A movie called “Expelled,” pitting intelligent design against Darwinism and featuring actor and conservative writer Ben Stein, is due out in theaters this April.
Let’s begin by acknowledging that movie trailers can be misleading. Perhaps this film is a fair-minded, even handed investigation of the place of religion in academic science. As a former grad student in the humanities who somehow managed to earn a Ph.D. in English lit, I have first-hand experience with the biases and sometimes insular thinking of the academy.
However, based on repeated viewings of the trailer, it appears that Expelled is merely a slick, well-produced bit of creationist propaganda–the latest conservative salvo in the ongoing culture wars timed to strike during an election year.
The film’s argument, such as it is, is that any scientist in (and presumably also out) of academia who dares to question the theory of evolution is immediately shunned, ridiculed and denied tenure. As such, “Big Science,” as it’s called in the movie, is accused of systematically oppressing scholars who dissent from the mainstream, Darwinist line–a point underscored, bizarrely, with images of the ovens at Auschwitz.
Let’s pause here for a second. The trailer, which lasts perhaps five minutes, includes two prominent references to Nazi Germany–one clip shows Hitler making a speech, the other shows various concentration camps and emaciated Holocaust victims. The film maker’s intention, I assume, is to obliquely compare the oppressive tactics of “Big Science” to the genocidal policies of the Nazis. (And, by extension, the film equates the dissenting scientists it champions with victims of the Holocaust.)
Check out the trailer here:
[kml_flashembed movie="http://www.youtube.com/v/JEPqLKErXpI" width="425" height="350" wmode="transparent" /]
At first this struck me as supremely weird. But then it seemed to make sense. Intelligent design and its precursor, creationism, have always had about them a whiff of desperation, an overeagerness to be taken seriously as bone fide science. Because that has not happened, proponents of intelligent design now resort to Michael Moore-like tactics of overkill and extreme, unabashed propaganda.
I don’t want to get into the nitty gritty of intelligent design vs. evolution. There’s been a ton written about that, and you can read a good overview of the opposing viewpoints here and here.
But I do want to address the claim that scientists are being persecuted in academe because they challenge Darwin. Academe has its pros and cons, but overall it remains valuable as one of the few institutions where almost anything goes. Spend a few moments online and you’ll find papers written by professors arguing some of the strangest things. And this is good. Academics are for the most part professional skeptics, people trained to question, doubt and verify. Scientists are especially careful. You’ll rarely hear a scientist make a claim that something is outright true or that they’ve definitively proved something or once and for all solved a problem. As a science writer, I spend a lot of time talking with scientists about their research, and they’re always careful to explain that their findings are inconclusive, or incomplete, or open to question. In short, there are very few absolute truths in science.
But the Darwinian theory of evolution comes about as close as you can to attaining the status of rock-solid fact. Over the past century and a half, supporting evidence has piled up. In fact, the evidence is overwhelming. Einstein’s theory of general relativity seemed utterly odd and contrary to common sense when it was first proposed. But the evidence backs it up, so we accept E=MC2 as fact. The same can be said for evolution.
So if there are in fact scientists out there whose careers have been derailed by their support for intelligent design, it’s not due to the sinister machinations of an evil, “Big Science” cabal. It’s because the scientists in question produced shoddy work. Natural selection is a testable theory that’s been verified time and again. Intelligent design is a theological concept that cannot be definitively tested and proven either correct or incorrect. Ergo, it’s not science.
And that’s the main point. There’s plenty of room in academe for creationism and intelligent design–in departments of religion, philosophy, sociology and other disciplines. But intelligent design is not science. And scientists who stake their reputations defending it as such are taking a risk in the same way that an astronomer who argues that the sun revolves around the earth (an idea once accepted as gospel truth) is certain to be met with ridicule.
Again, to be clear, I’m basing this entirely on a five minute trailer. So go see the actual movie when it comes out and make up your own mind about its merits. And let me know what you think.
Sources: Expelled website, Skeptic’s Dictionary
“But the Darwinian theory of evolution comes about as close as you can to attaining the status of rock-solid fact. Over the past century and a half, supporting evidence has piled up. In fact, the evidence is overwhelming… Natural selection is a testable theory that’s been verified time and again.”
Really? About as close as you can get to rock-solid fact?
Theories of origins are so emotionally charged because the truth of one or another theory has significant metaphysical ramifications. It’s very difficult to discuss at a purely intellectual level. I think all sides have erred in this regard, and I would be surprised if the people in academia are totally exempt.
The 5 minute trailer also says that everyone should have their say in the debate. If you cannot say what you feel without being ridiculed by your peers, where is the freedom to say what you will?
In your well thought out dissertation you said “Academe has its pros and cons, but overall it remains valuable as one of the few institutions where almost anything goes.” and “But the Darwinian theory of evolution comes about as close as you can to attaining the status of rock-solid fact.” The phrases that intrigue me are within these two sentences and they are “…where ALMOST anything…” and “…theory of evolution comes ABOUT as close…status of ROCK-SOLID FACT…”
How does almost become irrefutable fact? If the academe says ALMOST ANYTHING goes, is that where the academe draws the “almost” line? At creationist or intelligent design? Does that mean it should be stifled? I hope that is not what you are saying here.
Intelligent design scientists have as much proof as the evolutionists do to prove their theories. Does that mean they should not be able to say what they believe in academe? Where ALMOST anything goes?
I sure hope not! And that is what Ben is saying in this movie, they should not be restricted in any way from saying what they believe.
The debate in the movie is whether or not scientists who believe in intelligent design should be able to say so without being told to shut up.
Hitler himself thought that the Germans were the superior “arian” race and that the Jews were an inferior less evolved species. Evolution in America is the new state run religion. What a stupid theory. No modern technological advances are due to biological evolution or any other kind of evolution.
Evolution only exists in the imagination of men who try to find an answer of the origins question without considering the possibility of a god. I know there are some who believe in a god, and believe evolution occurs, however there is no observable evidence to support that belief, just blind faith based on assumptions designed to exclude the obvious logical conclusion that a designer was involved.
“Intelligent design scientists have nothing in the way of evidence as compared to evolutionists.”
Fixed that sentence for ya there, Georgie-boy.
Oh, and Zachster? Hitler’s ideas come straight from Martin Luther, not Charles Darwin.
Try learning about actual evolution, not the strawmen that creationist nutjobs create.
Jeremy, you wrote a very good and very fair appraisal of the trailer to “Expelled.” I also believe you hit the nail on the head with the line, “tactics of overkill and extreme, unabashed propaganda.” Your site already has a couple of comments that support that statement, and I am willing to bet they will keep accumulating. When you see the movie (if it ever becomes released), please write a new review.
George-
There are very few hard, undisputed facts in science. Ask any scientist and he or she will tell you that nearly all “facts” are open to question, revision, qualification and so forth. But there are a few ideas/theories for which there is so much supporting evidence that the overwhelming majority of scientists have come to agree upon the veracity of those theories. Evolution is one of those very few, transforming idea. This doesn’t mean that we know everything there is to know about how natural selection works. Scientists are constantly working to build upon Darwin’s theories and even question its particulars. But there is general agreement as to the facticity of natural selection.
Whatever its merits and demerits, the same cannot be said for intelligent design. It is simply not the case, as you claim, that there is just as much evidence to support intelligent design. The very definition of a scientific theory is of an idea that can be tested and shown to either exist or not, be true or false. Again, many theories often end up somewhere in between, with evidence both for and against.
But intelligent design does not meet this criterion. You can look at just about anything and everything as proof of intelligent design but there is no way to test whether the evidence holds water. At least there’s no way to test the evidence in the way scientists work on every other scientific idea.
So should scientists and anyone else be allowed to talk about intelligent design? Of course. Should intelligent design be talked about in the academy? Sure, why not? I’m sure there are plenty of scholars writing and talking about intelligent design in departments of philosophy, religion, American Studies and sociology. Some may be sympathetic to its claims, some may be more skeptical. But you won’t find articles about intelligent design in respected scientific journals because intelligent design is not a scientific theory. It’s a theology and/or philosophy. It’s a belief system.
And before you argue that Darwinism, too, is nothing more than a theology, let me remind you that when Darwin first published his findings, many scholars dismissed them as inane. But over time, as the evidence mounted in Darwin’s favor, more and more scientists and thinkers began to recognize the validity of natural selection as a powerful explanation for how species develop over time. These ideas have been tested and retested and disputed and debated and tested yet again. And the result has been that the evidence supports the theory. That’s why evolution is such a powerful idea–because the theory predicts what actually happens in nature. And that’s science in a nutshell.
I appreciate all of these comments. But let’s do our best to remain civil. There’s no need to call anyone a “nut job” or anything else.
So here’s a serious questions for Zacharia-
Are you equating evolution with Nazism? This seems to me absurd and inflammatory in a way that only serves to muddy the discussion. Nazism is best defined as a systematic war against the Jews, with the aim of destroying the Jewish “race.” Evolution is a powerful explanation of how the world’s animal and plant species share a common ancestor and diverged over time. I don’t see any connection between the two. I also don’t see how evolution is a state-run religion. It’s neither a religion nor state run.
Indeed, movie trailers can be misleading. However, you bet your ass that the film is NOT a fair-minded, even handed investigation of the place of religion in academic science. I haven’t seen the movie, but Ben Stein has been very explicit with his opinion in two pieces I blogged on:
Ben Stein’s Introductory Blog on the website for the movie, “Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed,” makes over the top, and false, claims about scientists getting fired not for supporting Intelligent Design but just for believing in God:
http://normdoering.blogspot.com/2008/02/ben-stein-crouching-theocon-hidden-nit.html
Ben Stein’s article, “Florida’s Darwinian Interlude,” for The American Spectator claims Darwin’s theory fails because it doesn’t tell us: “How did the universe start? Where did matter come from? Where did energy come from? Where did the laws of motion, thermodynamics, physics, chemistry, come from?” :
http://normdoering.blogspot.com/2008/03/ben-stein-admits-he-has-only-little-pea.html
zachariah wrote: “Hitler himself thought that the Germans were the superior “arian” race and that the Jews were an inferior less evolved species.”
Hitler was no Darwinist:
http://normdoering.blogspot.com/2007/04/if-hitler-was-darwinist.html
And he wasn’t an atheist either:
http://normdoering.blogspot.com/2007/04/if-hitler-was-atheist.html
George said: “Intelligent design scientists have as much proof as the evolutionists do to prove their theories.”
Please provide the proof for ID. Actually, please provide any piece of evidence. There hasn’t been any evidence for 2000 years; if there has been some new concrete evidence that has been found recently, I would like to take a look. And, if you have a scientific theory that tests this evidence and is able to predict future claims of ID, even better.
Creationism (or ID) is not science. Therefore it does not belong in scientific classes, debates, journals etc. Once there is a shred of scientific evidence for creationism, scientists will investigate. The problem is, there is no scientific evidence.
Zach: Can you honestly say that you know more about the theory of evolution and it’s practical applications in various realms of science better than the thousands of scientists themselves? If you take the time to really study the facts and educate yourself in these disciplines, I think you’ll understand how scientific theories work. From my standpoint, it seems as though you are just repeating what you’ve heard from either religious figures or the Discovery Institutes hired goons. (who, as you can imagine, are very biased in this discussion)
zachariah wrote:
A good friend of mine uses the principles of biological evolution in his job, every day, to help us find oil for our SUVs. He looks at the microfossils contained in the layers of sediment that they sample. Knowing how species change over time (”evolve”), he builds a 3-D map of how the layers are curved and therefore helps predict where oil might be found.
The issues here are being completely missed by all of you.
This not about which Theory is right or wrong.
This about the freedom to express what an individual believes without being
ostracized.
Its one thing to let an individual speak his or her piece (Publicly, and in classrooms) then go on to show why the evidence doesn’t support there case.
This is fine and really the best way to forward this issue.
Its another to threaten,take away livelihood or humiliate their character in order to discredit them.
Either way, Evolution or Creationism/Intelligent design should be brought to the front and discussed as a together with the world as witness.
As it stands now, neither the evolutionists really understand the creationists and the creationist doesn’t seem to understand evolution.
This lack of understanding is passed down into the general public who really don’t
have chance in hell (pardon the pun) of actually getting any truth whatsoever.
A worldwide nationally televised event should be held.
The best of both camps should get their evidence and intellectual guns ready.
No time limit.
test,
I don’t think the allusion to the concentration camps is a reference to the oppression of scientists who question Darwinism. Instead, I think it is a reference to a form of “natural” selection. It’s a sick thought, for sure, and is anything but natural, but I’ve heard a handful of people bring up similar ideas. I don’t know if I’d consider “anything that results in someone’s death” as natural selection or not — sometimes it just seems like humanity’s unfortunate loss — but that may be the background for such thought.
Disease control and research is very much based on biological evolution.
“Test4echo Mar 3rd, 2008 at 5:08 pm
The issues here are being completely missed by all of you.
This not about which Theory is right or wrong.
This about the freedom to express what an individual believes without being
ostracized.
Its one thing to let an individual speak his or her piece (Publicly, and in classrooms) then go on to show why the evidence doesn’t support there case.
This is fine and really the best way to forward this issue.
Its another to threaten,take away livelihood or humiliate their character in order to discredit them.”
Scientists are free to speak their piece and show evidence. The problem is that ID has no evidence or even a theory to present. If someone looses their job it is because they are a poor scientist, not because they support ID and it’s ilk. And by the way, science does not work on the basis of popularity. If it did there would be a lot of support in academia for those water-to-gas pills.
First, Travis, I still don’t get what the Holocaust has to do with Darwin. It’s possible to argue that the Nazis believed in some twisted and diabolical form of “survival of the fittest.” But I don’t see what place Holocaust imagery and allusion has in a film about intelligent design and the alleged silencing of academics sympathetic to its claims.
Second . . .
Test4echo: people who like the idea of intelligent design have every opportunity to speak their mind and publish their views and argue their point. The web is overflowing with websites arguing the merits of intelligent design. But, as many of the posts here have pointed out, scientific journals are in no way obligated to give intelligent design equal space alongside evolution. And the reason is that, by every measure, intelligent design does not meet even the most rudimentary requirements to be considered a legitimate scientific theory. It’s not a verifiable theory, and so it’s not science in the modern sense of the term.
So the point is not whether intelligent design is right or wrong. People are free to believe whatever they wish. The difference with evolution is that it doesn’t matter what you “believe.” There’s so much evidence supporting the idea that it’s long achieved the status of objective truth. Some people may not like the implications of natural selection and invent alternate “theories” like intelligent design to counter those implications, but none of that matters. Natural selection happens whether we like it or not. There’s no getting around that.
I think its time for people to go way beyond all the who’s right and who’s wrong… Its time to realize there are no hard facts in life and no real answer to where we came from… atleast nothing that can be said as cold hard truth. The point is we are all people all trying to figure this whole world out. we’er all looking for the same thing and its time we repect that, otherwise we’er no better than the spanish and their inquasition or the Nazis, trying to force people to beleive in what they want. Dont think of Jesus as a God but as a person spreading the one things we are capable of…Love for One Another. Its time we realize that theres no use in fighting over this, cause neither side can prove anything for sure. but if your gonna get up in front of a bunch of people and try to tell them something and sell it as truth then u better be ready to answer a million+ questions and be absolutley ready to back it all up otherwise it might as well just stayed in your head. Like the Great Dr. Timothy Leary once said… “Think For Yourself and Question Authority”
Test4echo said
The issues here are being completely missed by all of you.
This not about which Theory is right or wrong.
This about the freedom to express what an individual believes without being
ostracized.
It IS about what theory is right or wrong. Actually it is about what theory is best able to explain the observed facts and predict future observations. There are no absolutes in science. If you put forth a theory that goes against the conventional wisdom then you can expect to be criticized. If you are right then it doesn’t matter. As the facts add up it will eventually sway the critics. But if you put forth a theory like ID that doesn’t explain observations and doesn’t make any useful predictions you will never change the conventional wisdom. As Jeremy said, evolution explains the overwhelming number observed facts and has always successfully predicted new discoveries. It is simply rock solid. Modern genetics have fit perfectly into evolutionary theory, reinforcing it by explaining mechanisms of mutation. Evolution can be observed in short time spans on the genetic level through drug resistance. There simply is no question in the minds of anyone who works in fields of biology to the soundness of evolutionary theory. If someone has a theory that explains as much as the theory of natural selection they will be hailed as geniuses. Unfortunately no such theory exists. Simply saying “God did it!” may be a naive explanation but doesn’t predict any future observations. As hard as the Wells’, Behes, Dembskis, Meyers, Simmons’, et al try they just can’t come up with any useful predictions. Simply put, if you espouse a bad theory you can expect to be ostracized. That’s the way it works. If you espouse a theory, you had better have the facts to back it up.
There is abundent proof of evolution, but not of any particular mechanism driving it. There is little proof that natural selection is that mechanism, and plenty of good reasons for thinking it is not. Robert Reid details some of its problems in “Biological Emergences,” I do my bit in “Save Our Selves from Science Gone Wrong: Physicalism and Natural Selection.” Not one assertion of natural selection survives close scrutiny.
Natural selection is being used as a front for scientific determinism. This is a creed, and advocacy of this creed is entirely the opposite of science. Science should not be taking sides on the issue of whether we are or are not capable of consciously arriving at and carrying out our own decisions. “Expelled…” does take advantage of this lapse in science, but it is the existence of this lapse that should concern people, not that a movie has chosen to exploit it. Disatisfaction with the movie does not absolve science of a little “soul searching”-read “self” for “soul.”
Shaun Johnston wrote:
“There is abundent proof of evolution, but not of any particular mechanism driving it. There is little proof that natural selection is that mechanism, and plenty of good reasons for thinking it is not.”
Now we’re getting into the more sophisticated lies. There is a half-truth here because it’s true that natural selection isn’t the only “mechanism” driving evolution. Some other mechanisms are symbiosis and developmental biology (or what PZ Myers calls “evo/devo”):
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2006/01/hemichordate_evodevo.php
That’s not a complete list, but its enough to make my point: symbiosis and evo/devo are naturalistic physical phenomena too. The various mechanisms mix together to shape the life around us and it is a mistake to focus on just one and call that evolution.
When Shaun Johnston writes: “Natural selection is being used as a front for scientific determinism,” he is probably denying the very naturalism science is based on. The term “scientific determinism” is what Einstein had in mind when he said “God does not play dice with the Universe” but he was thinking of quantum mechanics and its introduction of randomness and statistical methods which is a different kind of undermining of determinism, it’s not absolute, it doesn’t deny determinism where it works and it works with evolution in all its known mechanisms.
Natural selection is indeed a rather deterministic concept; nature determines which organisms will successfully breed and produce the next, somewhat altered, generation, but symbiosis and evo/devo are also just as deterministic and not independent of the effects of natural selection.
An example of the powerful influence of symbiosis on life is Mitochondria. Mitochondria are a product of symbiosis, more specifically, endosymbiosis (google “endosymbiosis, mitochondria” to learn more). Mitochondria used to be a primitive organism that lived independently but then they took up residence in other cells and evolved into a specialized organelle inside our cells. Their DNA is separate from the DNA that mixes when when we have sex and almost all Mitochondria come from our mothers.
However, the big lie from Shaun Johnston is the claim natural selection is unproven. Natural selection is a proven mechanism that works with the others. We have genetic algorithms and evolutionary programming (google the terms “genetic algorithms” and “evolutionary programming” if you don’t know them).
Sorry that this is not a complete argument, but do a little research and you can put it together on your own.
It’s not that Expelled has chosen to take advantage of a lapse in science, it’s that Expelled is trying to pass off religion as science.
You don’t see wishful thinking and personal wants dominating other areas. No one ever says, “I believe 2+2=5 and I demand equal time to debate my theory.” Or something like, “I believe Alaska is actually in the middle of the Indian Ocean. Instead of offering proof of my belief, I’m going to poke holes in your evidence that it’s actually on the Bering Sea.”
Science follows the facts no matter where they may lead. Creationism has the destination in mind and only gives credit to anything that remotely supports it’s belief.
Why else then would the Discovery Institute spend more time attacking widely accepted scientific theories than providing honest evidence of it’s own?
The point here is that at this point in time evolution is the only idea with any evidence. it has vastly more evidence than any other theory out there. intelligent design has ZERO evidence. it’s all opinions. opinions that can never be proven or disproven in any way, shape or form. if intelligent design proponents want to discuss intelligent design in a scientific forum, then I say they need to find evidence of such. coming up with generally worthless arguments against evolution DOESN’T make ID correct. if I told you my method of transportation is not a four-wheeled vehicle, that doesn’t make it a motorcycle or a bike. if you want to prove ID correct, you need to do exactly that, NOT attempt to disprove evolution. the fact of the matter is scientists generally don’t care about ideas that lack proof, and you will get laughed at for trying to spread ideas with no proof as science. this happens to ideas other than ID. it’s time for the ID people to get over it already. when they come back with actual scientific evidence (something MORE than “it’s complex looking, so god must have made it”) then I’d be willing to bet my paycheck that scientists will sit down and listen to what they have to say.
Good for you Jeremy.
Tell it like it is.
ID is not science.
.
SCIENCE IS NOT OPEN TO DEBATE FROM NON-SCIENTISTS - SORRY - YOUR OPINIONS DO NOT COUNT.
If you have a novel idea that is going to set the accepted science on its ear you need to get in there and mix it up with the people best able to critique that idea. If it gets shot down, too bad. Even a wrong idea, approached honestly, can add to the sum total of human knowlege. But these “Design Theorists” don’t even try. They’d rather write press releases, lean on politicians and school boards, write science fiction novels, make movies and cry persecution. All the hallmarks of crank science.
Dave:
That’s not entirely true. Science is always open to debate. You don’t have to be a trained scientist to raise legitimate questions about science. The point is that the argument that intelligent design should be taught alongside evolution as a legitimate, alternate explanation of the diversity of life on earth doesn’t make sense because intelligent design is not an evidence-based, scientific theory. Intelligent design is a theology with roots stretching back thousands of years in theological discourse. But as a science it doesn’t hold up. That’s why, as many people here have pointed out, those who attempt to position ID as science are either ignored or dismissed by the scientific community.
“When Shaun Johnston writes: ‘Natural selection is being used as a front for scientific determinism,’ he is probably denying the very naturalism science is based on.”
Yes, I am. Positivism forbid taking conscious mind into account in the procedures of science. Very proper; science had no methods appropriate for studying it. But this is procedural, it does not mean that conscious mind does not exist, only that science must not take it into account. You cannot then, because science ends up having nothing to say about conscious mind, claim that proves mind does not exist. That would be turning a procedural restriction into a “fact” proved by science. There is no other proof that mind does not exist, only argument and conviction, eg faith.
Consider this: let’s put everything physical in the world in a box and label it matter and physical processes. There should be nothing else, nothing outside the box. But where do you put the definition of this set? It cannot be in the box, it is not itself material. So we create another box for it, a set of sets and whatever’s involved in creating sets. … (through more argument) we find all of science in that second box.
Now we have two boxes, one of material things, the other of meanings that apply to things in the first box. … (through more argument) we find all of conscious experience, eg ideas, belong in the second box.
Can things in that second box affect the things in the first box? Sure. Look how science and technology have changed the face of the planet. Now consider how items in that second box, that so changed the physical world, evolved. You can no longer limit your science to Positivism or physicalism because by definition those are limitations adopted by science, not truths about the world, and the very thing you want to study the evolution of lies beyond their reach.
That is, is it likely that a procedure such as natural selection, which is purely physical and belongs solely in the first box, can act on items in the second box to select for them, such as the mental talent of developing scientific procedures? I’ve seen no one attempt to prove it can. In fact, what natural selection was so celebrated for was the absolute exclusion of mind from its operation.
This is not true of sexual selection which does involve, for example, the mind of the female peahen, which is supposedly beyond the reach of natural selection, so a liking for near-lethal features in male display can persist despite it reducing the fitness of the peahen’s progeny.
An evolutionary mechanism that omits means of evolving conscious decision-making is grossly incomplete. When such a mechanism is found it may be found to apply widely. Then we will see that clinging to natural selection as the primary mechanism in evolution has been blinding evolutionary science to its proper study.
No creationism here. Humanism. Atheism. Unless you predicate atheism too on what you refer to as “naturalism”—scientific determinism. (Darwin is referred to as a “naturalist.” Do you think that meant he was a scientific determinist?)
Being an atheist should not demand subscription to an unproved faith in scientific determinism.
“However, the big lie from Shaun Johnston is the claim natural selection is unproven.”
John Maynard Smith in a 1989 essay titled “The Limitations of Evolutionary Theory” admits “mutation” can’t be measured: “It is possible to measure mutation rates in very special circumstances in some microorganisms…. But in most situations, mutation rates cannot be measured….”
It not just mutation evolutionists can’t measure. They can’t measure “selection” or migration between populations. Of these Smith says: “Thus we have three processes which we believe to determine the course of evolution, and we have a mathematical theory which tells us that these processes can produce their effects at levels we cannot usually hope to measure directly. It is as if we had a theory of electromagnetism but no means of measuring current or magnetic force…. It means that we can think up a number of possible evolutionary mechanisms, but find it difficult to decide on the relative importance of the different mechanisms we have conceived…”
“If the mutation rate is doubled, does this double the maximum rate at which a species can evolve?” The question has no simple and agreed answer, he says. “But my reason for raising the question….was to make the point that a theory of evolution which cannot predict the effect of doubling of one of the major parameters of the process leaves something to be desired.”
Summing up he says, “It is rarely possible in evolutionary theory to think of a single decisive experiment or observation that will settle a controversy.”
I think this, from probably the ultimate authority on the subject in our time, does povide sufficient basis for the claim that natural selection is unproven.
jeremyshere wrote:
“That’s not entirely true. Science is always open to debate. You don’t have to be a trained scientist to raise legitimate questions about science.”
Debate, yes. Lies and obfuscations, no.
Now consider the inverse proposition: imagine me telling the pope that Catholicism must accept the alternative view that God doesn’t exist. It wouldn’t be Catholicism any more. And science would not be science without naturalism and its scientific methods. One of the things that came out during the Dover trial was when Behe admitted that his new definition of science would make astrology a science.
Shaun Johnston wrote:
“John Maynard Smith in a 1989 essay titled “The Limitations of Evolutionary Theory” admits “mutation” can’t be measured: “It is possible to measure mutation rates in very special circumstances in some microorganisms…. But in most situations, mutation rates cannot be measured….””
That smells like quote mining (finding quotes one can take of context), but even if it’s not today we’ve got some pretty good ideas about mutation rates. It leads to ideas like the Mitochondrial Clock:
http://www.mhrc.net/mitochondria.htm
And that was certainly said before the new gene sequencing technologies came on line.
I haven’t got time to take all that apart and show the errors, I’ve got a dentist appointment soon. However, a few quick notes on things that smell fishy:
“Yes, I am. Positivism forbid taking conscious mind into account in the procedures of science. Very proper; science had no methods appropriate for studying it.”
Oh really? What about artificial intelligence? What about neuroscience?
“You cannot then, because science ends up having nothing to say about conscious mind, claim that proves mind does not exist.”
Marvin Minsky calls consciousness a “suitcase term.”:
http://edge.org/3rd_culture/minsky/index.html
“No modern technological advances are due to biological evolution or any other kind of evolution.”
Utter crap - look up genetic/evolutionary algorithms used in computer aided design processes for a start. It’s also important to agricultural practice, epidemiological studies, bioinformatics and drug discovery.
To say that evolutionary biology has contributed nothing to our advancement is just ignorance at best, lies at worst. The examples above are just a tiny, tiny handful of its contributions.
On the flipside, then check what ID/creationism has contributed to our advancement. Absolutely nothing, that’s what.
Back from the dentist — wanted to correct an error.
I wrote:
That smells like quote mining (finding quotes one can take of context), but even if it’s not today we’ve got some pretty good ideas about mutation rates. It leads to ideas like the Mitochondrial Clock:
And then I provided this link:
http://www.mhrc.net/mitochondria.htm
Sorry, it looked okay at first, but I saw it was a creationist site with a bit of bogus information folded into the real information.
These might help:
http://naturalselection.0catch.com/Files/dnamutationrates.html
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/summary/279/5347/28?andorexacttitleabs=or&tdate=6%2F30%2F2007&HITS=20&sortspec=relevance&hits=20&fdate=7%2F1%2F1880&andorexacttitle=or&maxtoshow=&andorexactfulltext=phrase&FIRSTINDEX=0&fulltext=Calibrating+the+Mitochondrial+Clock&resourcetype=HWCIT&searchid=1&RESULTFORMAT=
Intelligent Design has the most extensive research program in the entire world going for it: it’s called Science. If there is willful design to be found in nature, science will discover it. Their best bet would be to jump in and participate.
what makes this such a heated debate is that it really has nothing to do with whether ID is “correct” and everything to do with whether evolution is false. obviously, it would be very reasonable to assume that even with a “creator” evolution can still take place. so why do the ID people hate evolution so much? because they are so obviously vested in religion, NOT in ID itself. ID is a front for making the statements in the bible legitimate, an attempt at proving evolution wrong, for it evolution is right, the account of creation in the bible is a lie. ID has nothing to do with a creator, they put forward zero information on why there must be a creator other than “this is pretty complex” and put forward mountains of information (mostly BS) about why they think evolution is wrong. ID is so obviously not being used as a means of explaining the universe that it’s really quite humorous. if there IS a creator, who gives a toss if evolution is correct? how does proof of there simply being a creator, ANY creator translate into “evolution is false”?? this is not about whether there IS a creator, this is about WHICH creator there is.
Anyone with a modicum of good sense would want to be wary of anybody comparing antyhing to the Holocaust/Nazism, other than another mass genocide.
Besides, it’s kind of a canard - just because a bad person/people likes/like an idea, it doesn’t make that idea wrong or intrinsically bad either - you have to judge the idea on its own merit. As a friend of mine is fond of saying “I’m sure Hitler liked indoor plumbing too” - in short, it can still be a good idea or true fact even if it’s misappropriated or misused.
But basically, the film’s egregious use of holocaust imagery is abhorrent to me, especially if they’re tyring to have a debate about the merits of their theory.
I also get a little twitchy when anyone poses a “conspiracy” of anything. It’s hard enough to get a room full of biologists to agree on lunch. It seems unlikely that there’s somehow a worldwide cabal of biologists working in secret to supress academic dissent. Most of the ones I know seem to have a difficult enough time managing their own daily schedules. Honestly, of all the many biologists I know - and having worked in the medical tech industry for several years, it’s a fair number - I don’t know any one of them that would shun the opportunity to discuss ID. Big Science isn’t a conspiracy to shut down ID, it’s just that so far their arguments aren’t convincing enough for these scientists to spend a lot of time on it.
There are numerous problems with ID as a theory which have yet to be addressed before it has a place in science. A big one right now is that it’s presented as a dichotomy with evolution. That is, if evolution is incorrect or flawed, then ID has to be right. This isn’t the case, since they could both be wrong. ID needs to demonstrate (and do it repeatedly) why they’re right, not just why evolution is wrong. ID also needs to demonstrate some form of predictability, which is going to be difficult based on the theory’s own predicate of extra-natural intervention. If these things can be demonstrated with a convincing amount of experimental or paleo/geological evidence, then I don’t see a problem with ID. Right now, though, they haven’t demonstrated much that’s convincing, since their big examples of blood clotting cascades and bacterial flagella can be shown to be evolutionarily possible, not irreducibly complex.
I listened to an extended introduction to the movie by one of it’s producers last week.
The producers have no quibble with evolution theory. In fact, if ID exists at all, it may have simply put the wheels of evolution into motion. Hence, Darwinian theory need not fall.
The movie seeks to explore why allowing a forum for a another opinion should lead to such severe personal and career consequences.
Instead, why not let the controversial theories surface, and then if warranted, let the the collective intellectual pummeling begin. What would be better than such a public dressing down to exhibit the open minded nature of the scientific community and the folly of those who would come to the table unprepared, poorly qualified and unsupported.
I’m old enough to recall an elementary school classmate looking at the blackboard pull-down world map and inquiring as to whether the continents were once part of a larger land mass. Of course, at the time, the weight of scientific opinion weighed against such a possibility.
But what was the harm in asking?
Dave asks:
“But what was the harm in asking?”
The Discovery Institute isn’t just asking, their spending millions on public relations to promote ID and attack science.
Dave:
The point is that ID proponents do have a forum to express their views. In fact, they have multiple forums–on film, in print, on TV, on the web, blogs, etc. There’s no lack of information out there about ID and what it stands for. But when it comes to teaching ID in schools alongside or as an alternate to evolution, that just doesn’t work because, they are of an entirely different ilk. Evolution is science, ID is theology. And it’s not as though controversial theories are never given a platform. Academe is teeming with strange, weird and controversial theories of all stripes. But not all are given equal hearing. It depends entirely on how convincing a given theory is. From a scientific perspective, ID is not at all convincing because there’s no way to test its veracity. So the intellectual pummeling, such as it is, is hardly necessary.
Shaun Johnston– I’m having a hard time finding the Smith article that you’re refering to.
http://publishing.royalsociety.org/media/bio_mems/Maynard Smith biblio.pdf
According to this bibliography, it was not published in 1989, as you say, but in 1977, as a part of a book entitled “The Encyclopaedia of Ignorance.” A Google Books search shows that the book does contain the limitations essay. Reviews of this book are also being hard to find.
http://books.google.com/books?id=HqUwAAAAMAAJ&dq=encyclopaedia of ignorance&q=”limitations of evolutionary theory”&pgis=1
Taking into account the error on the year of the article, I’m less than inclined to believe that the quotation accurately represents what is known about mutation rates, or what was known in 1977. A bit more googling for citations of the limitations essay brings up a few pieces that seem to contradict your main point:
This paper seems to suggest that Smith would not “admit that mutation can’t be measured.” In fact, the paper cites a claim that mutation rates would have to naturally drift closer to zero; in order to test that claim, you need a way to measure the rate of mutation.
http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=cBnBp_ORBW8C&oi=fnd&pg=PA37&dq=John Maynard Smith “the limitations of evolutionary theory”&ots=7aiVxvbjOh&sig=INHTkQ6v0ZnLFcx-96EWZWhggHY#PPA38,M1
These are the Google results for citations of the essay you’re citing.
http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&lr=&cites=9909268227275985306
The first article is the one above. The second and third seem to be available only as abstracts, but do not look like they’re going to say that mutation rates can’t be measured: “We next allow the mutation rate itself to evolve, and we observe that evolving mutation rates adapt to values at this transition. Furthermore, the mutation rates adapt up (or down) as the evolutionary demands for novelty (or memory) increase, thus supporting the balance hypothesis.” The fourth page is a humanities article, and the fifth and last link does not work.
Interestingly, a good number of the Google results for the Smith essay are pieces that you’ve written. I admit, I was entertained. You complain that steam trains were just coming around when the theory of natural selection was developed: What to make, then, of heliocentricism? Copernicus worked just about a century after the invention of the printing press!
http://evolvedself.com/blog/?page_id=9
But, I digress. You still have not provided evidence that natural selection is unproven. Your claim that it’s impossible to measure mutation rates is a dubious one. Even if all we could do was produce a rough observation that, say, HIV will tend to evolve more quickly than people do, it would not make proof for natural selection impossible. It’s just the differential survival and reproductive success of individuals better adapted to their present environment. For direct examples, I’ll offer, here, the classic pepper moths, bacterial resistance to antibiotics (certainly, you have heard the news about H5N1 Avian Flu, or MRSA?), insect resistance to pesticides, the presence of the human hemoglobin variant that, in a homozygote, confers sickle cell anemia, but in a heterozygote, confers resistance to malaria, and a similar effect for the gene that causes cystic fibrosis in providing resistance to cholera.
http://www.biology.duke.edu/rausher/lec6_05.html
http://www.cdc.gov/drugresistance/
http://sickle.bwh.harvard.edu/malaria_sickle.html
http://discovermagazine.com/1995/mar/hiddenbenefits485
Ben Stein knows his economic theory. His credentials as a scientist are as formadable as Al Gore’s and since Al Gore has no formal science training!
Maynard Smith included the essay I referred to in a collection of his essays published in 1989 under the title, “Did Darwin Get it Right?” Presumably he thought it was still true enough to include it then. That’s 130 years after publication of “The Orgin of Species” and less than 20 years ago, so it’s relatively recent.
Natural selection is, as Darwin said, similar to artificial selection. With each generation progeny are divided into two groups–those that do get to reproduce, and those that don’t. Such a division can select for only one or a couple of factors with 100% accuracy, and only if the process is 100% efficient. In fact it’s very inefficient. So it doesn’t have much selective power, much less than artificial selection. It just isn’t a process capable of generating novelty (even with mutation), or of keeping entropy at bay. For that it would need to be able to select for millions of features at once with 100% efficency.
It just doesn’t work. Fisher’s statitics is built on at least three misapprehensions. Fisher was not a biologist, he screwed up. But as Maynard Smith points out, evoutionary theory is not capable of revealing that because it is so deficient. So natural selection survives on faith.
One can be good scientist and still not believe in natural selection. Is that true, or not? If not, what makes natural selection different from other theories?
The distant scratching and thumping sounds you hear, Shaun, are made by John Maynard Smith frantically clawing his way out of his grave and lurching toward your neighborhood in order to bop you on the head with a copy of Fisher’s “The Genetical Theory of Natural Selection.”
Evolution is not a theory on the origin of life.
People have the right to talk about Intelligent Design as long as TAX-PAYERS aren’t paying for it to be taught in a PUBLIC school. Teach it in a private or home school, just leave it out of the public tax-payer funded schools. That’s what our Constitution states clearly.
Shaun Johnston wrote:
“Natural selection is, as Darwin said, similar to artificial selection. With each generation progeny are divided into two groups–those that do get to reproduce, and those that don’t. Such a division can select for only one or a couple of factors with 100% accuracy, …”
What? Why? It selects for thousands of factors simultaneously in the real world.
“…and only if the process is 100% efficient. In fact it’s very inefficient. So it doesn’t have much selective power, much less than artificial selection. It just isn’t a process capable of generating novelty (even with mutation), or of keeping entropy at bay. For that it would need to be able to select for millions of features at once with 100% efficency.”
You seriously don’t get it.
If natural selection doesn’t work, then why do genetic algorithms work? Why does evolutionary programming work? They’ve been mentioned a couple times here and if you know what they were you wouldn’t have said what you said.
Here, read this:
http://kk.org/outofcontrol/ch15-d.html
And then explain to me how Danny Hillis managed to evolve software routines if selectionism doesn’t work.
If natural selection doesn’t work, then how do genetic algorithms work?
http://www.ai-junkie.com/ga/intro/gat1.html
How is it we can model the selection processes evolution uses, the same combination of selection, recombination and mutation, to evolve a solution to a problem, to design new radar, create software etc.. ??
Hate to nit-pick after such a lovely post…
1) E=MC^2 has been shown to be inaccurate.
2) A scientific conclusion can be correct, but the scientist can never be certain of it. See: Fallibilism, C.S. Peirce.
3) Darwin has only been shown to be correct in the origination of -species-, and only by inductive results. Weak at best.
4) ID does not necessitate the Christian God.
5) Based on infinite probability and time, anything can happen right? Infinite probability, space, time, possibilities… God is possible, therefore exists. Same logic.
—
In other words, best not to assume that Darwin (or anyone for that matter) was spot-on; that would be impeding the scientific method. “Question everything, holding onto the good.” So, then, why -not- ID? Lack of evidence?
We have no evidence of GUT particles. Would it be wrong to say they exist? How about “the missing link” (yeah, i know thats a phony-bologna idea, but work with me here)?
Stein’s movie does not say Darwin is wrong, nor does it say Creationism is right; it merely says that scientists should be not only allowed to study ID, but also ENCOURAGED to do so, in the name of science. Science is, after all, the search for truth, for truth’s sake.
Cory:
I believe you’re incorrect in regards to E=MC^2, perhaps if you cited your sources…
Darwin’s theory has masses of evidence and is practically considered fact by the scientific community. you might try reading up on evolution here: http://www.answers.com/evolution?cat=technology
nobody said ID necessitated a christian god, but there sure seems to be an awful lot of christians pushing ID. in fact, I have never met an ID supporter who was not christian. this also brings us to the reason ID supporters dislike evolution and spend more time attempting to disprove it rather than proving their own theory: if evolution is correct, then that means we descended from apes, which also means we did not descend from adam and eve as the bible says. ID supporters attack evolution not because they think it’s wrong, but because they’re afraid it’s right. evolution has no bearing on the existence of god in and of itself: who’s to say evolution isn’t part of god’s great mysterious plan? evolution does not disprove god in general, it would however disprove a fairly beloved section of the bible, which in turn would cast doubt on the bible’s legitimacy.
and nobody IS assuming that darwin was “spot on” the issue here is that there is not a single other theory out there that explains what evolution explains AND has sufficient evidence, in fact, ANY evidence. it amazes me when ID supporters complain that they are not given the time of day by scientists: it’s because ID is NOT science. when you’ve come up with some SCIENTIFIC evidence for ID, then I guarantee you the scientists will listen.
you might ask yourself why ID supporters won’t consider evolution, or perhaps why all religions consider every other religion wrong. it’s all in the same vein as far as I can tell.
Where does what we used to call “free will” fit into this discussion? Has it become part of the “supernatural?” I ask defenders of Darwinism, do you regard defenders of “free will” as part of the ID movement, functionally the same as creationists?
What is “free will” now called? Has it shrunk to become an academic specialty inside philosophy of mind?
Shaun Johnston asked:
“Where does what we used to call ‘free will’ fit into this discussion?”
“Free will” is a religious concept and it never had a basis in science anymore than the concept of the “soul” had. It was pretty much invented by theologians to give a metaphysical justification to the judgment by the gods. It was invented, in fact, to manipulate your “not-so-free” will long before Christianity existed.
Law and science inherited the concept in order to explain the notion of personal responsibility. For example, the law will distinguish between a case where someone is compelled to do something and the case where someone does something of his own free will. Such as if I put a gun to your head and insist you to sign a contract giving me all your money. You are not signing of your own “free will.” You are being compelled to sign. In that case you are not responsible for fulfilling its terms. But if you sign a contract of any sort without being forced, then you’re legally bound by it if all the other terms are legal and there is no deception.
However, there are other ways to support the notion of personal responsibility without resorting to metaphysical/theological concepts like free will. In the end the concept of free will is too vaporous for science to get a handle on.
Google social psychologist “Daniel Wegner, free will” to see where the scientific status of free will is.
Let all the question be asked. Let’s start with first things first. How did life being? It dosn’t matter which camp your in,you have to agree it was super in nature. No matter how you slice it, you don’t get life from non-life. Why shouldn’t the hard questions be asked in a live public forum. My only conclusion is if you had something to hide you would not want a public forum. So let’s all keep asking the hard questions. The truth will come out. I believe that’s what Ben is saying. “I’m just asking”
PZ Myers, a biologist and associate professor at the University of Minnesota, was interviewed for the film. He and other professionals in related fields were misled by the filmmakers as to the purpose of the film, and their quotes taken out of context. Myers’ excellent blog “Pharyngula” has taken the film and its makers to task in several entries.
The first was from way back in August of 2007:
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/im_gonna_be_a_movie_star.php
And an excellent one from February 2008 recounting its “ahistorical garbage”:
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2008/02/ahistorical_garbage_from_the_p.php
There are links galore in his posts that will lead readers down the path that these unscrupulous Un-Intelligent Design propagandists will go to fulfill their mission. The sources to which he links are often oters who were misled into giving edited-to-silliness interviews or those who have seen the film.
As for the dismissal of professors in academia for their ID stance, somewhere in the cloud of Myers’ links is an honest account of why they were released It had nothing to do with ID. I put this forward without a reference because I am unable to locate the exact site at the moment. Please research for yourself and give Mr. Myers a glance. It’s worth it.
Norman, thank you, I was afraid I’d find no proponents of the thesis that science denies free will. Your exposition couldn’t be clearer.
I see us as invested in such different sets of terms and values that discussion is impossible. What I can state, as a fact, is that defending free will is a position distinct from both from Positivist science and religion. It is both logically possible and true in fact, since I hold that position. As you say, free will has its origin quite separate from religion.
My local humanist group is split on the issue of free will. Half the members believe that free will and the conscious self are no longer part of humanism. But note that half think the opposite. The issue is not yet clear-cut.
Norman, I know there is little return for you in reading expressons of my opinion, since we draw on such different traditions. But, FYI, here http://www.opednews.com/maxwrite/diarypage.php?did=6484 I have posted an attack on the Darwinian attack on free will. I compare Darwinism to Calvinism, where a self-selected elite tries to impose its views on others. What you see as “truth” I see as political opportunism.
I find it intriguing that people believe the acceptance of what essentially is fact (this fact being evolution) constitutes a movement or faith of some sort, deserving its own name: Darwinism. Folks, accepting the mass of evidence and support behind evolution is not the same as “accepting” Jesus. Acknowledging evolution is not a faith or a movement. There is no such thing as Darwinism. It is a ridiculous thing to treat the acceptance of evolution as truth, and science in general, as a form of faith or religion. There is more to life than religion, not everything must be explained in terms of a deity, or belief system. There are many things that just are. Such as gravity. Gravity IS. There is no reason why gravity IS, it just IS. There is no such thing as Gravitism, just as there is no such thing as Darwinism.
Zeph, I sense some exasperation in your post. To be absolutely clear, I say this:
First, I am not religious at all. I am scientifically inclined and informed.
Second, to me Darwinism IS faith. It is faith like believing there’s a prime mover behind the stars making them rotate around us once a day. Exactly like that. With as little basis to it as that. But as hard to disprove. I can’t prove natural selction isn’t what drives evolution. But it seems unlikely. It’s not got enough horsepower to do the job. My judgment is, natural selection doesn’t work. Anyone who claims it does is stepping beyond the bounds of scientific proof.
Evolution is fact, I agree. But to prove which mechanism is its primary driver is another matter.
Natural selection must work to some extent, surviving creatures are going to be more fit on average than non-survivors, that is a truism. But does that make more than a trivial contribution to evolution? I see no proof that it does. And I see no way for anyone to prove it does.
Since evolution on the scale of species evolving cannot be run in the laboratory, except in the trivial sense of single chemical changes induced over weeks or months, there is no way of isolating the primary mechanism for driving evolution, say, since what’s observed in the Burgess shale, or in the evolution of whales from land animals.
Proof of evolution is not proof of natural selection. It is only proof that there’s a mechanism of some kind that, as part of the process, makes for adaptation. It’s hard to imagine that any process of evolution wouldn’t.
Accepting Darwinism is similar to accepting Jesus. It’s a leap of faith. There is not anywhere near enough proof that it is the primary mechanism behind evolution. What is quoted as evidence is wishful thinking.
Just because it’s the only mechanism proposed does not make it correct.
NJ refers to creationists as “nut-jobs”. May I respectfully ask what NJ stands for? Remember the saying “Sticks and stones may break my bones, but words will never hurt me”? It’s odd that critics of Creationism more often than not resort to denigration and name-calling!
Shaun, I agree with you, evolution is an unproven theory. That’s why it is not a fact. We hear from evolutionary scientist, we think, we believe, it’s possible. They go on axioms, assumptions and persumptions. Science is observable, testable and repeatable. that’s why science can not prove it as a fact. As far as mutations go, they are error’s in the reproduction of the genetic code. Even D.D. conceded ID in Ben’s trailer, but would’t dare entertain the thought, that it could be God. Faith is not needed to believe that Jesus Christ exsisted, as he split time, BC. and AD.(anno domini) which some revisionists are trying to change to B.C.E and C.E. You can’t say Christ never exsisted, because of all the historical, archaeological and Genealogical evidence.This is were your Free Will comes into play, just because a trillion people believe or assume it to be true doesn’t make it so. It’s what you choose, or not. Christ was a real person in real time, that is a fact, Christ changed the world, that is a fact. Evolution is not. If want to do some real research (not just google it) trace the word Mankind back to all the culture’s of world you may fine it intersting, India, China, Persia, etc. You may not like your history, but it’s our’s
Yes, Christ’s mere existence split time! because we all know that they were calling it BC and AD even way back then.
there is actually a fair bit of evidence that natural selection is the driving force of evolution, this being one example: http://www.physorg.com/news11181.html There is not, however, a single drop of evidence for ID, nor is there any evidence, other than the bible, which suggests that anyone like jesus ever existed in a capacity greater than just a name.
I challenge anyone out there to provide me with 1 piece of evidence which supports ID, excluding religious texts and documents and attacks on evolution and natural selection (remember, we’re trying to PROVE ID not disprove evolution. disproving evolution has NO bearings on ID’s correctness). good luck, you’ll need it.
Dear Jay,
“Creationism (or ID) is not science. Therefore it does not belong in scientific classes, debates, journals etc. ”
If you study the art of political persuassion and the art or propaganda, as a compulsory course once forced me to, you will find that what you have done there is called “argument by assertion” and makes your “therefore” actually a non sequator.
Paul
Zeph
I challenge you to provide ONE piece of evidence for ‘molecules to man’ evolution or ONE example of a species changing into a DIFFERENT species. There, I’ve given you TWO chances! Remember, we’re trying to PROVE EVOLUTION, not disprove ID. Disproving ID has NO bearing on EVOLUTION’S correctness. Apparently, YOU don’t need luck!
Jeremy
Because I am a common-or-garden variety mathematician, not scientific boffin, can you please explain to me how evolutionist ’scientists’ actually TEST:
1. The spontaneous appearance of life from non-living matter?
2. The changing of one species into a DIFFERENT one?
If neither case is testable, then Evolution IS a religion - not science.
Thanks you for a few decent words, in the sea of prejudicial- ignorant- nonsense, written in reviews about this movie.
the attempt to mock dawkins when he talks about aliens is just pure demagogue.
all he tries to say is that intelligent design can’t explain anything, even if there was a designer to our planet, because he will have to have a designer for himself, etc.
how people rejoice when they try to go back to the dark ages, and embrace the ignorance with a smile.
why the hell people are like that? can’t they understand the simple difference between claiming that something is true, to actually trying to prove that it is so?
don’t they want to have answers, don’t they want to know the truth?
first of all, i want to apologize for the bad grammar. i live in Israel, and English is not my native language.
i just wanted to say something, I’m going mad over here, religion is such a taboo, you can’t even say something against it without being marked as a “traitor” or an immoral person.
this is so absurd. they get away with anything.. hating homosexuals, treating women like crap, censoring the media and preventing their children from reaching information about science. orthodox Jews over here don’t care if you are secular or not.. it’s a holy war, and they try to impose their way of life on everyone.
and the secular Jews aren’t really secular.. they embrace it as well, calling it tradition, and believe in whole bunch of superstitious nonsense, from chakrot, to “cold reading.”
so it all adds up to a a small group of scientist who develop wonderful things like television, that is later used in order to attack the same principles and people who developed it in the first place.
ok Keith,
here’s 5 pieces of evidence for the first question, yes they’re copied straight from Wikipedia, but there’s references and I’ve learned about all 5 through various courses of college level biology, so I consider them evidence.
1. Plausible pre-biotic conditions result in the creation of certain basic small molecules (monomers) of life, such as amino acids. This was demonstrated in the Miller-Urey experiment by Stanley L. Miller and Harold C. Urey in 1953.
2. Phospholipids (of an appropriate length) can spontaneously form lipid bilayers, a basic component of the cell membrane.
3. The polymerization of nucleotides into random RNA molecules might have resulted in self-replicating ribozymes (RNA world hypothesis).
4. Selection pressures for catalytic efficiency and diversity result in ribozymes which catalyse peptidyl transfer (hence formation of small proteins), since oligopeptides complex with RNA to form better catalysts. Thus the first ribosome is born, and protein synthesis becomes more prevalent.
5. Proteins outcompete ribozymes in catalytic ability, and therefore become the dominant biopolymer. Nucleic acids are restricted to predominantly genomic use.
and here’s a nice little site for the second question: http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/evo101/VC1fEvidenceSpeciation.shtml
I think a big misnomer is that since most evolution takes longer than a single human lifetime then we can’t gather evidence. sure it makes it difficult, but that doesn’t mean there’s no evidence.
again, I’d like to mention that even if evolution is disproved, that in no way, shape or form proves or even provides evidence for ID. if the ID people want to be taken seriously, they need to find evidence for their own “theory” before attacking a well established real scientific theory (which by the way does NOT mean “an idea we have”)
you’re certainly right that evolution does not postulate How life formed to begin with, which is what ID attempts to do. but evolution certainly played an integral part in shaping life from organic molecules to the complex life we see today. no scientist believes a mud puddle was struck by lightning and lo and behold we have life! that’s absurd, that’s what ID people think. the primeval soup theory is certainly possible, and is mentioned above. read about it. do research about it. most of the time the problem with ID and evolution boils down to the fact that most people have no idea what they’re talking about when talking about evolution. if you don’t understand something, research it, don’t make up a new theory to explain away what you don’t understand.
Zeph, I would think someone who hundreds of million followers, had his book on the best sellers list for over 1900 years and friends killed, because they wouldn’t deni him. I would call that more than a mere existence. Not to mention the War Historian Joesphus, remember history is written by the conquer. History, say it real slow. Zeph, you need to spend some time in the field doing research, rather than regurgitating lies that some other person has regurgitated. Sorry Zeph, you have it wrong, evolution is not a fact and they’ve been try to prove it for last two hundred years. What’s up with this Neo-Darwinin, was Chuck wrong. Here we gone again with the Axioms, assumptions and persumptions, “might have resulted in”. The Miller experiment was a joke, next you’ll be bringing up, E.Hackel’s embryo’s or the human homology or the whale evolution or dinosaurs to birds, ask Phil Currie about that one, so called expert. Name any of the so called Icon’s of evolution that’s been blown out of the water, but hey maybe in another TWO Hundred years will be able to prove evolution, if we use enough catch phrases like, IT’s Plausible, To The Best of Our Understanding and a fact will become anything you want it to be. (Educated beyond intelligence). Even Dick Dawkins concedes ID, just not by God, or maybe it was the gluten monster (ask Dick about his pet monster). Zeph, tell me why the Japanese are copying nature, could it be, because of it”s Design. Oh yes let’s talk about the DNA, which errors in the reproduction in the genetic code, which causes mutations, which is lose of genetic information. Oh ya, then there is the bacterial flagellum, “The evolutionary events linking flagella and T3SSs are not clear.” Tell ya what Zeph, You fine me a Evolutionist that like to debate, with Ph’D in any of the sciences and I will show you how to shake the foundation of their Faith in evolution to the core. It will be live with the camera’s rolling. We won’t need luck!
In the end it’s a pointless cause. If someone can’t look at the evidence and see the facts, then no amount of evidence will ever convince them. Gods and creators are so much more warm and fuzzy and easier to understand.
One must look at all the evidence, not just pick and choose!
“One must look at all the evidence, not just pick and choose!”
Alex, I’d like Irony for $1000 please.
Jay, Oh, I forgot your not bias. Your woulda, coulda, shoulda theory is a faith based religion, (aka evolutionism). Hey Jay, what’s up with this poll? “Only 13 percent believe in pure evolution” (Gallup poll, May 2006). Are you telling me Americans are dumb? I believe they smart, they can see a fraud when they see one. Do you know how of taxpayers money has been used to perpertrate this fraud? and how much more to cover it up and try and prove it. I guess their money wasn’t wasted on you, huh.
“Are you telling me Americans are dumb?”
Yes
“I believe they smart, they can see a fraud when they see one.”
Explain televangelism.
Do you know how of taxpayers money has been used to perpertrate this fraud? and how much more to cover it up and try and prove it.
Do you know how much taxes are spent perpetuating religion?
Paul: I can assert that Creationism (or ID) is not science without providing evidence as there currently is none. Science is not about having a belief then only looking for evidence that supports this belief and ignoring all other evidence. Science follows the evidence wherever it may take the scientist.
To date, creationism has provided zero credible scientific evidence.
HJ: The more you write, the more you prove that you really have no solid grasp of evolution. First, you claim that evolution is my theory. It is not mine. It is the current scientific theory which describes how observed changes in populations of organisms occur over time. Not only is evolution a scientific theory, it is a fact. The observed changes exist.
You also call “evolutionism” a religion. It is clearly not. Evolution makes no supernatural or moral claims. It does not require blind faith. It can change with new information. It has no mythology. Your claim is as silly as saying Gravitism or Atomic Theory are religions. It’s simply creationist rhetoric.
Next you use what Paul Norman might describe as the argument by consensus (or argumentum ad populum). Just because your poll states that only 13% of the population thinks evolution is true does not mean evolution is not true. The facts show it is true. This poll in fact says more about the lack of understanding of evolution by those polled. Do not project your way of thinking; that just because millions of people think Jesus is the son of god, with no evidence, means it’s true.
Zeph, It’s a lot like the archaeopteryx fossils, they so want to believe,they’re both frauds. I don’t subscribe to the blab it and grab it or the name it and claim it, (aka) the prosperity gospel, and bible doesn’t teach it. Zeph, you need to take to a lesson in economic’s. There’s a big difference between Tax Exempt and Funding Grants! Zeph, Every time people like you mouth off, you prove the Bible to be true. Thanks Zeph, for proving the Bible to be true!
Zeph, Can you tell me how life began, because Dick Dawkins can’t, he doesn’t have a clue how it started and he has admitted it many times. Name one in the fossil record, that proves your evolutionism to be true, this may help you, Dr Duane Gish, Ph.D., Biochemist, Berkeley Grad. 18 years biochemical research at Cornell University Medical College. Just show me one transitional fossil. I’m sorry evolution is a lie! Would you like to dispute, Dr. Walt Brown Ph.D., M.I.T, he taught college courses in physics, mathematics, and computer science. his tenure goes on and on. He was in too evolutionism most of his life. Try and dispute his book “In The beginning”. Try “Evolution: The Grand Experiment”, by Dr.Carl Werner degree in biology with distinction, graduating summa cum laude. Dr. Gary Parker Ph.D in biology with a cognate in geology (paleontology), elected to the national university scholastic honorary society Phi Beta Kappa. The list goes on and on. My point is that thousands of Scientist have turned from THE EVOLUTIONISM LIE! and became Creation Scientists not dispite of the facts but, because of the facts. I have yet to see, hear, or fine a Creation Scientist that has turned to embrace THE EVOLUTIONISM LIE!. Sorry their was but, it wasn’t because of the fact, he was made at God.
HJ:
no self-respecting scientist is claiming that evolution explains HOW life began. but it’s quite obvious that it played a major role in bringing the original single celled organisms on this planet to the states they’re in today. to this think that life simply appeared is quite ridiculous and is not anything that any scientific mind has postulated. ID portends to explain the origin of life and really has nothing to do with evolution. evolution merely supports the idea that life began extremely small and was able to evolve to a larger and more complex size. which is infinitely more believable than a whale popping into existence from nothingness. next you’ll be saying you’re bowl of petunias didn’t grow from a seed… “god” has yet to provide any evidence for his existence other than a 2,000 book of scrawling and a few assorted “miracles” evidenced by only second-hand accounts found within said book of scrawling. seems as though the good lord has taken a 2,000 year break, and until gets back in the game it’s purely absurd for me to believe that he could have created a universe. sorry, but there’s not an ounce of evidence supporting a creator, and just because we don’t fully understand how life was formed doesn’t mean I’m going to give up and go crying to god begging for an answer (nor does it mean evolution is wrong). and until you take the time to learn about evolution and how to form at least semi-proper sentences don’t expect replies to your stubbornness.
HJ: Even if the theory of evolution was completely found to be faulty by respectable scientists all around the world, that would not prove that creationism is true. Creationism has yet to provide any shred of scientific evidence in support of it’s idea.
Again, poking wholes in the current theory does not make a competing idea any more true.
Please explain why the Discovery Institute spends more time attacking the current theory than providing evidence for creationism. Also, if it was my personal belief that an invisible pink unicorn created the universe by shooting magic through her horn, and I got this information from a coloring book that claimed it was the unicorns word and coloring skills and the coloring book itself said it was utterly true, should my belief be allowed to be taught in biology class?
…that’s what I get for typing while on the phone.. It should be “holes” instead of “wholes”.
Zeph
I’ll take each of your points in order:
1. The basic molecules are not ALIVE!
2. The components are not ALIVE!
3. MIGHT have? Conjecture!
4. ‘Selection pressures’? Is ‘anything’ actually ALIVE yet?
5. Same question as in 4!
As for my second challenge, you must surely realise that your response is, at best,
a ‘fudge’.
Jay
The spelling is actually irrelevant - your ‘whole’ argument is ridden with ‘holes’! REAL scientists ‘poke holes’ in the Theory of Evolution (not Natural Selection) because it is SCIENTIFICALLY impossible - it violates the LAW of biogenesis! ‘Evidence’ for Creation is everywhere to be seen - it may not be ’scientific’ to you, but try using a little
‘common sense’ (it served the likes of Isaac Newton pretty well).
Hey Keith, I won’t waste anymore time on them! “There is none so blind, Than those who will not see” They don’t want to know! They’ll fine out the hard way! There is no evidence in Whole World that they will look at! Just pray for them! Romans Chapter 1 Verse 18-32! Keith check out The Institute for Creation Research ICR The R.A.T.E. experiment. They are now working on the R.A.T.E. II experiment. Testable, Repeatable and Observable.
“‘Evidence’ for Creation is everywhere to be seen”
I really just don’t understand how one can go from “gee, this is pretty complex looking and difficult to explain” to “an invisible sky being must have made it!” you rant about how “believers” of evolution can’t stop and look around and see the evidence for other explanations, well neither can you stop and look and around and see something other than creationism. perhaps your precious book is believable to you, but it takes a little more than 2,000 year old writing to convince me that an invisible creator exists. evolution really has nothing to do with creators, and I’m really quite surprised that the creationists haven’t just ended the debate the easy way (as they do everything else) and state that it was all a part of god’s big plan and the reason the evidence for evolution is there is to test your faith in him. what’s the big deal if evolution is correct? so you’re related to some organisms who might be considered monkeys? deal with it, it is what it is.
Hey Keith, Notice how none of our questions were answered! Oh Big surprise! Aannnd waiting! and waiting, and waiting …
Hahaha! Nothing amazes me more in this day and age that a person with access to a computer in a public library and the correct spelling of “Answers in Genesis” can automatically assume to be smarter about science than scientists themselves.
While it’s true that the theory of evolution has a few areas that are unclear, it is the best scientific theory to explain how life changes over time. Please tell me where evolution is supposed to explain the creation of life? Why, if you have all the answers, do you constantly confuse the origin of life with the evolution of life? Why does your god make you unable to understand that basic difference? Did you sin against him again? Did he put you on another time out?
And then to completely throw out the theory of evolution based on it’s few holes is absurd. Ignoring the false dilemma that if evolution is false, creationism must be true for a second, there are infinitely more holes in the christian creationism myth than there are in any scientific theory. Who created the creator? Your law of biogenesis claims that life must come from life? So who created god? And which god supposedly created the life? Christian, Hindu, Muslim etc? And, where is this evidence again? If it’s all around me, why does it not manifest itself? Why after years of research and study of the items around us do scientists continuously discover scientific natural explanations for things? What exactly is the supernatural trying to hide?
Oh, and yes. Let’s throw out the entire scientific method and make up stories to explain what we see around us using “common sense” or “gut feelings.” That way we don’t have to learn! That way we can continue with our sentimental fallacies!
You armchair scientists are hilarious. Anything at all to protect your fuzzy feeling of having an invisible best friend that listens to your wishes and tucks you in to sleep at night.
And HJ…with your whining about how no one answered your questions. I directed a couple questions at you that you haven’t yet answered. I’ll repost so you don’t have to go looking:
Please explain why the Discovery Institute spends more time attacking the current theory than providing evidence for creationism. Also, if it was my personal belief that an invisible pink unicorn created the universe by shooting magic through her horn, and I got this information from a coloring book that claimed it was the unicorns word and coloring skills and the coloring book itself said it was utterly true, should my belief be allowed to be taught in biology class?
Oh, and if I don’t check in before Sunday, enjoy Zombie Jesus Day! “Eat my flesh and drink my blood…and you will be a zombie just like meeeee….”
Zeph, then Jay
I am not the one who is RANTING - just read your last responses! ‘Evidence’ should be EVIDENT - it is in this sense that I make the claim that creation is everywhere to be SEEN. I certainly don’t insist that you agree with me - far from it, you have every right to believe whatever you wish to. However, if you wish to believe in ‘mud to man’ evolution, wouldn’t you at least DESIRE to know how life spontaneously arose, and wouldn’t you want your theory to explain it? It matters not how much either of you may mock, ‘my’ theory DOES explain the origin of life. By the way, have you both noticed that Jeremy has not responded to my questions?
of course I’d like to know how life AROSE. evolution does not explain that 100%, nobody ever said it did. it does, however, give a possible process of how it did arise, which creationism does as well. the difference, however, is that “mud to man” at least has a hope of being tested, and does have evidence and data derived from actual tests. creationism, does not. it has been, and never will be tested. ever. the only way to prove creationism is to have the “creator” say so. and as far as I know it hasn’t bothered to tell any of the people currently alive today about its existence. I won’t deny that creationism DOES explain how life arose, but it explains it much as magic explains how a magician can saw a stagehand in half. it sure looks and sounds like a nice explanation, but if you go home and try it, I guarantee it won’t work.
Zeph
Thanks for your friendly reply - it’s so much better to discuss things without anger getting in the way. You may not accept this, but the Creator DOES say so - and He has said so many times (to His Prophets - many of whom have written down what He said). The real problem for many Evolutionists (and atheists) is that they refuse to accept such writings - but ARE willing to accept the writings of Darwin, Dawkins et al. Being omnipotent does not equate to being a magician - other than in the sense that the word ‘magician’ originates from the word ‘magi’, meaning ‘wise man’. I personally ’see’ God as the Ultimate Scientist, knowing ALL things (omniscient). My beliefs give me hope - something that Naturalism cannot do (for ANYONE). Imagine believing in life after death - you could only ever KNOW that you were RIGHT. If you didn’t believe, you could only ever know that you were wrong! I CHOOSE to believe because it seems logical to believe in hope, not hopelessness. That we came from NOTHING, endure a purposeless life, then return to nothing, is a doctrine of despair. We have a purpose, a divine opportunity, and we HAVE been told how to achieve it - all we have to do is CHOOSE. As an aside, Natural Selection is a true and tested science, but it is NOT Evolution - Evolutionists tend to ‘muddy the waters’ by using the word ‘evolution’ when actually referring to Natural Selection (which is usually claimed to be the driving force of Evolution - but the ‘car’ is heading in the wrong direction). As for the Big Bang - there was ‘once’ neither space nor time (hence the ‘once’), just a ‘point-singularity’ in the ‘middle’ of the timeless nothingness. This ‘point’ then exploded (why?), thus producing matter, space, and time. I find it so annoying to be accused of believing in fairy stories! I do appreciate your recent comments, and the spirit of your response - this somewhat lengthy reply is to simply let you know ‘where I am coming from’.
Evolutionist are in an tizzy over Ben Stein’s new movie. The movie claims that Darwin’s theory contributed to Naziism. Evolutionist, for some reason, defend Darwinism by instead blaming Martin Luther for the holocaust.
It is true that Luther hated the Jews and even wrote a book called “On the Jews and their Lies.” But Luther did not write a book called “On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favored Races in the Struggle for Life.” Charles Darwin wrote that book, and Hitler believed in Darwinism as the recipe for his “master race.”
As a Christian, I am secure enough to be introspective and self-critical. As a human being, I am embarrassed for the evolutionist who can’t even address the most glaring defect in their own “sacred” theory, out of fear that the whole thing will collapse.
As someone who has studied philophy of science with an accent on the history of epistemology and scientific methodology for 20 years, I have watched bona fide scientists get “expelled” over and over again for expressing dissenting views.
I have concluded that science and techno-utopianism function as an organized secular religion with all the same trappings and susceptibility to abuse of power as the traditional religions it seeks to replace. We have simply substituted the white lab coat for the priestly regalia, etc.
I have found there is an incredibly simple way to separate honest quests for truth from fraudulent schemes. Regarding any scientific study or matter that is presented as scientific truth, just ask yourself the following three questions:
-Who has funded the research?
-Who stands to benefit the most from the outcome?(The old “quo bene?”)
-Who stands to be injured the most by the outcome?
Now I hope all the evolutionists here are aware that Darwin had no scientific background whatsoever, he was a spoiled child of the ultra-rich with too much time on his hands. His theories were not developed through scholarly discourse but through dilettantistic cocktail-party gossiping with others like him who had never done an ounce of honest productive work in their lives.
Hopefully you also know that in his book “The Descent of Man” he states that 95% of all humans are genetically determined evolutionary dead ends and that this is an unchangeable law of nature. This became the philosophical justification for all eugenics movements including that of the Nazis, as well as all dictatorships and human rights violations ever since. As you can see, Darwinism has way more than just metaphysical implications.
On the other hand, if we were all created by a supreme intelligence in its own image, that confers upon us all equal and unalienable human rights.
One last point: the idea of intelligent design does not necessarily preclude that of evolution or vise versa, in fact many intrepid thinkers are working on intelligent design theories that are more dynamic and less deterministic than Darwin’s theory.