dracil

Given that Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed is coming out tomorrow, I thought it would be appropriate to devote an entry to the film. I've actually been contemplating whether or not I should go see the movie in the theaters.

(Long boring story about my faith and experience with Creationism )

Despite my position, I was still willing to go to stuff like Kent Hovind's talk at my university. Granted, I saw him as a comedian, but I still felt it was only fair to at least listen to the other side. Which brings me to this film. I feel like I should watch the film, but I have some issues with Expelled:

1) They are bribing schools to go watch the movie to inflate their numbers.

2) Plagiarizing and infringing the copyrights of XVIVO, John Lennon/Yoko Ono, and The Killers. And then having the gall of countersuing XVIVO?! WTF. It's a SLAPP (A lawsuit filed to intimidate or silence opponents). Guess where they filed it? Texas, a state without anti-SLAPP laws.

3) Typical documentary style of tricking people by pretending they are being interviewed for something else, and then distorting their statements. Yes, many other documentaries do that, but that doesn't make it right. But it's especially stupid when it comes from people who often claim to have the moral high ground. We call this lying for God.

4) The above isn't so bad except they only interviewed atheist scientists. What about all the Christian scientists over at the American Scientific Affiliation who have no problem with not getting "expelled" from their jobs? In particular, why no Kenneth Miller, a devout Roman Catholic who's a professor of biology at Brown University? Here's what Mathis, one of the producers of Expelled had to say:

"But I would tell you from a, my personal standpoint as somebody who’s worked on this project, that Ken Miller would have confused the film unnecessarily. I don’t agree with Ken Miller. I think that you, I think that when you look at this issue and this debate, that really there’s, there’s one side of the line or the other, and you, it’s, it’s hard to stay, I don’t think you can intellectually, honestly, honestly intellectually stand on a line that I don’t think exists—"

Gee, I wonder why? Is it because Ken Miller is living proof that the premise of the film is false, that Christianity is NOT incompatible with evolution, and that religious scientists can indeed exist in academia? Is it because Ken Miller has even gone and given a wonderful talk on why Intelligent Design is wrong?


But that's not all Mathis said, he then had the following to say about Ken:

"No, I don’t think so, because, uh, the form of Catholicism that Ken Miller accepts and practices is, is nowhere near the form of Catholicism that is followed by Catholics who are members of the Catholic church, who believe in Catholic doctrine. What he believes is certainly out of—"

Ok, just WTF. Who does Mathis, a non-Catholic, think he is to define Catholicism for Catholics? This quote is just overflowing with ignorance. The form of Catholicism Ken Miller accepts is also the one the Pope accepts (at least the previous one). Catholics generally believe in Theistic Evolution (which is the same as naturalistic evolution as far as the science goes). NOT Creationism. NOT Intelligent Design. Because even the popes have stated several times that evolution is compatible with the Catholic faith. So where does Mathis get off on implying the Pope isn't Catholic?

In light of all this stuff, I have decided that I cannot, in good faith, give my money to these people for no reason. I'd love to see audience reactions at the theater, and I'd still like to see the film to see how bad it is. I will probably go if a friend of mine wants to go see Expelled so I can at least protect them from the deliberate lies and misinformation of the film, especially if they're also a Creationist. But for now, I have decided to give my money to a better cause. I went and bought a copy of Ken Miller's Finding Darwin's God instead.

Currently feeling thoughtful

dracil

In case you have no idea what that is, go here.

So because of that, I'm gonna put some stuff related to it.

First up, Ken Miller's talk on Intelligent Design. Yes, it's 2 hours long, but it is VERY good. Watch it, especially if you're a Creationist.



("Spoilers on what happened in Ohio later that year")

Not long after that, he also appeared on The Colbert Report on Comedy Central.

The videos really made me respect the guy. He's funny, calm, sticks to presenting the evidence, and is also... humble. He never attacks the opponent, something I really need to learn in my online arguments (I can't resist ridiculing and being sarcastic)

I'll probably be checking out his book, Finding Darwin's God sometime later from the library.
Currently feeling impressed

dracil

"Topics related to sensitive real-world subjects - such as religious, sexual, or political preference, for example - have had a tendency to result in communication between players that often breaks down into harassment. To promote a positive game environment for everyone and help prevent such harassment from taking place as best we can, we prohibit mention of topics related to sensitive real-world subjects in open chat within the game, and we do our best to take action whenever we see such topics being broadcast."

What's wrong with this statement issued by Blizzard in regards to their citing a player for harrasment for advertising a GLBT-friendly guild? The fact that they do nothing about the blatantly Christian guilds in World of Warcraft.

More info
Currently feeling not amused

dracil

Let's see, Network Programming - might be hard. Seems unstructured. The hard part is that I may be more unexperienced in the networking stuff than the other people, so the projects may be more overwhelming. But after talking to some people, maybe not as bad as I was imagining. At least we seem to get a lot of choice in what we want to do.

Distributed Software Development - well, I had the professor last semester, so probably around the same, which shouldn't be too bad. Just the P2P project at the end, which should be interesting.

----------------

Frank called me for dinner today, but my class lasted late, so we decided we should do it some other time. Hope I didn't sound aloof. I think I tend to sound like that on the phone (some people have said that I sound like I just woke up)

----------------

Oh yes, in yesterday's Security class, the professor said something interesting. In most fields, kids who spend all their time doing something, and become an expert at it, are praised. Like learning an instrument, or playing sports. If you become an expert at it when you're 10, you're considered a genius and praised by everyone around you.

With computers, nuh-uh. You spend all your time in front of the computer, parents get mad at you for wasting your time. Play a shooter game and they think you're the next Columbine waiting to happen. Remember, SPORTS are GAMES as well. Yet people waste billions of dollars on those people. So anyway, society considers you a menace, especially in regards to hacking (which is what he mentioned here). He also didn't mention this next part, but to extrapolate it further, instead of giving you a scholarship and then paving your way into a security firm upon graduation, you get to spend several years in jail, fined some large amount of money, and you're probably barred from computer access for several years.

Well, ok. While it is a double standard, it doesn't quite work that way. You can't exactly get into classified information learning music or playing sports, but it did remind me of the Catch Me If You Can movie, where the guy did end up getting a job in anti-counterfeiting. Why doesn't it happen more often for hackers?

Finally, I've mentioned to my parents a while back how there was some dissatisfaction about the current president of BST. In regards to what I said to my parents, it was an issue of the practice of acting. You know, the whole acting polite, pomp and circumstance, and various other little formalities you do in front of people. The kind of stuff I really don't like because they're usually just fake and shallow. They tell me it's a good skill to learn, and good for pleasing people (like your boss) because some people like that. Well, what I found out during the mostly BST gathering last weekend was that no one showed up for the election. Why? While the president may have been good at putting up a face in front of people, he wasn't actually committed to the organization himself. No organizing get-togethers with the members. The whole personal touch is lost, and that, is where I feel true loyalty is formed. Instead of standing up when the former BST president arrives and pouring her a cup of tea and asking her to sit down in a formal manner, it's about remembering people's birthdays, and organizing dinners for them, or even just hanging out every once in a while just because we want to. Instead of doing something because it's your role, you do it because of your relation with the people.

And I really need more usericons. Over half the icons are like happy faces. Only one face is more neutral. One face is for bad stuff. And one face is more of a hesitant face. It makes for little variety if I want to show my actual mood through them.
Currently feeling contemplative

dracil

Rain and wind and cold. This weather sucks. While buying lunch today, there was a guy in front of me, but the counter person addressed me first. I told her that the guy was in front of me. Upon hearing that, the guy turned to me and told me to go first, and that I was a true gentleman or something to that effect. Felt a little odd. Has the world fallen so far that waiting your turn in line is no longer the norm but is instead exemplary behavior?
Currently feeling thoughtful

dracil

Link

For the lazy:
The only debate on Intelligent Design that is worthy of its subject

Moderator: We're here today to debate the hot new topic, evolution versus Intelligent Des---

(Scientist pulls out baseball bat.)

Moderator: Hey, what are you doing?

(Scientist breaks Intelligent Design advocate's kneecap.)

Intelligent Design advocate: YEAAARRRRGGGHHHH! YOU BROKE MY KNEECAP!

Scientist: Perhaps it only appears that I broke your kneecap. Certainly, all the evidence points to the hypothesis I broke your kneecap. For example, your kneecap is broken; it appears to be a fresh wound; and I am holding a baseball bat, which is spattered with your blood. However, a mere preponderance of evidence doesn't mean anything. Perhaps your kneecap was designed that way. Certainly, there are some features of the current situation that are inexplicable according to the "naturalistic" explanation you have just advanced, such as the exact contours of the excruciating pain that you are experiencing right now.

Intelligent Design advocate: AAAAH! THE PAIN!

Scientist: Frankly, I personally find it completely implausible that the random actions of a scientist such as myself could cause pain of this particular kind. I have no precise explanation for why I find this hypothesis implausible --- it just is. Your knee must have been designed that way!

Intelligent Design advocate: YOU BASTARD! YOU KNOW YOU DID IT!

Scientist: I surely do not. How can we know anything for certain? Frankly, I think we should expose people to all points of view. Furthermore, you should really re-examine whether your hypothesis is scientific at all: the breaking of your kneecap happened in the past, so we can't rewind and run it over again, like a laboratory experiment. Even if we could, it wouldn't prove that I broke your kneecap the previous time. Plus, let's not even get into the fact that the entire universe might have just popped into existence right before I said this sentence, with all the evidence of my alleged kneecap-breaking already pre-formed.

Intelligent Design advocate: That's a load of bullshit sophistry! Get me a doctor and a lawyer, not necessarily in that order, and we'll see how that plays in court!

Scientist (turning to audience): And so we see, ladies and gentlemen, when push comes to shove, advocates of Intelligent Design do not actually believe any of the arguments that they profess to believe. When it comes to matters that hit home, they prefer evidence, the scientific method, testable hypotheses, and naturalistic explanations. In fact, they strongly privilege naturalistic explanations over supernatural hocus-pocus or metaphysical wankery. It is only within the reality-distortion field of their ideological crusade that they give credence to the flimsy, ridiculous arguments which we so commonly see on display. I must confess, it kind of felt good, for once, to be the one spouting free-form bullshit; it's so terribly easy and relaxing, compared to marshaling rigorous arguments backed up by empirical evidence. But I fear that if I were to continue, then it would be habit-forming, and bad for my soul. Therefore, I bid you adieu.
Currently feeling amused

dracil

While talking to Shubha, and discussing about prospects for dating and whatnot, I mentioned something I'd thought about recently. It's something we don't usually think about when we think of other people. Usually we just think, people die, people get born, and the general human population is increasing, and we're always meeting new people.

But the thing is, while it's true for the human population as a whole, it's not true for each generation. For those of us in our generation, there's only so many of us. And we're slowly dying off. Every day, more of us are succumbing to disease, accidents, murders, and other things. And no new blood can ever enter our generation, by its very definition.

So people you meet who are in your generation share a special temporal bond with you. They were born at the same time, they grew up in the same era, and they will die together with you. In a way, it's like being part of a race that's been doomed to extinction.

Not sure if I'm having these types of thought because of the symbolic increase in my age. After all, when I think about it, I've probably lived around 1/3 of my life already. Possibly even less if I'm unlucky.

Edit: In relation to these pessimistic thoughts, today's Sunday, which reminds me of that Gloomy Sunday song, which led me to think if it might've been an inspiration to the movie "Suicide Club" since the people who committed suicide in that movie had listened to music from a band that was supposedly known for causing suicides.
Currently feeling thoughtful

dracil

One of the arguments Creationists love to use is complain about all the "missing links." The problem is that, if you show them a piece, they'll just keep asking for more. It's basically a stupid argument, and I'll quote something that's being passed around Christianforums recently as reason why.

Please show me the missing link in the following sequence of numbers.

1 - 1.8 - 2.1 - 2.183 - 2.5 - 2.61 - 2.838761 - 2.92 - 3.08 - 3.12 - 3.3 - 3.7 - 4.25 - 4.72 - 5

Is there one missing link or two? Are there several? Perhaps there are an infinite number of missing links. Does the fact that some of the numbers are missing mean we can't see a progression from 1 to 5?

The "missing link" as regards evolution is a myth. As long as we don't have the fossil remains of every single individual, people can claim there is a missing link. Just as one can always claim there is a missing link in any progression of numbers.
Currently feeling impressed

dracil

Just doing my part to help google bomb and educate people.

So go learn more about Intelligent Design, and why it's a load of crap.
Currently feeling tired