expelled: no intelligence allowed

[Nate]

I like Ben Stein's voice.

[Technomancer]

Another review from Scientific American:
http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=ben-steins-expelled-review-john-rennie

And also from New Scientist:
http://www.expelledexposed.com/new_scientist.php

[Debitt]

Keeping in mind that I haven't seen (nor plan on seeing) this movie, I feel as though my thoughts on the premise are summed up neatly as such:

The movie sets up an unnecessary dichotomy between science and religion...

Also. I like Ben Stein's voice.

[ich1990]

I like Ben Stein's voice. Actually I haven't ever heard it.

"The film manipulates by appealing to raw emotion"

Heck, even if the film is entirely bogus, at least there will finally be some sort of antithesis to Michael Moore's movies. It is about time we get some propaganda of our own!

Alternatively, the movie might rationally explain some of the shortcomings of evolution and let the watcher decide for himself what that meant. I think that would be a more effective approach to this sort of movie.

"I have always assumed that scientists were free to ask any question, to pursue any line of inquiry, without fear of reprisal," Stein tells moviegoers. "But recently I have been alarmed to discover that this is not the case." He asks, "Darwin challenged the consensus view, and that's how we got Darwinism. If Darwin wanted to challenge the consensus today, how would he do it?"

From my five years in college, this certainly seems the case. If evolution is true, open discussion can't hurt, can it? Yet I have had many teachers that have made desparaging remarks about those who even think about disagreeing with evolution. Certainly even scientists can see this as a disturbing trend?

The peculiar evil of silencing the expression of opinion is, that it is robbing the human race]

He who knows only his own side of the case knows little of that.

[Nate]

Ben Stein and the rest of the filmmakers sincerely and seriously argue that Charles Darwin's theory of evolution paved the way for the Holocaust. By "seriously," I mean that Ben Stein acts grief-stricken and the director juxtaposes quotes from evolutionary biologists with archival newsreel clips from Hitler's Reich.

THE highly controversial documentary Expelled: No intelligence allowed, is full of surprises, not least of which are endless clips of Nazis from the second world war.

If that wasn't so freaking stupid and horrendous, I'd probably laugh. So now my interest in this movie has transformed from complete apathy to active opposition.

[Kkun]

I'm curious to hear his line of reasoning from Darwinism to Hitler.

[ich1990]

I'm curious to hear his line of reasoning from Darwinism to Hitler.

[quote="Charles Darwin from "The Descent of Man""]"With savages, the weak in body or mind are soon eliminated]

It is a bit of a stretch from Darwin to Hitler, but I can see were he could get the idea. Anyhow, I hate it when movies use the "Holocaust Tear Jerker" ploy, it makes me suspicious.

[That Dude]

I think I like Ben Stiens voice.

I agree with Ichi, It's a bit of a stretch but I can also see where he could get that idea. And as already stated before, this movie in effect isn't about science VS. science as much as it is philosophy VS philosophy. Because when you get down to it it's the world-views that govern whether or not you are going from a naturalistic view (evolution) or a deistic view (ID.)

I think that there needs to be both taught...Heck they should just combine the science and philosophy because the philosophy pretty much governs what conclusions the scientists will come to with the data they are given.

[Doubleshadow]

I think the Nazi's censoring of opposing viewpoints is an accurate comparison. But, care has to be taken that the comparison isn't taken too far, and that the audience is reasonable enough to not assume more than what is actually being said.

[CrimsonRyu17]

I like Ben Stein's voice.

[Nate]

I think the Nazi's censoring of opposing viewpoints is an accurate comparison.

No, no, no, no, no, a thousand frickin' times no.

At the risk of Godwinning this thread, I have to respond to this.

If he wanted to make a comparison between this and censoring speech, why not use China as an example? Why not Finland? Why not Australia or the UK? I'll tell you why. Because his comparison to the Nazis is an appeal to emotion. Almost everybody hates the Nazis, that's why it's so popular to bring up Nazis in online discussions, because you can accuse your opponent of being like them and hey, maybe people will side with you more!

But that's the problem. Appeal to emotion is NOT a valid argument, it is a logical fallacy, and that's why anybody who uses it automatically loses. Comparison to Nazis is never EVER valid unless it involves the slaughter of Jews and gypsies and homosexuals, which last I checked, the theory of evolution doesn't do.

[Mr. SmartyPants]

Appeal to emotion may be an invalid argument, but it doesn't take away the fact that the argument with Nazism itself can hold water. If they did use China instead, they could still present a valid argument.

[Fish and Chips]

I'm curious to hear his line of reasoning from Darwinism to Hitler.

The tenants of Nazi supremacy have a lot in common with (forced) Social Darwinism, an extreme strain of Darwinism that does not deserve mention in the same sentence as Charles Darwin's scientific findings. Usually people who sharply disagree with Darwin use the "Threat" of accepted Social Darwinism to justify their arguments.

[Doubleshadow]

If he wanted to make a comparison between this and censoring speech, why not use China as an example? Why not Finland? Why not Australia or the UK? I'll tell you why. Because his comparison to the Nazis is an appeal to emotion. Almost everybody hates the Nazis, that's why it's so popular to bring up Nazis in online discussions, because you can accuse your opponent of being like them and hey, maybe people will side with you more!

This is precisely why there was more to my post then just that one sentence. I don't get emotional over the issue anymore than my initial response. Then I put it aside and objectively and critically evaluate the material, including attempts at emotional manipulation. If the censorship alone is a parallel, and the argument is restricted to that, people jumping to conclusions about a presumed "true" intent for the comparison is a fault on the part of the audience. If this is just a poorly disguised attempt to force people to his side with sensationalized, emotionally charged images, shame on him, but I want to see how the argument is presented before I assume it is a cheap trick.

At the risk of Godwinning this thread, I have to respond to this.

That's a new one on me. Translation please?

[Technomancer]

To make the link of evolution->Nazism is false and insulting on many levels. Anyone who has bothered to study the period and the beliefs of the Nazi hierarchy will know well that Nazi ideology was a strange mixture of incompetent science, pseudo-religious mysticism and age-old bigotry. As if discrimination and slavery didn't exist before Darwin! In any event, as Bronowski's reply to this argument is more eloquent than any that I could write, I let him have the last word on the matter:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8mIfatdNqBA

There are those who say that schools and universities should allow for discussion of "alternate points of view" Why? To pretend that the scientific theory of evolution and ID are on anything like an equal footing, or that there is some kind of scientific controversy on the subject does a gross disservice to students. For class in which teaching hours are limited there is little need to present "both sides" when one of those sides is wrong. Should scientists also be assailed for excluding alchemy and phrenology as well? Should the academy be open to all points of view regardless of how thoroughly discredited they are?

[minakichan]

Even if we say that Social Darwinism inspired Hitler to kill the Jews (and I'm not necessarily saying that I believe that's true), it doesn't mean squat. Just because a theory, philosophy, or system of ideas inspires someone to interpret or misinterpret it in order to justify wrongdoing does not make that theory, philosophy, or system of ideas wrong.

Look at, I dunno, Christianity, for example.
Militant atheists will use the Crusades or the Inquisition to "discredit" Christianity, but it doesn't work that way. (Yes, it's true; atheists can have faults in reasoning as well.) In the same way, we can't use the Holocaust to discredit evolution.

[uc pseudonym]

From my five years in college, this certainly seems the case. If evolution is true, open discussion can't hurt, can it? Yet I have had many teachers that have made desparaging remarks about those who even think about disagreeing with evolution. Certainly even scientists can see this as a disturbing trend?

Interesting that you quote John Stuart Mill. I was reading On Liberty a few days ago.

Later in the essay he includes provisions that concern when it is appropriate to express a position. Everyone must be given a voice, yes, but not necessarily at all times. For example, it is not appropriate to stand up in the middle of a Catholic or Eastern Orthodox liturgy and say, "Wait, I would like to express my opinion about that." Similarly, if two Christians are discussing a theological topic, it really isn't helpful for an atheist to say, "Stop talking, you have to make me believe in God before I care about this." Basically, there are times when certain questions are out of context.

Can you see how this would relate to, say, a biology professor? His job is to teach a subject to his students and he can't do that if constant objections are being brought up to the basis of the course. While it would probably be good to address this issue directly near the beginning of the course, I can also imagine professors getting tired and bitter about hearing pseudoscientific arguments thrown at them constantly.

That's not to say that some people aren't stubborn and aggressive, and that may very well be the case with the professors you speak about. But I sincerely doubt they're just close-minded and trying to stifle debate.

But that's the problem. Appeal to emotion is NOT a valid argument, it is a logical fallacy, and that's why anybody who uses it automatically loses. Comparison to Nazis is never EVER valid unless it involves the slaughter of Jews and gypsies and homosexuals, which last I checked, the theory of evolution doesn't do.

I've never agreed with the corollary that Godwin's Law leads to immediate loss. It's an invalid argument most of the time, but that only dismisses one argument, not someone's entire position. Furthermore, I think it is valid to mention when a state is going down the same path as totalitarian nations of the past. Not that it really applies here, but in principle...

[Doubleshadow]

There are those who say that schools and universities should allow for discussion of "alternate points of view" Why? To pretend that the scientific theory of evolution and ID are on anything like an equal footing, or that there is some kind of scientific controversy on the subject does a gross disservice to students. For class in which teaching hours are limited there is little need to present "both sides" when one of those sides is wrong. Should scientists also be assailed for excluding alchemy and phrenology as well? Should the academy be open to all points of view regardless of how thoroughly discredited they are?

Because the lack of dialogue and free flow of information and ideas is damaging. Students should be able to decide for themselves whether or not a commonly accepted interpretation of information is accurate, acceptable, or even believable. Forcing them to accept another's interpretation, even that of an expert, without considering it for themselves with information and arguments from both sides does not help students to learn. Students instead should be credited with having enough intelligence to know when what is being presented has no validity and draw sound conclusions with guidance but not dictation.
Besides this, you cited two examples of well-established and widely accepted psuedo-sciences that resulted in the public mockery of those who questioned them. Those fields were only discredited through doubtful inquiry exploring all ways of interpreting observations and the realization that a rational interpretation of data from experiments only made sense if these ideas were rejected. Respected theories are constantly modified as new and better information becomes available. To present an idea as fact such that it is perfected and infalliable will almost never, if ever, truly reflect the level of understanding of a subject or phenomena.
Perhaps one day, the gaps in my understanding and reasoning regarding such things will be filled in, and I'll agree with you completely. But in the present time, I hope that you will not think that I am ignorant, naive, biased, or blind for not feeling the same way you do and yet want to express my ideas and have them be given honest, critical consideration.

[minakichan]

Because the lack of dialogue and free flow of information and ideas is damaging. Students should be able to decide for themselves whether or not a commonly accepted interpretation of information is accurate, acceptable, or even believable. Forcing them to accept another's interpretation, even that of an expert, without considering it for themselves with information and arguments from both sides does not help students to learn.

Again, not sure if I believe ID belongs in the classroom, but I think this raises a good point. Today's question of whether dissenting views of the origin of life should be allowed in the classroom alongside the mainstream accepted view doesn't seem much different than it was back in 1925, if you know what I mean. If we were to only accept the mainstream view, evolution would never have entered curricula in the first place.

[Technomancer]

Because the lack of dialogue and free flow of information and ideas is damaging. Students should be able to decide for themselves whether or not a commonly accepted interpretation of information is accurate, acceptable, or even believable.

But do students have the intellectual ability to really do so? Before you think I am being insulting by asking this let me explain. Everything that you have said can be said equally of many other fields of science that are politically non-controversial. However, as a rule we generally don't let the children decide about those matters]sounds[/i] logical on some level, but can't be readily put to the test or examined too deeply within the context in which it is taught. However, in the case of high school science, the material has been tested, and has withstood those tests.

Those fields were only discredited through doubtful inquiry exploring all ways of interpreting observations and the realization that a rational interpretation of data from experiments only made sense if these ideas were rejected.

And you don't think modern theories of biology have?

[creed4]

I'm curious to hear his line of reasoning from Darwinism to Hitler.

I have read about the link between eugenics and evolution, Eugenics is the branch that influenced Nazism, long before this movie came out.


A common misunderstanding about intelligent design is that is the same as creationism. it is not. The main precept is that there is to much information for life to exist to result from random causes, and that some sort of intelligence had to incite the process. ID does not state who or what this intelligence is.

[Fish and Chips]

Intelligent Design in a philosophical/theological argument at best; it can rely on science as an appeal to reason and logic, but is not itself a scientific point. That said, evolution only covers adaptive variations within preexisting species, so the two subjects are really entirely different.

[ich1990]

Rather than throw out bits and pieces, I guess I will just lay out my whole view on this subject all at once.

That's not to say that some people aren't stubborn and aggressive, and that may very well be the case with the professors you speak about. But I sincerely doubt they're just close-minded and trying to stifle debate.

Perhaps I should have expounded a little. The majority of my teachers are pro-evolution. Unfortunately, most of those pro-evolutionist teachers have been mean-spirited and extremely close minded. Keep in mind that I have only known a fraction of the teachers in academia, but out of those few, the majority of them were pro-evolutionist to the point of being unreasonable.

Take, for instance, my History of Philosophy teacher. When I explained to him (during break, without disrupting class, about a subject that we had been speaking about) that I was more inclined to believe in Deism/Intelligent Design over Atheism/Evolution, he sat me down and told me that I was wrong. Just like that. I asked him why, and, after a few minutes of honest debate, he told me that the majority of scientists believed in Atheism/Evolution so I should too.

Another example: my History of Art (yeah I have some strange classes) teacher stopped right in the middle of a lecture to say (in response to an innocuous comment by a Catholic student) that Christianity and ID were totally bogus ideas that had been disproved by science. After class I asked her why she believed that Atheism/Evolution was the answer. She responded by giving a little laugh and then telling me to “]Intelligent Design. ID is a mathematically based model that is being used all over the globe today. It is fully scientific, and is fairly accurate and dependable.[/B] What is it being used for? Well for one thing, the ID model is being used to look for extra-terrestrials in deep space. Astronomers monitor radiation and look for repeating patterns. They do this, because they know that it is highly unlikely that random bursts of radiation will come together and form patterns that repeat themselves. If such a repeating pattern is found, the astronomers know that, mathematically, it is unlikely that the pattern is produced by an unintelligent source. Therefore, the odds are in the Astronomer's favor that an intelligent creature is designing the pattern, and bingo: the possibility of extra-terrestrials has suddenly become a lot more likely.

An Archaeologist just dug up a rock shaped like an arrow head. Was it made by somebody? Maybe, or it could have just randomly been formed in that shaped by natural causes. The Archaeologist then finds another arrow head rock right next to the first. Where they made by somebody? Probably. After finding a dozen more arrow heads right next to the first two, the Archaeologist declares that he has found the remnants of intelligent life. Nobody disputes him.

Now, apply the ID model to the origin of life. Evolutionists propose that large doses of radiation caused beneficial mutations among a group of creatures. These benefited creatures then bred (if they weren't sterilized by the radiation) with themselves in order to stabilize the beneficial mutation in their genes. These mutated creatures then get dosed with more radiation and the process continues until they become a totally different creature. Taking away the problem of abiogenesis, this seems like it could be an answer to the development of life.

ID proposes that, due to the problem of abiogenesis and the extreme improbability evolution, that an intelligent designer created creatures fully formed. It is simple, it works, it explains abiogenesis, it is supported by mathematical probabilities, and it fits with the fossil record. Why then, is this theory totally discounted in favor of evolution? It is accepted everywhere else within scientific circles.

I propose that a healthy mix be taught and studied under. Each group could keep each other sharp and accountable. The evolutionists could keep the ID's from getting overly mystical and attributing perfectly casual things to the Intelligent Designer. The ID's could keep the evolutionists from betting on long shots and selling it as fact. Iron sharpens iron, so, when there is only one sword around, it gets dull.

History has shown that bad things happen when one world view or religion gets complete control over science. Remember back when the Catholic church insisted that the sun revolved around the earth? I am afraid of the same thing happening now. With Atheism being the only “correct” world view/religion for scientists nowadays (a precaution against the over attribution of mystical occurrences in the past I presume), Atheists have a monopoly on science, to the point were anyone disagreeing with them is considered 'ignorant'. Evolution might be completely bogus or ID might be completely bogus, it doesn't matter just as long as people are still looking for the answers.

You might say that, like the law of gravity, some things are just taken for granted. I propose to you that evolution is not one of them. As far as my research has led, no scientist, even under favorable laboratory conditions, has been able to produce a sustainable, beneficial, non-sterilizing mutation in a creature, let alone produce them at the rapid rate necessary to create the hundreds of thousands of species that populate this world. Even if they do, it does not guarantee that evolution is correct, just possible. Whereas gravity can be tested and proved by dropping a coin, evolution has yet to proven.

So, there are my two (or, more likely, twenty-seven) cents. Take 'em or leave 'em.

[Technomancer]

[quote="ich1990 (post: 1217857)"]Take, for instance, my History of Philosophy teacher. When I explained to him (during break, without disrupting class, about a subject that we had been speaking about) that I was more inclined to believe in Deism/Intelligent Design over Atheism/Evolution, he sat me down and told me that I was wrong. Just like that. I asked him why, and, after a few minutes of honest debate, he told me that the majority of scientists believed in Atheism/Evolution so I should too.

Another example: my History of Art (yeah I have some strange classes) teacher stopped right in the middle of a lecture to say (in response to an innocuous comment by a Catholic student) that Christianity and ID were totally bogus ideas that had been disproved by science. After class I asked her why she believed that Atheism/Evolution was the answer. She responded by giving a little laugh and then telling me to “ask any scientistâ€

[Tarnish]

I like Ben Stein's voice.

I like wearing short pants.



I couldn't be more indifferent about this movie if I tried. My family, however, is very excited to see it. Chances are I'll be dragged along...

[ich1990]

First, I would like to say thank you for your reading my wall of text. I am glad that you consider my point of view valuable enough to refute. As a beginning student in this field, I am surprised that my first ideas on the subject were formulated well enough for you to take the time to dismantle them.

The problem is, that scientists won't tell you that (at least not the Christianity/Atheism part). They as a whole know full well what the limitations of science are.

I am glad to hear it! Unfortuanately, I have not had the opportunity to talk with many scientists about this sort of subject. In fact, I have just begun my research in the past couple of weeks.

From the evidence, this is so. However, the answer of your teachers is far from satisfactory. Given their respective disciplines, it may be that they have simply taken what the scientists say on faith and given it no further thought. This is understanable if not entirely laudable. After all it is the biologists who've spent their lives studying the subject, and not the art history professors.

That was the impression that I was getting as well.

True, but perhaps you should seek out your answers from the scientists then. There are many clear and well-written discussions on evolutionary theory and its history.

Thanks, I will do that. I guess you are the first one?

The problem is, that in the case you cite, there are clear examples of natural and artificial signals. We know they are artificial or natural because we can observed their production. In biology, you have no such examples, nor does ID even attempt to define or predict in any clear and consistent way what the characteristics of a natural vs. artificial organism should be. Instead, all it does is say "Gosh that's complicated!" and end there. This is not the way towards progress.

Good point I hadn't thought of that. I guess somebody should define a clear and consistent way to distinguish between natural and artificial.

And if the astronomers stopped there, they would be wrong. Consider the discovery of LGM-1 and LGM-2.

True, thats why I said "it is unlikely that the pattern is produced by an unintelligent source" rather than saying that it is 100% not from an unintelligent source.

That's not what they say.

You are right, I thought I was talking about punctuated equilibrium, when I was actually talking about an offshoot of dawinism called Saltation. That was my mistake. You can consider all the refutations to evolution (difficult to sustain permutations, etc.) as refutations to Saltation.

No, it doesn't. Not in the math and certainly not in the fossil record. The mathematics may sound authoritative to philosophy students, but it cuts no ice with any one seriously familiar with the subject.

First, I am not a philosophy student. Second, the math that I was reffering to is the insanely small probablity of:

1. Having many beneficial permutations in a short period of time (Saltation).
2. The chance that some random act of nature created a complete and functioning universe.

On both accounts the math seems very clear that the chances of either happening are extremely small. Yes math does seem athoritative to me. 2+2=4 no way of getting around it.

The fossil records that I was talking about support ID because there is an obvious lack of in-between fossils of half permutated species. Darwin himself argued that "the fossil records are not complete". Nowadays, however, that argument doesn't hold as much water given the large amounts of fossils we have uncovered.

Again, this is simply false. Nowhere does ID have any sort of academic support. Not among mathematicians, nor computer scientists, and certainly not among astronomers or archaeologists.

Nowhere? At all? The ID I was reffering to was the ID methodology used in the "arrowheads" and "intelligent life" cases. Since you have drawn a distinction between already seen ID and ID that we can only guess at, this does not apply to the topic.

Your research has been lamentably incomplete then. The evolution of nylon eating bacteria is but one famous example, but one can also include the evolution of drug-resistance in other bacteria, of lactase retention in humans (and the sickle-cell trait) and so on.

Alas, I have only started my studies. Although I am not familiar with the cases you have listed (lamentable as you have said), it seems that all of them are cases of micro-evolution rather than macro-evoution. I would love to continue this, but this thread is getting driven off track. Perhaps you could PM me? I would like to hear how you rationalize Christianity with evolution and such.

Once again, thank you for giving me so much to think about. I would rather have my theories smashed on this thread than in a debate in one of my classes.

[Bobtheduck]

I'm going to watch this movie. I agree about the blackballing of anyone who disagrees with Darwinianism, as I've seen it happen, not to mention other political topics in the sciences. It's funny to see hundreds of 1 scores on this movie on IMDb before it's even released. Ah, fun.

Ben Stein himself may not have any sort of scientific degree, but at the same time, it's possible, just possible, he's had friends that were blackballed and sees an injustice he wants to tackle.

As for darwin's connection to Hitler, there isn't any. Hitler was an occultist. To Stalin and Lenin, on the other hand, plenty. And they killed a lot more people than Hitler had the chance to. Marxism owed a lot to Darwin, and the Soviet form of Marxism was formed on some of those very basic premises.

[Ingemar]

No, no, no, no, no, a thousand frickin' times no.

At the risk of Godwinning this thread, I have to respond to this.

If he wanted to make a comparison between this and censoring speech, why not use China as an example? Why not Finland? Why not Australia or the UK? I'll tell you why. Because his comparison to the Nazis is an appeal to emotion. Almost everybody hates the Nazis, that's why it's so popular to bring up Nazis in online discussions, because you can accuse your opponent of being like them and hey, maybe people will side with you more!

I oppose censorship wherever it may pop up. And yes, this includes and is not limited to the United States and Canada.

[Fish and Chips]

it seems that all of them are cases of micro-evolution rather than macro-evoution.

...People. All Darwin's theory of evolution discusses is variation in species. There is no "Micro" or "Macro" evolution, just the alteration of inherited characteristics over time. The end. Evolution does not say that we were all spawned from fish that wanted beach front property, nor does evolution say life as we know it is accidental and purely random. These are completely different theories. Stop diluting evolution by throwing them all into the same melting pot.

[Cognitive Gear]

There are those who say that schools and universities should allow for discussion of "alternate points of view" Why? To pretend that the scientific theory of evolution and ID are on anything like an equal footing, or that there is some kind of scientific controversy on the subject does a gross disservice to students. For class in which teaching hours are limited there is little need to present "both sides" when one of those sides is wrong. Should scientists also be assailed for excluding alchemy and phrenology as well? Should the academy be open to all points of view regardless of how thoroughly discredited they are?

Going back to this, since it was an open question.

Why? Because, like it or not, they are teaching from a certain religious point of view. Atheism. As much as I'm sure atheists hate being considered a religious movement, they really are. What is a religion? A set of beliefs which explains the cause, purpose, and nature of the universe. Look it up in any dictionary. However, for purposes of answering this question we will use the word "worldview" since I believe it to be a more accurate description of the topic at hand, and to be more politically correct. (I hate that phrase...)

Since the schools are state run, they should not, under constitutional theory, promote any one worldview. Currently, they do. They promote atheism and a moral code in which the law of the land is the highest authority. It is of note that these are not directly linked, as they are taught in different subjects.

As far as I'm concerned, it's not that I want Intelligent Design to enter the science classroom. Anything supernatural has no place in the science classroom. However, I think that they do need to teach the limitations of science, along with making it more clear what parts of Darwinianism is truly theory and what is closer to just being "our best guess".

...People. All Darwin's theory of evolution discusses is variation in species. There is no "Micro" or "Macro" evolution, just the alteration of inherited characteristics over time. The end. Evolution does not say that we were all spawned from fish that wanted beach front property, nor does evolution say life as we know it is accidental and purely random. These are completely different theories. Stop diluting evolution by throwing them all into the same melting pot.

It gets thrown into the melting pot due to the ever changing term "Darwinism". That and the Beka book school curriculum. I can't imagine that Darwin would approve of how his name is being used. Much like Einstein. Ever notice how aggressive people are when they say "Good one, Einstein!"?