Skeptic Society’s mastermind and author Michael Shermer is about to release a review of the latest nonsense entry in the evolution-creation wars: Ben Stein’s movie entitled “Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed.” Shermer is in an excellent position to criticize creationism, having been a fundamentalist himself, one who rejected the theory of evolution not out of understanding, but simply because his preacher told him to. Today Michael is that rare find in America, a professional skeptic who devotes his life to the betterment of society through critical thinking. Stein, on the other hand, is an egregious example of the worst kind of ideologue, one who not only manifestly does not understand the target of his criticisms, but is not averse to resorting to the malicious deception of his audience to advance his cause.
For instance, Shermer points out that the opening scene of the movie is a fraud. It purports to show Mr. Stein giving a lecture to an adoring crowd of students at Pepperdine University (ironically, from where Shermer graduated). But a little investigation showed that the production company for the movie literally bought the audience: there were very few students there, the audience having been created from what is known in Hollywood jargon as “extras.” What a way to start a “documentary” the purpose of which is to unmask the deceptions and conspiracies of the “Darwinists.”
What are Stein and colleagues so upset about? They claim that there is overwhelming evidence that “orthodox Darwinists” have systematically been squelching open academic debate whenever it comes close to questioning the “Darwinian dogma.” Their chief piece of evidence is the (in)famous case of Stephen Meyer’s article published in 2004 in the Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington. Though the journal is insignificant by scientific standards, the article was “important” for the ID movement because it was the first time that a pro-Intelligent Design “technical” paper got published in a peer reviewed scientific journal. (Meyer’s thesis was that the proliferation of new life forms at the beginning of the Cambrian period cannot be explained by evolutionary theory, and therefore requires the intervention of a [supernatural] designer. The first conclusion is false, the second one is a logical fallacy known as non sequitur.)
Except that there was no peer review: the managing editor of the journal, Richard Sternberg, decided that no one other than himself was qualified to review the article, and breached common scientific practice by accepting it without further review. He was roundly criticized for his action, though he was not fired or demoted (he was doing an unpaid gig at the journal anyway). Sternberg is not a martyr of the Darwinian mafia, but a rather borderline intellectually dishonest fellow who was uncharacteristically sympathetic to a pseudoscientific idea. Could it be by chance (or was it perhaps malicious intelligent design) that Sternberg turned out to be on the editorial board of the Occasional Papers of the Baraminology Study Group, a creationist organization that supports Biblical creationism? Check your baloney detector for the answer.
Ben Stein is a smart guy with a propensity for getting things spectacularly wrong. His conservative economic commentaries, ironically, would have been in line with the thinking of the robber baron’s of the 19th century -- the same ones who invoked the Darwinian idea of a “struggle for life” to justify the enormous injustices that made them so obscenely rich. Needless to say, but I’ll say it anyway, Darwin never advocated so-called social Darwinism, and was in fact appalled by it.
The question is why smart people like Stein, ID enfant terrible Bill Dembski, and countless others fall for such preposterous ideas. Shermer hints at the answer in his commentary. Here is what Dembski told an audience of National Religious Broadcasters: “Intelligent Design opens the whole possibility of us being created in the image of a benevolent God…. And if there’s anything that I think has blocked the growth of Christ as the free reign of the Spirit and people accepting the Scripture and Jesus Christ, it is the Darwinian naturalistic view.” Apparently, ideological blinders obfuscate even relatively smart people like Dembski. And yet, Shermer was able to cross the ideological divide after graduating from Pepperdine, showing that it is possible for the human brain to unshackle itself from the obscurantism of superstitious thinking. How did you do it, Michael?
(Shermer’s commentary on “Expelled” will appear both in Scientific American and at Skeptic.com.)
About Rationally Speaking
Rationally Speaking is a blog maintained by Prof. Massimo Pigliucci, a philosopher at the City University of New York. The blog reflects the Enlightenment figure Marquis de Condorcet's idea of what a public intellectual (yes, we know, that's such a bad word) ought to be: someone who devotes himself to "the tracking down of prejudices in the hiding places where priests, the schools, the government, and all long-established institutions had gathered and protected them." You're welcome. Please notice that the contents of this blog can be reprinted under the standard Creative Commons license.
Tuesday, April 08, 2008
Shermer on Stein and “Expelled”
Posted by Unknown at 10:06 AM
Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)
m "The question is why smart people like Stein, ID enfant terrible Bill Dembski, and countless others fall for such preposterous ideas."ReplyDelete
Possibly because the alternative actually seems more preposterous?
Economists especially MUST understand physics principles.
IE. That "something" (useful) could ever come from a position of zero energy, work or matter..that is what we perceive Darwinists as thinking. Kind of poor mathematicians and poor physicists at best, ya know. So you cannot throw Stein into the "he can't possibly be thinking this through" category. He is thinking it through.
Shermer, otoh, doesn't care where things (important components of the universe) came from. As far as he is concerned , they are just here. And besides, HE THOUGHT the religious upbring he received was useless, so who cares where all the principles that don't have a single thing to do with evolution came from. ??
Uh, I do.
And don't exactly agree with Dembski either on: "And if there’s anything that I think has blocked the growth of Christ as the free reign of the Spirit and people accepting the Scripture and Jesus Christ, it is the Darwinian naturalistic view."
I think if various people wanted to stay as far away from God as they possibly could, they will find WHATEVER it takes to put degrees of separation between them and He. Darwinism might provide that degree of separation some of the time, but generally it is not the reason for the differentiation, it is the symptom and evidence of choices already made.
So I am doubtful that Darwinian philo. actually leads people astray. If I am tempted by something, I am tempted because I WANT to be.
Imagine that most think the same.
"Intelligent Design opens the whole [new?] possibility of us being created in the image of a benevolent God..."ReplyDelete
Hasn't this idea been around at least since the beginning of Judaism?
Coincidentally I just watched a trailer for the film. And of course it invokes the predictable "Very smart scientists believe that life is the result of random events and chemical reactions..blah, blah, blah"ReplyDelete
"Economists especially MUST understand physics principles."
Ha! Ha! Thats a good one! Please explain this to us Cal!
"The first conclusion is false, the second one is a logical fallacy known as non sequitur."ReplyDelete
Unless I'm mistaken, which I often am, it is also a false dichotomy, no?
"Economists especially MUST understand physics principles."ReplyDelete
Shel: Ha! Ha! Thats a good one! Please explain this to us Cal!"
says the world's foremost physicist..
HA! Easy stuff. You cannot [ever] get something for NOTHING.
Know of any exceptions?
HA, HA! :)
the conclusion from a rejection of evolution to the inference of design does, in fact, imply a false dichotomy. Two logical fallacies for the price of one!
"HA! Easy stuff. You cannot [ever] get something for NOTHING. Know of any exceptions?"
Yes, we're getting a lot of nonsense from you, for free! HA!
Cal, you have created a straw man here. There is no contradiction of conservation of energy. There are examples of things in the universe (such as the potential energy of a gravitational field), which have negative energy. When all is summed up, it will probably equal to zero.ReplyDelete
Anyway, I won't debate physics with the world's foremost physicist, being as I'm not even in the top 10,000. But this particular argument is not convincing, and your posts are too confusing to be taken seriously.
I think Cal meant to say there is NO FREE LUNCH... without a means test, that is.ReplyDelete
"I think Cal meant to say there is NO FREE LUNCH... without a means test, that is."ReplyDelete
one who rejected the theory of evolution not out of understanding, but simply because his preacher told him toReplyDelete
Is there any other type? :O)
Yay, big science is crushing the dissidents... I call that the "Galileo complex". You know, just because one guy with what seemed like wacky ideas at the time was correct, then any nutjob thinks s/he must be the new Galileo... (notwithstanding the facts that 1- creationism is not new at all, it is indeed much older than science; 2- it was religion that was wrong in Galileo's case)
Now, if you excuse me, I gotta prepare to the monthly big science conspiracy meeting where we plot and perfect the oppressive strategies against those valiant messengers of truth mentioned in the "documentary". Bwahahahaha.
Glad to see that cal's anti-thought position is still holding strong.ReplyDelete
The question is why smart people like Stein fall for such preposterous ideas: e.g., there is a systematic squelching of legitimate academic debate, that natural selection lead to justifications for genocide, therefore teaching evolution leads to genocide, etc.ReplyDelete
May I suggest that Ben Stein's thought process was warped by his training as a lawyer and his experience working for Richard Nixon.
Lawyers are trained in a code that that "distortion" in the service of a client/cause is the adversary route that is not only legitimate, but will lead to the closest approximation of truth.
Note these excerpts from the wikipedia entry for Ben Stein:
Stein: "Nixon was a peacemaker. He was a lying, conniving, covering-up peacemaker. He was not a lying, conniving drug addict like JFK, a lying, conniving war-starter like LBJ, a lying, conniving seducer like Clinton."
[clearly Stein is proud to be a lying, conniving shill for ID - no shame, as long as he believes the cause is "good"]
Another example of warped cognitive processes, again from wikipedia:
Stein stated that Richard Nixon would have prevented the rise to power of the Khmer Rouge if he had not been forced to resign.
[Whatever the fallacy to that statement, it leads Stein to assert that, anyone opposed to Nixon was therefore evil.]
Stein: If there is such a thing as kharma, if there is such a thing as justice in this life or the next, [anyone who brought to light the crimes and cover-up of Watergate, such as "Deep Throat"]Mark Felt has bought himself the worst future of any man on this earth. And Bob Woodward is right behind him, with Ben Bradlee bringing up the rear. Out of their smug arrogance and contempt, they hatched the worst nightmare imaginable: genocide.
"Yes, we're getting a lot of nonsense from you, for free! HA!"
HA! So you may think. Being committed to something you are very convinced of may seem effortless, at times, but most certainly it costs us somehow, somewhere. And especially costly, I think, if you can''t admit that Stein, as an economist, might know a thing or two about what reality ought to look like.
Don't be a meany, M, just address the issue. I know you're capable of it.
Cal, I'll deal with this issue so Massimo doesn't have to.ReplyDelete
"IE. That "something" (useful) could ever come from a position of zero energy, work or matter..that is what we perceive Darwinists as thinking. Kind of poor mathematicians and poor physicists at best, ya know."
"HA! Easy stuff. You cannot [ever] get something for NOTHING.
Know of any exceptions?"
It's true in neither physics nor economics that you cannot ever get something for nothing. For economics, see non-zero-sum situations. To sum up: economic value can be created or destroyed, creating a net gain or loss. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zero_sum)
For physics, check out vacuum energy. Summary: quantum flucuations create virtual particle pairs that usually immediately annihilate each other, but occasionally impart some of their energy on real objects (the Casimir effect).
Furthermore, these situations have very little relation. Also, Darwinists do no assert that useful work comes from zero energy.
The idea that Darwinian evolution is a violation of the second law of thermodynamics is a misunderstanding of the meaning of 'closed system' that has been too often repeated by ID proponents and creationists. Ben Stein's a smart guy, however, so I'd be surprised if he uses this argument in his movie. (I haven't seen it yet)
"May I suggest that Ben Stein's thought process was warped by his training as a lawyer and his experience working for Richard Nixon."
After viewing the Expelled trailer, I think in this case Stein's advocacy for ID creationism can be attributed to something much more basic. Religion.
Just as Cal is comfortable in assuming she knows the "Truth" because she has the benefit of divine revelation, so to Stein. The trailer makes it clear that it is aimed at people who already hold religious assumpions.
"And especially costly, I think, if you can''t admit that Stein, as an economist, might know a thing or two about what reality ought to look like."
First, Stein's primary occupation is an actor. Second, so what if he has training as an economist? How does this make him any kind of authority on the validity of evolution? It does not.
Besides, there are probably many more economist who are pro-evolution than not.
I asked you explicitly to explain why an economist "must know physics". You provide us with a worn out creationist platitude.
I have an acquaintance who could not finish her Ph.D. degree in geology because she couldn't pass all the required advanced physics courses. I willing to bet an economist doesn't have to take one single physics course. Few social scientists do.
You ought to get smart to the fact that everybody here knows your statements are just foolish non-sense.
"Second, so what if he has training as an economist? How does this make him any kind of authority on the validity of evolution? It does not."ReplyDelete
Nature is nothing but one largish sort of economy. Ever noticed this? Who could possibly better qualified to understand the big picture? Stein is also completely right on about SH academics trying to squeeze other's opinions out. It may be the way that the world works, but don't bother to claim to be open minded while systematically kicking other people off the academic ladder who do not see things from your point of view.
"You ought to get smart to the fact that everybody here knows your statements are just foolish non-sense."
I'm in good company then. A lot of really decent scientists and philosophers were ridiculed severely and even harmed physically for what they believed to be true. Sometimes a person just has to make it a point to outlast his/her critics.
That's where I'm at. Therefore, I do simply not care.
That's right, guys: cal actually thinks that there are people who can judge the truth of evolutionary theory better than biologists.ReplyDelete
I think her reasonining goes like this:
P1: Biologists accept evolution.
P2: Evolution is evil and wrong.
C: Biologists are wrong.
Flawless logic, I say!
"Nature is nothing but one largish sort of economy. Ever noticed this? ...."ReplyDelete
No, I never have. I don't see how "nature is nothing but" (your words) the production, distribution, exchange, and consumption of goods and services. These are human social activities. While "nature", if by that we mean biological organisms and their interactions with the environment, is something quite different.
"Who could possibly better qualified to understand the big picture?"
Even if we assumed that an economist might be the best person to understand this big picture, why on earth would we neccessarily pick Ben Stein? First of all, his wikipedia entry says that he is actually a lawyer, and is only the son of a noted economist.
Second, the problem is "reality" and the big picture is so varied and complex that it requires a division of labor of natural and social scientists to study and attempt to understand it. Astronomers, physicists, chemists, biologists, geologists, philosophers of science, and a whole other division of labor of social scientists.
There is no reason to think that a part-time actor/lawyer/economists has anything really special to offer. Unless he can make his case on the merits of his arguments and evidence alone. Unfortunately Stein just offers the same old creationist platitudes and cliches.
I'm in good company then. A lot of really decent scientists and philosophers were ridiculed severely and even harmed physically for what they believed to be true.ReplyDelete
Cal, do you remember formal logic from high school? Stuff like "If P then Q"?. If "all crows are black birds", are "all black birds - crows"? If "a lot of famous scientists were ridiculed severely and (?) harmed physically", are a lot of people who are "ridiculed severely and harmed physically - really good scientists"?
P1: Biologists accept evolution.
P2: Evolution is evil and wrong.
C: Biologists are wrong.
The funny thing is that the syllogism is correct. It's assumption 2 that doesn't hold...
"I'm in good company then. A lot of really decent scientists and philosophers were ridiculed severely and even harmed physically for what they believed to be true."ReplyDelete
Ah, the Galileo posit. For the "world's foremost physicist", you sure have trouble creating a logical deductive argument. You seem to fall much more favorably in the Targ and Puthoff category of ostracized scientists (those whose unaccepted ideas never gain a foothold) than the Galileo grouping.
1. No one assumes that most biologists accept evolution.
My nephew is an environmental biologist and he is nothing of the sort. He and I hashed that out for the first several years he was at UM, but eventually he realized that the "evolutionary blah, blah, blah" was just the club you had to belong to to get you papers published. Fortunately, when you reject the easy route, as he eventually did, you come up with the truly innovative, intelligent one, which he has, and has been awarded grants and other commendations for thinking outside of "your box".
Plus, I know plenty, even prominent biologists, who don't buy into it at all. One of the Deans in the Bio dept. of UNM who passed away a few years ago. A good man and scholar who totally disbelieved the validity of the theory of Evolution.
Biologists need not be "wrong" or necessarily evil. Obviously, that would have to depend entirely on the person.
So if Stein is such a lightweight, why does he bother you all so much?
He must have made good points, otherwise "we" would be ignoring him.
::: running down the hill screaming our heads off...'OH NO, THE KINGDOM is in great peril on account of a lowly ACTOR!!!':::
There's always a lot of anecdotal evidence available in Calworld.ReplyDelete
And not only is the anecdotal evidence abundant, it's also always so convenient as to almost be suspicious.ReplyDelete
".. which he has, and has been awarded grants and other commendations...Plus, I know plenty, even prominent biologists, who don't buy into it at all.One of the Deans in the Bio dept. of UNM who passed away a few years ago. A good man and scholar who totally disbelieved the validity of the theory of Evolution."
Specifics please? Name of nephew and grant name and comendations. Name of biology professor and publication where he stated his disbelief in evolution. This can be checked relatively easy you know?
You should really go and read the review by Shermer that Massimo linked to. In it he refers to the debates within evolutionary biology and the scholars who criticize "neo-Darwinism", yes, they exist and are contributing to evolutionary theory.
The problem is that ID creationist haven't contributed any viable theory as an alternative to evolution, just "Gosh, that it is sooo complex it must have been created." The argument from incredulity.
Just an observation, but a number of people including Cal are posting under the name "Anonymous". Do you think we could possibly have people signing their own names to their posts, to ease confusion? Massimo even asked that ew avoid using Anonymous in the past.ReplyDelete
So let's suppose we "teach the controversy" in science class?ReplyDelete
What happens when a well-meaning science teacher decides to teach the strengths and weaknesses of Intelligent Design?
Put your fan on low, if you know what's good for you.
I love my nephew & there is no way I'd lead anyone to where he works.
Lets just say his work combined the study of one disciple that had not been studied with another.
Evolutionary studies seem less inclined towards agricultural biology because it does not make the point very well for evolution. a person , otoh, who attaches little or no validity to the philosophy of evolution will find things that the average guy who has been told he can think "this" or write papers that only prove evolution, will not have the flexibility to notice.
The other man was "the original" vitamin D doctor, i think. He's been published all over the world. He's deceased now so I really don't care to have anyone dragging his name thro the mud.
Interestedly tho, I ran into a friend the other night who works at the U over the Phds, research and grants. I wish I could tell you what I know about what is actually being researched and what it means, but I don't think it would be alright for me to do that. You need to figure out what is going on out there for yourself. Not much of it points to the fortification of evolution, that's for sure.
Most people have no concept of how much research has to be done to combat promiscuous lifestyles. So did the philosophy of evolution in fact free anyone up from religious restraint to be all they could be, sleep with anyone they please? NO, quite the contrary. The belief itself certainly has instead placed us in a much greater bind as far as emergent diseases are concerned.
On that count, we have become a very unclean society. Over 60 % of people who are walking the streets, teens to the aged, have "something" STD related. And that is completely unnecessary and preventable. The numbers use to be like 20-25 %.
Evolutionary philosophy, (throw off restraint.. blah, blah, blah) you will find out one day, is a killer. It saves no lives whatsoever.
Cal has the most preposterous ability to link the most preposterous things to the most preposterous situations imaginable.ReplyDelete
She also can come up with relatives (who must remain nameless) and dead people who cannot be questioned, who have written the unalterable truth about anything and everything, whose writings cannot be revealed lest these august personages names be sullied
She has easily blabbered on using fully 40-50% of the total posts and has not said one intelligent OR intelligible thing. Nothing but religiously oriented psychobable (sic).
Perhaps she should henceforth be ignored.
Thnks for the anonymous post Kimpatsu. I have brought this up several time in the past to know avail. The annymous poster just can't bear to reveal themselves.
"Lets just say his work combined the study of one disciple that had not been studied with another."ReplyDelete
Just as I thought Cal, you cannot even provide any specifics. You cannot even tell us in a coherent sentence what your nephew studied, or name a grant or award he received. Nor can you name that professor.
BTW, disciple is a follower, like in a disciple of Christ. Discipline on the other hand in this context is a field of study.
"One of the Deans in the Bio dept. of UNM who passed away a few years ago."
Yep, this is a pattern of Cal's. Convenient anecdotes of persons she knows to support her "arguments" (its hard to even call them that), that would seem to be lies. Lies for Christ, thats what they are.
Of course anybody who spends any time near a university knows that academic departments are headed by chairs, not deans!
Perhaps she should henceforth be ignored.ReplyDelete
Yes, please. I've been ignoring Cal's ramblings here for months. It keeps me from getting (too) unhappy.
Lots of interesting ideas and conversations come up here on Rationally Speaking (not surprising for a blog run by a Philosopher-Scientist), but many get sidetracked by this one fool. The urge to shoot down her arguments is strong, but I would respectfully request the other people here resist that urge.
I do not hope nor expect Cal will grow bored at the lack of attention and leave. Rather, I hope and expect the discussion around here can focus on questions that are actually worth pondering.
For example, why, despite the massive negative attention focused on this film, have most people of my acquantance never heard of Expelled, and do not know what Ben Stein has been up to since the demise of that game show he hosted?
And why are so many people continuing to point out the lies, fallacies, fabrications, and stupidity of Expelled, when by any reasonable standard the beast is dead? I mean, really, what's the point in discussing the off-camera anti-semitic comments of one of the IDiots in the film at this point? Anyone cabable of critical review of the movie has already realized it is complete and utter nonsense. I'm not suggesting we don't talk about these IDiots and the things they say, but consistently tying it to the film seems like a waste of time at this point. Can we move on, please?
For example, why, despite the massive negative attention focused on this film, have most people of my acquantance never heard of ExpelledReplyDelete
That's true, it is curious. I myself only "heard" of it online, through the critics. Otherwise, were I not paying attention to this type of stuff, I probably would never have heard of this "movie"...
Yep, you are right. Several articles back, I suggested we ignore Cal, but of course I am the worst offender at feeding the troll.
I have a hard time letting bullshit go unchallenged, but I will attempt to exercise some restraint.
"And why are so many people continuing to point out the lies, fallacies, fabrications, and stupidity of Expelled, when by any reasonable standard the beast is dead?"
However, I disagree on this. The film is the topic of the thread. ID/creationism may be irrelevant in the actual world of academia and science, but this religous based assault on secular education and culture is and will continue. At least here in the U.S..
The film Expelled could possibly influence peoples perception of the issues.
I notice you are a grad. student in Canada, so it is likely this is less an issue up there in the north.
It really doesn't matter if you can't trust someone because of a misspelling of "discipline", or that you could not read properly what I wrote about the Dr. at UNM. It matters far more to question, for once, the honesty of your own self and motivations.
Regardless of what you may think, the good and humble dr. did more than most people do in their lifetime, that's for sure. And he did it all while being continually faithful to God.
"The Dr.[ ] was active in the community in both a professional and volunteer capacity. He was the Senior Associate Dean at the UNM School of Medicine, a Regents professor, and a two-term president of the UNM Faculty Senate. He was also president of the NM Heart Association for two terms, and a visiting distinguished scholar at the University of Adelaide in South Australia."
brml "Yes, please. I've been ignoring Cal's ramblings here for months. It keeps me from getting (too) unhappy."ReplyDelete
Good for you! Canadians are by far, AND SO MUCH MORE progressive than lowly, war-mongering Americans.
Isn't that right?
And definitely, as Progressively thinking people, we don't want to be unhappy, either. WE certainly do not want to hear how promiscuity is unquestionably WEAKENING the human race. That CERTAINLY must be the most unhappy thought thinkable. And mostly by harming women with increasingly higher numbers of cervical cancer and other auto-immune diseases. In case you don't care about what is happening to women, there is plenty on the horizon for men too. Promiscuity is an equal opportunity destroyer.
But someone has to be the realist and not a wimp, BRML.
Funnily enough, tonight I just saw the first TV ad for "Expelled". So it might get more well known after all.ReplyDelete
And I just heard that they ripped off that beautiful Harvard animation "The Inner Life of the Cell". A shorter version with very nice music is also available.ReplyDelete
What would you expect from "Intelligent" Designers, anyway? It might be arguable whether they are intelligent, but honesty... they've heard of it.
Let's take a cue from PZ Myers: http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2008/04/bloggers_you_have_a_job_to_do.phpReplyDelete
Dembski is the one that should be Expelled
Sheldon said: However, I disagree on this. The film is the topic of the thread. ID/creationism may be irrelevant in the actual world of academia and science, but this religous based assault on secular education and culture is and will continue. At least here in the U.S..ReplyDelete
Fair enough. While I personally am losing interest in the film and it's malcontents, I have not lost interest in the broader issue of religiously-motivated attacks on political structures, cultural features, and scientific practice.
Sheldon also said: Several articles back, I suggested we ignore Cal, but of course I am the worst offender at feeding the troll.
I have a hard time letting bullshit go unchallenged, but I will attempt to exercise some restraint.
Hey, don't change your behaviour on my account. If you feel better after letting fly against cal's rampant bullshit, please do so. I was just ranting a bit into the void, and I didn't expect anyone to take me seriously at all.
"I didn't expect anyone to take me seriously at all."ReplyDelete
And that because you and your friends are not sincere about being "serious thinkers". You can talk the sophisticates talk, but certainly don't walk the walk. If you were doing thusly, you'd consider what happens to most every potential victim of a lifestyle when one choses a given life's path and philosophy.
THAT is what constitutes a serious thinker in anyone's book.
I don't need to sign. You know who I am.
"I don't need to sign. You know who I am."
Yes, but it is very rude not to tell the rest of us. If this trend continues I will have to change the settings of the blog to require registration before one can post comments. That would be a shame.
just saw Expelled; Ben Stein's goal in making this flick (i gather) was not to win any popularity contests (this by itself helps to validate his message)... his goal was to promote free thought, especially more thinking about motivations that drive American academia and a lot of other behind-the-scenes worldview that we tend to take for granted.ReplyDelete