Moore about Expelled

March 3, 2008 by Dr. Mc.

It has been one month since Robert Moore published his
scathing commentary on Expelled in The Orlando Sentinel, and he has
accomplished his purpose–readership. With 84 comments at my last count,
comments out-pace the text 12 to 1 in number of words used. He has obviously hit
a nerve by bringing up the creationism-naturalism debate, and based on the
article’s content, I’d say he illustrates the point very well. Moore is a true
artist with words, and proves repeatedly the skilled pen can accomplish more
with how something is said than with what is actually said. Moore claims the
movie preview was less than convincing, but I’m hard pressed to find much
content indicating that he went into the movie very open-minded.

He refers to the preview as "a stealth campaign, out of the
public eye," but then he posts the public link to the Expelled website, which
has been up since mid-’07. He was accidentally sent an invitation to a preview,
and knowing that it was intended for ministers, attended anyway. Then he seems
proud that he did not sign the non-disclosure statement that was requested as
part of the requirement for attendance. So please explain to me who is "stealth"
here. And do we not see some inconsistency in sneaking in and claiming to be
ethical for not promising to not reveal? It reminds me of when I was a kid and
considered it OK not to keep a promise, as long as I had my fingers crossed.

Here’s a good example of how Moore used words to cast his
meaning: "He uses anecdotes from a few Fox-over-publicized cases of people who
claim to have lost tenure/their jobs/their position in the scientific world for
daring to suggest the hand of a supernatural being in the creation of life. He
hasn’t a scintilla of proof of, well, anything. Then he has the audacity to
whine, "Where’s the data" when questioning cellular biologists and other real
scientists who build their lives around doubt, and finding testable, legitimate
answers to those doubts. Where’s  YOUR data, Ben?" Personally, I’d say Moore
sited data here, but does it in a way that it is missed. The
"Fox-over-publicized" part slants the meaning of everything thereafter. He says
"people who claim to have lost tenure," etc., for what he said in the previous
paragraph that they should not do–"daring to suggest the hand of a supernatural
being" was involved.

Another example, is his reference to what he calls "the
Holocaust denier’s favorite trick, probabilities, ‘math,’ to show how remote the
chances are that life was created by natural.. processes." Moore objects to the
way Stein relates Darwinism to the Holocaust, and here Moore relates the
Holocaust to the use of math to address science. I really don’t think it’s a bad
thing to use math to prove a scientific point, but it sure sounds illegitimate
the way Moore puts it.

Apparently Moore was pricked by a reference in the movie
about eugenics, for he felt like he had to object to that in particular. "There
were plenty of reasons eugenics caught on as an idea among certain
nationalist-conservative and even scientific circles in the early 20th century,
and most of them have nothing to do with Darwin." Note that Moore juxtaposes the
word "conservative" with "nationalist," and implies that scientists were
reluctant to join in the eugenics movement by using the word "even" to admit
they went along with the idea. And "most of them have nothing to do with
Darwin." Perhaps Mr. Moore is unaware that the eugenics movement was founded by
Francis Galton, Charles Darwin’s first cousin. This is not what one might call a coincidence,
since Charles named a son after Galton, and that
son became the second president of the eugenics society, after his
godfather.

Nonetheless, I commend Robert Moore for bringing the movie
to a new level of attention. Nothing sparks interest like controversy, and Moore
is right about this movie in that respect. And who knows: perhaps because of
Moore’s review, someone will attend who actually is open-minded.

Posted in Uncategorized | 2 Comments »