are dubious at best, if not altogether indefensible, is that a point by point refutation would require an amount of space not suitable for this already long post. Therefore, I will refer my readers to this link, which contains a rebuttal for the cases of the allegedly persecuted individuals portrayed in Expelled. You can read more here, if interested.

6. The Darwinists... are seldom open to honest give-and-take debate; instead, they typically reject ID as anti-scientific and ban it from public forums. I have observed this for years.

The implication here seems to be that, by trying to keep ID, a theory which opens the door to God and does nothing to promote the advancement of science, is equal to banning ID from public fora. This, of course, is disingenuous.

The main reason why many scientists refuse to engage in debates with supporters of ID is that debates are a great spectators' sport, but they hardly an effective way to measure the validity of one scientific theory (evolution) v. an unscientific one (creationism, a.k.a. intelligent design). This also makes your subsequent claim that "good evidence needs the proper venue to be seen as such" quite ironic, because you seem to imply that the proper venue is the court of a largely biased public opinion, and not the science lab.

If we accept your premise that ID is science, then you should not have a problem with letting science prove its worth in the lab, instead of claiming persecution on the silver screen.

7. The scientific case against Darwinism (yes, there is one) ... the scientific case for ID (yes, there is one) ...

Not, for example, according to the many scientists (Shanks and Joplin, Ussery, Dunkelberg, Dorit, Orr, Miller and a host of others) who have scathingly shown Behe's claims of irreducible complexity not to hold water. But Dr. Groothuis says that he has read The Flagellum Unspun (Miller's article) and he is not persuaded, so I guess all is well on the ID front.

Perhaps there is a scientific case to be made against the theory of evolution (and in fact several aspects of the theory have been submitted to scientific scrutiny), but so far it has not materialized in any of the objections moved against it by intelligent design proponents.

8. [In Expelled] we never heard of “irreducible complexity” (think of Michael Behe’s argument concerning the bacterial flagellum) ... Michael Behe, the most important practicing scientist of the ID movement (who, strangely, did not appear in the film)

Perhaps the reason why Michael Behe did not appear in Expelled is that the Ben Stein and the producers preferred not to establish an association between "the most important practicing scientist of the ID movement" and their movie, given the fact that opponents of ID could have easily pointed to the trouncing Behe's theory received both from the scientific community and in the Kitzmiller v Dover Board of Education 2005 trial which all but dismantled, one by one, his arguments in support of ID as a scientific theory, or to any of the articles I listed above. Or, perhaps, Behe did not want to suffer a repeat of the humiliation he endured in the Dover trial by associating himself with another ill-conceived attempt to give ID scientific credibility. Who knows?

9. One computer-generated scene shows the complexity of the cell, but little is explained.

Funny you should bring this up, Dr. Groothuis, because there is ample evidence (not to mention a pending lawsuit against the movie's producers) that the makers of Expelled plagiarized the video without permission from Harvard, who produced the original XVIVO video.

10. Dembski and Nelson briefly comment that one can believe in some aspects of evolution and still support ID, since the key claim of ID is that aspects of nature require design to be explained. This doesn’t rule out considerable development after the design has been introduced by an intelligent cause.

This is the old micro- v macro-evolution argument (in disguise), which assumes a complete misunderstanding of what macroevolution is and how it works. This is not surprising, coming from a philosopher (Groothuis) who backs a mathematician, a.k.a. Professor of Theology and Science, (Dembski), who was described in expert testimony (pdf) submitted for the above-mentioned Kitzmiller v. Dover trial in these unflattering terms: "By any reasonable standard, Dembski is not a scientist."

Of course, Dr. Groothuis would rather blame the expert witness's testimony on "the wall of censorship, intimidation, and retaliation that keeps intelligent design theory out of the academy."

11. [S]ocial Darwinism flows from biological Darwinism. Contra The New York Time's sneering and unserious review, social and biological Darwinism are of a piece ... The stronger must prevail—period.

Ad-hominem and red herring.

There is a well-known dislike among conservatives (and many liberals) for the New York Times. What does that have to do with whether social Darwinism flows from biological Darwinism? Where is such evidence, Dr. Groothuis? Most importantly: how does this strengthen the validity of intelligent design? And even then: "the stronger must prevail", as you say in the conclusion of your paragraph, shows a confusion between social Darwinism and the theory of evolution that should raise a red flag for admirers of your line of reasoning. The theory of evolution does not reward the stronger, it rewards the best adaptation to a changing environment and the ability to reproduce. And so-called "social Darwinism" precedes in time Darwin's "On The Origin Of The Species."

12. (Yes, there are theistic Darwinists, but the film largely explores Darwinism as a naturalistic worldview. This is, in fact, how it is taught in the vast majority of public institutions today.)

I suspect instead that the reason why the film chooses to ignore theistic Darwinists, who believe in God AND evolution, is that they would have weakened the movie's assumption, that there is a conspiracy aimed at unjustly suppressing alternatives to Darwinism. In fact, this is borne out in a conversation that John Rennie and Steve Mirsky of Scientific American recently had with Expelled's producer, Mark Mathis.

Mirsky: ... Why not also include comments from somebody like Ken Miller?
Mathis: ... Ken Miller would have confused the film unnecessarily. I don’t agree with Ken Miller.

NOTE: At this point, I am getting tired of defending "Darwinism", aware as I am that by using the term Darwinism, creationists are disingenuously trying to establish guilt by association with other -isms: Nazism, Leninism, Stalinism, scientism (?!?) etc. These Luntzianisms are typical of a type of neo-conservatism and Rushdoonyanism that portrays everything it opposes as a form of liberal fascism (see what I mean?)

13. Darwinism, in itself, does not provide any refutation to Hitlerian ideology.

Poisoning the well.

The obvious refutation is that Hitlerian ideology is not a naturalistic ideology, and that it followed The Origin of the Species by 70 years or so. Conversely, Hitlerian ideology, if meant as an ideology aimed at the elimination of the Jews from planet earth, did not need Darwin as an inspiration, given the long history of pre-Darwinian anti-Semitism, regardless of whether the view that Hitler used Darwin as a justification for his indefensible actions is correct or not (see From Darwin To Hitler, Or Not? Part II). See 14, below. (By the way, Hitler also used God as a justification for exterminating Jews.)

14. Nazism needed Darwinism for its ideology, but it needed other false considerations (of race and history) as well.

Here is an intelligent article that exposes the rational fallacy of Dr. Groothuis's argument.

15. My take is that if Darwinism is true—the entire biosphere can be explained on the basis of undirected, natural causes (or by chance and necessity)—then theism is much less likely to be true. This is because biology is denuded of any evidence for a designer, when, in fact, Christianity (and other forms of theism) claim that evidence for God can be found precisely there (see Romans 1:18-21).

So, Dr. Groothuis, this is really the crux of your argument: you oppose Darwinism not because of any alleged and completely unsubstantiated deficiencies in the theory, but because it would make theism "much less likely to be true." I am afraid that the honesty of the admission does little to redeem it from its flaws. The rest of the argument (Christianity claims that proof that the Christian view of nature is right can be found in ... Christianity's handbook--Romans 1:18-21) is circular reasoning, and has nothing to do with science.

16. Stein, however, did help reveal the absurdity of Michael Ruse’s idea that life began by riding on the back of crystals by simply repeating the bizarre idea several times in an incredulous tone of voice.

This is an argument from personal incredulity, hence unscientific by definition.

17. While the major news outlets are viciously attacking Expelled as creationist propaganda (and they didn't have to actually see it to say that), the fact is that it reveals a systematic, unfair, and deeply un-American suppression of ID thought in the academy. The Darwinian inquisitors make Joseph McCarthy look like a girl scout.

Guilt by association, mit ad-hominem, and an unsubstantiated attack on the mainstream media (how do you know that movie reviewers didn't actually see the movie? Just because I refused to--with cause. I am not the mainstream media, anyway). Except, of course, that Darwinists are WORSE than McCarthy himself, as you state in...

18. The Darwinian inquisitors make Joseph McCarthy look like a girl scout ... McCarthy was not entirely wrong, although he has become a whipping boy of the sound bite crowd.

This bears repeating: in essence, you are saying that McCarthy is better than the major news outlets who are viciously attacking Expelled not because it is bad and dishonest but because they are part of a worldwide conspiracy to keep ID out of the public discourse. In fact, McCarthy was a true patriot, a victim, "a whipping boy of the sound bite crowd." (And the lives he destroyed are just acceptable collateral damage, just as Guantanamo Bay is a necessary evil in these times, right?) Are you an admirer of McCarthyism, I wonder?

And, as an expert on Christianity, don't you think that the association of Darwinists and inquisitors is hyperbolic? When you say inquisitors, it conjures images of the Spanish Inquisition, perpetrated not by scientists but by regular church-goers. Pretty ironic, if you ask me. I don't remember any examples in Expelled of ID supporters being executed like Giordano Bruno or being sentenced to house arrest like Galileo, but perhaps it happened after the movie hit the movie screens.

19. Communists were genuinely dangerous to the American experiment.

And so are "Darwinists"? Because? Because "if Darwinism is true—the entire biosphere can be explained on the basis of undirected, natural causes (or by chance and necessity)—then theism is much less likely to be true." Is that why?

20. ID thinkers, however, are no threat to science or to any American ideal. Yet they are a threat to Darwinism, which has become a largely unchallengeable orthodoxy in America.

On this count, Dr. Groothuis, I believe you are dangerously misleading your readers. ID thinkers are indeed a threat to science, though not in the sense you imply.

ID thinkers are a threat to science because they seek to bend science to their wishes instead of submitting themselves to science's findings, wherever they may lead (ironically, you seem to agree that "follow the empirical evidence wherever it leads in the search for truth", as you wrote in Intelligent Design and the State University. But science's goals are not as lofty: it does not search for truth, just for plausible explanations of physical phenomena). ID thinkers are indeed a threat to science because they seek to redesign science to fit with their ideology, not in pursuit of better, more accurate, more reliable science. They are a threat to science because they are seeking to demolish the evidentiary, predictive foundations of science by introducing an element which defies evidence and prediction, whose only evidence can be found in one of many centuries old sacred texts, which happens to be, by sheer coincidence, the one you believe in. They also threaten not only science, but human lives as well, as lucidly argued by Alonzo Fyfe in his ethical review of Expelled. I will quote here a passage that I find particularly amusing and distressing at the same time, bearing in mind that many supporters of ID (in which group I am not including people like Behe and Dembski, though perhaps I should) hold the beliefs that Fyfe exposes in their naked absurdity:

The better we are at understanding the real world, the better we will be at avoiding the death and suffering that nature would otherwise inflict on us ...

Theocrats want to argue that we can control the severity – even the existence of hurricanes by passing laws against homosexuality, putting prayer in school, and closing down abortion clinics. They have got the fanatical belief that these variables somehow influence the nature of hurricanes.

Now, we can test these types of claims. We can come up with theories that determine relationships between the frequency and course of hurricanes based on number of abortion clinics, presence of laws against homosexual acts, and the numbers of state-sponsored school prayers. Yet, in 400 years of science, these types of relationships do not hold up. The people who advocate these types of solutions will add to the total amount of human suffering (the suffering imposed on people as a result of these laws) without doing any good whatsoever.

Once again, you can read the rest of Fyfe's article at the link provided above.

This is the threat that ID thinkers represent for science. It is the same kind of threat that we have grown accustomed to in the seven years of the Bush presidency, and which a member of the Bush administration summarized for journalist Ron Suskind as follows:

[You live in] what we call the reality-based community . . . [people who] believe that solutions emerge from your judicious study of discernible reality... We're an empire now," he said, "and when we act, we create our own reality. We're history's actor's, and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do.

My Favorite Quote On Expelled To Date

It is not hard to find unfavorable reviews of the hack-job, hick-flick Expelled. Among the many, here is one paragraph which captures the essential lie behind the movie.

The premise of Expelled is that proponents of 'intelligent design' have been shunned, denied tenure, and even fired because of a conspiracy to quash the scientific evidence supporting their theory," said Dr. Keith Lockitch, resident fellow at the Ayn Rand Institute. "But the truth is: there is no evidence supporting their theory. Intelligent design is completely devoid of any positive scientific content, and consists of nothing more than a religiously motivated attack on evolution. To the extent intelligent design advocates are facing obstacles in academia it is because they are not doing real science: they haven't been 'expelled' they have flunked out of the scientific community, just as a faith healer would flunk out of medical school. (Emphasis added.)

You can read the whole article, "Expelled Gets An F", at--of all places--the Ayn Rand Institute.

My Point ,Exactly.

Before you post your ungrounded, indefensible defense of Expelled, and Intelligent Design on this, or any other blog ask yourself this question:

"Should every cosmology department have someone who believes the Earth is the center of the universe?"

Then read the article the quote is from. If your answer is yes, if you still believe that ID is science (it isn't) and that Expelled is a momentum-changing event in the history of science (it may be, for reasons contrary to what you might believe), get down on your knees and pray to God that he gives you common sense. That's all you need: not a degree in biology, no knowledge of epistemology, no philosophical foundation: common sense is all you need to understand that ID is a ruse that creationists use to circumvent the separation of church and state.

The Reviews Are In!

Expelled, the hick-flick about the much-alleged, still unproven academic conspiracy to keep the (un-)scientific theory of Intelligent Design out of science, was released today among much evangelical hype. And finally, the reviews are in. Here is a sampling of critics' quotes from on Rotten Tomatoes (each by a different reviewer):

"One of the sleaziest documentaries to arrive in a very long time, Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed is a conspiracy-theory rant masquerading as investigative inquiry."

"Surely the film's greatest offense is the utter shamelessness with which it exploits the Holocaust."

"No intelligence allowed, indeed, as Ben Stein misguidedly crusades against what he perceives as the science community’s slavish devotion to natural selection."

"It shows us bogus security files, as if some cabal is spying on everyone. It shirks the facts. And it madly edits images to equate Darwin with Hitler, and Ben Stein with -- yes -- Ronald Reagan. Typical of all propaganda, it also distorts language."

"Stein's credibility is blown on this poorly constructed diatribe, and you'd be smart to save your bucks."

"The movie itself is an example of design by faith and emotion rather than intelligence, defined as rationality grounded in proof."

"Expelled may prove to be as controversial as the producers hope, but the reactions will be more entertaining and elucidating than the film itself."

And, my favorites:

"Stein claims to denounce the tyranny of dogma, then browbeats us with his own."

"For a film about American freedom of expression and the necessity for open dialogue, it's hard to imagine Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed being more one-sided, narrow-minded, and intellectually dishonest."

You don't need to be a rocket scientist to see the dishonesty in the hick-flick.

Freedom Fries and Freedom Friday

Oh, the sweet haplessness of the Expelled PR machine!

I just found this email, reported on Thoughts in A Haystack. It reads:

This Friday, April 18th, is FREEDOM FRIDAY!

You will no longer have to live in fear of the Darwinian Thought Police and their power to ruin your career! They are about to be ‘publicly exposed’ by the new documentary movie, “EXPELLED: No Intelligence Allowed”!

“EXPELLED,” starring Ben Stein, is opening in 1,000 theaters nationwide. Smart students and their parents can’t wait to see it! They have all heard the Darwinists’ side in the debate over origins. Now they will determine if the Darwinists have acted properly by censoring the scientific data and evidence from students, teachers and parents that opposes Darwinian evolution and points to the reality of God!

"FREEDOM FRIDAY?" Seriously, how far removed from the "reality-based community" do you have to be to miss the irony in the expression "Freedom Friday", for its uncanny resemblance with another idiotic slogan, "Freedom Fries", which kinda backfired on its creators once it was evident that the French were right, and they were wrong?

The Darwinian Thought Police? Is that the modern day equivalent of the Copernican/Galilean Thought Police?

The geocentric view had been dominant since the time of Aristotle, and the controversy engendered by Galileo's opposition to this view resulted in the Catholic Church's prohibiting the advocacy of heliocentrism as potentially factual, because that theory had no decisive proof and was contrary to the literal meaning of Scripture.

Sounds familiar? There is a certain continuity throughout history in the views and the tactics of religious ignoramuses and proponents of sacred, anti-intellectual fantasies, isn't there?

But the tactics have now been flipped by proponents of Intelligent Design, as they try to make their pathetically weak case that they are the ones being persecuted by the godless scientific establishment. To this end, they parade the self-avowed atheist scientists Richard Dawkind and PZ Myers on screen, whom they deceived into participating, then they intersperse images of Nazi salutes and Stalinist purges with their disingenuously edited statements, all the while while omitting to represent the views of people like Ken Miller, Francis S Collins and Francis Ayala, just to mention three very well known religious scientists who fully support evolution.

These delusional ID supporters claim that "Darwinist" "ignoranticist elitists" [sic] are trying to censor "the scientific data and evidence [...] that opposes Darwinian evolution and points to the reality of God", in spite of the fact that their hick-flick offers factually incorrect data in support of the alleged censorship and no evidence pointing to the reality of God. They do this while sweeping under religion's rug real evidence of the suppression of dissenting views and of silencing anything which conflicts with the fantastic drivel that fills sacred texts (much more drivel-ly when taken literally than allegorically) .

Also, a short review, sweet and to the point, from the "ignorant elitists" at the NY Times, and an article that highlights some of the dishonest tactics employed in this hick-flick.

Every day gives us new reasons for bewilderment.

How Do You "Teach The Controversy..."

How do you "teach the controversy" when there really isn't one? This op-ed, published by The Guardian in 2005, is perhaps the best explanation of why you shouldn't. Regardless, proponents of intelligent design are wasting our time and our money, and they are putting the future of science education, and of your children's education, in jeopardy. All in pursuit of the fantasy that an unscientific religious theory becomes respectable and worthy of equal time just by donning a lab coat. Remember that, if you are dragged into a movie theater by a creationist friend when Expelled is released.

Intelligent design no more deserves equal time in science classrooms than those who claim they can explain the origins of life to us after binging on peyote and magic mushrooms.

What Do They Have In Common?

Expelled, the disingenous diatribe that supporters of ID will fill movie theaters to see, makes the feeble-minded case that Darwinism is a "condicio sine qua non", without which there would have been no intellectual justification for the Holocaust. Besides the obvious fact that one could make the same (or a stronger) link between religion and the Holocaust, here is an interesting post that compares the tactics of Holocaust deniers and evolution deniers.

About Expelled, So You Don't Have To See It

Interesting point about why certain famously religious scientists have not been included in Expelled!.

Intelligence Expelled, Dishonesty Refuted

Expelled!, the shamefully made, intellectually dishonest, and totally unintelligent movie about the alleged persecution of creationist scientists ("oxy-moron", anyone?) by the scientific community, is scheduled to be released on April 18th (don't be surprised if the release is postponed). Some suggest ignoring it, lest it should enjoy undeserved publicity. Some others say it is just too dangerously dishonest to be ignored. One such voice is that of Scientific American's editor-in-chief John Rennie, who says

Unfortunately, Expelled is a movie not quite harmless enough to be ignored. Shrugging off most of the film's attacks—all recycled from previous pro-ID works—would be easy, but its heavy-handed linkage of modern biology to the Holocaust demands a response for the sake of simple human decency.

Read the rest of the article here.

Do not spend money to go see this movie. Buy a "truth ticket" instead (as a stupidity offset for people who will go see it).

Talk About Freedom Of Expression

Busy, busy, busy. So busy I have not had time to post anything these days. But this caught my eye, and Mr. Olbermann's choice of worst person in the world is a) quite appropriate and, b) a reminder of what some religious people would like to turn this country into (all while brazenly claiming that religious people are victims of persecution even though the vast majority in this country has some kind of religion affiliation.) Watch.