TheAgitator.com
Sexpelled
Thursday, April 17th, 2008Here’s an early trailer for Ben Stein’s next movie. More explanation here.
24 Responses to “Sexpelled”
Leave a Reply
This work is licensed under a
Creative Commons Attribution NonCommercial NoDerivs 2.5 License.
-
Site Features
-
Contribute
-
Site Credits
the position taken by these Astorkists is absolutely insane. Something must be done. Laws must be passed…
so lemme see if i’ve got this straight. the history modern science is FULL of ineptitudes, falsehoods, faked results, misinterpretations of the data, and deep blatant hostility to anyone who questions the agreed-upon status quo.
modern science has given us….
malthus’ assurances that we’ll all be dead by now
the tuskeegee experiments
eugenics
thalidomide babies
doctors - “scientists” - ignoring lister’s findings for 40 years
the dire late 70’s warnings of massive global cooling
phen-fen
the public pillorying of nobel prize winner james watson, as well as the authors of ‘the bell curve’
cold fusion
korean clonings
evolution science has given us…..
the piltdown man hoax
the utter silence on the marked lack of “transitional” (in the process of evolving) fossils
the ongoing inability to convincingly explain the cambrian explosion
the haeckel embryo drawings fraud
etc etc.
but despite quite a record of fraud and foolishness from scientists, daring to even *question* ANY aspect of the “theory of evolution” makes one a mouthbreathing fundie? having the gall to suggest an alternate theory makes one an inbred bible-thumping cousin-marrying boob? not adhering to the party line makes one a target for scorn and contempt? “we must all laugh at them!”
what a very unlibertarian mindset.
here’s a quote from one of those ignorant inbred bible-thumpers: “the probability of life originating at random is so utterly miniscule as to make it absurd”. that ID moron was some guy named francis crick.
the nobel prize winner.
hahaha
So am I reading this right? The right wing moron who runs this site thinks this clip is actually made by Ben Stein, rather than what it really is… Richard Dawkins’ parody of mindless people like Stein, they guy who runs this blog, and every other right winger on the planet who deny reality and science in favor of state sponsored superstition?
Classic.
Like when Tom Delay thought Stephen Colbert was actually sticking up for him.
It’s funny when conservatives show how ignorant they really are. Now quick, delete this to the memory hole and tell us you knew it was parody. Because, of course, you are smart enough to think for yourself.
ahahahahahahaha
losers.
oh how lame, but how am I surprised?
You have to approve every comment manually, so you don’t get made to look like an ass on your own blog every day. How pathetic can you get?
Let me guess, mine doesn’t get approved, and your post gets removed. Must suck to be ignorant for a living. But look on the bright side, at least you’re doing a terrible disservice to society.
the history modern science is FULL of… deep blatant hostility to anyone who questions the agreed-upon status quo.
On the other hand, throughout almost all of human history, a failure to pay lip service to the local gods (and the local creation theory) will not engender deep blatant hostility. It will get you tortured and killed. Instantly and without recourse.
Besides, it is simply true that there is little hostility among scientists for those who choose to believe (or even proselytize) fairy stories about the origins of life or the universe. That hostility is almost entirely reserved for those who wish to dignify those fairy stories with the label “science”, with which the fairy stories have nothing in common whatsoever.
I have always found that a reliable gauge of intelligence in others is their ability…their ability to understand sarcasm, for example.
Arthur, I would suspect that Radley approves comments not to weed out disagreement (of which there is always a lot around here), but to prevent disagreeable assholes like yourself from making fools of yourselves.
And Radley’s about as “right wing” as my left arm.
Uh…that is:
I have always found that a reliable gauge of intelligence in others is their SENSE OF HUMOR…their ability to understand sarcasm, for example.
(I sense some irony here.)
[...] to the charming, perceptive “Arthur Chalinsky,” who responds to the post immediately below this [...]
There is also a late-breaking new development in the controversy, a new theory called Avian Transportation Theory.
Another good laugh! You’re on a roll this morning, RB!
nom said - “the probability of life originating at random is so utterly miniscule as to make it absurd”
This right here is the most common, and most ridiculously stupid, argument a creationist can make. And they all make it… it is, in fact, the only coherent argument (besides “I’m such a badass rebel”) that Stein makes in the trailers for his movie.
But this doesn’t make any sense at all. The theory of evolution says nothing (absolutely NOTHING) about the origins of life. Evolution starts with life of some sort already exisiting and then explains how things came to look like they do today. That’s the ironic thing here: There’s really no conflict between creationism (on the basic level of “God did it”) and evolution, which is why a scientist like Crick can believe in both.
Don’t be fooled, though. Crick understands that his belief in how life originated is unscientific and basically religious, and he’d want no part in having a creation “theory” taught in schools.
Thank you, Matt.
I’ve grown so tired of making that point in discussions with creationists. You’re right, though. It comes up every damn time.
Great post! Although I’m not sure what is funnier: the Sexpelled video or Radley being labelled as right wing.
C’mon people, why are you voting Chalinsky down?
From the wikipedia page about Francis Crick:
It has been suggested by some observers that Crick’s speculation about panspermia, “fits neatly into the intelligent design concept.”[60] Crick’s name was raised in this context in the Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District trial over the teaching of intelligent design. However, Crick wrote:
“The age of the earth is now established beyond any reasonable doubt as very great, yet in the United States millions of Fundamentalists still stoutly defend the naive view that it is relatively short, an opinion deduced from reading the Christian Bible too literally. They also usually deny that animals and plants have evolved and changed radically over such long periods, although this is equally well established. This gives one little confidence that what they have to say about the process of natural selection is likely to be unbiased, since their views are predetermined by a slavish adherence to religious dogmas.”[61]
In the 1987 United States Supreme Court case Edwards v. Aguillard, Crick joined a group of other Nobel laureates who advised that, “‘Creation-science’ simply has no place in the public-school science classroom.”[62] Crick was also an advocate for the establishment of Darwin Day as a British national holiday.[63]
“Don’t be fooled, though. Crick understands that his belief in how life originated is unscientific and basically religious, and he’d want no part in having a creation “theory” taught in schools.”
Exactly. Problems arise only when people deviate from this. The right to free speech and expression of ideas does not translate into the *right* to promote bad science. It makes sense to try to poke holes in the theory of evolution. It makes no sense to the offer forth a theory with a far weaker foundation.
Oh, and my vote for what’s funnier is Radley being labeled right wing, but only by a little.
thanks so much, y’all, for making my point for me.
i noted science has pulled off some gigantic mistakes in the past, and declared that a track record like that, full of bonehead errors, made it prudent to at least *consider* the possibility that their pet evolution theory might not be all it’s cracked up to be.
i also noted that it science has become politicized, and it’s now mandatory to sneer at anyone who would dare question the approved party position. rather like the educated 16th century elites, the most up-to-date and educated people of their times, who brought galileo to trial for daring to question aristotelian geocentrism.
current score on that comment: minus 23
“*silence* the heretic!”, demanded the mob. “there will be no more questions! the matter is settled!”
““the probability of life originating at random is so utterly miniscule as to make it absurd””
This is actually used for a lot of things other than the origin of life. Probably does not mean possible, and while the odds are against it, the possibility remains.
Thank you, Radley - this has been a great thread. Attacked by both a punctuation-challenged creationist and … whatever Arthur considers himself (I would never wish to label anyone). Not to mention ‘nom’ above, who apparently believes reality TV is the proper model for determining scientific truth values.
“so lemme see if i’ve got this straight. the history modern science is FULL of ineptitudes, falsehoods, faked results, misinterpretations of the data, and deep blatant hostility to anyone who questions the agreed-upon status quo.”
It’s also full of tremendous successes far exceeding any other source of human knowledge that has ever existed.
Science is a process. It doesn’t promise perfection right away, or ever. It promises progress, over time. And the method is to provide evidence, not just to whine and whine and whine and then say stupid things like this:
“the utter silence on the marked lack of “transitional” (in the process of evolving) fossils”
This isn’t “questioning” evolution. Serious informed criticism of evolution is something that gets you all sorts of awards and praise: see Gould, Margulis, Kimura, etc. Uninformed goofy arguments that
openly expose ignorance of the very subject they claim to criticize deserve only to get laughed at.
There is no “marked” lack of transitional fossils, nor any “silence” about all the various interpretations of the fossil record. Do you even know what a transitional fossil is?
Hint: it’s not a “half-chicken, half-crocodile.” In fact, it’s never a half-anything.
As is usual for the creationist propaganda crowd, Nom de guerre’s most salient point is one made by accident in support of the scientific method.
Fraud, manipulation and selective use of the facts are basic human tools for getting ahead. The difference between science and religion is that the scientific method recognises the fallibility of the individual and so requires that data must be repeatable and that hypotheses must be falsifiable (ie. that there must be some means by which they can be disproved, rather than with statements like ‘God made it’).
Religious folk often point to the changing nature of scientific knowledge as a weakness. In fact its ability to adapt to new information and further analysis is its most vital strength. The core tenets of the theory of evolution, having survived the full 12 rounds of scepticism and generations of aggressively sceptical research by those who find it inconvenient, are pretty solidly grounded.
Arthur,
You weren’t reading it right.
as usual for the evolution fascist crowd, bernard’s most salient point can be gleaned between the lines.
when, dear bernie, when did i ever say i was a member of the creationist crowd? what, bernie dear, what did i say that would mark me as “religious”?
remember: all i asked was “would it be wise to consider the possibility of the that MAYBE the theory of evolution, as currently taught and (evidently) ruthlessly enforced, that said theory MIGHT possibly not be 100% correct?” as has been noted, answers must be scientifically observable and repeatable. “because darwin said it” is not the end of the argument. whatever happened to “let a thousand flowers bloom”?
are all evolution fascists this close-minded about *everything*? or is it just this? (i’m betting “everything”, BTW.)
Nom, given your prior comments about the ‘miniscule’ probability of life appearing by chance you’re clearly a creationist. Your sudden coyness over the issue is either outright dishonesty or a sudden bout of amnesia.
Neither option says much about your credibility as a commentator.