Pelican Parts Forums - All Evolutionists, go see the movie "Expelled"

Pelican Parts Forums (http://forums.pelicanparts.com/)

- Off Topic Discussions (http://forums.pelicanparts.com/off-topic-discussions/)

- - All Evolutionists, go see the movie "Expelled" (http://forums.pelicanparts.com/off-topic-discussions/404886-all-evolutionists-go-see-movie-expelled.html)

Quote:

Originally Posted by m21sniper (Post 3896558)

From my understanding of it (which is admittedly quite limited), the science at the core of evolution is SHAKY AS HELL.

Respectfully, you are wrong. It's very easy to prove evolution in the lab. It's done every year in every genetics 101 lab in the country. It is, in fact, verifiable, provable and observable. The argument is if the process of evolution explains the origin of man. That's the question.

"Evolution" is simply the alteration of a population over time secondary to changes in genetic material.

Consider this simple example;

If we want to examine the effects of change in a human population, it would take a long time as our generation time averages more than 20 years. So let's look at a healthy strain of unmolested E. Coli with a generation time of less than 30 minutes. We can study genetic changes that occur over 50 generations in a single day!

We'll start with a population of a few billion bacterium. We'll add a stress to our healthy population, say, Penicillin. The Penicillin kills 99.999% of our population, but after a few days, the colony is as robust as ever! When we sequence the DNA of our new population and compare it to the original, the new bacteria all share a series of mutations that allow penicillin resistance. If we do this experiment 100 times, we get similar results, but the mutations are generally different.

The point is that the genetic strategy a population uses in order to survive is random. You can't apply any type of environmental stress to a lizard and expect to get a bird. Evolution is non-directional and not likely to be genetically repeatable.
The idea than man evolved from apes is a theory, but genetic evolution is a demonstrable fact.

Quote:

Originally Posted by HardDrive (Post 3896577)

Evolution is not a fact.

It is an extremely robust theory. One that will likely see tweaking and further clarification in the future. Much like our understanding of other areas of science, it will grow. But the sciences lack of maturity is not an indication of its validity. On the Origin of Species was published 150 years ago. Our understanding will be improved in another 150 years, but it is clear that Darwin illuminated the basic mechanism by which evolution happens.

Evolution is a fact. It has been observed, documented, and reproduced. Evolutionary Theory is a model to explain observed evolution.

Exactly correct. This is observed, tested, and repeatedly upheld under controlled conditions SCIENCE. Not some made-up fantasy by a bunch of delusional loons who are trying to force everyone else to believe their made-up version of reality.

It's victimless enough if someone wants to believe the moon is made of green cheese, the world is flat or that humans were magically created 6,000 years ago. Once these folks start shouting it to the world and demanding that we all see it their way or give their version equal credibility to one that has been observed, tested and upheld, it crosses the line into the realm of the inappropriate and annoying.

If one wants to challenge a pretty ironclad scientific theory, like gravity, relativity, evolution or the like - fine. Be my guest. At least do the rest of us a courtesy and propose an alternative that isn't so utterly stupid.

Quote:

Originally Posted by livi (Post 3896566)

The anti-evolutionists/anti-intellectuals (mostly protestant fundamentalists) in this country threaten the very foundation of public science education and our subsequent technological competitiveness in the world economy. They wish to return us to a theocratic taliban-like education system (and most likely way of life in general). These people are a true threat to the success of this country in the long run. They live in a world dominated by Sunday morning propaganda and perpetuate the lies and disinformation spoon fed them here without any attempt to confirm their facts or in anyway educate themselves. Even when their lies are completely exposed and destroyed they are repeated. The same BS from the Institute for Creation Research (ICR), Discovery Institute (DI), and Answers in Genesis (AIG) keeps repeating itself despite the fact that every one of their lies have been exposed and refuted on a national scale. It is a true conspiracy to undermine science education simply because they cannot see beyond a literal account of biblical genesis.
It is hypocrisy and intellectual dishonesty at its worst. It is truly pathetic.

The following link includes links to bio's of the "expelled" scientists.

http://www.expelledexposed.com/index.php/the-truth

Quote:

Originally Posted by frogger (Post 3896641)

http://www.afunnystuff.com/forumpics/notagain.jpg

no kidding, I thought this was going to be about a movie, which in a way I suppose it is, I like Ben Stein, he is hilarious.

People seem to mix up their terminology a lot, evolution as a process and the evolution of man, people are ******* idiots though, sometimes even the really smart ones.

I never have understood atheists either, my apologies to Markus and anyone else. Agnostic seems more appropriate. How do you know there is no God?

Quote:

Originally Posted by livi (Post 3896566)

Great. Here we go again. Fascinating how this question can divide people in this modern day and age. The most fantastic part of it is how it really tends to arouse frantic aggression - even between friends. Really amusing.

As most of you know, I am a hard core (I almost wrote fluffer..) atheist and Darwinist - BUT! - it does not bother me personally one tiny bit that there are people who believe the opposite. Fine with me. That is to say, it is not for me personally an important subject. If it turns out, fact will prove the existence of a God - fine with me. People may slander Richard Dawkins and Darwin all day - I don´t care and I can not get angry. I do not need to defense my point of view. My convictions are safe with me. Others may believe what ever they want. Does not bother me.

Whats with the big hostile words and aggression as soon as this topic comes up. We disagree. So what? The more interesting the debate.

Livi, totally agree with you. Forgive the North Americans, they know not what they do....

I have a foot on both sides of the ocean (Canada and Holland) and it never ceases to amaze me how there is so little time in North America for intelligent discourse or even just "agree to disagree". In the case of this topic, I am a Christian, but I believe Adam was created with a belly button and think that there is a lot of maturity in the world as it stands. How it got there is a matter of speculation and interpretation of facts and I can and will argue both sides of the question (Creation versus Evolution) and have fun doing so.

But I rarely find anyone on west side of the Atlantic that will have a good debate about it without getting emotional or personal.

Thanks for your perspective, it'd be great to get together for beer one of these times...

Dennis

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tobra (Post 3896809)

...Ben Stein, he is hilarious....

That is PURELY theoretical, i.e, NOT a fact!

...people are ******* idiots...

That is FACTUAL, NOT theoretical!

I never have understood atheists either...

I understand. I'm an unstable atheist (not quite positive), lurching along the slack line between atheism and agnosticism.

How do you know there is no God?

You just had to ask that, didn't you? :( A hirsute query to be sure, speaking of which, It's Sunday morning and I'm donning mine and going to lurch.

Doctor,
if only you could see
how heaven pulls earth into its arms
and how infinitely the heart expands
to claim this world, blue vapor without end.

From poem by Lisel Mueller, recalling Monet and his cataracts.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Normy (Post 3896595)

Ben Stein: you said it all. This guy is about as objective on this subject as your local catholic pedophile! What a joke all this is.

Despite the OCEAN
of emperical evidence...you still wan't to doubt Darwin's theory of evolution?

Hello? Isn't this the United States of America, the most advanced state in the world, and isn't this 2008? How in the hell does the tooth fairy bend your mind to even post a thread as stupid as this?

Let me give you a lesson in science: Go to the nearest tall building, go to the roof, and then jump off. You'll find yourself falling. If you really believe that the crap in that book you call a "bible" is real, then your Jesus or God or Allah or Buddha will save you. If not, then you've simply helped prove my point.

So...when are you jumping?

N

Why dont you jump first, Because if you just keep jumping, in a million years , youll grow wings.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rodsrsr (Post 3896991)

Why dont you jump first, Because if you just keep jumping, in a million years , youll grow wings.

Now you're getting it!

I don't think you guys understand or more likely you're just ignorant of the point of the movie. It's not an attempt to debunk Darwinism.

The animalistic snap rage exhibited by several here at the very inference of someone denying it is precisely the point of the movie.

I am not religious but I am of fan of Stein, he's a very intelligent guy and well worth listening to. You guys only think you know what he's saying here and you're wrong.

Quote:

Originally Posted by lendaddy (Post 3897017)

It sure seemed like a feeble attempt to debunk evolution, but maybe I missed something?

The "animalistic snap rage" is deserved because the concept of ID as science is so ridiculous. The ID folks offer nothing, yet think their position deserves to be heard as "scientific" just because.

Stein's point that if you espouse ID you will be rejected by science is true, but not because ID threatens science, but precisely because ID is not science.

I think Stein is funny too, but unless this movie is meant as an uber-subtle joke, he's now lost his mind.

Best,

Kurt

Quote:

Originally Posted by lendaddy (Post 3897017)

You are free to deny evolution all you wish. However, to attempt to paint ID as a valid alternative to evolution and then whine about how it is excluded from discussion by real scientists is just plain bogus.
ID is religion. It is not science. It does not offer any testable hypothesis and makes no testable predictions. It is magic of the religious sort. "Irreducible Complexity" is the sole plank of ID and is in itself an undeveloped and poorly designed cover for the "argument from incredulity" and has been challenged and debunked by mainstream science. It is at best, a re-badging of the "god of gaps" argument and a negative argument at that.
While you may not think this is a big issue, this kind of thinking effectively has suppressed science education in this country for the last 80+ years. We made some headway during the cold war and moon race but we appear to be on the verge of slipping back into the dark ages.
Science is important to us as individuals and as a nation. If we want to remain a strong, self-sufficient technological civilization, we need to encourage education and knowledge, not suppress it. If you want to teach ID, teach it where it belongs, in comparative religion or equivalent.

Quote:

Originally Posted by lendaddy (Post 3897017)

I agree. The point of the movie was that in the scientific community, one is not allowed to question Darwinism or explore evidence of Intelligent design. This is a lack of freedom. Remember, many people even here on this blog say that there is no evidence for I.D. but they forget that both sides have the same evidence, it is only how that evidence is being interpreted. In the scientific community you CANNOT allow for the interpretation to lead you to ID, for fear of that turning into God. Evolution is a very anti-God theory. It is what Hitler based his treatment of the Jews on. Their was also a time right here in the U.S. (not too long ago I might add) that the common scientific belief, was that blacks were more closely related to the ape than whites hence they were less evolved than white people.

Quote:

Originally Posted by lendaddy (Post 3897017)

Intelligent design is not even pseudo science so why should it be given any credibility in a science class? The film has been criticised as garbage and for having stolen graphic and sound material from other sources, not to mention quoting Dawkins out of context, but Stein will make money from it.

What do you think Stein is saying or promoting?

Quote:

Originally Posted by sjf911 (Post 3897063)

You see by your own admission, you make the claim that I.D is a religion. Tell me, what religion does it represent? Does it represent the space aliens that Rickard Dawkins admits to believing in as part of the I D that "had" to have "started" the whole process?

BTW, lendaddy, the movie tried to lay the Holocaust on Darwin as if killing off life to keep that life from having descendants was unknown until Darwin came along in the 1800s.

Does that seem reasonable or make sense to you?

Can such an absurd position possibly earn one a place among rational folk?

The movie is brimming with such non-sense.

Again, if it's all a big joke, then Stein is indeed brilliant. :D

Best,

Kurt

Quote:

Originally Posted by Milu (Post 3897084)

I.D never claims to be a science. You have just helped explain the problem even further. If something is not based on science. (which is a systematic knowledge of the physical or material world gained through observation and experimentation.) Than is is not allowed. If the Intelligient Designer was not part of the physical, material world than you would not be able to observe or experiment on him, thus anything that we cannot observe or is not part of the physical world is not a part of science. Suddenly "science" seems very limited.

Here's a review from SciAm, FYI.

Quote:

Features - April 9, 2008

Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed--Ben Stein Launches a Science-free Attack on Darwin

In a new documentary film, actor, game show host and financial columnist Ben Stein falls for the pseudoscience of intelligent design

By Michael Shermer

Editor's note: This story is part of a series "Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed--Scientific American's Take."

In 1974 I matriculated at Pepperdine University as a born-again Christian who rejected Darwinism and evolutionary theory—not because I knew anything about it (I didn't) but because I thought that in order to believe in God and accept the Bible as true, you had to be a creationist. What I knew about evolution came primarily from creationist literature, so when I finally took a course in evolutionary theory in graduate school I realized that I had been hoodwinked. What I discovered is a massive amount of evidence from multiple sciences—geology, paleontology, biogeography, zoology, botany, comparative anatomy, molecular biology, genetics and embryology—demonstrating that evolution happened.

It was with some irony for me, then, that I saw Ben Stein's antievolution documentary film, Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed, opens with the actor, game show host and speechwriter for Richard Nixon addressing a packed audience of adoring students at Pepperdine University, apparently falling for the same trap I did.

Actually they didn't. The biology professors at Pepperdine assure me that their mostly Christian students fully accept the theory of evolution. So who were these people embracing Stein's screed against science? Extras. According to Lee Kats, associate provost for research and chair of natural science at Pepperdine, "the production company paid for the use of the facility just as all other companies do that film on our campus" but that "the company was nervous that they would not have enough people in the audience so they brought in extras. Members of the audience had to sign in and a staff member reports that no more than two to three Pepperdine students were in attendance. Mr. Stein's lecture on that topic was not an event sponsored by the university." And this is one of the least dishonest parts of the film.

At the Crossroads of Conspiracy
Ben Stein came to my office to interview me about what I was told was a film about "the intersection of science and religion" called Crossroads (yet another deception). I knew something was afoot when his first question to me was on whether or not I think someone should be fired for expressing dissenting views. I pressed Stein for specifics: Who is being fired for what, when and where? In my experience, people are usually fired for reasons having to do with budgetary constraints, incompetence or not fulfilling the terms of a contract. Stein finally asked my opinion on people being fired for endorsing intelligent design. I replied that I know of no instance where such a firing has happened.

This seemingly innocent observation was turned into a filmic confession of ignorance when my on-camera interview abruptly ends there, because when I saw Expelled at a preview screening at the National Religious Broadcasters's convention (tellingly, the film is being targeted primarily to religious and conservative groups), I discovered that the central thesis of the film is a conspiracy theory about the systematic attempt to keep intelligent design creationism out of American classrooms and culture.

Stein's case for conspiracy centers on a journal article written by Stephen Meyer, a senior fellow at the intelligent design think tank Discovery Institute and professor at the theologically conservative Christian Palm Beach Atlantic University. Meyer's article, "The Origin of Biological Information and the Higher Taxonomic Categories," was published in the June 2004 Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington, the voice of the Biological Society with a circulation of less than 300 people. In other words, from the get-go this was much ado about nothing.

Nevertheless, some members of the organization voiced their displeasure, so the society's governing council released a statement explaining, "Contrary to typical editorial practices, the paper was published without review by any associate editor; Sternberg handled the entire review process. The council, which includes officers, elected councilors and past presidents, and the associate editors would have deemed the paper inappropriate for the pages of the Proceedings." So how did it get published? In the words of journal's managing editor at the time, Richard Sternberg, "it was my prerogative to choose the editor who would work directly on the paper, and as I was best qualified among the editors, I chose myself." And what qualified Sternberg to choose himself? Perhaps it was his position as a fellow of the International Society for Complexity, Information, and Design, which promotes intelligent design, along with being on the editorial board of the Occasional Papers of the Baraminology Study Group, a creationism journal committed to the literal interpretation of Genesis. Or perhaps it was the fact that he is a signatory of the Discovery Institute's "100 Scientists who Doubt Darwinism" statement.

Meyer's article is the first intelligent design paper ever published in a peer-reviewed journal, but it deals less with systematics (or taxonomy, Sternberg's specialty) than it does paleontology, for which many members of the society would have been better qualified than he to peer-review the paper. (In fact, at least three members were experts on the Cambrian invertebrates discussed in Meyer's paper). Meyer claims that the "Cambrian explosion" of complex hard-bodied life forms over 500 million years ago could not have come about through Darwinian gradualism. The fact that geologists call it an "explosion" leads creationists to glom onto the word as a synonym for "sudden creation." After four billion years of an empty Earth, God reached down from the heavens and willed trilobites into existence ex nihilo. In reality, according to paleontologist Donald Prothero, in his 2007 magisterial book Evolution: What the Fossils Say and Why it Matters (Columbia University Press): "The major groups of invertebrate fossils do not all appear suddenly at the base of the Cambrian but are spaced out over strata spanning 80 million years—hardly an instantaneous 'explosion'! Some groups appear tens of millions of years earlier than others. And preceding the Cambrian explosion was a long slow buildup to the first appearance of typical Cambrian shelled invertebrates." If an intelligent designer did create the Cambrian life forms, it took 80 million years of gradual evolution to do it.

Stein, however, is uninterested in paleontology, or any other science for that matter. His focus is on what happened to Sternberg, who is portrayed in the film as a martyr to the cause of free speech. "As a result of publishing the Meyer article," Stein intones in his inimitably droll voice, "Dr. Sternberg found himself the object of a massive campaign that smeared his reputation and came close to destroying his career." According to Sternberg, "after the publication of the Meyer article the climate changed from being chilly to being outright hostile. Shunned, yes, and discredited." As a result, Sternberg filed a claim against the Smithsonian National Museum of Natural History (NMNH) for being "targeted for retaliation and harassment" for his religious beliefs. "I was viewed as an intellectual terrorist," he tells Stein. In August 2005 his claim was rejected. According to Jonathan Coddington, his supervisor at the NMNH, Sternberg was not discriminated against, was never dismissed, and in fact was not even a paid employee, but just an unpaid research associate who had completed his three-year term!

Continued below . . .

Quote:

Who Speaks for Science?
The rest of the martyrdom stories in Expelled have similar, albeit less menacing explanations, detailed at www.expelledexposed.com, where physical anthropologist Eugenie Scott and her tireless crew at the National Center for Science Education have tracked down the specifics of each case. Astronomer Guillermo Gonzalez, for example, did not get tenure at Iowa State University in Ames and is portrayed in the film as sacrificed on the alter of tenure denial because of his authorship of a pro–intelligent design book entitled The Privileged Planet (Regnery Publishing, 2004). As Scott told me, "Tenure is based on the evaluation of academic performance at one's current institution for the previous seven years." Although Gonzales was apparently a productive scientist before he moved to Iowa State, Scott says that "while there, his publication record tanked, he brought in only a couple of grants—one of which was from the [John] Templeton Foundation to write The Privileged Planet—didn't have very many graduate students, and those he had never completed their degrees. Lots of people don't get tenure, for the same legitimate reasons that Gonzalez didn't get tenure."

Tenure in any department is serious business, because it means, essentially, employment for life. Tenure decisions for astronomers are based on the number and quality of scientific papers published, the prestige of the journal in which they are published, the number of grants funded (universities are ranked, in part, by the grant-productivity of their faculties), the number of graduate students who completed their program, the amount of telescope time allocated as well as the trends in each of these categories, indicating whether or not the candidate shows potential for continued productivity. In point of fact, according to Gregory Geoffroy, president of Iowa State, "Over the past 10 years, four of the 12 candidates who came up for review in the physics and astronomy department were not granted tenure." Gonzales was one of them, and for good reasons, despite Stein's claim of his "stellar academic record."

For her part, Scott is presented in the film as the cultural filter for determining what is and is not science, begging the rhetorical question: Just who does she think she is anyway? Her response to me was as poignant as it was instructive: "Who is Ben Stein to say what is science and not science? None of us speak for science. Scientists vary all over the map in their religious and philosophical views—for example, Francis Collins [the evangelical Christian and National Human Genome Research Institute director], so no one can speak for science."

From Haeckel to Hitler
Even more disturbing than these distortions is the film's other thesis that Darwinism inexorably leads to atheism, communism, fascism, and could be blamed for the Holocaust. Despite the fact that hundreds of millions of religious believers fully accept the theory of evolution, Stein claims that we are in an ideological war between a scientific natural worldview that leads to Stalin's gulag archipelago and Nazi gas chambers, and a religious supernatural worldview that leads to freedom, justice and the American way. The film's visual motifs leave no doubt in the viewer's emotional brain that Darwinism is leading America into an immoral quagmire. We're going to hell in a Darwinian handbasket. Cleverly edited interview excerpts from scientists are interspersed with various black-and-white clips for guilt by association with: bullies beating up on a 98-pound weakling, Charlton Heston's character in Planet of the Apes being blasted by a water hose, Nikita Khrushchev pounding his fist on a United Nations desk, East Germans captured trying to scale the Berlin Wall, and Nazi crematoria remains and Holocaust victims being bulldozed into mass graves. This propaganda production would make Joseph Goebbels proud.

It is true that the Nazis did occasionally adapt a warped version of social Darwinism proffered by the 19th-century German biologist Ernst Haeckel in a "survival of the fittest races" mode. But this rationale was only in the service of justifying the anti-Semitism that had been inculcated into European culture centuries before. Because Stein is Jewish, he surely knows that the pogroms against his people began ages before Darwin and that the German people were, in Harvard University political scientist Daniel Goldhagen's apt phrase (and book title), "Hitler's willing executioners."

When Stein interviewed me and asked my opinion on the impact of Darwinism on culture, he seemed astonishingly ignorant of the many other ways that Darwinism has been used and abused by political and economic ideologues of all stripes. Because Stein is a well-known economic conservative (and because I had just finished writing my book The Mind of the Market, a chapter of which compares Adam Smith's "invisible hand" with Charles Darwin's natural selection), I pointed out how the captains of industry in the late 19th and early 20th centuries justified their beliefs in laissez-faire capitalism through the social Darwinism of "survival of the fittest corporations." And, more recently, I noted that Enron's CEO, Jeffrey Skilling, said his favorite book in Harvard Business School was Richard Dawkins' The Selfish Gene (first published in 1976), a form of Darwinism that Skilling badly misinterpreted. Scientific theorists cannot be held responsible for how their ideas are employed in the service of nonscientific agendas.

Questioning Darwinism
A final leitmotif running through Expelled is inscribed in chalk by Stein in repetitive lines on a classroom blackboard: "Do not question Darwinism." Anyone who thinks that scientists do not question Darwinism has never been to an evolutionary conference. At the World Summit on Evolution held in the Galapagos Islands during June 2005, for example, I witnessed a scientific theory rich in controversy and disputation. Paleontologist William Schopf of the University of California, Los Angeles, for instance, explained that "We know the overall sequence of life's origin, that the origin of life was early, microbial and unicellular, and that an RNA world preceded today's DNA–protein world." He openly admitted, however, "We do not know the precise environments of the early earth in which these events occurred; we do not know the exact chemistry of some of the important chemical reactions that led to life; and we do not have any knowledge of life in a pre-RNA world."

Stanford University biologist Joan Roughgarden declared that Darwin's theory of sexual selection (a specific type of natural selection) is wrong in its claim that females choose mates who are more attractive and well-armed. Calling neo-Darwinians "bullies," the University of Massachusetts Amherst biologist Lynn Margulis pronounced that "neo-Darwinism is dead" and, echoing Darwin, she said, "It was like confessing a murder when I discovered I was not a neo-Darwinist." Why? Because, Margulis explained, "Random changes in DNA alone do not lead to speciation. Symbiogenesis—the appearance of new behaviors, tissues, organs, organ systems, physiologies or species as a result of symbiont interaction—is the major source of evolutionary novelty in eukaryotes: animals, plants and fungi."

Finally, Cornell University evolutionary theorist William Provine (featured in Expelled) presented 11 problems with evolutionary theory, including: "Natural selection does not shape an adaptation or cause a gene to spread over a population or really do anything at all. It is instead the result of specific causes: hereditary changes, developmental causes, ecological causes and demography. Natural selection is the result of these causes, not a cause that is by itself. It is not a mechanism."

Despite this public questioning of Darwinism (and neo-Darwinism), which I reported on in Scientific American, Schopf, Roughgarden, Margulis and Provine have not been persecuted, shunned, fired or even Expelled. Why? Because they are doing science, not religion. It is perfectly okay to question Darwinism (or any other "-ism" in science), as long as there is a way to test your challenge. Intelligent design creationists, by contrast, have no interest in doing science at all. In the words of mathematician and philosopher William Dembski of Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary and a key witness in Stein's prosecution of evolution, from a 2000 speech at the National Religious Broadcasters convention in Anaheim, Calif.: "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."

When will people learn that Darwinian naturalism has nothing whatsoever to do with religious supernaturalism? By the very definitions of the words it is not possible for supernatural processes to be understood by a method designed strictly for analyzing natural causes. Unless God reaches into our world through natural and detectable means, he remains wholly outside the realm of science.

So, yes Mr. Stein, sometimes walls are bad (Berlin), but other times good walls make good neighbors. Let's build up that wall separating church and state, along with science and religion, and let freedom ring for all people to believe or disbelieve what they will.

Michael Shermer is Publisher of Skeptic (www.skeptic.com) and the author of Why Darwin Matters: The Case Against Intelligent Design. His new book is The Mind of the Market.

Source: http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=ben-steins-expelled-review-michael-shermer&print=true