Print
Expelled Overview
by Josh Timonen, RichardDawkins.net
Since I was one of the group who watched Expelled at the Mall of America last week with Richard Dawkins and (not!) PZ Myers, I thought I should do my part to expose the movie for what it is. Richard and PZ Myers have written responses, a conversation between them about their experience is now online, and over one hundred blog posts have appeared on the subject. I think the best contribution I can make to all of this is to give you as detailed an account of the actual film as I can, so that you don't have to give Mark Mathis any money in order to know what Expelled is all about.
Expelled is said to be opening in 1,000 theaters nationwide on April 18th. Please don't give them any of your money to see it. If it tanks in the theaters, and you have the stomach for such garbage, I'm sure you'll be able to see it soon by other means that don't involve supporting Creationists.
Before the film
Mathis came out before the film and told everyone that the showing was being projected from a laptop, and that on previous screenings this had caused the film to appear dark. He assured us that this had been corrected this time, and that he thought they had it looking pretty good. When the film started, it looked really dark. So dark, that you couldn't even really see the scenes in some shots. Stein's voiceover audio was also distorted (too much gain). It really was an unprofessional showing, and a terribly unprofessional film, aside from the content.
Music
First off: Either Expelled has a disproportionately-large music budget (for how bad of a film it is), or they are using songs they haven't paid for in their Director's Cut private screenings (that may be changed before the official nationwide release). John Lennon's "Imagine" is played (original version) over B&W scenes of what looked like communist China, with a parade of soldiers. The lyrics to the song were subtitled on the bottom of the screen. I think I remember a shot of Stalin saluting somewhere in here as well. The part of the song played was of course "...and no religion too...", implying that no religion equals communist China. Does Yoko know about this? I doubt she'd be pleased.
The Killers' song "All These Things That I've Done" was used at the end of the film. The part of the song used was the bridge with the lyrics "I've got soul but I'm not a soldier". I'm guessing that wasn't cheap, and I'm surprised that a fairly popular band like The Killers would want their reputation tarnished by being in a Creationist film - especially since this is THE song that the film ends with, very prominently. Maybe The Killers don't know about this, and someone should tell them?
"The Wall"
The film opens with scenes of the Berlin wall being built, brick by brick. The footage and title cards are affected to look old, like a 50's educational film. The effect doesn't look professional, and by this point I was already starting to question the technical quality of the film. They're really trying to push this in national theatres? Don't they have someone sympathetic to this nonsense that knows how to make a film?
"Big Science"
We see clips of PZ Myers, Dawkins, Dennett, etc. criticizing ID. No surprise here, but we can be fairly certain that the filmmakers know their audience, and it isn't anyone on the fence. The only people who will find these statements to be negative are those who have bought into Mathis' "Big Science" Conspiracy.
We see Ben Stein preparing to speak in a college auditorium. It really felt like they were trying to emulate Al Gore's An Inconvenient Truth.
USA #1!
Ben Stein is the narrator, and is as terrible as you can imagine. He gives a monologue about how freedom is what makes America great, over images of flags around the Washington Monument, the Lincoln Memorial, Stein walking by the mirror pond, and so on. Stein and Mathis of course want you to think that freedom should also extend to the classroom, as in "teaching the controversy". He says "Why should we allow freedom in all other areas, but not in science?"
Eugenie Scott
Expelled even tries to make Eugenie Scott look like a villain, which is absurd. Eugenie Scott works for NCSE, which is a non-profit group working to keep Evolution in science education. She shows them a map with colored pins in it, where problems have come up in teaching evolution.
"Intellectual Terrorists"
Stein goes to meet a couple of people who claim to have lost their jobs due to mentioning ID in some way connected to a University. Big Science is squashing all the little guys who don't toe the pro-Darwin line, obviously. Eugenie Scott and NCSE are collecting information on debunking these stories. They are building their response page at http://www.expelledexposed.com/
Here's a brief explanation from NCSE:
The Discovery Institute
We see Stein walking the streets of Seattle trying to be funny "I don't know where we are... Is this third street? Where are we?" I know it doesn't sound funny written out, and it wasn't funny on-screen, but you could tell from his strained delivery that Stein was TRYING to be funny. The sympathetic audience did laugh, which was even sadder. Stein asks people on the street how to get to the Discovery institute, and no one he meets has even heard of it. I guess the point is to make you think that The Discovery Institute isn't very big or influential. "It must be this whole building" Stein says when they arrive, and acts shocked when he finds out it is only half a floor in the building, with a staff of about 30. See? The Discovery Institute is just a harmless little group on half a floor! They all look so friendly! A very friendly interview follows with someone from the Institute, and the implication is that they are the struggling underdogs.
We see a second attempt at comedy when Stein is in a boardroom meeting (I think it was at the Discovery Institute) and starts to look bored, pulls out an expandable pointing device, and proceeds to scratch his back with it. It doesn't sound funny, and it wasn't funny. But you could once again tell he was trying to be funny. I guess that was enough to get the sympathetic audience in Minneapolis to laugh once again.
Michael Shermer
Stein goes to speak with Michael Shermer (Skeptic.com), and asks him what he would think about people losing their jobs for publishing about ID. Michael Shermer had this to say about this experience with the Expelled team:
PZ Myers (of Pharyngula-fame)
PZ comes across as very likable in the film, and says he would like to see religion become more of a hobby for people, like knitting.
Sympathizers
There are other scientists interviewed, and I can't remember them all. There are other ID sympathizers who reinforce the 'Big Science' Conspiracy.
Crystals!?
They interview someone else about evolution, who mentions that science doesn't know how life began. So the film shifts to discussing the origin of life on earth. Philosopher Michael Ruse mentions the theory that organic life piggybacked on crystalline structures (Richard writes more about this in his review). Stein takes the opportunity to ridicule the idea: "Crystals!? On the backs of CRYSTALS!?" The film cuts to B&W video of creepy fortunetellers hunching over crystal balls. Stein's only desire is to oversimplify the theory and make fun of it.
The Dover Trial
The trial in Dover, PA is mentioned, but the film tries to spin the crushing defeat (Watch NOVA's piece on the trial here: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/id/ ). Stein says something like "I thought science was decided by evidence, not the courts."
Panspermia
Panspermia (the idea of life originally being seeded by an alien source) is also ridiculed, with a black and white video montage of 1950's aliens, robots, and flying saucers. You'd have to be pretty stupid to think that Panspermia is the same as a 1950's flying saucer movie, but once again, Stein and Mathis know their audience. It also made me think that Mathis was really trying to emulate Michael Moore, who does similar "ridicule" cuts to old black and white footage for laughs. I can just imagine Mathis and his group sitting around saying "what we need to do is rip off as much of An Inconvenient Truth and Michael Moore documentaries as we can, so that we look like a real documentary." I know that is just blind speculation, but that's the feeling I had while watching the film. I just thought I'd share.
Where it all began...
Stein says "It was time for me to go to where it all began," referring to Evolution. Maybe Stein will go to the Galapagos, and describe some of Darwin's early encounters with divergent species? Maybe we will see giant tortoises or finches? No, we just see shots of Down House, where Darwin did most of his writing and microscope work ( http://williamcalvin.com/bookshelf/down_hse.htm ). We see shots of Darwin's books, eyeglasses, microscopes, things like that. The implication seemed to be 'this was just where Darwin thought up all of his crazy ideas, out of thin air'. There is no mention of science, or how Darwin built the Theory of Evolution, just shots of his house. As if this were some 'holy place, for all of those people who worship Darwin as their god'.
Science is just a bunch of old films shown in school
We see a video, which is meant to show the audience the current theory of the origin of life. It shows lightning striking the ocean as a possible trigger for the beginning of life. The film is in color, but it is one of those school films with rounded corners, dirt and scratches through the film. They are presenting this to the audience as if it is the best explanation that science has to offer. The theme of this movie seems to be that science is just a bunch of old dusty films you saw in science class. Whenever they speak of evolution or the origin of life, we don't see anything that isn't at least 30 years old. But of course when they come to ID, we see a state-of-the-art computer animation of the inner workings of a cell.
The film mentions the Miller-Urey experiments (I'm pretty sure these were the experiments referred to in the film) done on the mixture of elements likely to have been around at the dawn of life. Stein's voiceover merely states that these experiments were done to replicate the origin of life, and that "Nothing happened" (there is more to this story, of course). Boy, those stupid scientists should have known then and there that they were way off track!
Chance
There is a short cartoon comparing the origin of life to a row of slot machines, claiming that the origin of life would have been like hitting the jackpot on 200 separate machines, all in a row. Someone says "How are you doing over there Richard?" of course meaning Richard Dawkins. They cut to a cartoon version of Richard kicking a slot machine and cursing at it, apparently because it can't hit the jackpot 200 times in a row. They also apparently couldn't get anyone with a real British accent to do his voice.
Boooooring.......
There are a lot of things that happen through the middle of the film that are just so boring I can't recall them. Mostly we see interviews with people from universities who are complaining about the lack of support for Intelligent Design. Of course NO ONE provides any evidence for ID, other than what Richard calls "The Argument from Personal Incredulity."
The ID All-Stars
It's kind of pathetic to see "Fart-noise" Dembski dragged out as the ID All-Star, but he's brought into the film to describe "Irreducible Complexity", better known as "god-did-it" theory. I think there is a mention of Behe, but he doesn't appear in the film.
Computer Animation
As previously mentioned, we see a computer-animated video of the inner-workings of a cell, which looks suspiciously like a certain Harvard animation. Since I can't go back and compare them side by side, I'll just say that they looked very similar, and had three elements that I remembered from the Harvard video, which I'd seen online: 1. Something "walking" along a rope-like structure, 2. a tube being "peeled" apart, and 3. Something un-coiling rapidly. If this isn't the Harvard film, it looks almost identical. Regardless if it is or isn't the same as the Harvard animation, it is certainly intended to make the cell look like machinery. I'm sure they're hoping for the viewer to feel overwhelmed with the complexity, and conclude that it was designed.
"Is" Doesn't Imply "Ought": The Holocaust
Richard has written about this in more detail, but I'll try and give a quick run-down. The film moves on to claim that Darwinism was "necessary" for Hitler, the Nazis, and the Holocaust. Stein says something like "Darwinism may not only be wrong, but it may also be dangerous." Up to this point the film has been fairly dull with poor attempts at humor, but now they're laying on emotional appeal. We see B&W footage of people opening up concentration camp ovens with bodies still inside, emaciated Jews in the camps, and so on. It is of course all very horrible to see, but the premise is so rotten it made me doubly angry. They want you to think that teaching evolution will lead to another Holocaust, basically. We see shots of Ben Stein attempting to look as if he'd just learned of the horrors of the Holocaust on-camera. Way to exploit, Ben.
Eugenics & Planned Parenthood?!
Eugenics is mentioned as an "extension" of Darwinism, and they even tar Planned Parenthood as being founded by a woman who was somehow associated with Eugenics (I can't remember the name). It's another disgusting, underhanded swipe, which could only be accepted so quickly in an extremely uninformed and sympathetic audience.
The Great Richard Dawkins, Evil Lord of the Evolutionist Big Science Conspiracy
Richard is really the star of this film, and if he had not been duped into his interviews (read elsewhere about the Crossroads film that many were told the interviews were for), I can't imagine who or what would have taken his place. They really portray him as the evil leader that must be stopped.
Stein says it's time to confront the head of the Evolutionists, Richard Dawkins. It's all very dramatic and overdone, making it out to be some kind of quest to slay the dragon. We see Stein slowly stepping out of his car outside the museum, about to confront Richard. They cut to Richard waiting inside the museum, with someone putting makeup (or powder, as they say) on his face in front of the camera. Once again, this was done in Michael Moore's "Fahrenheit 9/11" repeatedly, and that's all I could think when I saw it. Furthermore, this was NOT one of Richard's people adding makeup; this was the crew from Expelled! They must have wanted to put makeup on him, so that they could get that shot. Furthermore, they messed with his hair to make him look like a mad scientist -- so he has makeup, but terribly messy hair. Of course the implication is that Richard needs to be prepped before being seen by the public, as the Evil Lord of Big Science. Add to this a dark room with harsh lighting, and you'll start to get the picture. We even get a nice full-screen shot of just Richard's nose and mouth. Why? I've been filming Richard for the last 2 years, and we don't put makeup on him. This is just another underhanded attempt to make Richard look bad.
Richard's Interview
We see Richard reading "The God of The Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all of fiction" section of the book, which the audience didn't find as funny as I did. Stein asks Richard to put a number on how certain he is that there is no god. Richard says 99%. Stein asks "Why not 97? Or why not 47?" Richard replies "Well you asked me to put a number on it, so I did". This is apparently meant to make Richard look like he has no reason to say god is very, very unlikely -- since he doesn't have a reason to say 99% over 97%. The sympathetic audience laughed at this. Richard describes how Panspermia is the only way that ID would even be science (since whoever seeded life would have evolved through something like Natural Selection), but Stein just wants to use this to say, "Richard Dawkins believes in Intelligent Design, so long as it doesn't mention god!" He's OK with aliens, but not god! 'How ridiculous,' we are all expected to think.
Intelligent Design means Created by God
Let me draw attention to this: This film in no way attempts to distinguish God from Intelligent Design. They have apparently abandoned that tactic, and are now only targeting their religious base with this Big Science Conspiracy Theory. They move effortlessly from phrases about "an Intelligent Designer" to "God" or "a creator".
Big Science = Nazi Army
Stein says something like "I can't go up against Big Science all by myself!" over images of what looked like Nazi tanks and troops protecting a building, driving home the alleged connection between scientists and Nazis. We see B&W images of armed fortresses with barbed wire. Science looks really scary!
Evil Darwin Statue
Stein goes to a museum with a statue of Darwin, which he stands in front of during a monologue. We see a straight on shot of the grey Darwin statue in very little light, with Darwin's eye cavities completely black. Darwin sure looks evil, like some sort of dark god. Yes, the evil god of the scientists.
The Wall Must Come Down!
The closing metaphor of the film is that the wall Big Science has put up to keep ID out must come down. We see scenes of people breaking down the Berlin wall, of people running to freedom, climbing over the wall, etc. The Killers song is played, with some Stein monologue, and we go to credits.
Thanks!
PZ and Richard are thanked in the end credits.
Extended Trailer Online
I noticed that several scenes from the extended trailer weren't even in the film. The whole segment with Stein saying "I always thought everything was created by a loving god, including rocks, trees...." was nowhere to be found. The clip with Richard in the trailer wasn't in the film, either.
Concluding Thoughts
Expelled seems to mark a shift in the Creationists' tactics. Everything they've tried to do so far has failed, so now they're trying to claim it's a conspiracy. 'Big Science is trying to keep God out of the classroom, and you'd better do something about it fast or we're going to have another Holocaust!' Of course, god-did-it is not science, but I don't think this matters to the film's target audience. Expelled is simply a rallying call to religious Americans. It will probably be shown in church basements, and will further insulate those who fear the seed of doubt. The film's message is so appalling (teaching evolution = the Holocaust) and is presented so crudely that any sane person will see it for the propaganda it is. There was virtually no real scientific content, and I felt stupider for having sat through it.
Please, don't pay to go see it. Let it die a quiet theatrical death. If you really want to see it, wait for a free opportunity that won't line Mathis' pockets.
Another good review from New Scientist:
http://www.newscientist.com/blog/shortsharpscience/2008/03/are-id-proponents-being-silenced.html
Expelled is said to be opening in 1,000 theaters nationwide on April 18th. Please don't give them any of your money to see it. If it tanks in the theaters, and you have the stomach for such garbage, I'm sure you'll be able to see it soon by other means that don't involve supporting Creationists.
Before the film
Mathis came out before the film and told everyone that the showing was being projected from a laptop, and that on previous screenings this had caused the film to appear dark. He assured us that this had been corrected this time, and that he thought they had it looking pretty good. When the film started, it looked really dark. So dark, that you couldn't even really see the scenes in some shots. Stein's voiceover audio was also distorted (too much gain). It really was an unprofessional showing, and a terribly unprofessional film, aside from the content.
Music
First off: Either Expelled has a disproportionately-large music budget (for how bad of a film it is), or they are using songs they haven't paid for in their Director's Cut private screenings (that may be changed before the official nationwide release). John Lennon's "Imagine" is played (original version) over B&W scenes of what looked like communist China, with a parade of soldiers. The lyrics to the song were subtitled on the bottom of the screen. I think I remember a shot of Stalin saluting somewhere in here as well. The part of the song played was of course "...and no religion too...", implying that no religion equals communist China. Does Yoko know about this? I doubt she'd be pleased.
The Killers' song "All These Things That I've Done" was used at the end of the film. The part of the song used was the bridge with the lyrics "I've got soul but I'm not a soldier". I'm guessing that wasn't cheap, and I'm surprised that a fairly popular band like The Killers would want their reputation tarnished by being in a Creationist film - especially since this is THE song that the film ends with, very prominently. Maybe The Killers don't know about this, and someone should tell them?
"The Wall"
The film opens with scenes of the Berlin wall being built, brick by brick. The footage and title cards are affected to look old, like a 50's educational film. The effect doesn't look professional, and by this point I was already starting to question the technical quality of the film. They're really trying to push this in national theatres? Don't they have someone sympathetic to this nonsense that knows how to make a film?
"Big Science"
We see clips of PZ Myers, Dawkins, Dennett, etc. criticizing ID. No surprise here, but we can be fairly certain that the filmmakers know their audience, and it isn't anyone on the fence. The only people who will find these statements to be negative are those who have bought into Mathis' "Big Science" Conspiracy.
We see Ben Stein preparing to speak in a college auditorium. It really felt like they were trying to emulate Al Gore's An Inconvenient Truth.
USA #1!
Ben Stein is the narrator, and is as terrible as you can imagine. He gives a monologue about how freedom is what makes America great, over images of flags around the Washington Monument, the Lincoln Memorial, Stein walking by the mirror pond, and so on. Stein and Mathis of course want you to think that freedom should also extend to the classroom, as in "teaching the controversy". He says "Why should we allow freedom in all other areas, but not in science?"
Eugenie Scott
Expelled even tries to make Eugenie Scott look like a villain, which is absurd. Eugenie Scott works for NCSE, which is a non-profit group working to keep Evolution in science education. She shows them a map with colored pins in it, where problems have come up in teaching evolution.
"Intellectual Terrorists"
Stein goes to meet a couple of people who claim to have lost their jobs due to mentioning ID in some way connected to a University. Big Science is squashing all the little guys who don't toe the pro-Darwin line, obviously. Eugenie Scott and NCSE are collecting information on debunking these stories. They are building their response page at http://www.expelledexposed.com/
Here's a brief explanation from NCSE:
Expelled Exposed is a new National Center for Science Education website that counters the Ben Stein/Premise Media anti-evolution movie, Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed. It is available at www.expelledexposed.com. Currently in a preliminary stage, Expelled Exposed consists of a collection of links containing the most basic and important resources for teachers, scientists, reporters, and members of the public who seek information now to respond to this movie. On April 16, days before the movie Expelled is premiered on April 18, NCSE will launch the full version of the website. In its final form, Expelled Exposed will examine claims made in the movie and explain, neatly and concisely, why each is an exaggeration, a misrepresentation, or a fabrication. NCSE encourages all interested parties to bookmark the site, and pass the link on to friends and family, so that by the time the creationist movie is released, www.expelledexposed.com will be the most popular Expelled site on the internet!
The Discovery Institute
We see Stein walking the streets of Seattle trying to be funny "I don't know where we are... Is this third street? Where are we?" I know it doesn't sound funny written out, and it wasn't funny on-screen, but you could tell from his strained delivery that Stein was TRYING to be funny. The sympathetic audience did laugh, which was even sadder. Stein asks people on the street how to get to the Discovery institute, and no one he meets has even heard of it. I guess the point is to make you think that The Discovery Institute isn't very big or influential. "It must be this whole building" Stein says when they arrive, and acts shocked when he finds out it is only half a floor in the building, with a staff of about 30. See? The Discovery Institute is just a harmless little group on half a floor! They all look so friendly! A very friendly interview follows with someone from the Institute, and the implication is that they are the struggling underdogs.
We see a second attempt at comedy when Stein is in a boardroom meeting (I think it was at the Discovery Institute) and starts to look bored, pulls out an expandable pointing device, and proceeds to scratch his back with it. It doesn't sound funny, and it wasn't funny. But you could once again tell he was trying to be funny. I guess that was enough to get the sympathetic audience in Minneapolis to laugh once again.
Michael Shermer
Stein goes to speak with Michael Shermer (Skeptic.com), and asks him what he would think about people losing their jobs for publishing about ID. Michael Shermer had this to say about this experience with the Expelled team:
My take on Mathis is that he's an opportunist. He says and does whatever he thinks necessary to get his film made and now promoted. My guess on the latest flap about tossing PZ out of the screening but not Dawkins was PZ's original assumption that they just didn't notice Dawkins there, and only after the fact rationalizing the whole affair with plausible (and ever changing) reasons.
For my part, the moment I sat down with Stein (with Mathis there) and he asked me that question about firing people for expressing dissenting views a dozen times, I realized that I was being manipulated to give certain answers they were looking for me to give. I asked them both, several times, if they had anything else to ask me about evolutionary theory or Intelligent Design. In frustration I finally said something like "Do you have any other questions to ask me or do you keep asking me this question in hopes that I'll give a different answer?"
That's when Stein finally changed the subject and asked about social Darwinism. We got into a lengthy discussion about Adam Smith, which he seemed surprised to learn that I seemed to know more about the great economist than he did! For example, he didn't seem to even realize that Smith's first book was "The Theory of Moral Sentiments", and that Smith didn't trust businessmen any more than he trusted government bureaucrats, and that we need a mix of enlightened self-interest and strictly enforced rules of trade. But as I noted in my review of the film for Scientific American, Stein was especially displeased with my linkage of Smith and Darwin, that Darwin read Smith as an undergraduate at Edinburgh, etc. I also pointed out to him that Darwin has been used and abused by ideologues of all stripes, and that in any case that is all separate from whether the science is good or not. That seemed to tax his thinking too much, because shortly after he announced that he had to take a rest break and he just got up and went out to his car for about 20 minutes! Seriously, he just went out to the street next to our office and sat in the rent car they had! I couldn't believe it. We had only been going for about 30 minutes and he was tired? And this was in the late morning. I joked with Mathis that, this being Hollywood and all, I wondered if Stein was out doing a line of cocaine.... Mathis assured me that Stein doesn't do drugs, but I found the whole thing to be quite odd. Then Stein came back in and that's when we walked around the office with the handheld camera to get some B-Roll footage, and they showed him asking me about my books, and that's where I told him I thought ID was much closer to pseudoscience than science. Then he asked me AGAIN if I thought people should be fired....
The whole experience was a bit surreal, and I found Stein to be a somewhat disagreeable man. He tried to come off like he was a star and that I should have been star-struck, and when I wasn't that seemed to get under his skin a bit. For example, when he came back into the office from resting in his car, I said something like "gentlemen, I've got work to do so I'd like to wrap this thing up now," he looked at me like "hey, don't you realize who I am and that you should be grateful to be talking to me?" I let him off the hook a bit in my review about his questionable comment about blacks, but I suspect he has some racist tendencies.
PZ Myers (of Pharyngula-fame)
PZ comes across as very likable in the film, and says he would like to see religion become more of a hobby for people, like knitting.
Sympathizers
There are other scientists interviewed, and I can't remember them all. There are other ID sympathizers who reinforce the 'Big Science' Conspiracy.
Crystals!?
They interview someone else about evolution, who mentions that science doesn't know how life began. So the film shifts to discussing the origin of life on earth. Philosopher Michael Ruse mentions the theory that organic life piggybacked on crystalline structures (Richard writes more about this in his review). Stein takes the opportunity to ridicule the idea: "Crystals!? On the backs of CRYSTALS!?" The film cuts to B&W video of creepy fortunetellers hunching over crystal balls. Stein's only desire is to oversimplify the theory and make fun of it.
The Dover Trial
The trial in Dover, PA is mentioned, but the film tries to spin the crushing defeat (Watch NOVA's piece on the trial here: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/id/ ). Stein says something like "I thought science was decided by evidence, not the courts."
Panspermia
Panspermia (the idea of life originally being seeded by an alien source) is also ridiculed, with a black and white video montage of 1950's aliens, robots, and flying saucers. You'd have to be pretty stupid to think that Panspermia is the same as a 1950's flying saucer movie, but once again, Stein and Mathis know their audience. It also made me think that Mathis was really trying to emulate Michael Moore, who does similar "ridicule" cuts to old black and white footage for laughs. I can just imagine Mathis and his group sitting around saying "what we need to do is rip off as much of An Inconvenient Truth and Michael Moore documentaries as we can, so that we look like a real documentary." I know that is just blind speculation, but that's the feeling I had while watching the film. I just thought I'd share.
Where it all began...
Stein says "It was time for me to go to where it all began," referring to Evolution. Maybe Stein will go to the Galapagos, and describe some of Darwin's early encounters with divergent species? Maybe we will see giant tortoises or finches? No, we just see shots of Down House, where Darwin did most of his writing and microscope work ( http://williamcalvin.com/bookshelf/down_hse.htm ). We see shots of Darwin's books, eyeglasses, microscopes, things like that. The implication seemed to be 'this was just where Darwin thought up all of his crazy ideas, out of thin air'. There is no mention of science, or how Darwin built the Theory of Evolution, just shots of his house. As if this were some 'holy place, for all of those people who worship Darwin as their god'.
Science is just a bunch of old films shown in school
We see a video, which is meant to show the audience the current theory of the origin of life. It shows lightning striking the ocean as a possible trigger for the beginning of life. The film is in color, but it is one of those school films with rounded corners, dirt and scratches through the film. They are presenting this to the audience as if it is the best explanation that science has to offer. The theme of this movie seems to be that science is just a bunch of old dusty films you saw in science class. Whenever they speak of evolution or the origin of life, we don't see anything that isn't at least 30 years old. But of course when they come to ID, we see a state-of-the-art computer animation of the inner workings of a cell.
The film mentions the Miller-Urey experiments (I'm pretty sure these were the experiments referred to in the film) done on the mixture of elements likely to have been around at the dawn of life. Stein's voiceover merely states that these experiments were done to replicate the origin of life, and that "Nothing happened" (there is more to this story, of course). Boy, those stupid scientists should have known then and there that they were way off track!
Chance
There is a short cartoon comparing the origin of life to a row of slot machines, claiming that the origin of life would have been like hitting the jackpot on 200 separate machines, all in a row. Someone says "How are you doing over there Richard?" of course meaning Richard Dawkins. They cut to a cartoon version of Richard kicking a slot machine and cursing at it, apparently because it can't hit the jackpot 200 times in a row. They also apparently couldn't get anyone with a real British accent to do his voice.
Boooooring.......
There are a lot of things that happen through the middle of the film that are just so boring I can't recall them. Mostly we see interviews with people from universities who are complaining about the lack of support for Intelligent Design. Of course NO ONE provides any evidence for ID, other than what Richard calls "The Argument from Personal Incredulity."
The ID All-Stars
It's kind of pathetic to see "Fart-noise" Dembski dragged out as the ID All-Star, but he's brought into the film to describe "Irreducible Complexity", better known as "god-did-it" theory. I think there is a mention of Behe, but he doesn't appear in the film.
Computer Animation
As previously mentioned, we see a computer-animated video of the inner-workings of a cell, which looks suspiciously like a certain Harvard animation. Since I can't go back and compare them side by side, I'll just say that they looked very similar, and had three elements that I remembered from the Harvard video, which I'd seen online: 1. Something "walking" along a rope-like structure, 2. a tube being "peeled" apart, and 3. Something un-coiling rapidly. If this isn't the Harvard film, it looks almost identical. Regardless if it is or isn't the same as the Harvard animation, it is certainly intended to make the cell look like machinery. I'm sure they're hoping for the viewer to feel overwhelmed with the complexity, and conclude that it was designed.
"Is" Doesn't Imply "Ought": The Holocaust
Richard has written about this in more detail, but I'll try and give a quick run-down. The film moves on to claim that Darwinism was "necessary" for Hitler, the Nazis, and the Holocaust. Stein says something like "Darwinism may not only be wrong, but it may also be dangerous." Up to this point the film has been fairly dull with poor attempts at humor, but now they're laying on emotional appeal. We see B&W footage of people opening up concentration camp ovens with bodies still inside, emaciated Jews in the camps, and so on. It is of course all very horrible to see, but the premise is so rotten it made me doubly angry. They want you to think that teaching evolution will lead to another Holocaust, basically. We see shots of Ben Stein attempting to look as if he'd just learned of the horrors of the Holocaust on-camera. Way to exploit, Ben.
Eugenics & Planned Parenthood?!
Eugenics is mentioned as an "extension" of Darwinism, and they even tar Planned Parenthood as being founded by a woman who was somehow associated with Eugenics (I can't remember the name). It's another disgusting, underhanded swipe, which could only be accepted so quickly in an extremely uninformed and sympathetic audience.
The Great Richard Dawkins, Evil Lord of the Evolutionist Big Science Conspiracy
Richard is really the star of this film, and if he had not been duped into his interviews (read elsewhere about the Crossroads film that many were told the interviews were for), I can't imagine who or what would have taken his place. They really portray him as the evil leader that must be stopped.
Stein says it's time to confront the head of the Evolutionists, Richard Dawkins. It's all very dramatic and overdone, making it out to be some kind of quest to slay the dragon. We see Stein slowly stepping out of his car outside the museum, about to confront Richard. They cut to Richard waiting inside the museum, with someone putting makeup (or powder, as they say) on his face in front of the camera. Once again, this was done in Michael Moore's "Fahrenheit 9/11" repeatedly, and that's all I could think when I saw it. Furthermore, this was NOT one of Richard's people adding makeup; this was the crew from Expelled! They must have wanted to put makeup on him, so that they could get that shot. Furthermore, they messed with his hair to make him look like a mad scientist -- so he has makeup, but terribly messy hair. Of course the implication is that Richard needs to be prepped before being seen by the public, as the Evil Lord of Big Science. Add to this a dark room with harsh lighting, and you'll start to get the picture. We even get a nice full-screen shot of just Richard's nose and mouth. Why? I've been filming Richard for the last 2 years, and we don't put makeup on him. This is just another underhanded attempt to make Richard look bad.
Richard's Interview
We see Richard reading "The God of The Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all of fiction" section of the book, which the audience didn't find as funny as I did. Stein asks Richard to put a number on how certain he is that there is no god. Richard says 99%. Stein asks "Why not 97? Or why not 47?" Richard replies "Well you asked me to put a number on it, so I did". This is apparently meant to make Richard look like he has no reason to say god is very, very unlikely -- since he doesn't have a reason to say 99% over 97%. The sympathetic audience laughed at this. Richard describes how Panspermia is the only way that ID would even be science (since whoever seeded life would have evolved through something like Natural Selection), but Stein just wants to use this to say, "Richard Dawkins believes in Intelligent Design, so long as it doesn't mention god!" He's OK with aliens, but not god! 'How ridiculous,' we are all expected to think.
Intelligent Design means Created by God
Let me draw attention to this: This film in no way attempts to distinguish God from Intelligent Design. They have apparently abandoned that tactic, and are now only targeting their religious base with this Big Science Conspiracy Theory. They move effortlessly from phrases about "an Intelligent Designer" to "God" or "a creator".
Big Science = Nazi Army
Stein says something like "I can't go up against Big Science all by myself!" over images of what looked like Nazi tanks and troops protecting a building, driving home the alleged connection between scientists and Nazis. We see B&W images of armed fortresses with barbed wire. Science looks really scary!
Evil Darwin Statue
Stein goes to a museum with a statue of Darwin, which he stands in front of during a monologue. We see a straight on shot of the grey Darwin statue in very little light, with Darwin's eye cavities completely black. Darwin sure looks evil, like some sort of dark god. Yes, the evil god of the scientists.
The Wall Must Come Down!
The closing metaphor of the film is that the wall Big Science has put up to keep ID out must come down. We see scenes of people breaking down the Berlin wall, of people running to freedom, climbing over the wall, etc. The Killers song is played, with some Stein monologue, and we go to credits.
Thanks!
PZ and Richard are thanked in the end credits.
Extended Trailer Online
I noticed that several scenes from the extended trailer weren't even in the film. The whole segment with Stein saying "I always thought everything was created by a loving god, including rocks, trees...." was nowhere to be found. The clip with Richard in the trailer wasn't in the film, either.
Concluding Thoughts
Expelled seems to mark a shift in the Creationists' tactics. Everything they've tried to do so far has failed, so now they're trying to claim it's a conspiracy. 'Big Science is trying to keep God out of the classroom, and you'd better do something about it fast or we're going to have another Holocaust!' Of course, god-did-it is not science, but I don't think this matters to the film's target audience. Expelled is simply a rallying call to religious Americans. It will probably be shown in church basements, and will further insulate those who fear the seed of doubt. The film's message is so appalling (teaching evolution = the Holocaust) and is presented so crudely that any sane person will see it for the propaganda it is. There was virtually no real scientific content, and I felt stupider for having sat through it.
Please, don't pay to go see it. Let it die a quiet theatrical death. If you really want to see it, wait for a free opportunity that won't line Mathis' pockets.
Another good review from New Scientist:
http://www.newscientist.com/blog/shortsharpscience/2008/03/are-id-proponents-being-silenced.html
Add to del.icio.us
Posted: Tuesday, March 25, 2008 | PermalinkComments 151 - 200 of 253 |
Reload Comments | Back to Top | Page Numbers152. Comment #154247 by Jon_Sociologist on April 3, 2008 at 1:36 am
Comment #153706 by Christopher Davis:
I agree. Involutary sterilazation is a violation of individual human rights, but an intregal part of human civilizations has always been the limiting of selected individual rights toward the goal of bettering society.
I don't think it would be a better society to live in fear that you or your children will be deemed inferior and summarily sterilized.
Comment #153706 by Christopher Davis:
As Dr. Benway commented, most rational people don't really see the upside of allowing mentally retarded people to have children.
It is one thing to decide not to conceive a child with a mentally retarded individual, it is quite another to say that no one should be allowed to and going on to mutilate people. Quite frankly as far as evolution goes if mentally retarded people have more children then they are the "superior" ones. Evolution judges "superiority" solely by how frequently genes are passed on.
Comment #153706 by Christopher Davis:
In cases such as these, I believe that society must consider the future welfare of a child born to mentally retarded parents before declaring that involuntary sterilazation is a "gross violation of human rights."
Maybe society shouldn't be deciding for people as to whether life is worth living or not. If a child grows up to feel that their life is not worth living then it is up to them to end it. Making that decision for them is absolutely a gross violation of human rights.
A blatant falsehood that could use correcting is this idea that humanity has somehow "escaped" the selective process. There is no escape from selection, genes are selected for or against, there is no third alternative, and both of these are within the selective process. Antibiotics may have removed many diseases as selective pressures, and made human immune systems less important to the selective process. Why should we then step in and pretend that the selective pressure is still there at the cost of traits that are actually relevant to our current environment? The populations of the developed world are currently under some of the most severe selective pressures ever experienced by modern humans. Western nations have a negative birth rate; this means that more people are dying than are being born, which in turn means that these populations are currently being selected against. Now you guys want to go around making this situation worse, based upon some artificial criterion that you have arbitrarily decided is more important than the actual natural selective processes? If we want to make the population smarter then we as a society need to make raising a child less detrimental economically. Given our negative birth rate, trying to prevent stupid people from having children is suicidal and short sighted.
Other Comments by Jon_Sociologist
153. Comment #154425 by Zamboro on April 3, 2008 at 8:06 am
Jon_Sociologist: I think you misunderstand his position. We've not escaped from the selective process, but it is acting on us differently and favoring different traits as a result of civilization mitigating the selective pressures against what would normally be poor genetic fitness. It's true that evolution is blind and has no notions of superiority or inferiority, but the same is not true of human beings nor should it be. We have very well formed definitions of superior and inferior, however controversial they may be to hyper-sensitive sophists. Operating under the axiom that the human endeavor to preserve our species by expanding our power and influence is something we all wish to continue, it's objectively true that persisting in policies which favor the reproduction of individuals who have mentally crippling hereditary conditions will inhibit and potentially derail the human endeavor entirely. There's simply no getting around the fatal impracticality of providing for and even assisting the reproduction of individuals who cannot themselves (nor can their offspring) ever contribute anywhere near as much as they consume. It's societal suicide, and only a backwards and self-destructive sort of person would advocate it.
Other Comments by Zamboro
154. Comment #154451 by Christopher Davis on April 3, 2008 at 9:39 am
Zamboro, not only has Jon_Sociologist missed my point, he seems incapable of reading a post without making unjustified inferences.
At no point in my post did I advocate the forced sterilization of people. I merely pointed out that societies have always been in the business of limiting individual rights for the greater good of society.
Furthermore, Jon_Sociologist seems to think that sterilization is synonomous with castration...unless of course he considers a vasectomy a "mutilation".
Also, his comments about how society shouldn't be deciding if life is worth living are specious and contrived. Anyone with an ounce of sense will realize that the life of a human infant is extremely short unless the child is properly cared for. The issue is not individual worth, but practicality. Take for example, two mentally disabled people confined to an institution, unable to care for themselves, let alone a child, who fall in love. Is it more inhumane to sterilize them and let them have a fully consummated relationship, to keep them seperated, or to allow nature to run its course with no forethought towards the care of the resulting offspring?
Finally, Jon_Sociologist needs to rethink his "if mentally retarded people have more children then they are the superior ones" argument. While he is right that evolution proceeds through the successful transmission of genes, natural selection has a nasty habit of acting at the level of the phenotype. Which is important in this case because it doesn't matter how many children retarded people have...it only matters how many of those children survive to bear children of their own.
Other Comments by Christopher Davis
155. Comment #154473 by Zamboro on April 3, 2008 at 10:32 am
Even vasectomies are unnecessary in an age of libidinal suppressants, the sort they use to rehabilitate sex offenders. After a patient explanation of why it would be irresponsible to have a child and what effect the suppressants would have, provided that they agree to take them, they could simply be included in their allotment of meds. Simple, cheap, painless and ethical. Not all will volunteer to suppress their own libidos, but if even half of them do, it would make great headway towards reducing the birthrate of mentally defective children (and yes, I stand by that term.)
Other Comments by Zamboro
156. Comment #154537 by Jon_Sociologist on April 3, 2008 at 12:10 pm
Comment #154425 by Zamboro:
it's objectively true that persisting in policies which favor the reproduction of individuals who have mentally crippling hereditary conditions will inhibit and potentially derail the human endeavor entirely.
This is inherently subjective not objective. If "crippling hereditary conditions" are not inhibiting the ability of its sufferers to procreate then it cannot be objectively said that it is 'derailing the human endeavour entirely'.
Comment #154425 by Zamboro:
We have very well formed definitions of superior and inferior, however controversial they may be to hyper-sensitive sophists.
Yes many humans have very well formed definitions of superior and inferior. Many of these humans are referred to as white supremacists. A quick glance at your avatar (olive skin, brown hair, brown eyes) suggests that you would not meet their definitions of superior. I consider myself superior to clearmind, but I would not want to live in a country where he would have the police come and forcibly take him to the hospital to have involuntary surgery.
Comment #154425 by Zamboro:
There's simply no getting around the fatal impracticality of providing for and even assisting the reproduction of individuals who cannot themselves (nor can their offspring) ever contribute anywhere near as much as they consume. It's societal suicide, and only a backwards and self-destructive sort of person would advocate it.
Someone who is so far gone that they cannot "contribute anywhere near as much as they consume" will almost certainly have difficulty in procreating. Any sort of intervention is vicious and unnecessary.
Other Comments by Jon_Sociologist
157. Comment #154547 by Zamboro on April 3, 2008 at 12:25 pm
"This is inherently subjective not objective. If "crippling hereditary conditions" are not inhibiting the ability of its sufferers to procreate then it cannot be objectively said that it is 'derailing the human endeavour entirely'."Yes, it can. You seem to have confused evolution with the human endeavor. Evolution has no specified goal. Most human beings share the goal that our species should survive in the longterm and continue to become more intelligent and advance, those last two words being key.
"Yes many humans have very well formed definitions of superior and inferior. Many of these humans are referred to as white supremacists. A quick glance at your avatar (olive skin, brown hair, brown eyes) suggests that you would not meet their definitions of superior. I consider myself superior to clearmind, but I would not want to live in a country where he would have the police come and forcibly take him to the hospital to have involuntary surgery."
Well done, you've invoked Naziism. Not that your godwin invalidates your argument in itself, but given the recent damning dissection of Ben Stein's similar smear on evolution you'd think you might be a bit more hesitant to trot out that old chestnut. The problem with your reasoning is that such definitions weren't based on solid factual ground and weren't anchored to a specific goal, they were simply held to be self-evident and worth pursuing for their own sake. Our modern understanding of genetics invalidates notions of racial superiority, but corroborate notions like the heredity of intelligence and the role of genetics in behavioral inclinations.
It's as close to an objective standard of human superiority as we'll ever get to say that a smarter, less aggressive, more compassionate human species would be better than the one we have now. Of course this standard is based upon an axiom in the form of an "if" statement: IF you would like to ensure the longterm survival and continued advancement of the human species, THEN these are the traits which best facilitate that end.
Other Comments by Zamboro
158. Comment #154557 by Jon_Sociologist on April 3, 2008 at 12:42 pm
Comment #154451 by Christopher Davis:
At no point in my post did I advocate the forced sterilization of people.
Then what method did you have in mind to 'limit individual rights for the greater good of society'?
Comment #154451 by Christopher Davis:
Furthermore, Jon_Sociologist seems to think that sterilization is synonomous with castration...unless of course he considers a vasectomy a "mutilation".
Mutilate: "To harm as to impair use." Yes, a vasectomy would be mutilation of the genitals. The fact that many men choose to do this to themselves does not make it OK to make this choice for anyone. Many people choose to commit suicide, shall we make this choice for people we deem inferior?
Comment #154451 by Christopher Davis:
Take for example, two mentally disabled people confined to an institution, unable to care for themselves, let alone a child, who fall in love. Is it more inhumane to sterilize them and let them have a fully consummated relationship, to keep them seperated, or to allow nature to run its course with no forethought towards the care of the resulting offspring?
These are issues to be decided by the people themselves in so far as possible, and by consultation with their legal guardians beyond this. This is not a decision to be imposed by the state. Any resultant offspring of a wholly dependent invalid is the responsibility of the legal guardian. I would point out that intervention is almost always unnecessary as individuals such as this manage to procreate only very rarely, in fact many of the conditions that cause such conditions also render the individual in question infertile.
Comment #154451 by Christopher Davis:
Finally, Jon_Sociologist needs to rethink his "if mentally retarded people have more children then they are the superior ones" argument. While he is right that evolution proceeds through the successful transmission of genes, natural selection has a nasty habit of acting at the level of the phenotype.
There is no fundamental difference between micro and macroevolution; there is no clear line between the two. Phenomenons observed in macroevolution are broad patterns taking place at the microevolutionary scale.
Comment #154451 by Christopher Davis:
Which is important in this case because it doesn't matter how many children retarded people have...it only matters how many of those children survive to bear children of their own.
Getting technical does not significantly change the argument. If mentally retarded people are having more grandchildren then they are not inferior as far as evolution is concerned.
Other Comments by Jon_Sociologist
159. Comment #154559 by Jon_Sociologist on April 3, 2008 at 12:49 pm
Comment #154473 by Zamboro:
Even vasectomies are unnecessary in an age of libidinal suppressants, the sort they use to rehabilitate sex offenders. After a patient explanation of why it would be irresponsible to have a child and what effect the suppressants would have, provided that they agree to take them, they could simply be included in their allotment of meds.
Trying to convince such people not to have children is another matter. I do not object to trying to convince these people to be sterilized regardless of method. So long as the legal guardians of those not competent to make the decision themselves are consulted. I feel that any decision on this matter must be left to those involved, and not imposed from the outside.
Other Comments by Jon_Sociologist
160. Comment #154593 by Jon_Sociologist on April 3, 2008 at 1:32 pm
Comment #154547 by Zamboro:
Yes, it can. You seem to have confused evolution with the human endeavor. Evolution has no specified goal. Most human beings share the goal that our species should survive in the longterm and continue to become more intelligent and advance, those last two words being key.
Many humans do not share this "endeavour". I suspect that most humans have not given much thought to the survival of the human genetic lineage on the evolutionary time scale. I do share this goal, although I would specify that it is the human lineage that is important and not this particular species. I hope that I will have descendents 1 million years from now, but I hope that they will have evolved from our current species. I suspect this is what you really meant, but the distinction is important.
Comment #154547 by Zamboro:
The problem with your reasoning is that such definitions weren't based on solid factual ground and weren't anchored to a specific goal, they were simply held to be self-evident and worth pursuing for their own sake.
And how are your goals not considered "self-evident and worth pursuing for their own sake"? The white supremacists of today absolutely have goals in mind for their ideas on eugenics. Like you, they consider their ideas to be based upon science and rationality. My point is that it is dangerous for anyone to consider their ideas to be so reasonable that they are willing to trample the rights of others.
Comment #154547 by Zamboro:
Our modern understanding of genetics invalidates notions of racial superiority, but corroborate notions like the heredity of intelligence and the role of genetics in behavioral inclinations.
This is an unexamined truism in modern science. Many scientists reject the concept of race while ignoring the fact that the term race is effectively the layman's term for certain haplotypes. Scientific studies have shown differences between these haplotypes of exactly the sort that you refer to as objective criterion for superiority. IQ tests have shown strong correlations between "race" and IQ, although notably these studies would not be so useful to white supremacists as "whites" did not come out on top (in fact they where middle of the road well below the Jews that they so revile).
Comment #154547 by Zamboro:
It's as close to an objective standard of human superiority as we'll ever get to say that a smarter, less aggressive, more compassionate human species would be better than the one we have now.
Less aggressive, and more compassionate are objectively better? The Nazis provided us with another counter-example to this. The Jews that aggressively resisted the SS soldiers in many cases clearly survived in greater numbers than those who went passively to the slaughter. The aggression of these survivors was almost certainly crucial to their survival 3 years later in 1948 when the countries surrounding the newly founded Israel attempted to genocide them again.
Comment #154547 by Zamboro:
Of course this standard is based upon an axiom in the form of an "if" statement: IF you would like to ensure the longterm survival and continued advancement of the human species, THEN these are the traits which best facilitate that end.
I agree that the long-term survival of our descendents is a worthy goal, but not everyone shares this goal, and the best methods of achieving are not so simple and "objectively" obvious.
Other Comments by Jon_Sociologist
161. Comment #154601 by Steve Zara on April 3, 2008 at 1:43 pm
Comment #154593 by Jon_Sociologist IQ tests have shown strong correlations between "race" and IQ
No, they really haven't.
Other Comments by Steve Zara
162. Comment #154607 by Quetzalcoatl on April 3, 2008 at 1:52 pm
Jon_Sociologist-
IQ tests have shown strong correlations between "race" and IQ, although notably these studies would not be so useful to white supremacists as "whites" did not come out on top (in fact they where middle of the road well below the Jews that they so revile).
Do you have a link to back this up?
Other Comments by Quetzalcoatl
163. Comment #154617 by Jon_Sociologist on April 3, 2008 at 2:06 pm
Comment #154601 by Steve Zara:IQ tests have shown strong correlations between "race" and IQNo, they really haven't.
The subject is controversial but I would say that many studies indicate that there are indeed differences. According to Wikipedia: "Black and white populations in the United States are the best studied. Black-White average IQ differences appear to increase with age, averaging approximately 17 points by age 24." So yes, I think the scientific studies have in many cases shown correlations between race and IQ.
In combating racism I think it is unhelpful to bury our heads in the sand and pretend that these findings are not significant. This surrenders the scientific high ground to the racists (and believe me they take advantage of this). I think it would be much more useful to study why these differences exist. If it can be shown that the difference in IQ between Canadian Blacks and Whites is zero or close to zero then we would have cause to believe that the differences observed in America are cultural. Canadian Blacks share a similar genetic heritage to American Blacks, while the mutual animosity between Blacks and Whites is substantially less in most areas of Canada than in the U.S. Note that there are other possible social causes (poverty, racism, education, etc.). However, even if such studies could be somehow shown to prove that Sub-Saharan Africans where biologically geared for lower intelligence, then we must point out that this would still not allow for racism to be rationally justified. If two job candidates are of an identical IQ then the fact that one was predisposed to a lower IQ would be irrelevant even if it where true. Racism would be completely unjustified as a criterion in this case (or virtually any case that I can think of). Further, if it could be found that there are ways to compensate for biological differences through education, then we would be doing disadvantaged groups a grave disservice by ignoring differences. Plugging our ears and shouting "no!" is unhelpful, and probably counter-productive.
Other Comments by Jon_Sociologist
164. Comment #154624 by Steve Zara on April 3, 2008 at 2:13 pm
The subject is controversial but I would say that many studies indicate that there are indeed differences.
In these studies, there aren't controls based on white people raised under similar conditions of oppression, and economic conditions, so linking IQ differences to skin colour has little scientific basis.
Other Comments by Steve Zara
165. Comment #154652 by Jon_Sociologist on April 3, 2008 at 2:40 pm
Comment #154624 by Steve Zara:
there aren't controls based on white people raised under similar conditions of oppression, and economic conditions, so linking IQ differences to skin colour has little scientific basis.
Regardless of whether we can control for oppression, and economic conditions, the correlation between "skin colour" and IQ does exist. I think the why of this, is a very important question. If we can demonstrate that lower average IQ in African-Americans is caused by unequal access to education, then this would be a confirmation of what civil rights activists have been claiming all along. Giving these civil rights activists the ammunition of scientific studies to back up their claims could be a powerful force for change. Assuming that there is no significant difference in outcome despite unequal access to education, would be to allow the oppression of the status quo to continue.
Assuming that Neil deGrasse Tyson or Ayaan Hirsi Ali are stupid because of their skin colour would be ignorance in the extreme. But we cannot also say that they prove that there is no significance to the differential results. If we want to have more Neils and Ayaans we must acknowledge the problem and attempt to address it in a rational and scientific manner. Showing that the correlation between "skin colour" and IQ is caused by oppression, and economic conditions, does not refute the correlation. Far from it, what it does is show us a possible avenue to correcting a situation that damages us all. How many more Tysons would there be if African-Americans had equal access to education? If we can show that the results of unequal access to education are indeed detrimental then we have provided impetus for change. But science requires us to be open-minded in our scepticism, and if we are not willing to acknowledge the possibility that the differences are biological, then we cannot reasonably claim to have scientifically ruled it out. If the differences were biological, then how many more Tysons would we have if we could accommodate and compensate for the biological differences through education? This matter is too important to be ignored, the status quo is unacceptable, and scientific inquiry is our best path to the most beneficial outcome for all. We must allow scientific inquiry without limitations based on political correctness.
Other Comments by Jon_Sociologist
166. Comment #154657 by Steve Zara on April 3, 2008 at 2:45 pm
Regardless of whether we can control for oppression, and economic conditions, the correlation between "skin colour" and IQ does exist.
No, it doesn't. That is why you need controls.
We must allow scientific inquiry without limitations based on political correctness.
Sure, but you are suggesting scientific inquiry without the constraints of the scientific method.
Other Comments by Steve Zara
167. Comment #154662 by Podaar on April 3, 2008 at 2:51 pm
Comment #154617 by Jon_Sociologist
Jared Diamond the author of Guns, Germs and Steel argues that members of New Guinea aboriginal tribes show higher intelligence aptitude than Eurasian people (I don't know what studies he sights, I'm not near the book right now). His reasoning is that hunter/gatherer lifestyles have provided a natural selection of genes that favor intelligence over other kinds of survival strategies.
Other Comments by Podaar
168. Comment #154674 by ThoughtsonCommonToad on April 3, 2008 at 2:58 pm
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6037708729636407580Pinker: Jews, Genes and Intelligence
If that link ever decays http://www.cjh.org/programs/programarchives.php
Other Comments by ThoughtsonCommonToad
169. Comment #154875 by Zamboro on April 3, 2008 at 9:46 pm
"In these studies, there aren't controls based on white people raised under similar conditions of oppression, and economic conditions"I dunno how you'd quantify oppression, but there have indeed been tests which drew white applicants from the same economic level, and the results were the same: A difference of around one standard deviation, nearly two between asians and blacks.
Interesting stuff but an awful lot of people seem to have decided what they want the results to be already and are arguing with others based upon that assumption. This goes for both sides. Just keep in mind that sometimes really ugly, unpleasant notions turn out to be true. There is after all a great difference between "is" and "ought".
It's whether we act on such knowledge and how that determines whether we are ethical or not, rather than whether or not we choose to acknowledge it. I for one oppose any sort of discrimination based upon knowledge of genetic background, as we haven't any control over our own ancestry.
Other Comments by Zamboro
170. Comment #154876 by robotaholic on April 3, 2008 at 9:50 pm
why are people born in america referred to as african american? - anyone born in america is american and that's all - i am not referred to as a caucasian american - the only true african americans are born in africa and naturalized to america like charlize theron Other Comments by robotaholic
171. Comment #154880 by Zamboro on April 3, 2008 at 10:04 pm
It's frankly a bit confusing and scary that there are really people in the world unwilling to make a statement like "It would be good if nobody were born with mental or physical defects". Who would honestly wish that children *continue* to suffer from such conditions when an ounce of prevention and the moral bravery necessary to apply it could make the beautiful dream of a world nearly free of hereditary defects into a reality within a matter of decades? No trampling of rights, no forcible sterilization, no anything of the sort. A sensible, unashamed public dialogue concerning the proliferation of hereditary mental defects (and the responsibility of any who has a mentally defective family member to recommend sexual suppressants to them) would do so much good within such a short time that it would leave even the most ardent opponent of the program wondering why we didn't do it sooner.
Other Comments by Zamboro
172. Comment #154908 by Christopher Davis on April 4, 2008 at 12:36 am
Jon_Sociologist, the habit you have of quoting people one or two lines at a time so that you can appear to offer a cogent counter-argument is dishonest and irritating.
Personally, I'd prefer that you pull your head out of your brown-muscle, read the posts in their entirety, digest the entire argument (if you are capable), and then respond with a coherent argument of your own.
For the last time, at no time did I advocate forced sterilization. My point was that individual rights are not absolute. This includes the right to procreate.
Furthermore, I see that your cherry-picking also extends to the dictionary. The more common definitions of mutilate are---1. to cut up or alter radically so as to make imperfect, and 2. to cut off or permanently destroy a limb or essential part of. Listed as synonyms are 'maim' and 'cripple'. So by your evaluation a vasectomy leaves a man maimed and/or crippled? I'd be willing to wager that most people don't associate being 'impaired' with being 'mutilated'. Who's trying to change the argument by being technical now?
"There is no fundamental difference between micro and macroevolution; there is no clear line between the two. Phenomenons observed in macroevolution are broad patterns taking place at the microevolutionary scale"---Jon_Sociologist
Here I am going to quote you verbatim and in entirety, because I have no idea what the hell you are talking about. I never made any distinction between micro and macro evolution, mainly because as you pointed out, there isn't any. However there is a difference between evolution and natural selection. I understand that difference, do you? By the way, my screen name could be Chris_Anthropologist if I wanted it to.
As for my hypothetical regarding two mentally retarded people who fall in love IN THE INSTITUTION, it was meant to be an ethical thought experiment. I assumed that most readers wouldn't add any elements to the scenario...my mistake. I should have made it clear that in this case the state is the guardian of the two lovers, and thereby it is the state that will bear the burden of any offspring.
Finally Jon_Sociologist, do you know of any way that anyone, retarded or not, can have grandchildren if their children don't survive?
Other Comments by Christopher Davis
173. Comment #154965 by Jon_Sociologist on April 4, 2008 at 3:12 am
Comment #154657 by Steve Zara:Regardless of whether we can control for oppression, and economic conditions, the correlation between "skin colour" and IQ does exist.No, it doesn't. That is why you need controls.
Yes and no. Obviously if you are trying to figure out if skin colour (or more accurately the associated haplotype) has a causal relationship, you must control for as many other variables as possible. If studies found that controlling for economic and oppression caused the difference to disappear, we could infer that these factors may have a causative relationship. Unfortunately for your argument these factors have been taken into account and controlled for insofar as possible. Comparing individuals of various haplotypes who are at a similar socio-economic status easily controls for economic factors in comparative IQ tests. Oppression/racism can be controlled for by comparing socio-economically similar individuals from other groups that suffer similar disadvantages when it comes to racism, Sikhs come to mind. Notably the direction of a causal relationship would be difficult to determine, as it is easy to imagine that if differences in IQ exist, they could contribute to racism against a certain group. Obviously racism could conceivably impact IQ through means such as Labeling Theory (the idea that labels become self fulfilling prophecies). For example people might have a low IQ as an adult, as a result of being led to believe that they are stupid as a child. All that said, however, studies have been done that attempted (probably successfully) to control for these factors, and the differences between ethnic groups/haplotypes remained.
Comment #154657 by Steve Zara:
Sure, but you are suggesting scientific inquiry without the constraints of the scientific method.
Absolutely not, differential IQ should be studied using the method of attempting to falsify the idea. However, if we are going to ask the questions, then we need to be prepared to accept the answers. If the answers present a problem, then ignoring the answers is totally unhelpful in solving the problem. And quite frankly some of the answers are in, and they do present a problem. We need to accept this and move on to solving the problems presented. Solutions might be social; Blacks in Canada tend to do just fine socio-economically by measures such as income and incarceration rates, whereas Blacks in America or the UK tend to do very poorly. This would suggest that even if the difference has a genetic basis, the outcome could be manipulated through social factors.
Other Comments by Jon_Sociologist
174. Comment #155005 by donny on April 4, 2008 at 4:16 am
Another waste of human effort by the God Squad - better investing their time effort and money in REAL enlightened educationOther Comments by donny
175. Comment #155010 by Jon_Sociologist on April 4, 2008 at 4:27 am
Comment #154908 by Christopher Davis:
Jon_Sociologist, the habit you have of quoting people one or two lines at a time so that you can appear to offer a cogent counter-argument is dishonest and irritating.
Funny I'd assume that in most cases people reading my posts would have already have read the post I am responding to as it would precede mine. My block quotes are not intended to deceive, but are rather to give the reader a clear idea of what I am responding to.
Comment #154908 by Christopher Davis:
For the last time, at no time did I advocate forced sterilization. My point was that individual rights are not absolute. This includes the right to procreate.
And I have asked you what method you think we should use to limit people's right to procreate? Either clarify your position or quite complaining that I am 'misinterpreting you'.
Comment #154908 by Christopher Davis:
Personally, I'd prefer that you pull your head out of your brown-muscle, read the posts in their entirety, digest the entire argument (if you are capable), and then respond with a coherent argument of your own.
Well, thankfully all of your posts come with a nice handy troll button.
Comment #154908 by Christopher Davis:
Furthermore, I see that your cherry-picking also extends to the dictionary. The more common definitions of mutilate are
You think that in order to use a word the concept in question must meet all possible definitions? Surgically altering someone's reproductive organs to prevent them from functioning would qualify for the following definition of Mutilate: "3. To harm as to impair use." So by my evaluation yes a vasectomy leaves a man maimed and/or crippled.
Comment #154908 by Christopher Davis:
I'd be willing to wager that most people don't associate being 'impaired' with being 'mutilated'.
I'd be willing to wager that most people would find being 'impaired' through forcible sterilization a traumatic experience.
Comment #154908 by Christopher Davis:"There is no fundamental difference between micro and macroevolution; there is no clear line between the two. Phenomenons observed in macroevolution are broad patterns taking place at the microevolutionary scale"---Jon_Sociologist
Here I am going to quote you verbatim and in entirety, because I have no idea what the hell you are talking about. I never made any distinction between micro and macro evolution, mainly because as you pointed out, there isn't any.
Gee I don't know, perhaps if we put it in context it might become clearer:
Comment #154451 by Christopher Davis:
Finally, Jon_Sociologist needs to rethink his "if mentally retarded people have more children then they are the superior ones" argument. While he is right that evolution proceeds through the successful transmission of genes, natural selection has a nasty habit of acting at the level of the phenotype.
This sounds very much like 'evolution may proceed at the micro evolutionary scale allowing mentally retarded people to have more children, but at the macro evolutionary scale of phenotypes populations which allow this will be wiped out by natural selection.'
Comment #154908 by Christopher Davis:
However there is a difference between evolution and natural selection.
Presumably you are referring to the idea of evolution by non-natural selection, a.k.a. eugenics.
Comment #154908 by Christopher Davis:
As for my hypothetical regarding two mentally retarded people who fall in love IN THE INSTITUTION, it was meant to be an ethical thought experiment. I assumed that most readers wouldn't add any elements to the scenario...my mistake. I should have made it clear that in this case the state is the guardian of the two lovers, and thereby it is the state that will bear the burden of any offspring.
Well that's a bit of a trickier situation. I think making hard fast rules about when the state should sterilize its wards is a bit dangerous. The state should probably err on the side of protecting the rights of its wards. If a ward is totally incapable of communicating their wishes, then the state might make the decision for them. If, however, a ward were to make it clear that they do not want to be sterilized, it would be unethical to enforce our will upon them. I would point out that the situation of a mentally defective individual being a ward of the state is probably quite rare; in most cases family members will be the legal guardians. If your grand ideas about eugenics are based upon discouraging the procreation of mentally defective wards of the state then your plan would have virtually no impact on the course of human evolution, because the relevant population makes up an insignificant portion of the population at large, and would in most cases be unlikely to successfully procreate even if not sterilized.
Comment #154908 by Christopher Davis:
Finally Jon_Sociologist, do you know of any way that anyone, retarded or not, can have grandchildren if their children don't survive?
Presumably you are referring to the following exchange:
Comment #154247 by Jon_Sociologist:
Quite frankly as far as evolution goes if mentally retarded people have more children then they are the "superior" ones. Evolution judges "superiority" solely by how frequently genes are passed on.
Comment #154557 by Jon_Sociologist:Comment #154451 by Christopher Davis:Getting technical does not significantly change the argument. If mentally retarded people are having more grandchildren then they are not inferior as far as evolution is concerned.
Which is important in this case because it doesn't matter how many children retarded people have...it only matters how many of those children survive to bear children of their own.
First I'll answer the question flippantly: "do you know of any way that anyone, retarded or not, can have grandchildren if their children don't survive?" Yes I do. Everyone who was alive, oh say, more than 250 years ago that had grandchildren, is a person who had grandchildren, even though their children have not survived.
Obviously this isn't what you meant so I'll answer more seriously. When I pointed out that 'if mentally retarded people have more children then they are the "superior" ones' you quibbled that "it doesn't matter how many children retarded people have...it only matters how many of those children survive to bear children of their own". Science considers an individual genetically successful only if they manage to have children who have children. I was pointing out that regardless of whether you are considering success to be having children or having grandchildren, my argument remains intact. The argument can be stated as a tautology: either mentally retarded people are having more or at least the same number of children/grandchildren in which case you cannot use evolution to justify sterilizing "inferiors" because from an evolutionary standpoint they would be superior or at least equal, otherwise mentally retarded people are having fewer children and sterilizing them would be unnecessary as natural selection is already reducing the frequency of their genes in the gene pool.
Other Comments by Jon_Sociologist
176. Comment #155012 by Steve Zara on April 4, 2008 at 4:28 am
And quite frankly some of the answers are in, and they do present a problem
I have seen no evidence of this at all. The within-"race" variance of intelligence greatly exceeds any between-"race" variance.
There is also the question of whether or not the measurement is even meaningful, as it seems that IQ can change during life.
So, we need to be very careful before drawing any conclusions from such highly questionable data. Data of the quality I would seen would not be of much use in any other area of science.
Other Comments by Steve Zara
177. Comment #155029 by Jon_Sociologist on April 4, 2008 at 4:55 am
Comment #154880 by Zambo:
It's frankly a bit confusing and scary that there are really people in the world unwilling to make a statement like "It would be good if nobody were born with mental or physical defects".
There is a significant difference between a statement like "It would be good if nobody were born with mental or physical defects", and saying, "therefore we should prevent the birth of such individuals.
Comment #154880 by Zambo:
Who would honestly wish that children *continue* to suffer from such conditions when an ounce of prevention and the moral bravery necessary to apply it could make the beautiful dream of a world nearly free of hereditary defects into a reality within a matter of decades?
Many if not most forms of serious mental disability are not hereditary. The most commonly known example would probably be Down syndrome, which while genetic, the condition leaves sufferers infertile and therefore largely precludes heredity. And further, few surviving traits are unambiguously harmful (those that were tended to be weeded out long ago). Many of the genes that code for a disease of one kind in certain circumstances, protect from another disease. Sickle-cell anaemia being an obvious example. The benefits of increased resistance to malaria from having one copy of the gene, outweighed the dangers of developing sickle-cell anaemia from having two copies of the gene.
Comment #154880 by Zambo:
A sensible, unashamed public dialogue concerning the proliferation of hereditary mental defects (and the responsibility of any who has a mentally defective family member to recommend sexual suppressants to them) would do so much good within such a short time that it would leave even the most ardent opponent of the program wondering why we didn't do it sooner.
I think you are seriously over-estimating the proportion of the population that could be unambiguously said to be hereditarily mentally defective and would be likely to procreate unless they received sexual suppressants. Putting resources into this would be wasteful and unproductive.
Other Comments by Jon_Sociologist
178. Comment #155072 by Christopher Davis on April 4, 2008 at 6:11 am
Jon_Sociologist, if you assume the people who are reading your posts have already read the posts you selectively quote from, then why do you bother with all the little boxes? Why not just make your point? I can only imagine it is because you know that if you didn't take selective little snippets from peoples arguments, other people would see that you actually have no point.
The method is irrelevant, the question is whether or not society is ever justified in limiting an individual's right to procreate.
No, I don't think, "…in order to use a word the concept in question must meet all possible definitions". Why don't you see how many definitions you can find for "connotation".
I'm not going to get into the whole micro vs. macro evolution fallacy with you, but I will address this little gem…
"Presumably you are referring to the idea of evolution by non-natural selection, a.k.a. eugenics"
No, I'm not. I'm referring to the basic fact that natural selection and evolution are not synonyms. Natural selection is the primary component of evolution, other components include genetic mutation, genetic drift, and the founder effect. If you are still confused I suggest you pick up a basic 'Introduction to Physical Anthropology' textbook.
And for my final word on mentally retarded people having children, my point is the same as it has been since this started…it isn't necessarily unethical to prevent people who have no ability to care for a child from having kids.
Now Jon_Sociologist, before you selectively quote my last paragraph go to the end of the post I'm responding to (#179) and read over your "tautology" argument. Then go to post #181, and revisit this statement, "Many if not most forms of serious mental disability are not hereditary."
So how could a trait that is not hereditary be eliminated from the gene pool through a lack of reproductive success?
Other Comments by Christopher Davis
179. Comment #155416 by Jon_Sociologist on April 4, 2008 at 1:04 pm
Comment #155012 by Steve Zara:And quite frankly some of the answers are in, and they do present a problem
I have seen no evidence of this at all. The within-"race" variance of intelligence greatly exceeds any between-"race" variance.
You make a crucial point here. Even if the differences between haplogroups is real (and I believe that the studies strongly suggest that they are), racists cannot be considered justified, because individual differences can and do exceed the difference between "races". It would be irrational for an Australian White supremacist to refuse to hire a particular Aboriginal man, with an IQ of 140; on the basis that some studies show that Australian Aboriginals have an average IQ of 60. The average IQ of any given group is irrelevant when it comes to judging a particular individual, and the assumption that a given individual conforms to the averages for their "race" is thereby rendered unjustified.
Comment #155012 by Steve Zara:
There is also the question of whether or not the measurement is even meaningful, as it seems that IQ can change during life.
There are problems with IQ measurement, but I don't see how the fact that it can change over the course of someone's life is one of those problems. Personally I'd like to think that people can make themselves smarter by getting a Ph.D. in biology for example;) A more serious problem is that IQ tests are a representation of mental age as compared to chronological age. The formula is mental age divided by chronological age multiplied by 100. This idea is very useful in children, but becomes problematic in adults. It is very meaningful to say that a child who is 6 but got a score consistent with an average 12 year old has an IQ of 200. It is much less clear what is said when a 30 year old scores the same as an average 60 year old. Adult IQ tests do try to compensate for this flaw, but it is still an issue. That said, I think it should be fairly clear that how good someone scores on an IQ test is strongly influenced by how intelligent they are.
Comment #155012 by Steve Zara:
So, we need to be very careful before drawing any conclusions from such highly questionable data. Data of the quality I would seen would not be of much use in any other area of science.
That unfortunately is often the price of doing business in the social sciences. Controlling for all variables can be difficult or impossible, and many topics cannot reasonably be addressed in a laboratory setting. A biologist does not generally need to be concerned that a frog will lie about the length of its legs (a direct measurement can be taken). But a sociologist trying to measure the average number of sexual partners of people in society needs to consider that many participants are likely to lie on the subject and direct measurement is not an option. But social scientists are refining their methodologies, and their results are becoming more consistent between studies, and more useful (I structured my post break-up relationship with my first son's mother on the latest sociological research on divorce and it has gone far better than any other divorce I have ever encountered).
Other Comments by Jon_Sociologist
180. Comment #155419 by Steve Zara on April 4, 2008 at 1:10 pm
The average IQ of any given group is irrelevant when it comes to judging a particular individual, and the assumption that a given individual conforms to the averages for their "race" is thereby rendered unjustified.
I think you are missing the point. If the within-group variance is larger than the between-group variance by a certain factor, especially for something as uncertain as IQ, then it really isn't valid to consider the between-group variance of any significance.
That unfortunately is often the price of doing business in the social sciences.
I am worried by this. If statistics aren't used correctly, then their use can be worse than useless - they can lead to decisions based on false analyses.
Other Comments by Steve Zara
181. Comment #155453 by Jon_Sociologist on April 4, 2008 at 2:01 pm
Comment #155072 by Christopher Davis:
Jon_Sociologist, if you assume the people who are reading your posts have already read the posts you selectively quote from, then why do you bother with all the little boxes? Why not just make your point?
A post addressing a point that someone else has made can be difficult to understand if it is unclear what point is being addressed.
Comment #155072 by Christopher Davis:
The method is irrelevant, the question is whether or not society is ever justified in limiting an individual's right to procreate.
An individual's right to procreate must be reasonably limited by another individual's right not to be raped. Method is still important in that, ineffective methods and cures worse than the disease should be avoided.
Comment #155072 by Christopher Davis:
No, I don't think, "…in order to use a word the concept in question must meet all possible definitions".
This statement does not appear to be consistent with your earlier accusation that I was "cherry-picking" the dictionary by using mutilate to mean, "To harm as to impair use", while 'ignoring' the other two definitions in the dictionary I used:
Comment #154908 by Christopher Davis:
Furthermore, I see that your cherry-picking also extends to the dictionary. The more common definitions of mutilate are---1. to cut up or alter radically so as to make imperfect, and 2. to cut off or permanently destroy a limb or essential part of.
Is there something else there something else that you meant by accusing me of cherry picking, when I used a legitimate definition that you personally disliked?
Comment #155072 by Christopher Davis:Presumably you are referring to the idea of evolution by non-natural selection, a.k.a. eugenicsNo, I'm not. I'm referring to the basic fact that natural selection and evolution are not synonyms. Natural selection is the primary component of evolution, other components include genetic mutation, genetic drift, and the founder effect.
In bringing up the difference in Comment #154908 you're your entire point seems to be being an ignorant prick/troll, by suggesting that I don't know the difference between evolution and natural selection.
Comment #155072 by Christopher Davis:
it isn't necessarily unethical to prevent people who have no ability to care for a child from having kids.
I repeat: what is the supposedly ethical method that you intend to use to prevent these people from having children?
Comment #155072 by Christopher Davis:
Now Jon_Sociologist, before you selectively quote my last paragraph go to the end of the post I'm responding to (#179) and read over your "tautology" argument. Then go to post #181, and revisit this statement, "Many if not most forms of serious mental disability are not hereditary."
So how could a trait that is not hereditary be eliminated from the gene pool through a lack of reproductive success?
You seem to be having trouble with this one so I'll type it very slowly for you. My argument was a one two punch. "Many if not most forms of serious mental disability are not hereditary" and therefore sterilization would be unnecessary and ineffective in any such attempt to improve average human intelligence. For the remaining cases of mental disability that are heritable my tautology applies: it would either be irrational or unnecessary to sterilize these people using justifications, based upon notions of "inferiority" drawn form observation of evolution, in an attempt to increase average human intelligence. Either these people are superior/equal from an evolutionary standpoint and it would be nonsensical to sterilize them for "inferiority" or they are inferior and thus natural selection is already reducing their contribution to the gene pool. The argument boils down to: the eugenics you are proposing would likely have little or no significant impact on average human intelligence, and any impact would either be unjustified by the arguments presented or would be unnecessary.
Another factor to consider is that many traits that are clearly negative when dominant, are actually quite beneficial when recessive, such as the aforementioned sickle cell trait. One of the fundamental problems with eugenics is that most traits that are unambiguously bad have already been eliminated by natural selection.
Other Comments by Jon_Sociologist
182. Comment #155477 by Jon_Sociologist on April 4, 2008 at 2:29 pm
Comment #155419 by Steve Zara:The average IQ of any given group is irrelevant when it comes to judging a particular individual, and the assumption that a given individual conforms to the averages for their "race" is thereby rendered unjustified.I think you are missing the point. If the within-group variance is larger than the between-group variance by a certain factor, especially for something as uncertain as IQ, then it really isn't valid to consider the between-group variance of any significance.
I think the 45-point IQ difference in the average IQ of African-Americans and Ashkenazi Jews in America is large enough to be significant. I don't think the fact that there are plenty of Black Americans that are much smarter than the average Jewish American can be taken to mean that there isn't an issue to be addressed. The situation of Blacks in America is appalling, and I think it is reasonable to assume that a 45-point difference in average IQ is probably a contributing factor. Ignoring the problem is not really acceptable in my opinion, particularly given that comparison between Canada and the U.S. implies that a vastly better approach is available. Not to say that Canada is devoid of racism against Blacks, but Blacks in Canada do not have such a radical disadvantage in average income nor are they drastically over represented in the prison population. The U.S. compares very unfavourably in these areas.
Comment #155419 by Steve Zara:That unfortunately is often the price of doing business in the social sciences.I am worried by this. If statistics aren't used correctly, then their use can be worse than useless - they can lead to decisions based on false analyses.
This is a problem in many sciences. Misuse of the findings of biology is what led to the horrors of eugenics movements in the past.
Other Comments by Jon_Sociologist
183. Comment #155478 by Steve Zara on April 4, 2008 at 2:32 pm
I think the 45-point IQ difference in the average IQ of African-Americans and Ashkenazi Jews in America is large enough to be significant.
I have to say I am highly sceptical of this. Do you have a reference?
This is a problem in many sciences.
Not really. I have not often encountered such misuse as you describe.
Misuse of the findings of biology is what led to the horrors of eugenics movements in the past.
That is not the same thing at all.
Other Comments by Steve Zara
184. Comment #155506 by Jon_Sociologist on April 4, 2008 at 3:44 pm
Comment #155478 by Steve Zara:I think the 45-point IQ difference in the average IQ of African-Americans and Ashkenazi Jews in America is large enough to be significant.I have to say I am highly sceptical of this. Do you have a reference?
Here's a link to the test results portion of the Wikipedia article on Race and Intelligence (note that the
151. Comment #154238 by Jon_Sociologist on April 3, 2008 at 12:59 am
Of course genes have some influence over intelligence, otherwise why would a human be any more intelligent than an amoeba?
Can you think of a manner in which to put this idea into practice that doesn't involve the brutal repression of involuntary sterilization or some other offence against basic human rights?
Do you have any reason to believe that the group put in charge of a eugenics program would not have a similar end in mind for humans?
You aren't talking about preventing defects you're talking about preventing the unborn from being born. You are deciding that some lives aren't worth living. If I decide that your life isn't worth living, should I have the right to cut your life short or sterilize you?
Who are you to say that someone you would not want to be should be sterilized? You think that your distaste for people gives you the right to mutilate their genitals with a scalpel?
Are you seriously telling me that you can't see a fundamental difference between people's right to refuse unwanted sexual advances and slicing off body parts of people we deem inferior?
Hmmm let's see one case leaves some people not getting laid the other involves mutilation of large numbers of people. Gee they both sound equally awful. Oh but wait, is the government going to institute mass rape as well so that ugly losers can get laid? Otherwise we have people not getting laid vs. people not getting laid while also being mutilated by the government.
It's not about a right to reproduce; it's about not having Big Brother coming to cut your nuts off/slice out your ovaries.
And when the state decides that you are inferior and comes to perform involuntary surgery on you?
There's no slippery slope required there if you're starting off at a viciously oppressive point on the "slope".
It might be more effective to point out that Hitler was not an Atheist. Hitler was a catholic who was trying to create a new Teutonic religion.
People who ride bicycles on U.S. highways are going to argue that highways are a systematic attempt to annihilate a population?
So when a vicious idiot gets behind the wheel and tries to murder people, you blame the road?
I agree that just because Hitler did it is not sufficient reason to consider something wrong. Presumably he breathed occasionally, so unless we're willing to condemn that, then we need other arguments. But, for ideas like eugenics, and genocide, there are other arguments.
Other Comments by Jon_Sociologist