io9
Richard Dawkins: atheist, author, documentarian, evolutionary biologist... and now rapper. This video appeared on YouTube about a week ago, and since then speculation has circulated that it's a viral marketing campaign for Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed, the new movie featuring Ben Stein that aims to prove modern science quashes free speech and independent thinking in favor of Darwinian dogma. We get to the bottom of this Expelled rumor, and feature Dick-to-the-Dawk's review of the movie and the story of his friend getting "expelled" from a screening, below.
Richard Dawkins: atheist, author, documentarian, evolutionary biologist... and now rapper. This video appeared on YouTube about a week ago, and since then speculation has circulated that it's a viral marketing campaign for Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed, the new movie featuring Ben Stein that aims to prove modern science quashes free speech and independent thinking in favor of Darwinian dogma. We get to the bottom of this Expelled rumor, and feature Dick-to-the-Dawk's review of the movie and the story of his friend getting "expelled" from a screening, below.I contacted Lesley Burbridge-Bates, who is doing PR for the movie, and she told me that no one from the movie had anything to do with "Richard Dawkins - Beware the Believers," or as I like to call it: "Dick to the Dawk to the Ph.D." Still, whoever created it has the movie on their minds — several characters show up with "Expelled" stamped on their foreheads.
We'll have our own review of Expelled on April 11, but Dawkins himself already went to see it on March 20, along with famed blogger and fellow atheist PZ Myers. As they were standing in line to see the movie, Myers was confronted by a security guard and told to leave the theater immediately, or be arrested. He left, but whoever sicked the guard on him didn't recognize Dawkins — who is interviewed extensively in the film — standing right beside him. Dawkins waltzed in, and here are some of exerpts from his review:
The whole tone of the film is whiny, paranoid — pathetic really. The narrator is somebody called Ben Stein. I had not heard of him, but apparently he is well known to Americans, for it is hard to see why else he would have been chosen to front the film. He certainly can't have been chosen for his knowledge of science, nor his powers of logical reasoning, nor his box office appeal (heavens, no), and his speaking voice is an irritating, nasal drawl, innocent of charm and of consonants. I suppose that makes it a good voice for conveying the whingeing paranoia that I referred to, so maybe that was qualification enough.Toward the end of his interview with me, Stein asked whether I could think of any circumstances whatsoever under which intelligent design might have occurred. It's the kind of challenge I relish, and I set myself the task of imagining the most plausible scenario I could. I wanted to give ID its best shot, however poor that best shot might be. I must have been feeling magnanimous that day, because I was aware that the leading advocates of Intelligent Design are very fond of protesting that they are not talking about God as the designer, but about some unnamed and unspecified intelligence, which might even be an alien from another planet. Indeed, this is the only way they differentiate themselves from fundamentalist creationists, and they do it only when they need to, in order to weasel their way around church/state separation laws. So, bending over backwards to accommodate the IDiots ("oh NOOOOO, of course we aren't talking about God, this is SCIENCE") and bending over backwards to make the best case I could for intelligent design, I constructed a science fiction scenario. Like Michael Ruse (as I surmise) I still hadn't rumbled Stein, and I was charitable enough to think he was an honestly stupid man, sincerely seeking enlightenment from a scientist. I patiently explained to him that life could conceivably have been seeded on Earth by an alien intelligence from another planet (Francis Crick and Leslie Orgel suggested something similar — semi tongue-in-cheek). The conclusion I was heading towards was that, even in the highly unlikely event that some such 'Directed Panspermia' was responsible for designing life on this planet, the alien beings would THEMSELVES have to have evolved, if not by Darwinian selection, by some equivalent 'crane' (to quote Dan Dennett).
Well, you will have guessed how Mathis/Stein handled this. I won't get the exact words right (we were forbidden to bring in recording devices on pain of a $250,000 fine, chillingly announced by some unnamed Gauleiter before the film began), but Stein said something like this. "What? Richard Dawkins BELIEVES IN INTELLIGENT DESIGN." "Richard Dawkins BELIEVES IN ALIENS FROM OUTER SPACE."
Comments
i BELIEVE IN MISQUOTING PEOPLE.
D to the Dawk needs to team up with MC Hawking.
They can do a remix of F8ck the Damn Creationists.
I believe that Richard Dawkins needs to sit down and shut up. (and I'm an atheist)
A well produced video that gets annoying really fast.
So anyone see What the Bleep do we know?" A well produced movie claiming to be about quantum physics, but featuring a spirit medium?
I fear Expelled will be the same. Looking forward to the review though.
If "Win Ben Stein's Money" taught me anything it's that Ben Stein is, at the very least, well edjucated.
He certainly can't have been chosen for his knowledge of science, nor his powers of logical reasoning, nor his box office appeal (heavens, no), and his speaking voice is an irritating, nasal drawl, innocent of charm and of consonants.
Well he's hit the nail on the head with box office appeal and his voice. Other than his self titled television show, the only other places I recognize Ben Stein from are Ferris Beuller and Visine commercials. He's actually known for having an annoying, monotonous, nasally voice.
Bueller?
Bueller?
Bueller?
Bueller?
Bueller?
etc.
@Bluecell: He was also in Dave.
And a speechwriter for Richard Nixon.
@Bluecell: That's the second time today I've misspelled "educated". Not a good sign.
No way a guy that annoying would survive evolution, I say he was designed intelligently..
Anyways, Science V Religion on io9 (switches to spectator) Alright, I'm out!
Science can never answer the question of why we are here, religion can never answer the question of how it happened. I'm surprised so many people have a problem with this.
With a little effort and research, someone could create a scientifically sound religion instead of using a twisted parody closer to cheesy science fiction than actual science. That is one of the reasons I despise Intelligent Design and Scientology.
@katieb is on the move: I heartily agree. I mean, the discussion of religion and its influence on our coulture is already well represented by Michael Behe, Pat Robertson and President Bush. And now that Ben Stein, former Nixon hack, has entered the fray, anyone else would just be superfluous. Why have any dissenting views? That'd just muddle things and might make some religious folk angry. And we wouldn't like religious folk when they're angry. They might start burning shit down. Again.
"modern science quashes free speech and independent thinking in favor of Darwinian dogma"
*ahem*
AHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHHAAHAHAHA
AHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
AHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAAHAHAH
AHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
oh my.
@Garrison Dean:
Or get some asbestos clothes.
I believe in god only long enough to hit something like his angry fist.
to paraphrase Yoda, "Why? There is no why."
@Gyrus: Not to start a flame war but that's not what I meant. I disagree with the way Dawkins operates. Telling everyone they are wrong and pissing people off on purpose is not going to accomplish your goals. It's wrong to demand everyone be an atheist just like it's wrong to demand everyone be christian. People are permitted their own views and beliefs. Dawkins doesn't seem to understand that. And to run around preaching atheism as the "only way" is just as bad as running around preaching catholicism as "the only" way. Yes one is based on "hard science" but there are some gaping holes in that science. and if people want to fill that with faith, it's well within their rights.
And he is not the lone atheist voice. Just the loudest.
@katieb is on the move: Well, the problem is that atheism and religion are actually the product of two completely different modes of thought--and there's a substantial amount of evidence suggesting that one, in fact, is a better model for understanding the universe, in addition to having numerous other social benefits.
Consequently, demanding that everyone be an atheist isn't quite the same thing as demanding that everyone be a Catholic.
@Epaminondas: I'm not surprised, Science gave us the ability to speak and God gave us the ability to use that speech, then Man mastered the ability to love the sound of his own voice and never compromise and away we went.
Creationists sure spend a lot of time ignoring things that are there, and Atheists sure spend a lot of time talking and thinking about something that isn't.
@braak: I'm not arguing that they are, what I'm saying is that the route Dawkins take in teaching atheism is too similar to the preaching tactics of the religious institutions he hates. I can't stand that. So, though I agree with him. I can't get behind him.
"People are permitted their own views and beliefs. Dawkins doesn't seem to understand that."
This is true, but on a scale of one to murder who would you be annoyed with, the people like pope ratzinger who's church is still telling people not to use condoms in the face of an aids epidemic in africa, The islamic states where homosexuality is punishable by imprisonment, beatings, or death (as is women showing too much skin), or a man who is (in my opinion) kind of a dick but has well thought out arguments.
Theres other people at the forefront of standing our ground and not giving in to saying mysticism should be the way we explain away science. Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens are some of the more prominent (if inelegant) ones.
Sam Harris, is just as in-your-face, but I think more tactful, or at least presents his arguments better.
To say something of Dawkins respect for beliefs, He has in the past appeared to have genuine respect for religions that he doesn't believe in, but are less damaging to society. While getting a bit tactless to those religions that have beliefs that are damaging to a healthy society Which Christianity, and Islam most certainly do.
@capntim: I totally agree with you. Disliking Dawkins does not mean the pope is my homeboy, or I'm ready to take the veil. It just means I disagree with this one guy, not the whole movement. Also the work day is over on the east coast, so I must bid you all a fond farewell.
@katieb is on the move: Well, that's true. I tend to be a little sympathetic to his position, which seems like it's actually the product of a lifetime of anger at religion more than anything else, but not that sympathetic.
@katieb is on the move: Have you read any of Dawkins work? Nowhere does he demand everyone become an atheist. He says, over and over again, that people are free to believe whatever they like. What they are not free from however, is criticism of their beliefs, especially if they contradict known facts (creationism), infringe on other people's beliefs (proselytizers), or create environments that are harmful to others (fanatics).
Having read several of his books and heard him speak, I've found him to be genial, even tempered and an all around intelligent debater. But debate is not what his critics are after. No intelligent conversation can be had when one side is willing to discuss the merits of a topic on rational grounds while the other side is yelling, "Shut up!" and changing the rules of the discussion half way through to exclude rationality on the grounds that it makes them feel bad.
This has been the state of religious discussion for far to long. In order to change this, we need loud voices.
"Have you read any of Dawkins work?"
Dawkins tends to be much easier to take in book form, I'm not a Dawkins hater by any means, but he does come off badly some times on the tele.
@Epaminondas
The more accurate description is, religion can't describe how it happened, and science can describe why it happened. It that aspect they are mutually exclusive. Science has always been about how and that is all it can prove. Religion has always been about why, and that is all it can do. Religion isn't provable. It is about faith. Science is about hard facts and deductive reasoning.
That doesn't mean though, that someone who accepts the facts can't be religious, but you have to be willing to look at your religion reasonably. The problem is people get all caught up in the supernatural aspects and forget the message that religion tries to communicate. Just because it isn't literally true, doesn't mean it it isn't True.
Richard Dawkins is a bad spokesman for science. He is pompous, close-minded, and not particularly creative. Real researchers and theorists revel in competing theories and hypotheses. Dawkins just decided that x is the right way and fuck everyone else. The reason he's this popular is because he's a vocal asshole and he knows how to put on a show.
Now, having said that, intelligent design is not a "competing theory" to evolution. For it to be a theory it would have to be a hypothesis that has been tested and shown to return some positive results. ID has done none of that.
Yeah... hearing Dawkins really talk about religion, rather than in sound bites you get a much different idea of him. His problem isn't the philosophies that religion espouses, but the unreasonable thought process. So effectively, in his opinion, sure it is right to be what religion qualifies as a good person, but it is unreasonable to think the universe was created in a week.
Actually, all of ID's tests have shown it is BS. All of the experiments they claim prove ID have either been unreproducible or simply proved inaccurate.
They are simply lying to people to serve their end goal, and while lying is hypocritical for this group, they believe the ends justifies the means.
Ramen, brother.
@Comms: Have you read any of his books or seen him lecture? His opinions are actually quite well reasoned and explained. He comes across as a bit abrasive when interviewed, but when just allowed to talk by himself he isn't half bad. He's much easier to digest in book-form than his is in person as well.
Atheism and religion are two sides of the same coin, with neither side having any evidence whatever to support their faith. And yes, it's just as much faith on one side as the other.
Yes, the people who think the earth is only 6000 years old are exceptionally deluded, but what's the difference between "The Big Bang" and "Let there be light?" How long are God's days? I personally see no conflict between Creation and Evolution. I don't understand how people can believe in an almighty God but then apparently also believe that He/She/It lied to us when he left all this evidence laying around about how things happened.
We shouldn't teach Creationism in schools, nor Darwinism in church, but neither should we preach against them either.
Chuck D has a posse!
I find it hard to believe anyone in the 21st century gives two shits about any of these creationist fairy tales.
You are entitled to your beliefs, but please stay off my lawn and away from the sentient life forms on earth.
Why would I need evidence to not believe in something? Do you have evidence supporting your lack of belief in unicorns?
@katieb is on the move: How is telling people that they're wrong equal trying to force beliefs? If everyone is allowed to have their own beliefs in opinions, then the only way that's going to work is to allow people to have the opinion that other peoples' opinions are stupid. You can't claim everybody has a right to their beliefs, and yet hold certain beliefs more sacred and untouchable.
You may not agree with the way he goes about speaking his opinions, but then again, he's not the one saying that anybody has to "sit down and shut up". If you read anything on him, he sees the indoctrination of religion OR atheism absolutely abhorrent.
Ahh Dawkins.
A person can call people evil, possessed by the devil, and claim they're going to suffer for the rest of their life because we don't follow their interpretation of some book full of contradictions with no real evidence at all, and that's freedom of speech, and respectable. They can even call you an idiot for not believing it. And that's okay! People will say "Yeah that guy's a jerk" but what he believes, right? But Dawkins is the jerk. Yah-huh. Sure. You know, he's only villianized, quoted out of context, needled, and constantly under attack for simply basing his 'beliefs' (if you can call them out) off actual observation and fact.
Seriously, put yourself in that guy's shoes. The man is assaulted constantly for 'believing' what he believes. He's literally under siege because he's 'persecuting' the majority. But he's the one everybody hates.
If I had to put up with half the crap he did on a daily basis, I'd be bitter too.
Also, to RAH, I'm afraid you're just... Yeesh, I don't know . You're off. It's the very definition of a logical fallacy there. "Athiests can't prove god doesn't exist, therefore Athiests are foolish because they're just like Christians!" I mean, take any example. "You can't prove there isn't an undersea civilization that's been living in the deep ocean for millions and years, therefore to say there aren't any is fallacy!" "You can't prove that you CAN'T influence the events of the world of their mind, so you can't say that you can't." You can argue and discuss many things about Atheism, but this particular argument holds no water.
I mean, you can't prove that god isn't indeed a flying spaghetti monster who touches us all with his noodly appendage, so who are you to say he isn't, right?
Atheism and religion are two sides of the same coin, with neither side having any evidence whatever to support their faith. And yes, it's just as much faith on one side as the other."
Not really. Theists are atheists in regards to all other gods but their own, therefore theists are thing unto themselves.
You can check this handy list for proof that this is true:
[www.aboyandhiscomputer.com]
"We shouldn't teach Creationism in schools, nor Darwinism in church, but neither should we preach against them either."
Darwinism? You are perhaps thinking of the Theory of Evolution Through Natural Selection. Calling "Darwinism" is to play into the creationists frame.. The theory of evolution is based on current evidence and was merely proposed by Darwin, it has moved on since then.
And yes we certainly should lobby against "creationism." Creationism claims to be science, claims to have evidence that the earth is 6,000 years old and that T-Rex was a vegetarian--because all animals were vegetarian before the fall. This isn't just nonsense, it is nonsense posing as sense. It is a rather obvious case of overlapping magisteria. And it is a case of teaching people to think irrationally.
@Evdor:
I'm a pastafarian.
Leave us out of it.
"Atheism and religion are two sides of the same coin, with neither side having any evidence whatever to support their faith. And yes, it's just as much faith on one side as the other."
Sigh. No. No they are not. I don't search for evidence of why god does not exist. I'm simply interested in scientific evidence of why things are the way they are, how they work, etc, and am scornful of anyone who says "magic" and decides to leave it at that.
We keep breaking things down further and discovering more and more things, many of which could be applied to alleviate suffering and better our lives. Many of these things would never have been found out if we decided to stop with "Its just magic" and "the earth is the center."
I'm not just a different side of a coin of someone who believes in Russell's teapot. I don't concern myself with the teapot, my anti-teapotism isn't something that will ever manifest itself until someone comes up to me and tells me the teapot tells me my friends who both happen to be guys, can't get married... so sayeth the teapot.
I'd happily forget about religion if It wasn't alway trying to stick its nose into the scientific method and attempt to combat it, and always getting it wrong.
@RAHfanboy: Eh, not exactly, for science you only need to start with the premise that a set of rules exist. After that your really just following where the evidence takes you. So "faith" as regards to science is limited to the idea that the rules are knowable.
Faith in religious terms requires you to believe what your told/read and then ignore anything that does not fit into the picture that's been framed for you.
Of course, the dirty little secret is that PZM was at a ticketed showing, with no ticket. Whether that should lead to armed force is another issue.
The other dirty little secret is that Stein voiced the droning bore Francis Pumphandle in Animaniacs; clearly his most memorable role. Cheese balls.
My question is, what is wrong with allowing people their beliefs? Some believe in unicorns, others aerial pasta critters. If I do not believe in a god, why should it bend me out of shape if you do? There are some laissez-faire believers AND unbelievers out there, so why be a jerk about whether another believes or not?
The big question is not about God's existence. The big question is about whether there is an ultimate meaning. As an absurdist atheist, I argue that it's all meaningless and we are fooling ourselves if we believe otherwise.
I feel a little sorry for Hitchens and Dawkins really. They place greater faith in human rationality than I would. They seem to believe that humanity will abandon silly beliefs if we post-Enlightenment empirical rationalists just work hard enough to reform education, parenting practices, social institutions and so on.
But I think it's doomed to failure. Zillions of children believe in Santa Claus and ghosts. Zillions of adults read astrology columns. Despite vast improvements in education, these silly notions still persist because human brains need meaning so badly that they'll invent and impose meaning and intent where there is none.
In the immortal words of atheist of some reknown, "So it goes."
@corpore-metal: Poo-tee-weet?
@capntim: It's not religion that's trying to stick its nose into Science, it's people trying to get attention, get their 5 minutes of fame, get elected to a position in a Government, or just trying to sell seats to their church.
The problem with these Science vs Religion "debates" is that both sides pretty much argue the same point, "I'm right, you suck, and you're the reason why our society is going downhill!". The problem is that people with cult-like beliefs are equating Science to Atheism while people who hate Religions in general are equating extreme fundamentalists to Religion.
Science is Science and it can be used for both good and evil. Religion is Religion and it can be used for both good and evil. Is a recovering drug addict that gave his life to Jesus and helps out other recovering drug addicts lesser than a CEO who doesn't believe in a god but in the almighty dollar? Is an Atheist who spends all his free time volunteering for Habitat for Humanity lesser than a Televangelist on the television selling miracle water? You get what I'm trying to say here.
Really, nothing Science can do can change Religion, and nothing Religion can do can change Science. They are what they are. Science is based on observations and testing methodology and Religion is based on Faith and belief in a power higher than yourself. This does not mean Science and Religion are not mutually exclusive. You can believe in a power higher than yourself while unlocking the laws of the Universe. You can also be an Atheist and have friends and family who have different faiths. I love Science. The more I know about the Universe, and how everything works, and how we got here, the more my mind is blown away about how perfect everything else. This reaffirms my belief in God. Imagine that.
@Tepoz:
BRAVO! 100% agreement with you my friend.
"while people who hate Religions in general are equating extreme fundamentalists to Religion."
I'll agree with that providing you realize that fundamentalists adhere to the fundamentals.
I realize that a lot of christians and muslims don't think homosexuality is a sin, or any other of the various things the morality police try to interfere with, but in order to have a moderate and accepting view, you have to ignore certain areas of dogma.
i have no issues with christians who go to church on sunday and have a live and let live philosophy. but as soon as they vote based on their pastors word, against gay marriage, or stem cell research, they are hurting people.
I'll join the party and say that Dawkins is kind of annoying, even though I agree with his side of things, generally. The problem is, to my mind, so many atheists loudly and stridently proclaim that atheism is the only logical and scientific conclusion, which it isn't. Just as there's a failure to prove any god's existance, there's a failure to prove non-existance as well. So, the die-hard atheists, like Dawkins, are really as faith-based as the theists (in all their varied flavors); he believes in something without proof. Faith-based, dogmatic and sometimes just as annoying. It's their inability to see this that annoys me about Dawkins and his ilk.
That said, and back to the orginal topic, this movie sounds like tripe, but the rape video is pretty funny.
Science isnt democratic, nor is there any form of "freedom of speech" involved with it. Journal articles are reviewed by a council of peers, not voted on by the scientific body (though technically, supporting the articles is approving them, thus giving them credence). Often times the theories that ended up being right were often ignored till all erroneous lines of research proved otherwise. ID cant be a science of any sort because its entire premise would be inherently unscientific as it cannot and should not be tested,studied and simulated. People, if you believe in God, then your faith should be enough reason to believe God exists. Everything else shouldnt matter. But dont try proving your faith to me or anyone else with psuedoscience and quackery. It just makes you out to be a fool. Thats what I would say to Ben Stein if I could stay awake for more than 1 minute in his presence.
@Tepoz: "Really, nothing science can do can change religion"
Remember Galileo?
Something's wrong with me. Of all things, I'm really annoyed that that video misidentified Plato from the 'School of Athens' fresco as Aristotle, repeatedly.
But I can still smirk at how close its chorus of 'I'm smarter than you, I got a SCIENCE degree' comes to South Park's 'What do you think of that, MISTER SCIENTIST?'
And yes, it's just as much faith on one side as the other.
Saying that atheism is faith-based is like saying that not collecting stamps is a hobby.
@Gomi:
Atheism isn't about "proving" the non-existence of god. It is simply and only the disbelief in a god. An atheist says that they do not see enough evidence to conclude that belief in a god is reasonable. It is not about disproving the existence of god.
Think of it as a spectrum. At one end sits theism: any belief that there is a god. At the other end is antithesim, an aggressive antipathy toward any idea of god. In the middle is atheism. It is neither for or against the idea of god, it only says that there is insufficient evidence to conclude that a god exists.
I'm religious but don't ascribe to creationism or fully in creative design but I do agree with the most basic premise of creative design and Ben Stein. The Scientific community is a times far to Dogmatic, Over-Zealous and blind to the evidence at times.
Moving away from Creationism v. Evolution and just getting to the crux of the point has anyone seen, "The Origins of AIDS" or read the book, "The River" The scientific community plays hear no evil, see no evil, speak no evil when challenged with scholarly evidence that Polio vaccinations could have been responsible for the Aids epidemic in the Congo.
Religion, Patriotism, Politics and Science can make us all blind to the facts if we don't constantly and honestly reevaluate ourselves.
@TheRealVeon: Technically, what you're describing is agnosticism. Atheism is the belief there is no god, while agnosticism is the concept that there's no proof either way. I'm a bit of both, because I don't think there is a god, but I also know there's no proof either way. I have no issue with die-hard atheists, much like I have no issue with theists. Faith is a powerful, and largely beneficial, force for the individual. But atheists who claim that science and logic backs up their position, like Dawkins frequently does, are either missing the point or mistating it. Logic doesn't support a disbelief in gods, it merely supports that the state of god is unknown. It's a minor point, but irritating to me (who may or may not be smarter than Dawkins, but does have a science degree).
Thank Science for my sense of irony, that video was super awesome!
I wish I was so famous that haters would make such a well-produced video just to make fun of me...