Guess what? He didn’t like it, nosir.
“Expelled” is a shoddy piece of propaganda that props up the failures of Intelligent Design by playing the victim card. It deceives its audiences, slanders the scientific community, and contributes mightily to a climate of hostility to science itself. Stein is doing nothing less than helping turn a generation of American youth away from science. If we actually come to believe that science leads to murder, then we deserve to lose world leadership in science. In that sense, the word “expelled” may have a different and more tragic connotation for our country than Stein intended.
That’s timely, since it’s also a theme of Miller’s new book, which argues strongly that creationism has destructive consequences for America’s scientific enterprise.
Bu-bu-but I thought you mean nasty new atheists were going to drive off nice theistic allies like Ken Miller! The Masters of Framing told me so!
Nicely written article by Miller. Particularly revealing is this bit from an interview of Stein:
So Stein isn’t just opposed to modern biology, but all forms of science. If he just would follow though on his convictions and go live in a cave somewhere and wear animal skins, we would be free of his bothersome whining. Aren’t cameras against his religion, being products of demonic science? He should stay away from them.
Miller’s not the only one thinks that creationism has destructive consequences for America, so does this guy:
“12. Elevate mysticism, tribalism, shamanism and fundamentalism–and be sure to exclude educated, hardworking men and women–to an equal status with technology in the public mind.”
— Benjamin J. Stein, “How to Ruin American Enterprise” Forbes, 23 Dec 2002
Completely OT:
The Flying-Spaghetti-Monster manifests itself for the world to see!!!!
http://megagalerias.terra.cl/galerias/index.cfm?id_galeria=30734
(via, digbysblog.blogspot.com)
I really can’t wait for Miller’s new book: it sounds great. I’m probably amongst the minority of non-believers who wasn’t put off by the second half of Finding Darwin’s God. It’s not that I bought his theology, but then I didn’t read it as him trying to convince me, a non-believer, of it in the first place. I simply enjoyed the spirit of someone willing to get creative with theology in light of science, rather than the other way around. And I mostly agreed with him about atheists scientists getting a little philosophically sloppy with slightly too grand declarations that strain the scope of science.
Of course PZ, if you’d get around to writing a book already, I’m sure wouldn’t be able to wait for that either, but… tap tap tap…
I don’t care if it’s about atheism, zebrafish, or cephalopods. It just needs to happen already. :)
Off-topic: conservative religious journal First Things has decided that second time’s the charm, and theologically explaining away the dangerous theological implications of the tsunami can do double duty for explaining away cyclones in Myanmar as well.
“Expelled” just opened here in Santa Rosa . . . Straight to the second-run budget theatre. Only two showings a day.
Bet you a nickel it will be gone after one week.
I’ll try to talk to the ticket-seller later today & see if anyone is going.
.
Damn, it would help if I got the link correct:
‘Proof’ of the FSM:
http://bp3.blogger.com/_fxJhAju65fo/SCMuf6a_UTI/AAAAAAAAABU/F6UQywE9Ce8/s1600-h/SCL200805022038JAMM+370.jpg
Sure, but we know he’s a covert atheist, since he accepts evolutionary theory, and thus we don’t have to believe anything he says.
See, that’s the great thing about being a loony religionist, you already know the answer to anything thrown at you.
Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/2kxyc7
Well. There’s one theist who isn’t letting the ID lot get away with their lies.
Now if we could only see something similar from all the other religious moderates.
Anyone notice how China is positioning itself to be the next leader of the super powers? India seems to be heading in the same direction and will not be relying on the US for protection from China. Reference; recent stories of nuclear sub bases. There are planners in China that are quite happy to see Americans rejecting science education.
Crosspost PT:
This is true.
1. Funding has been flat for years while inflation roars along.
2. The number of papers published by the US has also been flat. While the number of papers from the rest of the world goes up.
3. The present administration is hostile to whole branches of science, stem cell research, ecology, climatology, etc..
US science has always been world leading, the reason why the US is the world leader. Lose that and we are on our way to banana republic status. All civilizations fall but I was hoping the US one would hold together for my lifetime at least.
“Now if we could only see something similar from all the other religious moderates.”
I’m not sure how, at least on this issue, that we aren’t seeing that. I mean, we’ve got most of the Catholic scientists, most of the liberal religious professors, most of the liberal Christians, and so forth. I don’t see them being particularly silent on this issue. Heck, you think all the reviewers that gave Expelled 9% were atheists?
The problem is really that there aren’t enough religious moderates in as many of the right places to provide a seeming balance in volume to the creationist firebrands.
Ken Miller, why did you call Dawkins an avowed atheist? Do people call you an avowed Catholic?
Old post on what science has done for us. If the fundies are successful, wave bye bye to our civilization. The Bush adminstration has done wonders wrecking it. If McCain/Huckabee get elected and they have a great shot at it due to the Dems inability to field an electable candidate, that might be it.
Not sure that you can run a program and get a value like 10 trillion dollars. But qualitatively it is correct and provable.
1. Look at highly religious societies and where they are. Most Moslem ones are still in the dark ages. The ones that are not are due to a geographic accident, they sit in deserts floating on oil. It is estimated that the Arabs imported a trillion dollars worth of western science and technology because they don’t do their own. This estimate comes from Arabs who are now starting to put some money into science because they have more oil money than they know what to do with.
2. The USA is the world’s last superpower, economic engine and so on. So what is our edge?
A. Is it natural resources? No, we have our share but the former USSR has more.
B. Climate? No. Europe is also temperate.
C. Population? No. China and India have the cheap skilled and unskilled labor niche with 2.3 billion people between them.
D. Is it science and technology? The USA spends between 1/3 and 1/2 of the total world R&D with 4.5% of the world’s population. Our edge is being the world leader in R&D. That coupled with a relatively free political system and an entrepreneurial capitalist economy gives us…us.
Science + freedom + capitalism = prosperity.
The cultists Xians want to kill science while flushing our freedoms into the sewer. This is stupid and suicidal.
Toynbee predicted this. 18 of 22 civilizations that fell, fell from within. We might be looking at 23 here.
Another way to look at it qualitatively. Evolutionary thought plays a critical role in medicine and agriculture. We almost had a pandemic with SARS and are now watching H5N1 bird flu. Evolution predicts that sooner or later, a new bug will kill millions or tens of millions. One already has within memory, HIV/AIDS. Evolution only matters if you eat and want to live.
And in other news, Ken Miller remains completely awesome.
Little off topic, but I wanted to share this little bit of attempted videography with the group. I made it today. It is my third youtube video and at almost a minute, my longest yet.
Hillary – Going Out of Business
Enjoy.
Raven (#10), your points are all valid indicators that the US leadership in science is at risk at our very great peril. However, I’d like to expand your third point to include, not only the administration (and large number of the minority party in Congress), but a significant portion of our population in general who believes in fairy tales and pixie dust. As long as the voting population makes it clear through their actions that they, at best, simply don’t care and, at worst, are actively hostile to science, things will continue to get progressively worse.
Wait, creationism has destructive consequences for science? But paleontologist Robert Bakker says the blame lies on atheists:
Militant Creationism?
No way. It’s the loud, strident, elitist anti-creationists. The likes of Richard Dawkins and his colleagues.
travc,
Where you find the FSM, Christians can see the anti-Christ.
http://megagalerias.terra.cl/galerias/index.cfm?id_galeria=30734
Don’t let any Rapturists see it.
Oops, that entire last bit was all supposed to be a direct quote.
Brilliant piece, as usual from avowed Catholic Ken Miller.
I especially like this part:
‘Puzzled, the editors of Scientific American asked Mark Mathis, the film’s co-producer, why he and Stein didn’t interview such people, like Francis Collins (head of the Human Genome Project), Francisco Ayala, or myself. Mathis cited me by name, saying “Ken Miller would have confused the film unnecessarily.”‘
Ah, yes… BOTH sides of the story would be confusing. We mustn’t let the audience be confused by the opposing argument or evidence.
This is how creationists will want to “teach the controversy”. Teach the creationism only, lest we confuse the poor children.
Close, but no cigar.
Now, where is the shower curtain on which Lenin has appeared? That was convincing.
How, please, is Obama unelectable?
“Science leads you to killing people.”
But…but… Stein is right isn’t he? I mean didn’t science lead Ted Kaczynski to killing people?
doesnt stein look a little like Ted Kazcinski
PZ, be wary of packages from Stein or the expelled crew… Apparently science leads them to killing people.
Yes, someone elects those morons.
I don’t think the voters will be too happy when we are sitting in the ruins of our US civilization. While our competitors and enemies run right on by us. And then a few scientists pop up with a cheery “I told you so.”
This could be the end of the Death Cultist perversion of xianity. While they may have to take well earned credit for destroying the US with their theocratic nonsense, they aren’t going to want it or like it.
I think Ken Miller wrote the textbook I use for my biology class. o___O
So what? He’s wrong. That should be obvious.
Wow. Just… wow.
Obama is a newcomer and hasn’t polled well against McCain in straw polls.
And who is McCain. The guy is practically a real zombie. 72, cancer twice, rumored to be showing age related memory problems. He has an unpleasant past record both personally and politically and all the charm and intelligence of a zucchini.
If Obama can’t poll well against him now, chances are the race will be a tough one.
I would hope to be dead wrong but hope hasn’t been very useful for the last 7 years.
religion leads to killing people
Good article, but I wish Miller had spoken up a bit earlier. It doesn’t matter, really. The only people buying tickets for “Expelled” these days are perverts, who know they’ll have the entire darkened theater to themselves.
‘If we actually come to believe that science leads to murder, then we deserve to lose world leadership in science.’
I can’t believe it, every science teach I ever had – cold blooded killers all of them. I am lucky to be alive.
CL
http://www.coulterlewkowitz.com/
> This could be the end of the Death Cultist perversion of xianity
Nope. Won’t happen like that. If Americans’ continuing embrace of its death cult relegates it to third world status, the cultists will do what comes naturally to them: blame scientists, gays, and non-cultists. Look at how many of them jumped on board that wagon for 9/11 and Katrina, both disasters of our own making.
And secondly, what makes you think they wouldn’t be perfectly happy living in a backwater theocratic caricature of the US? As long as there’s sufficient money and infrastructure for “Who Wants to Be an Inquisitor?” and “American Idolaters” to air, they’ll be just peachy.
How, please, is Obama unelectable?
I’m going to go with ‘What is “not white”, Alex.’
Seriously, he’s going to have an uphill battle campaigning against the rampant racism in America today. But that’s a battle that had to be fought eventually. If not now, when?
Thanks for that link, H.H. I’ve wondered what Bakker, a minister, thinks about the whole debate.
However, I’m disappointed. The last part of the interview, in which he manages to spout off Nisbettian apologetics (in a way even less convincing than Nisbet, if that’s possible), he totally crapped the bed.
Dawkins is humourless? Maybe so, but compared to whom? The Pope? All those nuns that still haunt the nightmares of Catholic school students? Pat Robertson and his war against ‘teh gays’? Ted Haggard and his Jesus Camp? Yeah, those guys are all laugh riots, and boy, I’ll betcha you could go up to any one of ’em and suggest that their theology is wrong and perhaps the Inca were right all along, and I’m sure they’d be happy to sit right down and investigate a few alternatives to their belief systems.
Right. Now that’s comedy.
Fuck you Bakker. You don’t know squat, asshole. You think thousands of years of handwaving about God’s ‘mysterious ways’ equates concern on the part of the religious?
You’ve got to be kidding us.
Damn it but my BP is going up again.
travc, (#4), those photos are amazing.
Of course, I formulated my answer in the form of a question, but forgot to use the correct punctuation. Damn you, blog commenting software. I’m in jeopardy of making a fool of myself.
Re HH
Before lavishing too much praise on Bob Bakker, it should be noted that he is one of the last holdouts disputing the Alvarez asteroid collision theory of the extinction of the dinosaurs.
These questions are of little interest for the Dawkinsians
hey, are you telling me that we’re no longer Darwinists?
man, that’s progress, I tells ya!
:p
Brownian, I agree. Bakker’s comments were disappointing to say the least.
Mark @ #2
“…and go live in a cave somewhere and wear animal skins…”
Actually, I think a strong argument can be made that the human sensory experience is scientific at its core. Essentially, our brain collects data from the “outside” world. But it does this (normally) by not just using 1 data-source. It uses multiple data-sources and applies filters (reason and logic) to reduce the noise and make sense of the surroundings. The eyes cross-check what the ears detect, the nose cross-checks the food in the hands about to be eaten, etc.. So, if Stein truly sees the scientific method as evil, or the road to evil, he should poke out his eyes and ears, cut out his tongue, burn out his nostrils, and acid wash his skin. That way he can minimize all of the evil evidence gathering that leads to the scientific method. (He shouldn’t worry too much about his “filter” though, it’s already past the point of being empirically useful)
How, please, is Obama unelectable?
considering that he regularly outpolls McCain, I’d say that’s some righty’s wet dream instead of reality.
OTOH, most of us thought Gore had the presidency in his pocket in 2000.
It wouldn’t surprise me (and it no longer would even shame me, since I’m bailing out of this sinking ship) if McCain won the presidency.
its good to see expelled at 9% rating on rotten tomatoes.
ok so that doesnt mean much per se but im very happy that its not there with 75% with intelligent reviewers saying ‘oh dear, i didnt realise all this was true about big science’ no, instead intelligent reviewers can see it for the nonsense it actually is. perhaps creationists really are represented by stupid people afterall, dont they generally think twinkie bars are good food also??
re: Bakker:
You guys are falling into Chicken Little Syndrome. The fact of the matter is the Democratic party will fold for his candidate, Hillary and the few supporters she still has will fall back in line, because, honestly, what do you believe the polls are going to indicate when both candidates are strong in a race? McCain’s numbers have peaked, because once the democratic party begins to suture itself back together the Democrats will be on the upswing. The media is not focused on McCain now, which is the best thing for him as he has few redeeming qualities when closely examined.
Also McCain picking Huckabee as a running mate would be extraordinarily retarded. McCain sucked enough dick over the past eight years to feel safe with the religious right, and picking Huckabee would risk him losing some of the key immigration and economically conservative constituencies which are still unsure of his candidacy.
But in actuality, creationism is only a symbol of the greater problems with our entire education system. American middle and high schoolers are consistently outperformed in science and math by other industrialized nations on international standardized tests. Creationism is just a symptom of the greater seeping gonorrhea that is American education system.
Raven, there’s one big error in your reasoning – thinking that opinion polls mean anything.
Yep, it appears Bakker is one of those:
Wow, “discoveries in paleontology go hand in hand with the best interpretations of Genesis” — that should be interesting.
[quote]Stein is doing nothing less than helping turn a generation of American youth away from science. [/quote]
I would agree, if anybody were actually going to see it.
Expelled BO through 4/27 http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1091617/business
Those are, by the way, really bad numbers.
I wonder, does Mr. Stein think things were better under the theocracy that prevailed before we had science?
Stein is doing nothing less than helping turn a generation of American youth away from science.
I would agree, if anybody were actually going to see it.
The thought has been raised on occasion that by being so horrendously outrageous and yes, stupid, Stein is actually doing more for the other side of this issue than he is for the side he got paid to represent.
“O Lord make my enemies ridiculous.”
-Voltaire
These shrill uber-Christianists come across as insultingly dismissive of any and all religious and non-religious traditions except the narrowest group of their own. If you’re an atheist, a Jew, a Muslim or even a Catholic, then you must be illiterate or stupid and, possibly, a danger to yourself and others.
FIXED!
Raven, I think you’re worrying about the wrong approaching disaster. Resource shortages and environmental problems – most notably but by no means exclusively anthropogenic climate change – are a far greater threat to US civilisation (and of course, the rest of us), than being surpassed by China or India, both of which are going to be hit by these problems sooner and harder. Of course, that doesn’t mean growing irrationality and fundamentalism are not terribly dangerous, but primarily because they encourage denial, scapegoating and wishful thinking. And nationalism and irrational faith in capitalism are at least as dangerous as religious forms of fundamentalism – with which, particularly in the USA, they tend to overlap.
I received an e-mail from someone who got to my blog from here, and accused me of having “faith” in evolution and failing to understand blah blah blah. I’d invite all scientists interested in giving a chemist with little understanding of biology and the study thereof a good workover. I’ve posted his e-mail on my blog at http://exploringourmatrix.blogspot.com/2008/05/scientists-responses-solicited.html
Have at it!
Because that’s how our nervous systems register physical trauma.
If he wants a different answer, he can go sit with the small children wondering “Why is there something instead of nothing?”.
My favorite Jurassisc Park( can’t remember if it’s I or II) moment is when the Bakker-cowboy hatted character runs out of the cave only to be eaten by a dinosaur. Bakker may be a paleontologist but he’s still a nutcase.
Like Brownian, my immediate response to Bakker’s little quote…
… was along the lines of: fuck you. But much, much worse. I’d just come away from the article linked to by Bad (#5) and found this horrific little gem. How’s this for an answer, Reverend Bakker?
Courtesy of David B Hart. Theologian.
Now read that again. Especially the ‘happy knowledge’ part. Am I wrong or is this where theological handwaving actually tips over into evil?
“As for comfort, when we seek it, I can imagine none greater than the happy knowledge that when I see the death of a child I do not see the face of God, but the face of His enemy.”
What about all the babies that died in the alleged “great flood”?
Not only is his statement not true, it is disgustingly scary.
For those interested, the American Scientific Affiliation has posted an invited review of Expelled on their home page:
http://www.asa3.org
It’s on the right under the “Expelled Exposed” link, entitled
“From Jeffrey Schloss, Westmont College”
Note: this is easily the longest review of Expelled to date (running over 30 pages!) but it is well worth the read.
well worth the read?
hmm, maybe, but I tend to think he overplays his had with comments like this one, early on:
there are many xians who do NOT think there is “evidence for a creator in creation”; who in fact consider this as a form of idolatry.
If the author intends to represent xianity in ‘where he is coming from’ he is not being accurate, nor precise.
It’s like stating:
“for the next 30 pages, here is the bias that will guide my hand”
Frankly, there is little to be said in defense of the movie, or the tactics of those who produced it.
period.
It hardly requires 30 pages to determine this.
In fact, one could rightly stop when he notes the following:
not just possible, but obvious.
If he then goes on to detail the evidence in support of evolution, or discredit the thesis of darwin->hitler, that’s already been done, many times, by both ‘xians’ and non.
Not saying this might not also be a good treatise on the subject, but I saw no compelling reason for it, either.
My nightmare is McCain picking Huckabee as VP, and then winning. McCain is old and could very well die in office. Then we would be stuck with an uber anti-science president who would make Bush look like a High School science teacher. It is my worse case scenario.
It is my worse case scenario.
I for one, am not waiting around to find out if you’re right.
Re #10 and 13:
‘Prophet!’ said I, ‘thing of evil! – prophet still, if bird or devil!
By that Heaven that still eludes us – by that God we both abhore –
Tell us now without dissention if, within the distant future,
We shall still command attention as we did hereinbefore;
Will the world treat US with awe?’
Quoth the Raven, ‘Nevermore.’
(Where’s Cuttlefish when you need him?)
I must admit I got to preview the article, along with a couple others, particularly one person who may be in a “Beyond Expelled” talk tonight handing it out. (If they could make it.) If PZ checked his old @pharyngula email he would have seen it pre-release too!
Good article, and right on the money. Makes me think of a few revealing questions if I ever got the chance to talk to Mathis et al.
Here is what I meant about McCain winning. The poll is the facts. It is early, anything can happen. But given the absolute horrors of the last 8 years, the fact that McCain is over 25% is cause for concern. Gas is 3.85/gallon, two of my friends are dead in Iraq, I stopped reading most US news years ago because it was too depressing, and still……IT CAN ALWAYS GET WORSE.
Wishful thinking hasn’t been a winning strategy lately but we can hope for the best and prepare for the worst.
PS And for you Euros and Canadians, if the USA sinks into theocratic banana republic status, enjoy your schadenfrude while you can. The Europeans might be innoculated against such after a millenia or two of religious rule and wars but what happens in the US tends to diffuse across our borders.
I for one, am not waiting around to find out if you’re right.
Don’t let the door hit your ass on the way out.
On the Scientific American interview with Mark Mathis, SA confronted Mathis about the “godly ID vs atheistic Darwinism” false dichotomy and asked why a theistic evolutionary biologist such as Ken Miller wasn’t included in the movie. The exchange is, like so many of them, simultaneously hilarious, depressing, and revealing. It starts at around 1:08 in Part 3.
Mathis says, and I quote:
But the Stein prostitute wasn’t paid for fellatio, or to be fucked up the ass then!
btw, before he irritates everyone on this thread too,
wtf=Some Dude=banned
Anyone see Ben Stein’s op-ed on CBS Sunday Morning a couple few weeks back? He positioned the money set aside for the mortgage bailout ought to go to the abandoned pets instead.
They were the real victims after all.
wtf=Some Dude=banned
Ichthyic=PZ=probably 80% of the regulars here.
Oh, and I’m a PZ sock puppet, and Kseniya and Ichthyic too.
You can tell because we all write the same way.
If you hadn’t noticed yet… you’re a troll. Hump and all.
Also you’re a fuckwit. Do you have any idea how many hits this blog gets a day???
Shut the fuck up and go away.
Oh, look: he follows Ichthyic wherever he goes, like a little puppy. How adorable!
Make him do a trick, Ichthyic!
A bit off topic but it is expelled related. Don’t ask me why but I decided to check out the expelled blog. The most recent entry had to do with the Yoko Ono lawsuit. Scanning through the thread, it became apparent that the conversation was much more generic than ‘Fair Use’ doctrine. Anyway, the conversation delved into why the octopus eye was better designed than a human eye. I decided to add a comment to the thread and it went into moderation. OK, I understand that I shouldn’t expect it too clear moderation immediately, but it’s been 5 days now. hmmmmmm……
If you hadn’t noticed yet… you’re a troll. Hump and all.
Is that you too, PZ?
I’m so confused!
LOL
I understand that I shouldn’t expect it too clear moderation immediately, but it’s been 5 days now. hmmmmmm……
welcome to wonderful world of trying to post on creationist blogs.
Have you ever tried to post on Uncommonly Dense?
the “moderation” there is even more amusing, if that’s possible.
For what it’s worth. Since I’m VERY IGNORANT about the evolution, here is what the particular discussion was about. Someone made the comment about how human eye’s are not that intelligently designed. Another comment pointed out how squid/octopus eyes are superior. Then a creationist says that why would evolution transition us from superior eyes to not so great eyes.
OK, for a second I thought it as a valid point. Then I thought that he was implying that humans were a direct descendant of squid and that was probably bogus. I ‘assume’ that when we trace our lineage back to where it intersects the lineage that includes squid, we don’t find a the sophisticated eye that squids now have. Is this accurate?
On another/similar note, if I were to look at my ‘inner fish’. Would I find that my fish ancestors had a more/less/similar eye to what I have now?
Thanks for tolerating an ignorant (yet reasonably intelligent individual who will happily buy the beer if the opportunity permits).
More hot news at my place: Expelled — Dropped by More Theaters. Another 254 theaters will be dropping “Expelled” this weekend. The theater count will be down to only 402, compared to 1,052 for the film’s opening weekend. Poor Ben Stein.
Then I thought that he was implying that humans were a direct descendant of squid and that was probably bogus
it is:
http://tolweb.org/tree/
which is a good place to go if you wish to see the phylogenetic relationships between various critters.
you have to consider the fact that the last common ancestor of molluscs and vertebrates was hundreds of millions of years ago.
I ‘assume’ that when we trace our lineage back to where it intersects the lineage that includes squid, we don’t find a the sophisticated eye that squids now have. Is this accurate?
yes, and no. it depends on how you define “sophisticated”, the basic structures that identify something as a functioning eye (including lenses) appeared around 550 million years ago, IIRC.
another thing you have to include when thinking about the evolution of any given trait, is that evolution has no “final goal” it is not linear. for example, if complex eyes were always selected for, we wouldn’t see blind cavefish that have lost them.
It’s a common creationist misperception that evolution proceeds on a “ladder” each rung representing something “better” than what came before.
it’s not like that at all. It’s more like a flowing river with many branchlets, whose individual course is shaped by the structure and composition of the earth it is flowing through.
for a more detailed presentation of the evolution of the eye, I can’t think of a better one that what PZ himself wrote just a few months back:
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/12/evolution_of_vertebrate_eyes.php
enjoy!
just to clarify, by it is:
I meant, yes, his claim that humans directly evolved from squid is bogus.
if you look at the tree i posted for you, you will see that at one point, long, long ago, we shared a common ancestor.
again, this relates to creationists thinking all of evolution is some ladder that inevitably leads to “us”.
Can’t I just take a pill and know all this stuff. I’m tired of all the reading.
PS: Thanks Ickthyic. I am trying to come up to speed.
On another/similar note, if I were to look at my ‘inner fish’. Would I find that my fish ancestors had a more/less/similar eye to what I have now?
yup.
fish have eyes that are quite similar to humans, including the ‘reverse’ wiring.
another article, written by Ian Musgrave a while back, goes into more detail:
http://www.pandasthumb.org/archives/2006/11/denton_vs_squid.html
Can’t I just take a pill and know all this stuff.
lol.
someday, maybe, or maybe something like what you see in “The Matrix”, where you can just plug yourself into the net and have all the relevant information automatically parsed directly into your brain.
until then:
reading is fundamental.
:p
OK, I just checked out the http://tolweb.org/tree/ web site and came across the penis worm. For whatever reason, I find that as a signal to go to bed and find out how sleepy my wife is.
@#74 rmp —
Yes, the human/octopus eye is a well-studied case of convergent evolution. Interestingly, a large number of highly conserved eye-related genes are shared by the two organisms, indicating a common evolutionary process involved in the development of both eye types:
(Abstract for Ogura et al’s 2004 Comparative Analysis of Gene Expression for Convergent Evolution of Camera Eye Between Octopus and Human)
#75
It has gone from 4 to 2 theaters in all of Massachusetts.
Thanks for posting earlier about the Alabama antievolution bills dying in legislature – it’s good to see that these bills aren’t getting a bump from this
blockbusterturkey.In some ways Mathis is right here. Miller’s blending of the two ideas is really muddled and creates allot of problems you don’t have otherwise. Needless problems.
That said for the sake of honesty they should have interviewed him.
Miller’s blending of the two ideas is really muddled and creates allot of problems you don’t have otherwise. Needless problems.
agreed, but there is little need to even address that at this point in time and at this level of debate.
Miller is quite able to separate a clear and concise attack on creationism as utter bunk, while exploring his own demons.
there will be time for that, later, I hope, after the creobots finally are relegated to the fringe they so rightly belong to.
I’d rather start with Collins’ cognitive dissonance first, anyway (and have, actually, many times).
Expelled starts here in Fundie, Oregon Friday. I’m going to watch the parade of just how many show up for it vs. Iron Man. If the parking lot isn’t full of church busses I’ll be shocked.
@#84 Jim C —
True, but the movie was supposedly about the current academic/scientific environment, and as such should have included Miller’s position. It’s muddled and problematic, but it’s still a view shared by many members of “Big Science,” so IMO not including it was rather dishonest.
Of course, honesty in any number of areas would have “confused” the film, so…..
I want a shirt that reads “Ken Miller has confused me unnecessarily!”
What’s really shocking is that Christ himself condemned those who rode in church buses.
Well, I defy any theist to prove he didn’t.
I rather think the only types of buses carrying people to watch “Expelled” would be of the short variety.
Oh, that’s nothing. Here’s the full unedited quote:
Ken Miller’s remarks…Viewers are told that Dr. Richard Sternberg lost his job at the Smithsonian Institution because he edited a paper favorable to Intelligent Design. Wrong.
Sternberg wasn’t even employed by the Smithsonian (he had no job to lose), and had resigned as journal editor six months before the paper was published.
No Ken Miller, your wrong as you been reading too many atheist blogs…lol….Published back in Jan 28, 2005 by the WSJ…”Richard Sternberg, a research associate at the Smithsonian’s National Museum of Natural History in Washington. The holder of two Ph.D.s in biology, Mr. Sternberg was until recently the managing editor of a nominally independent journal published at the museum.”
Richard Sternberg…filed with the U.S. Office of Special Counsel (OSC) that he was subjected to discrimination on the basis of perceived religious beliefs. A museum spokesman confirms that the OSC is investigating. Says Mr. Sternberg: “I’m spending my time trying to figure out how to salvage a scientific career.
Why would the OSC investigate if Richard didn’t work at the museum? Why didn’t the museum at that time in 2005 deny that Richard ever worked there? The reason being Ken Miller, is because he did work there! Also, Mr. Coddington nor Mr. Sues didn’t wanted to issue any version of their own of what happened to Sternberg.
Expelled the movie just brought this up again in 2008, as it was a widely public case. It might have been one of the inspirations for making the movie…
did you ever consider that Sternberg’s position with the Smithsonian wasn’t a paid one?
oh, you’re so smart, you figure it out.
http://www.expelledexposed.com/index.php/the-truth/sternberg
If you haven’t yet, be sure to click Michael’s name to see that link. It’s hilarious. He must be a troll.
If the US Office investigated, where is the report? Did they find for Sternberg? Is he getting his unpaid nonjob back? Is the staff of the Smithsonian in a Xian reeducation camp getting water boarded every day? Were they crucified on the Washington mall? Probably the OSC made a phone call and decided Sternberg was a kook and they had no probable cause.
Michael read your bible. Jesus doesn’t like liars at all. He also is a hardcore science fan who said one day a wise man would explain things. Opinions differ on who he meant. Some say Darwin, Wallace, Gould, or Mendel. You do realize that god made human brains for a reason?
Michael’s not a troll, but he’s just somewhat deluded. YEC, anti “government schools” – you know, all the usual stances. Give him a nice muffin and a chair in the corner, and don’t expect little things like facts will get him to change his mind about anything.
Yes, so that Men would be smart enough to know not to use them, apparently. O.o
Bad (Comment #5)
Right there with you. I rather liked Miller’s embrace of contingency in evolution, with the implication that his God would have been just as happy with a race of intelligent velociraptors as with a bunch of naked, bipedal apes.
Mrs. BigDumbChimp have you taken over Kseniya’s login?
LOL! Really, I capitalized it to imply “mankind”… :-)
Wasn’t Sternberg the guy that got a job at Wood’s Hole?
Didn’t the courts just rule against him?
Might wanna check that out.
nah, Sternberg’s the Smithsonian guy, Nathaniel Abraham’s the Woods Hole guy. It really wasn’t difficult to check that out.
I am an ASA member and I would like to explain the context of the quotes of the commissioned ASA review. The section quoted above is actually being critical of my and Ken Miller’s position. Namely, Expelled is crap because it promotes the “warfare model” and that it is truly possible to be true to science and faith simultaneously — ID is true to neither, BTW. What Schloss is countering with is that our position may be a fallacy of the “golden mean”. It may be that there is an intractable difference. What he doesn’t consider is that he makes his own fallacy of the golden mean by not considering in enough detail that science and ID have intractable differences. I will give him credit he does consider the question what if ID is just a steaming pile of dog dung but in attempt to be “fair” he suspends judgement and that was a mistake in my opinion.
This blog takes that position in that faith — no matter how moderate – is untenable. I happen to disagree. But, what Schloss, Miller you and I all can agree is Expelled is crap. We just differ on how much it stinks. I would also like to add I have never been “bounced” from your blog but I have been from Uncommon Descent. This exposes their hypocrisy. As much as they say they want academic freedom and free and open debate, it’s not true. The latter means that you are free to call me a blithering idiot. ID has simply no clue what real scientific debate looks like because of this sheltered cocoon they have created for themselves. O! the humanity they told me to “Shut up”. Get a life. People like Ken Miller and many within the ASA like myself are ID’s inconvenient truth. Not only atheists like yourself oppose ID but many people of faith do too because it is both bad science AND bad theology. I would add even more so with the ASA than Ken Miller because many of us are evangelicals. Expelled has pitched this to the evangelical community as how you all are trying to persecute us poor, little, defenseless Christians. This is utter nonsense and many of us Christians like Ken Miller (along with much of the ASA) have had enough and are speaking out.
I was being lazy.
They’re both LOSERS, that much I knew already.
Mr. Blinne: Bravo!
Michael’s not a troll, but he’s just somewhat deluded. YEC, anti “government schools” – you know, all the usual stances. Give him a nice muffin and a chair in the corner, and don’t expect little things like facts will get him to change his mind about anything.
Thanks for the “troll” defense…Interesting assumptions on the rest of it, no I’m not really anti-government school, although I believe private schools teach better in some cases with less money than what government schools gets, also private schools have more freedom of what to teach than government schools. Having said all that, not all privates schools are good, there are some bad ones.
I have a female friend who says she “works” for Children’s Hospital. She had talked numerous times about her work there and the type of kids she “worked” with. Is she lying because she doesn’t get paid for her donated services? Come on, would you really call her a liar for saying she “worked” at Children’s Hospital? Making statements about “working” at a non-profit organization in donated a role is more common than what Ken Miller thinks it is or anyone else.
I don’t think anyone in here would call her a liar for saying it even knowing that she is only donating her services. Since she wasn’t being paid by the Hospital, she isn’t protected by the “Fair Labor Standards Act.” Meaning she could be let go for any reason, even for the color of her skin. So in the case of Richard Sternberg who donated his services to the Museum, it was mostly the same thing. I say mostly because the Museum would not allow anyone to have access to certain things in the Museum for research. You have to have a pretty good background for the Museum to allow you to donate your services in that area. So being able to “work” at the Museum like the Smithsonian Institution does have an impact on careers.
Oh, it won’t, don’t worry about that.
Now, a true believer with his finger on the big red button, that’s something to worry about.
Yep. Even the nautilus doesn’t have a lens.
Yes. Except for secondary reductions (cave fish etc.), all vertebrates have eyes with a lens and all. It’s not “the human eye”, it’s the vertebrate eye.
Our last common ancestor with squid most likely had a pigment-cup eye (as seen in flatworms), if that. It did, however, have two types of light-receiving cells: ciliary and rhabdomeric… ah, just read PZ’s post linked to in comment 76. :-)
#102
Well said! We desperately need more evangelical Christians like Rich Blinne.
I find it interesting that you use the term “government school” at all. It sounds like indoctrination by a dictature. Why not “public school”? Or “public-owned” or “publicly financed school” if you want to emphasize that most private schools are open to anyone who can pay?
Not the other way around? As in, Sternberg wanting to do research, and the museum offering the possibility?
Sternberg violated editorial policy. Science is typically one-strike-and-you’re-out when it comes to misconduct; he’s lucky to be working at all.
@#105 Michael —
With the “work” quibbling, you are putting words into Miller’s mouth. Miller wrote:
(Emphases mine.)
At no point here did Miller make a claim about whether Sternberg “worked” at the Smithsonian, so your argument about use of the word “work” is irrelevant. If your friend claimed that she was “employed by” or had a “job at” the Children’s Hospital, her claim would be confusing at best and misleading at worst.
In fact, the only person who has used the word work in this discussion is you, in #92:
So your quibbling over this word is not only sophistic, but dishonest as well.
Sad to read that Bakker is such a fundie-loon, I loved “The Dinosaur Heresies”.
Funny to read:
“He is most well known for two theories which have become widely accepted in paleontology. First is his theory that dinosaurs were warm blooded, and second is dinosaur to bird evolution.”
So, Bakker is “most well known” for riding on the coattails of the late, great John Ostrom.
I haven’t really been paying attention. Has Expelled reached its predicted $750,000,000.00 in revenue yet?
As of Thursday, it has yet to break $7 million, and it is going into this weekend with 62% fewer screens than it opened. It won’t make $8 million before next weekend (it may not even make it to $7.5 million), and I think it unlikely that it will stick around in theatres for much past that.
Sternberg wasn’t donating his services to the Smithsonian. They aren’t desperate for manpower and if Sternberg has anything to offer to science, no one has seen it.
He was unemployed and looking for a job. Some places will give people like that a courtesy appointment meaning they can apply for grants, soft money positions, and list it on CV. It looks better than, “paperboy, Mom’s basement”.
They were doing him a big favor. And he repaid them by violating procedures at the journal he was editor of, and dragging the journal and the Smithsonian through the mud. A process that continues.
Now about that US prosecutors
Inquisitioninvestigation. It should be done by now. Have any Smithsonian officials been burnt at the stake? Were they cruxified on the Washington mall? In a dungeon somewhere being waterboarded?Anyone can make false claims of persecution or crimes being committed against them. In many jurisdictions that is a crime itself. First rule of screwups, when you find yourself in a hole, stop digging. Sternberg comes across as a no talent idiot. A creo perhaps. Like Michael the troll.
Slightly off-topic, but PZ has sometimes pointed us to Darwin/Evolution exhibits and I’d like to return the favor in the spirit of countering the claims of “Expelled” by mentioning one going on at The New York Botanical Garden in the Bronx, “Darwin’s Garden: An Evolutionary Adventure.”
Tom:
Tom, no, it has not. As of Wednesday, May 7th it had grossed $6,827,768 in 20 days, or $341,388.40 per day. At that rate, it will take 2,197 days – that’s just over six years – to reach 750 million.
However, receipts are declining fast. In the past week, the film has pulled in only $150,149.71 per day. At that rate, it will take 4,995 days – that’s about 13.6 years – to reach 750 million.
These are best-case scenarios, folks. If we start applying rate-of-decline, it gets downright surreal.
The film raked in $3,902,920 during the first week. Receipts are declining at a rate of about 50% per week. At that rate of decline, it will take… well, forever. At week 30, the weekly receipts will fall below $0.01, freezing the gross at $7,805,839.98, just over 1% of KEaton’s projected $750M.
If we’re a little more charitable, and speculate that the rate of decline will itself decline by 10% per week, then after about 2.5 years the receipts stabilize at around 10k per week – At which point it’s just a matter of time before the magic number is reached during week 68,036. That’s about 1,308 years.
If we’re a lot more charitable, and allow for a more drastic decay in the rate of decline (that is, more stability and less attrition in the weekly receipts) – that is, a 50% decline in the rate of deline – the receipts flatten out at about $1.12 million around week 20, and it still takes 662 weeks, or 12.73 years, to reach $750M.
Of course, none of this takes into account the astronomical amounts of money to be made from the film’s inevitable release into the bargain DVD bins or from the passionate interest that foreign audiences will surely have for the subtle outrages of American creationist propaganda.
:-)
Yes, so that Men would be smart enough to know not to use them, apparently. O.o
*ahem*
just one name fer ya:
For The Kids
oh what the hell…
Michelle Bachman
Katherine Harris
… and what was the name of the good congressperson who felt that atheists didn’t deserve a seat at the table?
there might be *some* sex bias in this issue, but not much.
Re: Men.
Please see my comment #99. :-)
Please see my comment #99. :-)
ah.
well…
phhht.
;)
Heh. Really, though – I may joke about “testosterone poisoning” from time to time, but misandry is definitely not my thing.
Nor mine–too unfair to the other half of the targets of my misanthropy.
Math put to good use — who’d’a’ thunk it?
raven:
B. Climate? No. Europe is also temperate.
Just the EU alone has a larger economy than the US according to the World Bank, International Monetary Fund and the CIA.
raven:
Science + freedom + capitalism = prosperity
This the wrong perspective, the US success isn’t based on some magic formula for success. Science plays a big part in the US success but its really more simple – developed countries are normally not that huge and have few resources within their borders – France, Britain, Germany and big countries with many resources in their borders aren’t normally that developed, India, China (not for long though with its fast development rate!) the US is the only one which is both big with many resources in its borders and developed (Canada and Australia are big in land area but small in population). This is shown in the fact that the US has about five times the population of Britain, and Britain’s economy is about one fifth of the US economy, same with France and Germany. Science has a big role because a big part of being developed is having the latest science.
raven:
= prosperity
Theres a difference between which country tosses the most money around and funds the flashiest army (US) and which cares for its people best, the US comes 7th here, according to the UN HDI (Human Development Index). Scandinavian countries, Ireland, Canada – they score high on this one, Norway has been first for many years running because it has lots of oil but unlike Arabia it knows how to use it.
I have to take issue with many saying that the US is ”the” world leader in science. How are you measuring that? In terms of gross science output yes the US is but that is simply due to size, in terms of Science per capita I think Japan probably wins, definitely it does in terms of how much science is actually getting to the people. Even in terms of gross science output the EU is a contestant, I’ve already said how it has a bigger economy than the US and with CERN probably about to discover Higgs boson and all that…
raven:
capitalism = prosperity
Capitalism is necessary for prosperity but not laissez-faire capitalism. As I’ve said the Scandinavian countries top the UN HDI and they all have well established welfare states and Social Democracy (Socialism that accepts the capitalist system).
If you just keep lumping in countries together, eventually the USA looks smaller.
With 4.5% of the world’s population, the largest economy is the US with 23% of the total output.
As you ignored, the US spends between 1/3 and 1/2 of the total world R&D funds. Way out of proportion for its size. The result is an impressive scientific lead. Number of Nobel prize winners, number of first rate scientific institutions and universities. We are the ones with a probe around Saturn and robots on Mars, biotechnology started here, computers were developed here (Intel, IBM, Apple, Microsoft), even the internet is largely a US creation.
No doubt the rest of the world will catch up. Nothing wrong with that. What is possible with the antiscience bias of the Xian Nihilistic fundie cults, the world could rush right by us. Instead of the world’s last superpower, we could be on our way to the world’s first temperate zone banana republic.
It’s misrepresentation, because there’s a perfectly good phrase–“does volunteer work”–for what she does, and if she’s a native speaker of English, she should know that Americans interpret “work” to mean “paid work” by default.
So yeah, she’s misrepresenting herself–how big a deal it is depends on the context. At a party, I’d think she was just seeking self-aggrandizement for some reason. If she’s applying to health professional schools, some of which weight paid work experience more than volunteer work experience when choosing who to admit among competitive candidates, she’s actually committing fraud, technically. She’d probably get away with it, as they probably wouldn’t check, but personally, I wouldn’t want to get caught lying on an application, nor would I want to know I got into school only through inflating my resume.
#116 Ksenyia,
Looks like it may take even longer to reach the magic $750 million mark. Monday’s total was the low point at $66,912, and today it dropped from 656 to 402 theaters.
WATERLOO!!!!
So “Darwinism” will be dead in… uh… six years, is it?
OH NOES!
Michael the creo liar:
So in the case of Richard Sternberg who donated his services to the Museum, it was mostly the same thing.
Well Hi to you too…I hope your day is going alright…Let me fill you in on some details…It shows your position on this issue is wrong, as the evidence bares out…
UNITED STATES HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT REFORM
DECEMBER 2006
INTOLERANCE AND THE POLITICIZATION OF SCIENCE AT THE SMITHSONIAN
It states the following, In November of 2004, Dr. Sternberg filed a complaint with the U.S. Office of Special Counsel (OSC)…The OSC eventually found evidence to corroborate Dr. Sternberg’s complaint, concluding that “[i]t is… clear that a hostile work environment was created with the ultimate goal of forcing” Dr. Sternberg out of the Smithsonian. The staff investigation has uncovered compelling evidence that Dr. Sternberg’s civil and constitutional rights were violated by Smithsonian
officials.
Most recently, Burke and Small have allowed NMNH officials to demote Dr. Sternberg to the position of Research Collaborator, despite past assurances from Burke that Dr. Sternberg was a “Research Associate in good standing” and would be given “full and fair consideration” for his request to renew his Research Associateship. 2 The failure of Small and Burke to take any action against such discrimination raises serious questions about the Smithsonian’s willingness to protect the free speech and civil rights of scientists who may hold dissenting views on topics such as biological evolution.
*pokes Michael the moron on shoulder*
you still have a couple of years of catching up to do.
I’d post a direct link to Ed Brayton’s blog that tracks the actual issue for you, but for some reason the link breaks.
instead, I again direct your (lack of) attention here:
http://www.expelledexposed.com/index.php/the-truth/sternberg
and then to scroll down to the appropriate section regarding the Souder report.
you’re rehashing ground that has been covered ages ago.
…and for fuck’s sake, man, stop… using ellipses… in the middle of… your sentences, eh?
or did you want to advertise even more clearly that you’re bugfuck nuts?
if so, might i suggest adding all caps and lots more exclamation marks?
Citing a congressional report by Theocratic party cultists isn’t convincing. Theocrats and creos always lie.
Sternberg was before my time. The fact remains he was not fired from his nonjob at the Smithsonian.
http://www.expelledexposed.com has an exhaustive link farm on Sternberg. Sternberg looks worse the closer one examines the facts.
He seems to have a very toxic personality. He is a jerk. At his unpaid, nonjob at the SI, he apparently had 50 library books out and missing and wasn’t following the rules on specimen handling. This may sound trivial but if you are a scholar whose entire work involves scientific literature and museum specimens, it is central.
Add in his abuse of his editorship of the journal. And some of his accusations that turned out to be lies. Any place I’ve worked Sternberg would have been fired unless he had tenure. For disruptive personality traits and activities not conducive to a normally functioning work environment. This is why Dembski was thrown out of Baylor twice. There is such a thing as being too crazy and obnoxious to put up with.
@Raven
As you ignored, the US spends between 1/3 and 1/2 of the total world R&D funds. Way out of proportion for its size. The result is an impressive scientific lead. Number of Nobel prize winners, number of first rate scientific institutions and universities. We are the ones with a probe around Saturn and robots on Mars, biotechnology started here, computers were developed here (Intel, IBM, Apple, Microsoft), even the internet is largely a US creation.
The “brain drain” from Europe and elsewhere towards the US has largely been due to the availability of research funds. A friend of mine left here to work at Intel’s advanced research facility for that reason. The computer industry may be a largely US invention, but the US is importing a lot of foreign expertise to keep it rolling. For how much longer will US companies be able to import the educated?
raven @131,
Check out Sternberg’s web page devoted to his “side” of the story.
http://www.rsternberg.net/smithsonian.php
True. The US educates many foreigners who then stay. And imports a lot of foreign knowledge workers. A lot of Indians, Chinese, and Europeans.
We will be able to skim off the world’s brains as long as the money holds out. LOL. There is more to good R&D than just money, an entreprenurial capitalist culture helps a lot. As well as a long term commitment to science. But, money goes a long, long way. Science is expensive but pays off in the long run.
What it comes down to. If you pay them, they will come.
Might do it later. Today is starting out OK, don’t want to ruin my lunch hour. Sternberg is coming across as a rather disturbed toxic personality sort of jerk. We all know a few of those in science. Dembski is the same way, a destructive, bizarre, hostile personality. Look what he did to Eric Pianka.
The Smithsonian was doing him a big favor giving him space and access to their collections for free. He bit the hand that was feeding him. Real smart.
The “brain drain” from Europe and elsewhere towards the US has largely been due to the availability of research funds.
considering how funding levels have dropped per lab for basic research over the last 30 years here, that’s some rather sad commentary, actually.
*sigh*
raven:
As you ignored, the US spends between 1/3 and 1/2 of the total world R&D funds. Way out of proportion for its size. The result is an impressive scientific lead. Number of Nobel prize winners, number of first rate scientific institutions and universities. We are the ones with a probe around Saturn and robots on Mars, biotechnology started here, computers were developed here (Intel, IBM, Apple, Microsoft), even the internet is largely a US creation.
In response to “If you just keep lumping in countries together, eventually the USA looks smaller” I call hypocrisy because you where the one who first included lumped them together “B. Climate? No. Europe is also temperate”. Could you give me a cite for those US R&D figures? Again, you don’t say how you are measuring an “impressive scientific lead” again How are you measuring that? In terms of gross science output yes the US is but that is simply due to size, in terms of Science per capita I think Japan probably wins, definitely it does in terms of how much science is actually getting to the people. Even in terms of gross science output the EU is a contestant, I’ve already said how it has a bigger economy than the US and with CERN probably about to discover Higgs boson and all that…
Many other countries have space programs, but the special US one is mostly down to size, being able to pool large amounts of money into projects which other space agencies can’t afford, though it is true the US has a lead in space but this is because of the Cold War Space Race and is boosted because of this. “Number of Nobel prize winners, number of first rate scientific institutions and universities” didn’t you take note of me talking about how the US has the largest gross science output simply due to size? A proper measure of how scientifically proficient a nation is would be number of nobel prize winners per ten million people per decade or some such size disregarding measure and number of first rate scientific institutions and universities per 100 institutions and universities (have to define first rate objectively).
Admittedly the US pioneered the personal computer and greatly contributed to the computer in general but Europe also contributed hugely to the computer in general. Britain had the first fully programmable digital computer – known as Colossus and Alan Turing, the father of modern computing. Plus this is picking from many technologies – Japan for example is miles ahead than any other country in robot technology at the moment. The internet originated as a US defense project and then a US networking of universities but all before computers even had graphical user interfaces (GUIs) later these expanded to universities in other counties (and similar smaller scale networks in other countries). In terms of a modern style internet, France got there first, its service Minitel was launched in 1982 and offered shopping, travel information and reservations, financial data, instant messaging and even pornography and this was all before people had access to any internet in the rest of the world. The internet as we know it today is the World Wide Web, this unified the way the internet worked and was invented in 1989 by Tim Berners-Lee working in European CERN. Please cite your biotechnology claim. “PS And for you Euros and Canadians, if the USA sinks into theocratic banana republic status, enjoy your schadenfrude while you can. The Europeans might be innoculated against such after a millenia or two of religious rule and wars but what happens in the US tends to diffuse across our borders.” In terms of economics yes, but I live in Britain and the American fundamentalism information that drifts over here just makes people more inoculated.
The US is a world leader in technology but saying it is the world leader is too much and very hard to rate objectively in todays world, unless you do it simply based on size “Number of Nobel prize winners, number of first rate scientific institutions and universities” in which case the US will obviously win simply due to size and not just scientific prowess.
You haven’t answered my argument that your equation Science + freedom + capitalism = prosperity is far too simplistic if you use it to explain why the US is a prosperous (12th on 2007 UN HDI) superpower though advanced science is definitely a vital part of any prosperous or powerful country.
Thanks to everyone who came over to my blog to give replies to the antievolutionist who e-mailed me. He has apparently now come out of the woodwork and has posted a series of “replies” to various earlier comments in a way that can only be described as spam. But although it hardly seems worth the effort in such cases, anyone who wants to continue trying to get through to this arrogant crackpot is cordially invited to do so! :)
Thanks, too, to everyone who has been willing to entertain the notion that Ken Miller could have a genuine religious faith, at the same time really accept the evidence for evolution, and simultaneously be a decent and even intelligent individual. I know some of you find it hard to believe such a combination is genuinely possible, but the evidence is pretty strong! :)