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

In the new science-bashing movie Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed, 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. Prepare for an intellectual night at the cinema.

No one could have been more surprised than I when the producers called, unbidden, offering Scientific American's editors a private screening. Given that our magazine's positions on evolution and intelligent design (ID) creationism reflect those of the scientific mainstream (that is, evolution: good science; ID: not science), you have to wonder why they would bother. It's not as though anything in Expelled would have been likely to change our views. And they can't have been looking for a critique of the science in the movie, because there isn't much to speak of.

Rather, it seems a safe bet that the producers hope a whipping from us would be useful for publicity: further proof that any mention of ID outrages the close-minded establishment. (Picture Ben Stein as Jack Nicholson, shouting, "You can't handle the truth!") Knowing this, we could simply ignore the movie—which might also suit their purposes, come to think of it.

Unfortunately, Expelled is a movie not quite harmless enough to be ignored. Shrugging off most of the film's attacks—all recycled from previous pro-ID works—would be easy, but its heavy-handed linkage of modern biology to the Holocaust demands a response for the sake of simple human decency.

Expelled wears its ambitions to be a creationist Fahrenheit 911 openly, in that it apes many of Michael Moore's comic tricks: emphasizing the narrator's hapless everyman qualities by showing him meandering his way to interviews; riposting interviewees' words with ironic old footage and so on. Director Nathan Frankowski is reasonably adept at the techniques, although he is not half the filmmaker Michael Moore is (and yes, I do mean in both senses of the phrase).

The film begins with the triumphant entry of financial columnist, media figure and former Nixon White House speechwriter Ben Stein to a filled college lecture hall. (If this review were styled after the movie, I'd be intercutting clips of Nixon flashing a victory sign with Stein's scenes from Ferris Bueller's Day Off and his eyedrop commercials, but you get the idea.) Stein explains that he is speaking out because he has "lately noticed a dire trend" that threatens the state of our nation: the ascendance of godless, materialist, evolutionary science and an unwillingness among academics to consider more theistic alternatives. A montage of short clips then shows Richard Dawkins, Daniel Dennett and other scientists scorning religion or ID without context. "Freedom is the essence of America!" Stein insists, and he frets that scientists who like their empiricism with a dash of deus ex machina are oppressed. He and Expelled charge that scientists, in their rejection of religious explanations, have become as intolerant as Nazis. Or maybe Stalinists—the film clips were ambiguous on that point.

(The newsreel footage from the old Soviet days kept confusing me. Stein does know that the Stalinists rejected the theory of evolution as a biological rendition of capitalism, doesn't he? And that they replaced it with their own ideologically driven, disastrous theory of Lysenkoism? Does Stein think that moviegoers won't know this?)

275 Comments

1. 1. ppayne 10:51 PM 4/9/08

   The notion that Darwin is responsible for the Holocaust did not originate with Ben Stein. Paul Johnson's treatment of the theory of evolution in MODERN TIMES (page 5) assures us: "Darwin's notion of the survival of the fittest was a key element both to the Marxist concepts of class warfare and of the racial philosophies which shaped Hitlerism." Darwin never even mentioned "the survival of the fittest;" Darwin's notion was of adaptation to the environment by species variation. The phrase "survival of the fittest" was coined by Herbert Spencer, who was a philosopher, not a biologist. The phrase was quickly picked up by social Darwinists, who, in the pseudo-scientific climate of the nineteenth century, used it as a justification for exploiting peasants. Marx accepted evolution as an explanation for human consciousness, but "survival of the fittest" has never been part of Marxist doctrine. Obviously, it is the doctrine of industrial capitalism. As for Hitlerism, "intellectual" Nazis were far more likely to be influenced by Hegel's notion of natural spiritual progression than Darwinian evolution. Admittedly, the German and American industrialists who helped Hitler acquire power were quite likely social Darwinists. Obviously, one of the factors that made Hitler so popular with the Germans populace was his exploitation of their hatred of the Jews, a hatred propagated over many centuries by Christianity. Trying to blame Nazism on Darwin while completely ignoring the far more genuine influence of the uglier aspects of Christianity is just as blatantly dishonest as it is possible to be.

   Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

2. 2. TracerBullet 11:37 PM 4/9/08

   It's so pointless to argue with creationists. When their position is inherently anti logic what good can it possibly do? On the other hand though if you ignore them their rhetoric is unchecked and ends up as legislation and social influence so you can't do that either. Argh!
   
   It reminds me of the quote: "Never argue with stupid people. First they drag you down to their level, then they beat you with experience."

   Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

3. 3. Merry Joe K 02:42 PM 4/10/08

   I believe in evolution, but I'm not gonna say that it's "fact" - it's a theory. I have no problem with people discounting it, as it's their own business to have that belief. But when they try to make their ideas a de facto facts, then we have problems. The religious nuts need to keep God in their hearts, and we need to understand that extremes on any side suck, so let's not get sucked into the rhetoric that both sides want us to promote because it creates homeostasis instead of good discourse.

   Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

4. 4. IAT1MG 02:54 PM 4/10/08

   This is just another case of, "Don't bother me with the facts - my mind is already made up."
   
   As a once-religious person (Psycho Christian is how I now describe it) I reflect on why, even with evidence and personal doubts, we hold on to our archaic beliefs.
   The answer I came to was simple:
   We've invested too much into it for it to be wrong.
   
   Take me for example. I went to Romania, Mexico, the Ukraine and the Czech Republic on missions. I went to Bible study every Wednesday and Church on Sunday. I FELT God inside me. But, I also felt that something was off.
   
   But, it HAD to be true. I've invested too much time and money into it for it NOT to be!
   
   
   Take that thought process to other religions - Jewish people might feel that becoming atheist would somehow be turning their back on the atrocities visited upon them. Being a child in a family that has been Catholic for many generations - saying you are atheist would somehow be saying your entire family was wrong for all that time.
   
   And on.
   I've come to believe, especially with educated people, religion isn't religion, faith isn't faith - It's cognitive dissonance.

   Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

5. 5. Merry Joe K 03:04 PM 4/10/08

   sorry for the repost - computer issues.
   
   --
   Edited by Merry Joe K at 04/10/2008 8:05 AM

   Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

6. 6. yasthning 05:38 PM 4/10/08

   Lysenkoism should be Lamarckism I believe.

   Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

7. 7. ogormank 06:33 PM 4/10/08

   It's funny that you mention the Lysenkoites, as they used the same trick of association-by-collage while discrediting genetics. I haven't seen the article myself but one example called "Fly-lovers and Man-haters" apparently included imagery of the KKK and lynchings. It was written by an A. N. Studitsky, and was republished in the Journal of Heredity (1949 vol. 40) to show what was going on in the USSR at the time.

   Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

8. 8. tmulcahy 06:52 PM 4/10/08

   To link evolution and science to genocide is omitting the dangerous part religion has often played in war, genocide and class structure. Racism, social Darwinism, eugenics and ID have one thing in common - they use whatever knowledge we have accumulated, which is often as a result of scientific inquiry, to bolster their narrow view of life, which is not subject to review, and cannot stomach criticism.

   Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

9. 9. geoguy 07:35 PM 4/10/08

   Stein long ago gave up any integrity when he decided it was more profitable to be a mouthpiece of the far right first in business and now apparently in religious fever.
   
   For the good old rational Ben Stein read his early and best work - his book about Micheal Milken
   
   "License to Steal: The Untold Story of Michael Milken and the Conspiracy to Bilk the Nation" by Benjamin J. Stein
   ( can be found here http://www.amazon.com/gp/search?ie=UTF8&keywords=License%20to%20steal%20milken&tag=emailamazon-20&index=books&linkCode=ur2&camp=1789&creative=9325 )
   which pillories unbridled capitalism and where he actually says that one cannot become rich in a free enterprise economic system unless one creates a monopoly. While he lambasted Milken for doing just that he must have seen later that his own path to financial success would be by supporting those seeking to create those same monopolies. Now he supports the monopolists cause by helping shore up their far right political base (which they only use to win elections to increase deregulation) by jumping on the popular fundamentalist anti darwin crusade which has replaced anti abortion as a rallying cry.
   
   --
   Edited by geoguy at 04/10/2008 2:15 PM

   Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

10. 10. luckyrucksack 10:24 PM 4/10/08

    This is awesome. Ben Stein, game show host...now authority on evolutionary biology!?

    Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

11. 11. Quantabella 01:04 AM 4/11/08

    Perhaps we should watch the movie and judge for ourselves. I heard an interview with Ben Stein this morning and it sounded like the movie was about the need for the scientific community to allow scientists to have an opportunity to present their theories without fear of harsh criticism or termination from their jobs. Until we know where we came from, we can't rule out intelligent design or creationism. Nobody knows! Evolution is a solid theory, but even the theory of evolution poses questions. We should be open to theories that may answer these questions or add pieces to the puzzle. Some theories out there may be theistic in nature, but they are just theories! As a scientist, I know that being open to possibilities is how some of our greatest discoveries have been made. I will have to decide for myself if this movie has merit.

    Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

12. 12. taffazull 04:35 AM 4/11/08

    Evolution is a very solid theory but it is always wise to keep our minds open for alternative explanations. Universe is more complicated than we think and we off and on come across phenomena that emphasize this fact.For example my elder brother -a very skeptical person-was once accosted by a sadhu sitting on the roadside who asked him to take a pebble from the road and close his fist .He did so and was surprised to find the pebble rotating in his hand and when he opened his hand he found that it had turned into a large seed of Elaeocarpus ganitrus(Rudraksha).The sadhu then asked him to take another pebble and put it in his mouth.He was surprised to find it change to candy in his mouth.Both of us being skeptical by training hope to find a rational explanation but maybe from new paradigms outside the currently accepted paradigms.The recently discovered acceleration of the universe is an equally stunning observation and the lesson from such observations is that we should never be dogmatic in our outlook and remember that theories are just what they are-Theories.

    Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

13. 13. MattInOz 05:53 AM 4/11/08

    Taffazull, please....
    
    When will people ever understand that lovely anecodotal stories such as "somebody changed one type of object to another before my very eyes etc etc" DO NOT constitute rigorous science.
    
    Who knows how they guy does his sleight of hand, but one thing you can be sure of is that he chuckles inwardly every time some schmuck walks away in amazement thinking he's performed his little bit of alchemy.
    
    Yes, there is much that we don't understand and can't explain with science (YET), but that says more about us and our methods than anything else. The whole point of the endeavour is to make the pile of known things bigger. But that doesn't mean we have to keep our minds so open that our brains fall out, as the saying goes. Or for that matter, open the door to superstitious nonsense like ID (Goddidit!!) when the going gets tough. And please, stop with the 'Evolution is JUST a theory' BS. A "Theory" is a very scientifically precise word - look it up.
    
    Why not take your friend along to James Randi, pick up a cool $mill and split the diff? Could probably lift his whole village out of poverty quicker than through the use of his busking shrapnel...

    Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

14. 14. OldMeezer 06:13 AM 4/11/08

    I continue to believe that religion and science are mutually exclusive in their purest forms... that religion seeks to uplift what we are and how we can live positively and relate positively to each other (on a spiritual, metaphysical level), and science merely serves to observe and understand why things came about, how they work (much more on a mechanical level), and how we can contribute to the improvement of human suffering in advancements in agriculture, medicine, astronomy, etc.
    
    I think it is foolish to ignore the theories of science, and I think it is also foolish to ignore the wisdom in religion--particularly the common aspects in religions that teach us to care for each other and to strive to be better than the physical (scientific) limitations of who we are.
    
    Surely there are aspects of religion that are troubling--not all religious messages are positive ones, and as individuals we have a responsibility to sort those things out for ourselves and think in our brains and our hearts what truth means and how to apply it in our lives, but not at the expense of science; the world is not flat just because the church says it is. Likewise there are aspects of science that are not always accurate or savory, and we have a responsibility to sort those issues out as well--true science seeks the truth inherent in unravelling the physical mysteries of our world but not at the expense of ethics; hiding negative study results to make a new drug look more attractive for financial reasons is morally and scientifically wrong.
    
    When one seeks to undercut the other without reason or with malice, it just doesn't work. We also have to draw a line between belief and observation and not seek to teach one as the other in our public schools. Most religious texts were written long before the scientific knowledge we have today, so what is written was written within the context of the writer's experiences, observations, society, and the writer's (divine or other) inspirations and wisdom. To look at a religious text and take it literally and vociferously as an antagonist to science is to miss out on the meaning behind the parables and poetry and their still-relevant application in a progressive, scientifically-aware world.

    Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

15. 15. LaPortaMA 01:10 PM 4/11/08

    It appears that my post --stimulating thought rather than giving one specific answer -- ws removed yesterday.
    
    Hmmm.

    Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

16. 16. LaPortaMA 01:12 PM 4/11/08

    Foolishness, thy name is acrimony and derogation.
    
    Science
    Columbia Electronic Encyclopedia - Cite This Source
    
    science [Lat. scientia=knowledge]. For many the term science refers to the organized body of knowledge concerning the physical world, both animate and inanimate, but a proper definition would also have to include the attitudes and methods through which this body of knowledge is formed; thus, a science is both a particular kind of activity and also the results of that activity.http://www.reference.com/search?q=science.
    
    
    SO what matters is the body of knowledge and its means of acquisition.
    
    Science is not only about "material", but rather a search for truth and understanding. Consructively, any belittling of any position is not science. Is there any view that as not ultimately Possible?
    
    
    I once heard a quote attributable to the "ancient Chinese", stating, "When you find yourself haggling over the details. a mistake was made at the beginning".

    Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

17. 17. NemoNoOne 01:49 PM 4/11/08

    Here's what we have to show for nearly eight years of Bushco - let's give every kook a hearing and evaluate it for ourselves, because that's "Fair and Balanced!" Doesn't anybody get it? ID is hokum, pseudoscience, non-testable, and pure propaganda. Technical evaluation of the doctrine has been carried out, and it has been found to require supernatural intervention and is non-testable. The general public doesn't get a vote any more than it gets to vote on the THEORY (yes, there's the magic word!) of gravitation. So, until someone comes along with a testable hypothesis that can be negated by experiment, ID remains a lunatic assumption that carries no scientific weight. And as "uplifting" as that may be for some, it remains pure crap.
    
    Nemo

    Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

18. 18. JB1234 04:11 PM 4/11/08

    Is science going to someday explain all matter and energy in the universe coming into being from nothing? Or is there some cause? Which seems more reasonable?

    Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

19. 19. Andrew9184 04:47 PM 4/11/08

    Ben Stein should stick to what he is really good at...Economic analysis.

    Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

20. 20. tmulcahy 04:57 PM 4/11/08

    Who says all matter/energy came into being all of a sudden? What's sudden anyway, in universal time? Perhaps all that exists has always existed. Even Big Bang theory allows that such a scenario as the Big Bang could be a cyclical process.

    Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

21. 21. twwaggon 06:23 PM 4/11/08

    "If we knew what it was we were doing, it would not be called research, would it?"
    - Albert Einstein

    Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

22. 22. James_g_vm 09:00 PM 4/11/08

    I find the whole "Darwinism" [sic] to Nazism link to be reprehensible. And I dont need to see the movie to make this statement.
    
    As a Jewish person who should know better than to ask for this slap in the face, Stein's association of Hitlers evil to evolution is reckless and ignorant and dangerous.
    
    Ben apparently has not read Martin Luther's abominable and vicious "On the Jews and their Lies" (URL to this doc below). The Germans had 400 years to cook on protestant antisemitism before Hitler ever arrived on the scene. Oh, and the vatican was no slouch either with the inquisition and forced conversion, it took them until 1960 to admit that Jews have a right to exist (search Vatican II "Nostra Aetate").
    
    Why were so many Jews in Poland? Because the Christians (unhappy catholics and protestants alike) sacked their Western European villages and burned them alive in the walled ghettos. Why? Because they thought they were responsible for the plague (accused of poisoning the wells). In reality, Jews had cleaner food habits and they were less susceptible to plague. This is one of the major reasons Jews were driven east, many to Poland. This is historical fact.
    
    Stein and his crew are unencumbered by empirical evidence, scientific method, historical accuracy, and ethics.
    
    And Abraham would roll over in his grave if he knew how the 3 major monotheistic religions were behaving today.
    
    Link to Martin Luthers "On the Jews and their Lies" follows. Warning! Make sure you have a strong stomach&
    
    http://www.humanitas-international.org/showcase/chronography/documents/luther-jews.htm

    Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

23. 23. JRHelgeson 12:16 PM 4/12/08

    The theory was called eugenics, and it is precisely what brought about the holocaust. Hitler wanted to produce "The Master Race" and used the theory of Eugenics to prove that the Germans were "The Master Race" and that Jews, Gays, Gypsies, etc. were to be eliminated from the gene pool.
    
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugenics

    Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

24. 24. jonosss 07:24 PM 4/12/08

    "if certain classes of people were genuinely inferior in evolutionary terms, Hitler wouldn't have needed to eliminate themnature would eventually do that itself." This is an interesting thought, although I don't believe it is true. In our technologically advanced society even those who are genetically disadvantaged have a good chance at reproduction. Modern medicine is fighting against natural selection, so to speak. It is a scary concept because perhaps an institution will come along and try to eliminate who it sees to be genetically inferior.

    Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

25. 25. binaryeric 07:45 AM 4/13/08

    "Given that our magazine's positions on evolution and intelligent design (ID) creationism reflect those of the scientific mainstream (that is, evolution: good science; ID: not science), you have to wonder why they would bother."
    
    I believe that it is exactly this attitude that this film is attempting to address. Why would a scientist be opposed to discussing opposing ideas? I believe if scientists in the past had made this same mistake, we would all still believe the sun revolved around the earth. Our "modern" scientific community has become self-righteous and a sort of "club" where in order to belong, you must agree with a certain list of beliefs. This sounds very similar to the definition for a cult. Science is supposed to be about the *eternal* search for truth -> Not the search up until 1890. It is a bit ridiculous for us to assume that all the facts have come in on this topic. Science is always evolving, as our understanding crawls forward.

    Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

26. 26. John Rennie 03:46 PM 4/13/08

    Binaryeric,
    
    You're missing the difference between Scientific American (and science in general) having a position and being unwilling to reexamine that position. We have a position on evolution vs. ID in the same way that we have a position on spherical Earth vs. flat Earth. The facts persuasively fall on one side of the argument. We're acquainted enough with the ideas and "evidence" floated by the ID creationists to know that in scientific terms, none of it holds water. If newer, better ideas and evidence emerge, we'll happily reconsider, but remember: the amount of evidence in support of evolution is HUGE and the intellectual complications of ID are major, so it will take very substantial evidence to overturn the situation.

    Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

27. 27. fingermark 10:47 PM 4/13/08

    First, I am neither a fan of the whole ID movement nor the Theory of Evolution.
    
    Now that my disclaimer is out of the way, I do find these comments to be quite comical. Especially at this time, when Al Gore just declared Global Warming deniers as those akin to crackpots who believe the earth is flat and don't believe man landed on the moon in 1969.
    
    It's not the mere existence of Evolutionism that sparked this film. In my opinion, this film was created to bring awareness to the tyrannical repression of alternative ideas. I am seeing this not only among Evolutionists, but also among Global Warming advocates.
    
    Here, Global Warming advocates are those that believe global warming is entirely (or even mostly) man-made. (This post wasn't meant to cause a Global Warming flame war).

    Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

28. 28. djreedps 03:35 AM 4/14/08

    Put a small piece of God in a vacuum container. Wait six days. If life arises from absolutely no matter, then ID proponents have a claim to teach ID in public school science classes. Or find fossil records showing humans, in the same form as we exist today, who lived alongside the dinosaurs. Then ID proponents would have a claim to teach ID as science. Otherwise, they are just trying to introduce religious teaching into publicly funded schools. In the United States, we have a separation of church and state as Thomas Jefferson spelled out in his letter to the Danbury Baptist Association in 1802.

    Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

29. 29. AncientTruth 05:04 AM 4/14/08

    Where did life come from? How did it originate? You can't have it both ways. The same textbook that tells you how Pasteur and others disproved the idea of spontaneous generation, will also tell you that life somehow originated from nonliving material. Until you can conduct an experiment that produces life from nonliving material - you have nothing. In the meantime you might want to reconsider mocking God.
    
    --
    Edited by AncientTruth at 04/13/2008 10:05 PM

    Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

30. 30. AncientTruth 05:35 AM 4/14/08

    If you don't believe that Darwinism and Nazism are connected, then you must be completely ignorant of the T-4 program.

    Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

31. 31. wildfoxes 06:37 AM 4/14/08

    I know it's been said elsewhere a million times, but, folks, there is a WORLD of difference between faith and religion!
    
    --
    Edited by wildfoxes at 04/13/2008 11:38 PM

    Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

32. 32. liberty4all 01:45 PM 4/14/08

    I really dislike the opinionated turn in SCIAM. Yes ID theory is so seriously flawed that it boggles one as to why it is even considered-- but then we know why, it preserves religion-- but that doesn't excuse the patronizing attitude.
    
    The better approach is to write a position paper on ID's scientific demerits and leave it at that. No more coverage period! If ID theory makes some sort of break-through to solve its problems, then maybe SCIAM can examine them, otherwise it is not worth the time or space here.
    
    The one thing ID proponents have right is that Scientific Opinion is not Scientific Fact. Stop using SO as an argument.
    
    Also, Dennet is NOT a scientist. He never has been, and has never claimed to be one--he's a philosopher.
    
    --
    Edited by liberty4all at 04/14/2008 1:17 PM

    Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

33. 33. artzat 04:07 PM 4/14/08

    Did EXPELLED premier on April first? Could Ben Stein possibly have produced a clever spoof? Perhaps the joke is on us for taking all this too seriously.

    Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

34. 34. jerryglen 06:21 PM 4/14/08

    What is most disturbing is Scientific American's apparent war on ID. Why the agenda I see with religious fever? If ID is false then ignore it. Why is it necessary to protect the turf with the passion of a zealot. It makes no sense to me. In doing this SA conveys that science is the conveyor of all truth when in reality science explores the world using the scientific method. By proclaiming science as the bearer of truth rather than the inquisitive investigator, SA makes science a religion and defeat there own purpose.

    Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

35. 35. Dramvairde Croinond 10:11 PM 4/14/08

    There is no rational basis for Design Theory (Intelligent Design) being in a science class. Likewise, Science has no rational basis for making claims in regard to the existence or nonexistence of God. The science fiction novel, LEDNORF'S DILEMMA, compellingly explains the flaws on each side of the debate. The interview with the fictional Professor Karl Zeller is devastating in its reason and logic, for it brings the book's four major concepts into full light (they being Lord Bertrand Russell's Truism, Bifurcation, Grath's paradox, and finally Lednorf's Dilemma--from which the book gets its title).

    Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

36. 36. Indeed 11:41 PM 4/14/08

    In earnest I ask the following question. Does there exist any scientific study or experiement that demonstrates that the DNA in a species of animal changed in such a way as to then classify it as a new separate species of animal?
    
    I often read of studies where species (and its genes), especially microorganisms, have been shown to adapt to various introduced conditions. For example an E. coli bacteria study by UC San Diego demonstrates gene adaptation, but the E. coli remains E. coli. This study is seen as evidence of evolution. But to make this assumption is a leap of inference not a scientific certainty.
    
    Living organisms adapt, that is without question and can be demonstrated. But to demonstrate one species changing into another is something that, to my knowledge, has never been demonstrated using the scientific method.

    Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

37. 37. Lew Meyer 04:04 AM 4/15/08

    Of course Darwin was indirectly responsible for the holocaust and the atrocities under Soviet atheism. The idealogical setting for both is supplied by Darwinism. He enabled people to feel intellectually justified to reject the Biblical concept of the sanctity of human life.
    Lew

    Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

38. 38. Lew Meyer 04:07 AM 4/15/08

    Of course Darwinism is indirectly responsible for the holocaust and for the Marxist holocausts. It provided the excuse for people to feel intellectually justified in rejected the sanctity of life. Evolution is callous of human life.
    Lew

    Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

39. 39. slider142 12:19 PM 4/15/08

    To those who are looking for evidence of speciation and other macroevolutionary evidences, please see the talk.origins archives. The same questions arise over and over again and have been collected into a FAQ. Specifically, see http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html .

    Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

40. 40. deadlyvices 12:24 PM 4/15/08

    Why would I be not surprised to discover that a fair proportion of those who would link Darwinism to the Holocaust would also deny that there was a link between the ready availability of firearms and the murder rate?
    
    Only in America...

    Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

41. 41. C4SysGreyBeard 02:41 PM 4/15/08

    I believe your article just proved nicely the case against gun control.
    
    I also think everyone is entitled each to their own opinion, and as currently stressed by many liberal-minded individuals, and even allowed to express them in a public forum; this to the dismay of any dissenters, who can then, and will expound their own opinions in that same forum.
    
    The best solutions are arrived at when someone voices only one side of a given position in a debate format, and then another only gives examples of totally contradictory material as rebuttal. A third or even fourth could also do likewise. The participants then go another round, and again, always listening, receiving input, and using what the other position espoused, and modifying their stance, as they respond to what was said and demonstrated. With issues were emotions are stimulated, or deep-seated and long held beliefs are perceived to be attacked the demonstrations and discussions may get lively. Eventually, there emerges a dominant point of view. But unless proofs are totally conclusive the results will, I repeat will, be questioned.
    
    This bit of wisdom is what has worked really well in my current 15-year-long marriage, and is distilled from 30-plus years of marriage and family counseling (both as participant and as a private and/or group moderator).
    
    In the case of Science vs., ID; neither side has conclusively proven their case. For a long time ‘Religion’ (in guise of the Catholic Church) held sway, then some individuals started questioning the status quo, looking at things around them, and began to use a form of logic now called ‘The Scientific Process’. They saw that some of the things that were long held to be true were, in fact, not valid statements. And so they questioned more things. This got them into a lot of trouble with the leaders of the then current society. In today’s current view, Science holds the lead with the widely taught ‘Theory of Evolution’. And some question the validity of that theory.

    Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

42. 42. Indeed 11:43 PM 4/15/08

    I read the talk origins faq referenced above and appreciate the link. The article does a good job of consolidating known studies on speciation, some of which I have heard of.
    
    The problem is, however, the studies only demonstrate adaptation (referred to as of stages of speciation by many). Adaptation does not prove evolution.
    
    Here are some quotes from the article:
    "It may represent the early stages of a sympatric speciation"; "may represent incipient species"; "show the possibility of sympatric speciation"
    
    Let's be clear, evolution, if true, takes so long it cannot be observed. It is unseen and unobservable. Yet it is believed to be true based on inference. This is not entirely unlike belief in God. Unseen and unobservable, but believed in by inference mingled with faith.

    Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

43. 43. VAbackpacker 04:25 AM 4/16/08

    The article briefly mentions Dr. Crocker is in the film. I took her cell bio class at George Mason in the spring of 2004. It's... a complicated situation. She taught us not that there are simply alternative ideas to evolution, but that evolution IS WRONG. And on our final exam, one of the essays we had to write was to be based solely on the information she gave us- so essentially, she required us to recite back to her every reason she gave that evolution can't possibly be right. Twas a silly semester.

    Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

44. 44. Doctor 10-2-4 04:55 PM 4/16/08

    As an offspring of Holocaust survivors, I simply cannot reconcile how a man of such vast knowledge and logical perspective can even hint at a link of evolution with that horrific event. Moreover, it seems self-serving to assign the notion of responsibility to this process. I would speculate that Freud would have a field day trying to unravel Mr. Steins ego from his love affair with his id.

    Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

45. 45. Inchoate 10:20 PM 4/16/08

    This is easily solved: for those who don't believe in evolution, [b]just refuse to give them any modern medications based on the principles of evolution[/b], like antibiotics or antivirals. Since evolution doesn't exist then surely they're not missing anything.
    
    It's sad really, I used to respect for Ben Stein.

    Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

46. 46. b_calder 01:32 AM 4/17/08

    You have hit the nail on the head.
    
    There is only one problem.
    
    Multiple opinions may indeed be worthwhile but there is in fact no credible opinion opposing neo-Darwinist theory. Ignorance is not an opinion.
    
    

    Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

47. 47. girl athee 08:32 AM 4/17/08

    I was browsing through www.expelledthemovie.com and I couldn't help but feel disgust, I was repulsed at Ben Stein's take on Darwinism being an imperialism of biology. Expelled is a very irresponsible movie against science and should be considered a joke and a stupidity. I cannot help but feel pity to whoever will believe and stand up for Stein's lunatic beliefs and I know a lot of people will.
    
    --
    Edited by girl athee at 04/17/2008 5:28 AM

    Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

48. 48. Natedog 07:55 PM 4/18/08

    “I think it is foolish to ignore the theories of science, and I think it is also foolish to ignore the wisdom in religion--particularly the common aspects in religions that teach us to care for each other and to strive to be better than the physical (scientific) limitations of who we are.”
    
    I am sorry but that argument holds absolutely no weight with me. I cannot site a single example of "good" performed by the followers of religion that could not and has not also been performed by atheists.
    
    To argue that morals are derived from or are the direct result of religion one must further argue that morals were bestowed upon or otherwise instilled in the human mind by a higher authority. Once one concedes that humans could have evolved it logically follows that our abilities for complex thought, emotion and moral conduct could also have evolved and are themselves the products of nature and not supernatural in origin.
    
    What does it mean to strive to be better than the physical limitations of who we are? I can imagine myself existing outside of the confines of my own body but I cannot cause myself to exist outside the confines of my body. Either I do exist in such a form or I do not. Either way it is not something I could strive for as it is beyond my capabilities to accomplish.
    
    As for morals, either it is in my best interests as an individual, a member of my species, or a part of nature as a whole to act in a particular manner or it is not. I think we can all agree that murder is an immoral act but what makes it so? Well for a start it would have been extremely difficult for the human species to have survived to this point in time without some sense of self preservation. Those species which failed to develop this sense but possessing the means in which to cause their own destruction surely would have succeeded in that endeavor. Therefore it should be of little surprise that humans by our continued existence did succeed in developing to some extent codes of conduct which allow us live in harmony with each other.
    
    Morals are one area in particular where I think a lot of theists hit the wall. Many directly associate the idea of atheism (the absence of belief in deities) with nihilism (the belief that existence is without meaning or intrinsic value and hence devoid of objective morality).
    
    For my part I would state that at best religion is attempting to remind us of that which we already know only with a healthy dose of mumbo-jumbo on the side.

    Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

49. 49. GaseousSnake 11:50 PM 4/18/08

    Question:
    
    Several scientists throughout the movie were posed the question, what is the actual origin of life and how did it happen? They could not answer.
    
    If you take atheism on faith then don't be upset when a theist challenges that you treat it like a scientific fact.
    
    For whatever any of Ben Stein's other points were worth, he is dead on that this is not religion vs. science but religion vs. religion.

    Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

50. 50. Disciple 11:58 PM 4/18/08

    EVERYONE, I mean everyone seems to be missing the point of this. As he says in the promo's, all we are asking is that ID gets to be debated without being labled NON-science.

    Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

51. 51. Natedog 01:21 AM 4/19/08

    "EVERYONE, I mean everyone seems to be missing the point of this. As he says in the promo's, all we are asking is that ID gets to be debated without being labled NON-science."
    
    Sadly I think it is you that is missing the point.
    
    ID most certainly is NOT science and any shape or form. To think otherwise is a complete failure on your part to grasp what science is on even the most basic level.
    
    Call ID what you will, non-science, junk-science, pseudoscience, religion or even philosophy but never science.
    
    --
    Edited by Natedog at 04/18/2008 6:30 PM

    Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

52. 52. HaHaHa 07:54 PM 4/19/08

    As a non scientist with some scientific knowledge I would like to find out the answer to 2 questions I have? Please try and answer in plain english.
    1. What is the actual approved Darwinist theory on how life came into existance?
    2. Who created God or where did he come from?
    
    By the way I honestly am trying to find the answer to these questions. I have looked at both evolution and creationism and have major problems with both.

    Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

53. 53. Almijisti 08:04 PM 4/19/08

    No less than the greatest scholar of anti-semitism, Serge Poliakov, expressly connected the theory of evolution with the "exterminationist" brand of anti-semitism that started in the mid 19th Century. It is, in fact, the central thesis of "The Aryan Myth," one of the truly great works of history ever written.
    
    Anti-semitism obviously was a part of Christianity, but that religion always accepted the old testament view that all man, all races were created by God. Evolutionary theory was a theory of society that Darwin only later extrapolated into a theory of biology itself, but the entire notion of evolution was itself the invention of racialist theories beginning with Voltaire. Do you know nothing of what you speak? Have any of you actually read Darwin? Not neo-darwinist research, but Charles Darwin? Evolutionary theory is the very basis of modern racism.
    
    Anyone who doesn't know this is simply ignorant of the most important movement in intellectual history of the west from the time of Voltaire to Hitler. The very notion of the "aryan" was made through the discovery that sanskrit was related to european languages and evolutionary theory directly impacted upon both the idea of India as perceived in the west, and of the Aryan Myth--which is to say, the notion that white europeans were more "evolved" than the so-called mongrel races.
    
    If he was wrong on everything else in the film, Ben Stein is absolutely spot on with the connection between Darwin and Hitler. You simply don't know what you're talking about if you don't know this. It is as much of a "fact" as the theory of evolution itself. It is known to every student of the history of racism. Trying to create a false distinction between "social" darwinism and classical evolutionary theory only shows that you've never even read Darwin himself who was incredibly racist and whose seminal work--the Descent of Man, was written solely for the purpose of demonstrating the superiority of white europeans. You only embarass us with your ignorance of the history of the very science you proclaim as truth by denying its well-documented, sordid origins.

    Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

54. 54. JoeyPicador 10:00 PM 4/19/08

    Trying to debate ID alongside a serious scientific theory like evolution is tantamount to suggesting mathematics and astrology are of equal merit. Evolutionary science and ID have less to do with each other than the proverbial apple and orange.

    Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

55. 55. Pauli Ojala 08:33 AM 4/20/08

    I quote my article from the ABC5, Asian Bioethics Conference 5 book
    'Challenges for Bioethics from Asia' in
    http://www.helsinki.fi/~pjojala/Haeckelianlegacy_ABC5.pdf
    
    It is about the father of the vulgarized evolutionary doctrine in the continental Europe, Ernst Haeckel. Race hygiene incarned.
    
    In his autobiography, Darwin stated: "Hardly any point gave me so much satisfaction when
    I was at work on the Origin, as the explanation of the wide difference in many classes between the
    embryo and the adult animal, and of the close resemblance of the embryos within the same class.
    No notice of this point was taken, as far as I remember, in the early reviews of the Origin".
    
    Later on, this subject was siezed, indeed. Subsequent editions of the Origin
    stated:“[Haeckel]…brought his great knowledge and abilities to bear on what he calls phylogeny,
    or the lines of descent of all organic beings. In drawing up the several series he trusts chiefly to
    embryological characters.”
    
    And so Darwin elaborated in his Descent of Man (1871, p. 203):
    "In attempting to trace the genealogy of the Mammalia, and therefore of man, lower down in the series, we become
    involved in greater and greater obscurity. He who wishes to see what ingenuity and knowledge can effect, may
    consult Prof. Haeckel's works."
    
    Haeckel ascended from infanticide also to genocide: "…the morphological differences
    between two generally recognized species - for example sheep and goats - are much less
    important than those… between a Hottentot and a man of the Teutonic race" (The History of
    Creation 1876, p. 434). He categorized human beings into "Woolly-haired" and "Straight-haired"
    classes. The Woolly-haired people were "incapable of a true inner culture or of a higher mental
    development" (The History of Creation, 1876, p. 310).
    Only among the Aryans was there that
    "symmetry of all parts, and that equal development, which we call the type of perfect human beauty" (The
    History of Creation, 1876, p. 321). "The mental life of savages rises little above that of the higher mammals,
    especially the apes, with which they are genealogically connected. Their whole interest is restricteed to the
    physiological functions of nutrition and reproduction, or the satisfaction of hunger and thirst in the crudest animal
    fashion… one can no more (or no less) speak of their reason than of that of the more intelligent animals." (The
    wonders of life, 1905, p. 56-7).
    
    Finally, since: "the lower races - such as the Veddahs or Australian Negroes - are psychologically nearer to the
    mammals - apes and dogs - than to the civilized European, we must, therefore, assign a totally different value to their
    lives… Their only interest are food and reproduction… many of the higher animals, especially monogamous mammals
    and birds, have reached a higher stage than the lower savages" (The wonders of life, 1905, p. 390, 393).
    
    So this was the one scientist whom Charles Darwin praised the most, even in the foreword to his Descent of Man in 1871.

    Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

56. 56. PlantDoc 03:10 PM 4/20/08

    In response to HaHaHa's questions:
    
    1. What is the actual approved Darwinist theory on how life came into existance [sic]?
    
    Evolution does not address the origins of life. This is a concept known as abiogenesis. At present, science has no clear, scientifically accepted explanation for the origin of life. On the other hand, evolution is an extremely well supported scientific theory that explains how life changes over time.
    
    Just as an FYI, it is a bit of a slur to refer to evolution as "Darwinism" or people who accept evolutionary theory as "Darwinists".
    
    2. Who created God or where did he come from?
    
    If a god exists, your guess is as good as mine.
    
    Hope this is helpful.

    Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

57. 57. KAR KAR 03:37 PM 4/20/08

    John Locke once asked this question:
    "What came first, mind or matter"?
    
    For the materialists who do science, the answer is a forgone conclusion and no other answers can be considered. Mindless matter came first and everything from the universe, to evolution to your decisions and actions are mind-less matter in motion. And anybody who presents factual evidence that suggests otherwise is just a toothless, "backwater", snake-handling, idiot who also probably believes in fairies, gnomes and hobgoblins.
    
    Today they don't burn you at the stake, but they do burn your reputation and career at the stake for even questioning materialism.
    
    This documentary exposes most modern scientists for what they are: puppets to this belief system. And by asking simple, direct questions Ben Stein shows his deftness as a masterful puppeteer.
    
    Go see this documentary. It's hilarious!

    Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

58. 58. Natedog 03:53 PM 4/21/08

    There are a few people in this thread who would rather appeal to your emotions than your logic.
    
    Lets say that Charles Darwin was a raving racist (something which I do not believe - and yes I have read both "On the Origin of Species" and "The Descent of Man").
    
    Lets also say that Nazi Germany used the theory of evolution to justify their atrocities (something else which I do not believe).
    
    Well what of it? The theory of evolution doesn't become any less true because humans chose to use that information to justify their own selfish and misguided deeds.
    
    As always humans can only blame themselves for the horrors they inflict on each other, not the world around them.
    
    --
    Edited by Natedog at 04/21/2008 8:59 AM

    Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

59. 59. woapalanne 09:32 PM 4/22/08

    Wait a moment, please. Let's see if I understand one of the key arguments promoted by Ben Stein, and expounded on by many pro-ID posters here... that argument seems to be something along the lines of, "if you are an 'evolutionist' or a 'Darwinist', you must therefore be a racist".
    
    The correlation to that argument also seems to be, if you are an ID proponent, you are a non-racist.
    
    That, of course, is complete hogwash. History (as well as current events) demonstrates the fallacy of that line of 'thought;. For example, ask: are the wars in the Middle East for the past 1000 years based on based on genocidal hatred due to religion, or because they have a competing scientific theory? When Europeans settled into North America, were the aboriginal inhabitants exterminated/dispossessed because they were unwashed heathens, or for scientific disagreement?
    
    Until 50 years ago, the doctrine of the "Curse of Ham" was very much approved doctrine in most churches. It still is in far too many. The "Curse of Ham" never was a scientific theory.
    
    To claim moral high ground as an ID-ist is to be ignorant of history.

    Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

60. 60. kyleofomaha 10:03 AM 4/24/08

    I finally get the whole intelligent design theory now! Life is way too complicated to have just started by it self. Life could not have just popped out of nowhere millions of years ago could it? The only thing that started itself would be God then? No, that can't be right at all, God is way, way to complicated to have just have started also! Ok then, That means God is a product of Intelligent design also , be it his own "God" or our own minds?
    It just goes to prove to believe in "Intelligent design" even a airhead can fly a 757 through the holes in the logic of the whole fricken thing. I'll take the view expounded in the movie "Mission to Mars".
    kyle in Omaha

    Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

61. 61. zbvhs01 05:38 PM 4/26/08

    As I see it, Ben Stein’s movie is another attempt by Creationists – now using the ID masquerade – to subvert science education and the First Amendment prohibition of official religion. Getting their dogma into public schools would provide leverage to enable the Creationists to expand their influence into other areas of our government with the ultimate goal of making Fundamentalist Christianity the national religion. Freedom of speech is not the issue as the movie alleges. Creationists have all the freedom they need to preach their peculiar view of the world through religious channels. Our governmental system is secular and must remain so if we all are to remain free.
    Ben Stein’s movie is a propaganda piece produced purely for political purposes. It has neither scientific nor religious value.
    
    As for Intelligent Design, what’s to discuss? ID posits a mysterious designer whose nature and identity are not revealed. The means by which the designer makes designs reality in our world are not described. Critics are left to conclude that ID operates through magic or miracle. That places it in the same realm of thought as Creationism.

    Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

62. 62. nautus 05:55 AM 4/27/08

    From the first sentence of the article (emphasis mine):
    "In the new __science-bashing__ movie ..."
    
    This is absolutely not the case, and is pretty typical of the mis-representation that occurs, really on both sides ("science bashing" vs. "religion bashing"). The movie is very pro-science, with people from various disciplines who are articulate and passionate about their respective fields, and mostly they would like be able to continue to do work in those fields.
    
    Second, for most fields, a person's belief about origins has almost nothing to do with their actual work. That's because the question is "How does it work (now)?" You don't need to have an origins theory to figure out how DNA, or cells, or whatever work, anymore than you need to know that Ford (or whoever) built your car in order to figure out how _it_ works. The question of how it originally came to be, is a separate question. It's basically the same process as reverse-engineering. Ideologically, one camp says there might be an engineer, and the other says, there isn't. Whether there is or not is somewhat beside the point: we have the behavior/object before us and we're trying to figure out how it works.
    
    At this point, it's tempting to say "So, STFU and let me do my job, you idiot (and you must be an idiot because any idiot can see this)," but that's not really very helpful or kind, is it? :) Plus, I don't think you're an idiot, I just think you're wrong about _this_ subject, and that's a big difference. :)

    Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

63. 63. Shinjiru 08:53 PM 4/28/08

    There is no reason for anyone to see this movie, more because the producer's and Ben Stein show no integrity.
    
    When I heard that Ben Stein tried to link the Holocaust to evolution, that is when I realize that the movie has no merit. One fact missing from the movie is that antisemitism existed since at least the 7th century, and it is on a rise now. How can people engage in an honest discussion of the issues in the film when important facts are omitted.
    
    Ben Stein wants people to believe that after Darwin's theory of evolution nothing has happened. Scientist are still continuing to work on the theory of evolution and question the some of Darwin's principles. One of them is the colour difference between male and female butterfly. It would be no surprise that Ben Stein does not know this.

    Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

64. 64. Bix1:6 05:01 AM 4/29/08

    There is so much more at stake here than what we are being led to believe, which is that 1st, this film speaks for a great many responsible American parents, and 2nd, it is making the case that the study of the Theory of Intelligent Design be introduced into our childrens curriculum [i]along side[/i] Darwinism, thus allowing for a freer, more open exchange of ideas. This would provide our children with a more well-rounded, and ultimately, better education.
    
    Gee whiz, that seems harmless enough, right? And we all want a better education for our children, right? Of course we do--we'd be horrible parents otherwise...and what could it hurt, really? Our kids would make it through aware of the truth, we'd see to that....annnnnnd.....
    
    Gotcha! You've been deceived from the get go--played like a fine violin. Sort of like Eve and the Serpent in the Garden of Eden. Oh, the irony.
    
    And before you know it, this....intangible, unverifable, wispy bit of superstitous fantasy is being taught as something serious, sound, and reasonable. And that will be that...the pursuit of truth & knowledge is out the door. The failure will be across the board & complete. I don't know about you, but the mere thought of my child, or yours, or anyone's...future generations..."learning" like this frightens me deeply...
    
    Let's cut the pretense that this is about God vs Science--that's another deception being used It's really about one portion of our society laying the groundwork to ensure future, on-going and continuous control of another portion of our society. It's the age old story, brought up to date.
    
    We're already losing the game on so many other fronts, we can't give up another, especially this one. To allow the teaching of mythology as actual fact would be the coup-de-grace--the death knell for the Grand Experiment.
    
    It's up to us to put a stop to this madness. We need to stop being afraid that we might bruise the sensitivities of a group of scheming, deviant, dangerous extremists. We have given these fringe whackos the badge of credibility, and now, rather than toss them out on their ear for even suggesting such nonsense, we stand very near to allowing implementation of their learned, well-reason'd proposals (poison)....the absolute absurdity of how far we've allowed this charade of legitimacy to procede gives me great pause.
    
    How easy it is to manipulate those mortally afraid to offend.
    
    Good grief. Enough, already. Wake up & smell the coffee, fellow human beings. I can see it now....
    
    The year is 2043, the place: 3rd grade science class, anywhere, USA.
    
    Little Billy: Teacher, where did (insert any subjet matter here..i.e, trees, bananas, mosquitos, the stars, chicken pox, lightening, human beings, etc., etc.) come from?
    
    Teacher: God, who is invisible, thousands of years old, and lives way up high in the clouds and already knows every single, teent-tiny thing everyone will ever say or do or even think in your brain, ever, made it magically appear by speaking it's name.
    
    Little Billy: rendered momentarily speechless, stares wide-eyed at the teacher.
    
    Teacher: Got it? Okay, then....class dismissed!
    
    Neat, eh? Just imagine this world by 2050. It will be a nighmare planet. Soooo....I propose this: No superstitious ethnic folklore masquerading as actual, bonafide fact allowed in our children's classroom...ever! Period!
    
    --
    Edited by Bix1:6 at 04/28/2008 10:08 PM
    
    --
    Edited by Bix1:6 at 04/28/2008 10:50 PM

    Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

65. 65. BrotherBob 04:30 AM 4/30/08

    The man is funny (more or less) and I thought his game show was a clever premise. His own commercial from the film presupposes that the viewer will be stupid enough to not realize that "Where life comes from" is addressed exactly nowhere in Darwin's famous work. His theory deals with what happened to life after it was already here, two distinctly dissimilar processes. As with most egocentric intellectual narcissists, he found out early in his career, his aberrant needs are more easily fulfilled when his target is dumb people. Like Rush, O'Reilly and Savage. I mean, the guy is proud that he was a Nixon speechwriter.
    
    Good God almighty.

    Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

66. 66. BrotherBob 05:19 AM 4/30/08

    Bix 1:6
    
    Your quaint and simple logic has inspired me. For example,we could save money and time teaching Animal Husbandry and Metal Shop "alongside" each other, also. The possibilities are endless.
    
    Any Baptist farmer will buy a prize bull to improve his herd, but most don't seem to be capable of understanding that over millions and millions of years, environment can do the same thing.
    
    And humans sprang fully formed from the brow of Zeus rather than evolve over the many, many years to homo sapiens.
    
    Historians have theorized that William Wallace was such a fierce and feared fighter in battle because he was huge. Forensic Paleontologists have deduced that he was about 6'5". Now, a 6'10" athlete is small for a center in the NBA and and there are Chinamen seven and a half feet tall.
    
    There are two distinctly different breeds of squirrels that used to be identical, because they can't interbreed. But they can see each other. They are separated only by the Grand Canyon. ID is Religion, not science, with as much credibility as VooDoo.
    
    It's all in your head.
    
    --
    Edited by BrotherBob at 04/29/2008 10:21 PM

    Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

67. 67. davidb 03:21 PM 5/4/08

    I have yet to see the film, but I plan to. Regardless if it turns out to have some issues as your article asserts, I admit I find the scientific community to be downright hostile when it comes to ID. I've experienced a great deal of hatred personally directed at myself on numerous occasions when attempting to have a simple discussion on ID vs. Darwin.
    
    When I've suggested that Darwin supporters refute ID theories in the scientific arena, I often hear "we don't want to open the door and give those crackpot theories the time of day", and "that would open the floodgates and force us to defend our viewpoint against any theory that comes along."
    
    I've also suggested that both theories be presented in the classroom and allow the students themselves investigate the two using scientific methods of inquiry and I was sharply rebuked for that approach.
    
    Why are so many scientists are opposed to open dialog on this issue?

    Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

68. 68. Godlesspanther 07:00 PM 5/5/08

    Hi Folks,
    
    I have put a 3-part series of videos on Youtube. These are a review of Ben Stein's Expelled.
    
    Here are links to these videos:
    
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h1mztWF1n18
    
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z5y8SUcyXhk&watch_response
    
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gHCxtthECto&watch_response

    Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

69. 69. Natedog 05:18 PM 5/6/08

    >I admit I find the scientific community to be downright hostile when it comes to ID.
    
    That is because the theory of intelligent design is not in any shape or form scientific and yet ignorant people keep trying to force it on the scientific community.
    
    >When I've suggested that Darwin supporters refute ID theories in the scientific arena.
    
    And how exactly would they do that? There is no science behind ID so there is nothing to refute. It is purely philosophical and hence outside the realm of science. It would be no different than asking the scientific community to refute Santa Claus in the scientific arena.
    
    >I often hear "we don't want to open the door and give those crackpot theories the time of day", and "that would open the floodgates and force us to defend our viewpoint against any theory that comes along."
    
    Science deals with scientific theories not just any idea that happens to pop into someone’s head. If you have testable data or evidence to support a theory science can be applied.
    
    >I've also suggested that both theories be presented in the classroom and allow the students themselves investigate the two using scientific methods of inquiry and I was sharply rebuked for that approach.
    
    Ok, and what scientific methods would you have students use to test the theory of intelligent design? There are no samples, no evidence (not even mathematically), nothing which could be tested using the scientific method. The students investigation into ID would last exactly 0 seconds.
    
    Everyone knows exactly why groups such as the Discovery Institute want to have ID taught in schools and it has nothing to do with science and everything to do with religion.
    
    >Why are so many scientists are opposed to open dialog on this issue?
    
    I suppose it has something to do with the fact that at present the issue has nothing to do with their profession.
    
    --
    Edited by Natedog at 05/06/2008 1:35 PM

    Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

70. 70. Coop9002 09:10 PM 5/8/08

    Once again the author of this article needs to stick to science and admit his lack of understanding with respect to history. Stalin's butchery of untold millions of his own people through eugenic experimentation is well-documented. If you don't believe me, then check out the writings of Aleksander Solzhenitsyn, who had suffered firsthand the horrors of Stalin's atheistic and inhumane treatment of his fellow man. To glaze over Darwin's influence on both Hitler and Marx is not only naive, it is intellectually dishonest. While I am not an expert on life in the former Soviet Union, I have spent some time with people who were victimized by some of the lesser atrocities of this humanistic regime.
    
    If one wants to know more about Stalin's agenda, try reading the Gulag Archipelago by Solzhenitsyn. Also, spend a little time talking with those who have lived through communism, not eggheads who have viewed it from afar.

    Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

71. 71. Natedog 03:12 PM 5/9/08

    >Once again the author of this article needs to stick to science and admit his lack of understanding with respect to history. Stalin's butchery of untold millions of his own people through eugenic experimentation is well-documented. If you don't believe me, then check out the writings of Aleksander Solzhenitsyn, who had suffered firsthand the horrors of Stalin's atheistic and inhumane treatment of his fellow man. To glaze over Darwin's influence on both Hitler and Marx is not only naive, it is intellectually dishonest. While I am not an expert on life in the former Soviet Union, I have spent some time with people who were victimized by some of the lesser atrocities of this humanistic regime.
    
    Since you are so interested in the Darwin's influence on world learders you may be interested in reading the statements released by the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) on April 29, 2008.
    
    "The film Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed misappropriates the Holocaust and its imagery as a part of its political effort to discredit the scientific community which rejects so-called intelligent design theory. Hitler did not need Darwin to devise his heinous plan to exterminate the Jewish people and Darwin and evolutionary theory cannot explain Hitler’s genocidal madness."
    
    The ADL press release also said, “Using the Holocaust in order to tarnish those who promote the theory of evolution is outrageous and trivializes the complex factors that led to the mass extermination of European Jewry.”
    
    http://www.adl.org/PresRele/HolNa_52/5277_52.htm
    
    Also, for the record Darwin was against the idea of eugenics. In the Descent of Man Darwin states:
    
    "With savages, the weak in body or mind are soon eliminated. We civilized men, on the other hand, do our utmost to check the process of elimination. We build asylums for the imbecile, the maimed and the sick, thus the weak members of civilized societies propagate their kind. No one who has attended to the breeding of domestic animals will doubt that this must be highly injurious to the race of man. Hardly anyone is so ignorant as to allow his worst animals to breed.”
    
    “The aid which we feel impelled to give to the helpless is mainly an incidental result of the instinct of sympathy, which was originally acquired as part of the social instincts, but subsequently rendered, in the manner previously indicated, more tender and more widely diffused. Nor could we check our sympathy, if so urged by hard reason, without deterioration in the noblest part of our nature.”
    
    Expelled only quotes the first paragraph while omitting the second completely. Gee, I wonder why? Maybe it has something to do with the fact that the man was against the very ideas the film wants to convince people he promotes.
    
    (source http://www.expelledexposed.com/)
    
    --
    Edited by Natedog at 05/09/2008 10:33 AM

    Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

72. 72. Alden Olmsted 05:39 AM 5/15/08

    The fear that you display makes Ben's point even more awesome! Darwin admitted himself that his theories were not "finished." Why then, is it so horrible to continue to question them?

    Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

73. 73. Natedog 10:16 PM 5/15/08

    >Darwin admitted himself that his theories were not "finished." Why then, is it so horrible to continue to question them?
    
    People did and continue to questions them. The result is the modern theory of evolution.
    
    Were you under the impression that everyone just took Darwin at his word? Science doesn't take anything on faith.
    
    The past 137 years have seen some of his theories revised or rejected while others have endured.
    
    --
    Edited by Natedog at 05/16/2008 6:32 AM

    Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

74. 74. lystgl 05:58 PM 5/22/08

    Hate to be you when you find yourself at the Pearly Gates asking to get in John. Man, you boys do like to use the phrase "peer-reviewed" now don't you? Must make it all so, if it's peer reviewed! No chance of, "If you say my premise is right, I'll say yours is too" kind of thing is there? No, I'm sure there's none of that ever happening in the so-called scientific community. Just look at climate change. One decade we're heading into another ice age, next we've got global warming. Peer-reviewed global warming no less! Strange though, how, what's scientific fact today, is often disputed tomorrow and what was "fact" yesterday just "evolved" into a new improved or altogether different fact today. Nope John, glad I'm not you bud!

    Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

75. 75. gaggedandbeaten 10:46 PM 5/22/08

    This article only substantiates the point of Expelled. The movie isnt a debate of evolution vs. ID. Its the lack of debate and the limiting of access to other thoughts and ideas by a closed minded arrogant society of "scientists". Evolution cant be proven beyond a doubt because none of you bastards have been alive longer than a span of decades. So Expelled shouldn't have been made because it doesn't agree with your teaching? And...whose closed minded?

    Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

76. 76. Meggae 12:15 PM 5/23/08

    The most fortunate element of “Darwinism/Evolutionism” is that there is no hell to which dissenters can be damned.

    Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

77. 77. bxjam85 10:17 PM 5/23/08

    I have news for everyone. Evolution is an observable fact! That's right, the fact that species change over time is a fact. A scientific theory is an explanation for an observable fact. For example, the theory of electricity, theory of physics, etc. The best scientific theory we have for evolution is that it occurs due to natural selection and genetic drift. This theory has been tried and tested and all the current evidence supports it. Have you ever heard of DNA or evolutionary biology? Darwin's theory has come a long way since his time.
    
    The question really should be whether or not creationism/intelligent design is science in the first place. The emphatic answer to that question is NO! It is like saying that Thor is a scientific explanation for thunder and lightening . . . lol.

    Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

78. 78. bxjam85 10:24 PM 5/23/08

    Clearly, science and religion are not mutually exclusive, so please stop saying that? If they were mutually exclusive we wouldn't be having this discussion. That is a cop out that religious believers use. Religion makes psuedo-scientific claims and says that they are absolutly true. In fact, one of the reasons why religion was invented was to explain what could not be explained. Man has been making up supernatural explanations for natural phenomena for as long as we can remember and he has always been wrong. What you see now is religion losing the battle with science, and this trend will continue. People like Ben Stein just can't accept the fact that religion is losing the battle to reason. Social evolution is a great thing.

    Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

79. 79. Sharon1951 11:09 PM 5/23/08

    You made such a good point - that the movie is about the lack of discussion! Then you call someone a "bastard" and negate much of the force of your argument. -- Walt & Sharon

    Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

80. 80. tbertuzzi 04:27 PM 5/24/08

    lystgl,
    You think 10 years ago we were plummeting to an ice age, and now we've reversed course to global warming?? That is entirely false, and I am baffeled as to where you came up with that. 10 years ago the scientific concensus was that we are almost certainly heading towards global warming. Now scientists are even more certain due to 10 more years of oberservation as well as advances in climate modelling.
    Your overall concept of the scientific community is greatly flawed. There really absolutely is "No chance of, "If you say my premise is right, I'll say yours is too" kind of thing..."
    I'll tell you why. Scientific publications do not rely on your simple-mided concept of peer review, they use "Double Blind Peer review". That means that a reviewer has no idea who's paper they are reading, and therefore reply objectively to the quality of the work. There is not even the possibility of "I'll scatch your back if you scratch mine". This concept of scientific integrity dates back to the origins of the Royal Society several centuries ago and has existed ever since.
    And yes, as human knowledge advances, old theories give way to new ones. That's not "strange", it's wonderful. Theories don't often get thrown out wholesale. They evolve as missing links are filled in. Take Rutherford's atom. By today's standards it is not 100% correct. But he was on the right track, and we have expanded on his work, not rejected it. In Darwin's time, modern genetics hadn't taken form, so some chapers in "the Origin" are now outdated and are disregarded. But much of his work has stood the test of time, even if it has been refined and updated. This does not provide reason to distrust everything that science has to offer!
    
    --
    Edited by tbertuzzi at 05/24/2008 9:39 AM
    
    --
    Edited by tbertuzzi at 05/24/2008 9:41 AM

    Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

81. 81. jgkyker 09:49 PM 5/24/08

    When will everyone admit there are two factions of evolution: one where creation happened by chance ("chance" evolution) and the other which observes intelligence guided evolution ("guided" evolution).
    
    Mathematical statistics do not support chance evolution. It would take many times the currently purported age of the universe to statistically occur. Therefore, statistics support the theory that something intelligent sped up the evolutionary process, or in other words, something intelligent allowed it to occur in an infinite or EXTREMELY unlikely probability.

    Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

82. 82. jgkyker 10:02 PM 5/24/08

    Can a tornado create a 747 airplane, fuel it, add an automated guidance system, and switch on the aircraft? How much time would it take?
    
    Here's something easier. How much time would it take to randomly type in 100 letter Ds using 50 keys. To get it on the first try, you have a 1 in (approximately) 78,886,090,522,101,180,541,172,856,528,279,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 chance.
    
    Say you can somehow crank out 100 character combinations in 1/10th of a second. That means in 1 second you have already randomly cycled through ten 100 character sequences. That would be 600 attempts a minute. This would take you 2,499,749,363,769,779,087,800,493,590,395,900,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 years. The age of the universe is purported to be only 13,700,000,000 years plus or minus 200 million. You couldn't even do it if you had 999 vigintillion (999 with 63 zeros) times the age of our universe! And this is giving an ENORMOUS amount of leeway.
    
    Bottom line, the human body and reality as it exists is INFINITELY more complex than trying to type 100 letter D combinations. Guided evolution makes sense statistically. Chance evolution does not. Yet, no one ever seems to make this connection.

    Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

83. 83. jgkyker 10:12 PM 5/24/08

    Even if one considers infinite attempts at "chance" evolution, this does nothing for the theory because there are infinite possibilities. Just because there are x number of possibilities, does not mean a specific possibility is ever reached in a specific period of time (i.e. the age of our universe). Multiple attempts may end in the same result. In the case of the 100 Ds, you can hit the same sequence of letters over and over again. Infinite attempts and infinite possibilities means infinite time. With that logic, we would STILL be waiting on evolution to create us.
    
    Something intelligent broke through the statistical barriers and made evolutionary creation happen. (IF it even happened in the first place, which we have no certainty of knowing right now.)
    
    --
    Edited by jgkyker at 05/24/2008 3:15 PM

    Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

84. 84. Alden Olmsted 06:02 AM 5/25/08

    Natedog: What do you mean when you say "how would they test it?" isn't Science based on Testing and then recording results, and then making a conclusion? The human body is enough evidence right there, where are the people with five arms? Four eyes? etc..? If you want me to actually buy that all the ORDER, happened by DISORDER, you're asking me to suspend my LOGIC, which, I thought, was something scientists DON'T DO???
    
    There are over 3,000 nuts and bolts that come together to make an automobile. Some of the guys on the assembly line may not be too "intelligent", but there WAS considerable DESIGN behind it. I could care less what, if any religion gets attached to it, I just want to know why you "scientists" are so afraid?
    
    - And by the way, notice how I have the balls to post my real name - that's because I'm not ashamed of what I believe in!
    
    - And one more thing, wasn't it a scientist who said "no machine ever created has more moving parts than one living cell." How could that cell, just "happen," no matter how much heat and time come together.
    
    Every day the sun rises, and it sets, that's a little thing called ORDER!!!

    Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

85. 85. tbertuzzi 02:38 PM 5/25/08

    People love to throw out stats such as the probability of randomly hitting hundreds of D's in a row on a keyboard. But that is not a good analogy for the real world. The chance of hitting D on 1 keystroke is 1 in 50. The chance of hitting the next key is again 1 in 50, and there is absolutely no reason that it needs to be a D.
    The world hasn't marched in an orderly fashion into its current configuration. Well over 99% of the species that have existed no longer do. Nature is full of botched attempts at survival as very specific niches have changed enough to push a species past the brink.
    The outcome of any 1 situation in nature will be the most probable one. It doesn’t matter what the chances are of ‘everything that has ever happened being exactly as is’. That fraction is obviously massive. The world we live in today is the product of the most likely outcome taking place in an uncountable number of different situations, and is therefore more likely than any other possibility. A much better question for a 747 is: what is the probability that after 3+ billion years of life on earth a multi-cellular group of organisms with degrees in aeronautical engineering would be able to draw up the blue prints for a 747 and successfully have it built.
    If you flip a coin 5 times and get heads every time, what is the chance of getting heads on the 6th flip? Obviously 1 in 2, and the unlikelihood of the previous 5 heads in no way alters the current chances of getting heads.

    Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

86. 86. tbertuzzi 03:16 PM 5/25/08

    The probability of the exact outcome of a football game is very low. It is safe to say that there have never been 2 identical football games, when examined down to every inch of every play. Does this fact make it impossible for a given result to take place? Is it absolutely necessary that an external force be interfering with the game in order for the game’s statistically improbable result to occur?

    Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

87. 87. jgkyker 07:18 PM 5/25/08

    You misunderstood the idea. I didn't say 100 letter Ds separately. I said altogether. To hit 2 letter Ds, in a row with 50 keys, is a 1 in 2,500 chance. My statement may have been confusing.
    
    Also, as far as the attempts at refuting the argument. You prove my point again. Intelligence drives the football game. Intelligence created the 747. You are just proving my point.
    
    I am saying that it takes intelligence to do these things. They do not happen by chance. If you consider pure chance, it is not statistically possible in the age of our universe (at least, what we believe to be the age of our universe, which could be wrong). If you believe otherwise, you are essentially giving mathematical statistics a thumbs down, which is just silly.
    
    The numbers are proof. If you can't consecutively hit 100 letter Ds randomly at 600 tries a minute in the age of our universe, there is NO way anything more complex randomly occurred either. We would still be waiting for it to occur.
    
    Clearly, according to a very unlikely probability involving a very simple task, intelligence ensures the improbable becomes probable. For instance, if I write a computer program to always use the letter D (instead of the other 50 keys), suddenly, it only takes 1 try to accomplish the simple task of hitting 100 letter Ds in a row. Very cool how intelligence works. On the other hand, if I programmed a computer to use 50 random characters, the computer would likely fall apart over the next million years as it tries to accomplish the task. That is, unless somebody, an intelligence, continues to keep it running over that time.
    
    The point is that intelligence always beats random chance in a time race, and if you look at the situation statistically, you see that there is no possibility of ever accomplishing infinitely complex improbabilities in the age of our universe. There hasn't been enough time! Intelligence is the only answer, if you don't ignore the mathematics.
    
    --
    Edited by jgkyker at 05/25/2008 9:04 PM

    Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

88. 88. synphilter 11:18 PM 5/25/08

    I think that God is so intelligent he designed a universe that could evolve life with no further input from him, leaving him time to work on his break dancing skills.
    Synphilter

    Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

89. 89. jgkyker 03:59 AM 5/26/08

    That's hilarious! I can go with that considering the omniscient sense of humor. :^O

    Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

90. 90. tbertuzzi 10:52 AM 5/26/08

    If you are attempting to make an arguement based on a mathematical model, try starting with one that reflects reality. Keyboard strokes do not represent a valid mathematical system to describe anything other than keyboard strokes, and therefore don't prove anything. As an engineer who designs things based on mathematical models, I can tell you that a good starting point is the best possible simlation of the actual system being described, not a contrived situation unconnected to reality.
    It is unlikely that I'll win the state lottery 100 times in a row, therefore god exists! There... happy?

    Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

91. 91. lystgl 05:46 PM 5/26/08

    My post read "one decade" not "one decade ago". The decade in question was the 70's when science was sure we were hurtling toward another ice age. Phoenix just landed on Mars. I can guarantee you they'll find no evidence of life. Unscientific to be sure and certainly not peer reviewed but there it is. Evolution, the big bang theory, little green men from outer space, nothing but a good story, the stuff of science fiction movies. Evolution is nothing but adaptation. Animals, and man to a certain extent, adapt to their environment. Polar bears, bless them - there are thousands more than there have ever been, but scientists still insist they're in danger of extinction, can swim in below freezing waters and thrive in the harshest of weather yet koala and pandas can't. Those who step back a pace and are able to "see" without the blinders of today's scientific "thought" are labeled deniers, simplistic, religious zealots and even dangerous when the real danger is in blind acceptance of unproven and unprovable supposition. Today's scientists are not scientists but simply followers without vision and when it comes to the latest scientific "craze" - global warming" would have their detractors, who they've already labeled "deniers" put on the rack or burned at the stake were it possible, their cries of unmitigated hate toward these doubters are so vehement. Science? Hardly!

    Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

92. 92. jdlvhs 08:08 PM 5/26/08

    Many of you are missing Ben Stein’s point: the absolute and unquestionable rejection by the scientific community to simply allow dialogue on the subject of Intelligent Design.
    
    The egos of many scientists are so large there is no room for alternative thought, especially if it has any connection at all to religion.
    
    Carefully consider these questions: How long is eternity? Have you ever felt emotional agony? Have you ever been heartbroken, experienced the death of a parent or child, etc.?
    
    We have two choices here on earth and the choice we make will have a direct effect on how we will spend all of eternity: we either believe in God or we reject His existence.
    
    There is no scientific proof of either! So let’s explore the two decisions and their similarities and their differences:
    
    FIRST: Reject God: Live your life trying to explain everything scientifically and being very successful but dying before millions of questions are answered. Good for you.
    
    Now there are two ways your soul could possibly spend eternity: If your assertion is correct and there is no God then whatever you contributed during your short (a drop in the bucket in the span of eternity) existence on earth is meaningless to you now. If we are all going to die and there is nothing waiting for us after death, what’s the point? After all, there is no way for you to tell the religious, “I told you so” because everyone is dead!
    
    Now let’s consider if you’re wrong and there IS life after death but you (oops?) rejected God. Now your soul is destined to spend all of eternity in emotional agony!?! Now it’s too late to change your mind! Your scientific proofs are now worthless and your academic smarter than thou colleagues cannot save you!
    
    SECOND: Accept God: Live your live understanding that belief in God and scientific explanations can coexist. Will there be many questions that will go unanswered? Yes! But your faith will help you to accept that some of life’s questions MUST wait until after death to be answered (God’s plan?). During this life you can be very successful both in the scientific community AND in the church.
    
    Now let’s consider the two possibilities for afterlife mentioned above. My assertion that God exists is wrong (and you were right, woohoo for you!) and we’re all dead. No negative consequences for my being wrong just as there were no positive consequences for you because you were right. We will share an equal eternal existence (or nonexistence).
    
    Now, what if I’m right? After I die, I will live in eternal happiness being grateful that I made the right choice on earth. My education will be priceless while yours will be worthless. I will mourn for your miserable soul that will continue to exist in agony for the remainder all of eternity (which now seems to be a much longer period of time than you first imagined, right?)
    
    So let’s recap; if you’re right and I’m wrong, it’s a wash (in the span of eternity), here today, gone tomorrow. Neither of us is better off than the other. Yes, during our short time on earth you can look down your nose at us unscientific people who believe in God but can’t prove it, I hope it will be worth it for you in the long run.
    
    But if I’m right and you’re wrong, well then, there’s a world of difference (heaven or hell)!
    
    For me the choice is simple: I believe in God and in Jesus Christ His only son, who was born, taught us how to live, suffered, and died for us. The church He started (Saint Peter was our first pope) still exists today as the Roman Catholic Church and remained more or less unchallenged as the ONLY Christian church for over a thousand years. We now have over two thousand Christian faiths because men think they are bigger than God and can disagree and make their own decisions and start their own church. Has the Catholic Church made many, many mistakes over the last two thousand years? Absolutely!!! But God is not surprised; rather He understands that we will make mistakes. He wants us to acknowledge our mistakes and return to Him; He is always waiting. We must be very careful not to think we know (remember that humans are generally incapable of using more that about ten percent of our brains!) more than God.
    
    God is loving and forgiving but remember, with every passing moment, you are making your decision on how you want to spend your eternity. Religion has room for your science to exist; does your science have any room for God???

    Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

93. 93. SebasA 01:38 AM 5/28/08

    jdlvhs (posted before) and Ben Stein prove time and again why (appart from comming up with any valid scientific research/arguments) it is impossible to accept IDists. Religeon breeds hypocracy and the need to rant on about inexplainable truth and beliefs, good and bad, burn or be right, stopping questions from having actuall answers other than an old dusty doctirine described. In this case, the new testaments for Christians, witch was put together about 400 years after Christ by a single man, chosing but 4 out of all known writing apostilles(very open minded). This was done in a time where Jezuits and other related Jezus faiths gained (chaotic) popularity throughout [u]Europe[/u]. So much for Roman Catholic ego ranting. Besides, most main stream churches deviate from Christs teachings, for one, his were more acin to Budhist teachings than the gold covered, ornament praising misuse of money [i]and[/i] unclarity of mind, we've seen for decades without end. (like: how many richly ornamented homes does the [i]omny present one[/i] need, when people all over have lived in poverty since forever?)
    
    I do not oppose anyone of any faith lest they are conceited, have even expirienced/felt devine guidance and ponder the ever-pressence of a highest power myself. But, honestly jdlvhs, isnt't your post stained a bit with self gratification and condemnation of others (atheists) still? Mourning and sympathy aside, it is a typical religeonists response leading to a deharmonisation in society wherefrom religeon stands no ground of leading by example, merely segregating from others. Take into account that "you" would praise Allah, Budha or Vishna [i]were you born in any other part of the world[/i], condemn the "unknown mother Teressa" who hardly heard of Christ and God in her Mountain village. Man has always sought answers, praised and prayed from primal gods or sacret trees. Always the dilema of not understanding and over aserting, always the leaders that paved the way to excercise the how and why.
    
    All too often, as with IDist, religeonists take their Lord's words into their own mouthes for self- benefit and gratification, dont see "the words of man" in their doctirine and the unholy animal response it invokes towards others. Hoping to assimilate others only to prove their own point, blind to the words spilt, an arrogance none should even consider to do so blatently as too often seems to happen. This is felt by scientists, is partial to why ID and science do not mix. Ben Stein is a good example of such sentiments, a poor example of leading by example and honest reasoning.
    
    It is not possible to apply an uncomprehencive "truth" to understandable studies. True that many scientist are opinionated even trend followers and stigmatize believers as believers can, like the use of the word Darwanist in Stein's lauzy attempt. But, religeon does, even aims to [i]tame and dumb down more often than it truly enlighten[/i], contradicts a fair bulk of its deeper teachings. Don't think so? Every grand atrocity to mankind has been powered by religeon and its dumbed down patriots, Amerika excercises the most frightning [u]current[/u] example to the entire world (one sided, self righteous, violent modern cruisades), even more than their supposed enemies. ID is part of- and supported by such narrowminded persuit of thought. FRIGHTENING! How could they (IDfigeters) ever hope to join the saints of material understanding, natural development, chaotic progression and intelligent enlightenment? If our god (everyone's) made this blue ball possible and took his time to make it self-progress, he must have a great time watching "the days of our lives" pass, but ID will surely not find one valid answer.
    
    Love bless
    
    (not native to english, xcuse mai spellingses)
    
    --
    Edited by SebasA at 05/27/2008 7:01 PM

    Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

94. 94. Beckfield 05:37 PM 5/28/08

    Nobody is missing Ben Stein's point. It's just that his point is so radically off-base that it is laughable. I am very disappointed in Ben Stein. I thought he had a little more intelligence and integrity than to get mixed up in such a dishonest venture.
    
    The scientific community is more than willing to welcome SCIENTIFIC discussion of intelligent design. The trouble is, there hasn't been any. Several 'theories' have been proposed by intelligent design proponents. Each and every one of them has failed the peer review process because their 'science' was so faulty, using the term 'science' to describe it is tantamount to fraud. The questionable perception by some of "...the absolute and unquestionable rejection by the scientific community to simply allow dialogue on the subject of Intelligent Design" is, if it's honest at all, simply due to the fact that no NEW argument for intelligent design has surfaced in a very long time. All we've been hearing for perhaps decades are repackaged, re-marketed restatements of the same old creationist superstition.
    
    Just like you don't discuss photography in an English class, religion has no place in a science class. And, yes, intelligent design is a religious belief. Pressed far enough, every intelligent design proponent will ultimately fall back to GMHDI ("God Must Have Done It"). I fail to see why so many people are incapable of seeing that. Then again, I also fail to see how anyone can take the 'fire insurance' argument for christianity, as illustrated by jdlvhs, seriously, either.
    
    Neither the Discovery Institute nor any other creationist proponent has made a truly scientific argument. I have yet to see a creationist argument that doesn't boil down ultimately to "We can't comprehend the complexity, therefore God Must Have Done It." There's no science in that, and the Discovery Institute knows it. How do I know they know? Because, if they truly believed in the scientific validity of their position, they would not have to resort to the dishonest ("christian??") tactics, like the ones employed in this movie, which they and so many others have perpetrated.
    
    --
    Edited by Beckfield at 05/30/2008 9:35 AM

    Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

95. 95. EastwoodDC 07:24 PM 5/28/08

    jdlvhs:
    
    Your two choices very much resemble [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pascal's_Wager]Pascal's Wager[/url].
    
    Sorry is this has been brought up before, I haven't had a chance to read this whole thread yet.

    Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

96. 96. jdlvhs 04:53 AM 5/29/08

    In reply to SebasA and Beckfield
    
    Try to read this slowly so it's not too difficult for you to understand (I'll type slower for you too). No one disputes your claim that religious beliefs are not science, are not proveable, and have no place in a science classroom. All we are asking for is to consider our ideas about the things your science cannot prove. You know, like how the world and all its wonders came into existence? Until a scientist can create a human or a tree or even a germ from mud (by the way, who created the mud?), the science community's answer to the origin of our universe is no more believeable than the ideas proposed by the ID community.
    
    Your saying "because ID is not science, it is therefore nonsence" is like us saying "since you can't prove how life began, your theories are also nonsense"!
    
    Be careful that one day your science doesn't become capable of proving ID thinkers maybe use 11% or 12% of our brain capacity because we're able to expand our thinking past the paradigms of 'scientific proveability' while your limited capacity for thought remains stuck in that 10% region???
    
    Why won't you let us inside the door? Do you hope that if you keep us locked out long enough, maybe we'll go away and stop interfering with your experiments? What are you so afraid of? Maybe we have some good ideas? Why not let our theories stand next to yours (since neither are proveable) and may the best idea win?
    
    Look, we could go back and forth disagreeing with each others point of view for years to come and never prove anything. Since your theory of life's origins are no more proveable than those proposed by ID, if you still insist on keeping us locked out (science is right, ID is wrong because we say so), it is proof enough that you must be afraid of something, whether you admit it or not??? It's called denial.

    Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

97. 97. alfredbenjaminking 08:07 AM 5/29/08

    I support Ben Stein a hundred per cent.
    It's a shame that websites like this fight against what America was built 4; which is freedom ( including freedom of speech ).
    Anyway what are U evolutionists doing to feel in the gaps that the theory of evolution leaves.
    It's a shame that U guys can't see that your hatred 4 Christians is as equal a crime as white on black racism.
    And don't U know Darwin suggest in his book that the black race are inferior to the white race; saying we are closer to monkeys on the evolution chain. Which was b/4 blacks were made slaves. Darwin is the father of racism. But I understand this website is supported by a white audience.
    Anyway the Jesus U are against is the one that is keeping me from hating U.
    Much love.

    Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

98. 98. Beckfield 04:45 PM 5/29/08

    "No one disputes your claim that religious beliefs are not science, are not proveable, and have no place in a science classroom."
    
    Actually, that is [i]exactly[/i] what creationists, including the Discovery Institute, are disputing. Read the news. Watch the discussions. Listen to the press conferences. Read the court transcripts. That is EXACTLY what is being disputed.
    
    The science community never has, and likely never will, claim that they KNOW the answer to the origin of the universe. That is exclusively the position of the creationist. Scientists acknowledge that their theories in this matter are nothing more than theories. However, in contrast to the so-called "theory" proposed by creationists, scientific theories are at least backed up by science. That's not to say they are correct. It only says that there are observable, testable evidences that logically support the possibility that the theories are correct. Creation "theory" cannot say that.
    
    You also need to be more careful about confusing Evolution with Cosmology. The Theory of Evolution does not seek to prove how the universe originated. Evolution ONLY attempts to understand how life changes, adapts, and diversifies over time. The fact that so many creationists continue to think otherwise, even in the face of constantly repeated correction, is a sad commentary on either the state of education, or the honesty of the creationists who seem unwilling or unable to understand the difference.
    
    "Why won't you let us inside the door? Why not let our theories stand next to yours (since neither are proveable) and may the best idea win?"
    
    The door is wide open. As I've already said, you have no scientific theories. Come up with some science to support your belief, and the science community will take it seriously. Until then, religion belongs in church, not public schools.
    
    Since you continue to assert that your "theories" are just as valid as scientific theories, I submit that it is you who are in denial.

    Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

99. 99. helicopterjunky 06:51 PM 5/29/08

    Evolution is based on the fossil record and it is now know that the fossil record does not support evolution.

    Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

100. 100. Nessus 07:58 PM 5/29/08

     The fossil record does support evolution, as anyone familiar with it knows. This does seem to include the proponents of Intelligent Design.
     
     There is no reason to treat this nonsense any differently just because Ben Stein is on board. ID isn't about science - it's about politics. The Discovery institute is engaged in disingenuous behavior. They care no more about evolution than they do about the history of tennis rackets.
     
     They care nothing about evolutionary biology, geology, physics, or any other scientific endeavor. They are not disinterested observers of natural phenomena with a new and interesting view of the evidence. They are self admittedly a poltiical hit squad, devoted to getting rid of "scientific materialism."
     
     They were exposed as such in court in Pennsylvania. It's over in Dover, baby, and our win is Darwin.
     
     --
     Edited by Nessus at 05/29/2008 12:59 PM

     Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

101. 101. Beckfield 11:39 PM 5/29/08

     I just can't help imagining Ben Stein standing there saying "Truth?..... Truth?..... Truth?..... Truth?....." and receiving no answer, until somebody says "My best friend's sister's boyfriend's brother's girlfriend heard from this guy who knows this kid who's going with the girl who saw Truth pass out at 31 Flavors last night."
     
     So he made this movie without it.

     Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

102. 102. EastwoodDC 09:52 PM 5/30/08

     > Evolution is based on the fossil record and it is now
     > know that the fossil record does not support evolution.
     
     Let's put an end to this falsehood. Every fossil is evidence for evolution. Any lack of fossils doesn't prove anything at all.
     
     There may be gaps in the record, but it is not a reasonable standard to require that fossils of every creature that every lived be produced. If we put the same standard on ID, then we would require proof that no fossil exists that can possibly be explained by evolution. This might be a little tough to do, considering we've already got museums full of examples.

     Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

103. 103. EastwoodDC 10:46 PM 5/30/08

     tbertuzzi wrote:
     > The probability of the exact outcome of a football
     > game is very low. It is safe to say that there have
     > never been 2 identical football games, when examined
     > down to every inch of every play. Does this fact make
     > it impossible for a given result to take place? Is it
     > absolutely necessary that an external force be
     > interfering with the game in order for the game’s
     > statistically improbable result to occur?
     
     You are on the right track here, but missed something important.
     
     The probability of any series of historical events determined in this way is always going to be very small (OK, maybe not "what is the probability of the sun rising today", but that has no serious element of randomness). In fact it's very easy to come up with probabilities for every day events that are [u]far[/u] smaller that the much abused [url=http://www.aetheling.com/essays/Borel.html]"Borel Lmit"[/url].
     
     The point you missed is this isn't a proper way to consider such a probability in the first place. A single point probability, or a likelihood, means nothing unless it is considered in the context of a hypothesis and the alternatives to that hypothesis. ID arguments fail here either because they have no testable hypothesis, or fail to allow any other alternative at all (sometimes both).
     In a statistical test of a hypothesis we also consider the sum of all alternatives that are [i]less likely[/i] than the outcome we observed, but might have also occurred. Only when this entire sum is "small" do we begin to think it might be more than just random variation, and the hypothesis therefore might not be true. The ID math fails to consider anything but a single point probability (the combination of all historical events), and disregards all the other possibilities entirely.
     
     There is yet a larger flaw here: ID would like to disprove all of the theory of evolution in one fell swoop, and so presents this irreducible complexity argument as if that is the end of the discussion. In fact evolution is not a single hypothesis, but a collection of many, formed, refined, and tested over many years. No good scientist would think of trying to prove all of evolution in the way that ID tries to justify itself. ID does not even approach its own evidence in a scientific way.

     Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

104. 104. jdlvhs 02:55 AM 5/31/08

     Reply to Nessus, et. al.
     
     "ID isn't about science - it's about politics...They were exposed as such in court in Pennsylvania. It's over in Dover, baby, and our win is Darwin."
     
     I can't prove God exists and you can't prove man evolved from monkeys so...the score is tied!!!
     
     Or did I miss something? Why are there still monkeys if they evolved into humans? Or maybe I missed where a monkey gave birth to a human? Or maybe the monkeys are still evolving and there really are Sasquaches living in Canada trying desperately to blend in to society hoping no one will notice?
     
     Did you know, my science professor in college actually admitted to us (his students) that Darwin's original manuscript contained several references to God (because he, Darwin, really was a believer) but the publisher (undoubtedly some atheist with too much power) refused to go to print until ALL references to God were omitted?
     
     But all you 'science or else' types will go on spewing your venom all the while stuck in your paradigm that if it can't be proven, it doesn't exist and no one will ever be able to change your mind.
     
     Hope you're happy with your choice in how you'll spend eternity. Fasten you seat belts...it's going to be a bumpy ride!

     Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

105. 105. Beckfield 04:34 AM 5/31/08

     Yes, jdlvhs, you did indeed miss something.
     
     You know, when I first wrote this post, I was just as insulting and childish as you've been. It bothered me, so I chose to rewrite it. I just thought you'd like to know what your example of 'christianity' has inspired.
     
     As for the debate over evolution and creation, your questions and pseudo-arguments make it clear that you just don't understand the issue well enough to have a rational discussion about it, or else you are simply here to attack, insult, and lie. So there's really no point in trying.
     
     Why don't you go read Darwin's autobiography for the REAL history of Darwin's journey of faith. Then maybe you'll want to talk to your science professor and find out what he actually said. Maybe it'll save you more embarrassment in the future.
     
     --
     Edited by Beckfield at 05/30/2008 10:35 PM

     Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

106. 106. Nessus 04:54 PM 5/31/08

     There are two problems with the New Creationism Lite called Intelligent Design (hereinafter “ID”) as a scientific endeavor. These are not problems for ID as religion or poetry or a really good story or as an anodyne to thinking about things that are very complicated and difficult. No one that I know of cares whether religions or poets or people too busy to worry about it want to believe and advocate for the “Hey, Rocky, watch me pull a rabbit out of my hat” view. At least as long as they don’t insist that they have aright to do so as “scientists.” But a lot of people care about whether or not the enterprise of science can set its own rules for how science will, can, and does analyze the material universe.
     
     The two problems that ID as science has are these: first, their explanation doesn’t explain anything scientifically, and second, they have no affirmative evidence for their claim whatsoever.
     
     The first problem goes like this: there are groups of plants and animals alive on this planet today that were not in existence in the past. Further, there are groups of plants and animals that were alive on the planet in the past that are not in existence now. This is ALWAYS true. This is true at any point in time in the history of life on this planet. This fact is called “evolution” and ID has no explanation for this. Therefore, it has no standing as an alternative to an explanation that does, which we might call “evolutionary theory.” The very next time an IDer attempts to answer this question will be the first time. So, at root, ID is anti-science simply because it is not speaking to the question that science is attempting to answer: how does it happen that animals here now weren’t here before and animals that were here before are not here now?” ID offers no answer.
     
     The second problem is evidentiary. The entire enterprise of ID can be summed in two words: “Evolution? No.” There isn’t a single piece of evidence to which IDers can point and say, “Our opinion rests on this fact.” ID as an argument about evolutionary biology exists only as an interminable series of orthogonal complaints about the nature of evolution, and never as an affirmative structure of its own. It reasons that if you can prove that there is anything flawed in evolutionary theory, then the entire structure must be wrong. This too, is an anti-scientific view. It is simply not enough to make the argument that thus-and-such is incorrect therefore all of that is wrong and we should believe this - especially when “this” is not an explanation for “all of that.” See point number one.
     
     Historically, because of these two existential problems with ID (and before it Original Creationism,) they have had to resort to egregious lies and distortions, such as the ones Mr. Stein promotes in his movie
     
     And the one JDLVHS refers to – that “evolution claims that men evolved from monkeys.” Of course “evolution” claims nothing of the kind, but once you buy into the notion, then the question, “If so, then why are there still monkeys?” may seem reasonable.
     
     But it is the exact equivalent of being asked, “If trees are fast, then how does the moon know?”
     
     ID doesn’t have enough respect for their own arguments to understand the arguments of those they oppose. And that is because they really don’t care about it. They are involved in a political movement, and so use political rhetorical structures such as mischaracterization, willful ignorance, and falsehood.
     
     And there’s nothing anyone can do about it, except laugh at it.
     
     --
     Edited by Nessus at 05/31/2008 9:58 AM

     Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

107. 107. Tommo0809 02:38 AM 6/1/08

     > I support Ben Stein a hundred per cent.
     > It's a shame that websites like this fight against
     > what America was built 4; which is freedom (
     > including freedom of speech ).
     > Anyway what are U evolutionists doing to feel in the
     > gaps that the theory of evolution leaves.
     > It's a shame that U guys can't see that your hatred 4
     > Christians is as equal a crime as white on black
     > racism.
     > And don't U know Darwin suggest in his book that the
     > black race are inferior to the white race; saying we
     > are closer to monkeys on the evolution chain. Which
     > was b/4 blacks were made slaves. Darwin is the father
     > of racism. But I understand this website is supported
     > by a white audience.
     > Anyway the Jesus U are against is the one that is
     > keeping me from hating U.
     > Much love.
     
     Let me start with the disclaimer that this reply most likely is not worth the time spent typing it judging by the ignorance displayed above.
     -this is exactly what ben stein and the discovery intstitute were aiming at. Riling up the bottom 5%. Because they know that these people will never bother to read a book, or attempt to operate with a semblance of objectivity. Instead they will just parrot whatever they find on Ann Coulter's (etc) website.
     
     -for starters: Your accusation that this is a repression of speech is nonsensical. People are free from having their speech regulated by the government, but commercial speech (which is what Expelled and the ID movement is most comparable to) can and should be regulated, especially when it is patently false, misleading and intentionally dishonest.
     - Darwin as a racist accusation. Don't think for a second that I am condoning any type of racism here. THe notion that the white race was the most evolved was merely a function of the times darwin lived in. Just as when the constitution was ratified (or even the declaration of independence for that matter) slavery was left as an accepted practice because the gentlemen writing those documents were constrained by mistaken views of their times. I wont even attempt to reach the merits of evolution being an excuse for racism becuase aside from it being a nonsensical proposition Darwin himself decried the notion of justifying social darwinism by using his fledgling theory as an excuse.
     
     -now for the jesus statement- If anyone needs more evidence of how destructive ID would be if taught in public schools just feast your eyes on the statement above. "I don't hate you because jesus won't let me"...how absurd. ID is little more than thought stifling pseudo science with the ultimate goal that people will finish any attempt at real thought with the answer "i can't figure it out, so it must exist because of jesus". Only an institution capable of creating so many sheep could come up with a "science" like this. By the way if you are willing to hate someone because they disagree with you, I think you have a problem with yourself moreso than evolution.
     -
     
     --
     Edited by Tommo0809 at 05/31/2008 7:40 PM

     Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

108. 108. jrtimp 03:31 PM 6/2/08

     I have 2 questions to ANYONE who believes in evolution.
     One, show me that you can make ANYTHING out of absolutely nothing. After all is this not what you are trying to make everyone believe?? That nothing = everything??? Now that is bad science. Even a 3 year old can tell you that is wrong!
     
     Two, if everything came from the same thing why are there not other creatures in the world with intellects even close to ours? Let me guess someone is going to say that we had to "evolve" our intellect to over come our environment. Why then has no other creature? Did we all not come from the same thing and "evolve" on the same planet? I sure has heck don't see any other creature building a space shuttle or doing anything just to gain knowledge from it.
     
     Here is something else to think about.
     If we are supposed to be a product of our environment and our main reason for being here is to survive so that we can bread and continue our species, then why do we seek out the answers to life? Why do we want to know where we came from? We spend a huge amount of resources doing this. (i.e. the 6 billion dollar hadron collider just to name the most resent thing) It will not help us get a mate and have offspring so that we can continue to "evolve".
     
     --
     Edited by jrtimp at 06/02/2008 10:54 AM

     Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

109. 109. Beckfield 07:52 PM 6/2/08

     1. As has been stated over and over (and over) again, the Theory of Evolution does NOT attempt to explain the origin of the universe. It attempts to explain how life diversifies over time. Your question shows a complete lack of understanding of the Theory of Evolution.
     
     2. Why humans evolved the level of intelligence that we have while no other animals (that we know of) have is indeed a good, scientific question. I'm sure there are a number of scientific theories as to why it happed that way. I don't pretend to know any of them, but I'll wing a couple possibilities off the top of my head:
     
     a. We were first. It's entirely possible that other species have experienced mutations that might have (or may yet) eventually lead to intelligence. We simply got the lucky breaks first. It's also possible that the impact of OUR intelligence has been to restrict the possibility that other species might develop it. Who knows, maybe some caveman killed an unusually intelligent antelope.
     
     b. It's what worked for us. Superior muscle strength worked for apes, speed worked for jaguars, camouflage worked for chameleons, allowing them to survive. Intelligence worked for humans. Keep in mind, in all the species in the world, there is great variety in the level of intellectual development. It's believed that dolphins, for example, have a fairly high intellect. Amoebae don't. We simply happen to be the top of the heap, arguably.
     
     3. As to why we seek the answers to life, etc.: Why does it matter? Lots of things we do won't help us to evolve. It has been argued that evolution slows once a species learns to control its environment, because the environment's influence is diminished. So by developing medical science, driving cars, building houses, or learning to use fire, we may have slowed the pace of our evolution. But we're still here. For now, anyway. Why didn't the Dodo Bird survive as a species? It couldn't adapt to whatever changes negatively influenced it. Our intelligence has allowed us to control our environment and slow the pace of evolution. If, for some reason, we lose the ability to control our environment, it's entirely possible that we will be unable to adapt, and we will become extinct.
     
     --
     Edited by Beckfield at 06/02/2008 12:59 PM
     
     --
     Edited by Beckfield at 06/02/2008 1:00 PM

     Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

110. 110. Tommo0809 08:37 PM 6/2/08

     a couple things in response to beckfield: Its nitpicking but for future reference... Its now fairly widely accepted that chameleon's color change is more of a reproductive trait as opposed to camo. Youve got the right idea, a better example would be the flounder or even the cuttlefish.
     -another possibility with regards to the intelligence question would be neanderthals, the debate as to whether they were a separate subspecies that was outcompeted, a defunct subspecies of sapiens or a precursor to sapiens, is still widely contested from what I understand.

     Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

111. 111. Nessus 08:42 PM 6/2/08

     As above, the problem with JRTIMP’s questions about evolution is that (1) ID theory as an alternative to evolutionary theory doesn’t answer any of them and (2) there is as yet no evidence supporting an alternative explanation. The ID argument against evolution remains grounded in (nonsensical) arguments against evolution and not arguments in favor of ID.
     
     Evolutionary theory can’t answer every sensible question asked of it, and it certainly can’t answer any of the nonsensical ones.
     
     As Beckfield notes, evolutionary theory has no answer to the very sensible question, “How did all this start?” It does not pretend to have an answer, either. There are several hypotheses around, but there isn’t any evidentiary or empirical support for any of them, and, in my opinion, there is unlikely to ever be any. But so what?
     
     Not knowing how it began doesn’t mean that we can’t study what happened after that without reference to a supreme being. This is proven by the fact that do it all the time. Not only is this enterprise intellectually satisfying, it is enormously practical. All kinds of very useful and life saving services and products come from studying the natural world without reference to the supernatural. Furthermore, it develops that it is impossible to create a machine that will fly from New York to Paris by simply praying about it.
     
     Indeed, the facts of evolution are so well supported in every other scientific discipline – and fit so clearly into their facts and theories - that if evolution weren’t true, you couldn’t start your car, much less use a computer to attack science as godless materialism. You would have to throw out all of science in order to upend evolution. No physics, no chemistry, no biology, no geology, no math, no paleontology, no archaeology, no earth science. It would all have to be wrong.
     
     That we don’t know – or even can’t know, in my view – everything about the universe is no reason to get rid of those things we do know. Nor would anyone I know be willing to trade in the comforts of the modern world for stone knives and bear skins just because we haven’t figured everything out yet.

     Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

112. 112. Beckfield 12:36 AM 6/3/08

     Tommo, thanks for the correction. It's been years since I paid much attention to chameleons.
     
     All my examples were in the Animal kingdom, too, which brings up still more examples. For some organisms, developing into animals worked, while for others, developing into plants worked. Pick a living organism, find a unique adaptation.
     
     I also had a thought about jrtimp's questions regarding why we pursue the answers to life. I have an untested hypothesis:
     
     Fear of the unknown drives human motivation (it's not the ONLY motivator, to be clear). For some, it drives them to pursue answers. It drives some to develop logical processes of investigation, which leads to science. Others pursue processes that lead to philosophy. Still others, not able to tolerate not knowing, create or cling to fantastic, unprovable notions such as deities. All of these pursuits are different methods of assuaging a basic fear of the unknown.
     
     The quest for the answers to life can indeed improve our ability, as a species, to continue. I cite the dating services that claim to have "scientific" means of matching people up, and all the fertility studies that have allowed infertile or near-infertile people to conceive, as examples.

     Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

113. 113. Burtimus 01:20 AM 6/3/08

     I am always amazed by what so-called "Intelligent Design" proponents feel are persuasive arguments. The poster jrtimp above references an argument challenging someone to prove that something can be made of nothing.
     
     Maybe I'm just dim, but I fail to see the relevance of the question. If s/he is referring to the development of the universe, that falls outside the general scope of evolutionary theory. If it is meant to challenge the legitimacy of evolution, it is irrelevant.
     
     To pose a counter-question, however, how is it possible to create a human being out of only one egg and one lucky sperm? Both of these things are made of matter, but only a limited quantity. We know the answer: they evolve. Genetic predispositions, environmental accidents (mutation) and adaptation to the external environment -- along with a few million other factors -- turn a fertilized ovum into... well, someone who posts on a web board, for example.

     Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

114. 114. truthscience 05:17 PM 6/3/08

     I am amazed that people can ignore the facts that DISPROVE evolution. Yes, Stein may have gone too far, and yes, it may be that ID has not completely proven that it is true, but evolution has a LARGE amount of factual holes in it, and has been disproved numerous times by science. It also does have severe moral implications -- as in survival of the fittest. I wouldn't agree that Hitler was inspired solely by evolution -- I am quite certain there was other factors involved -- but you cannot deny that survival of the fittest had at least SOME place in Hitler's logic.

     Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

115. 115. Beckfield 07:17 PM 6/3/08

     What facts disprove evolution? I've never seen any presented.
     
     And don't forget, Hitler was a christian. He was doing what "god" told him to do, according to his autobiography.

     Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

116. 116. Tommo0809 12:16 AM 6/4/08

     > I am amazed that people can ignore the facts that
     > DISPROVE evolution. Yes, Stein may have gone too far,
     > and yes, it may be that ID has not completely proven
     > that it is true, but evolution has a LARGE amount of
     > factual holes in it, and has been disproved numerous
     > times by science. It also does have severe moral
     > implications -- as in survival of the fittest. I
     > wouldn't agree that Hitler was inspired solely by
     > evolution -- I am quite certain there was other
     > factors involved -- but you cannot deny that survival
     > of the fittest had at least SOME place in Hitler's
     > logic.
     
     Yo truth: Please, can we get some of your facts that DISPROVE evolution. Or how about something that should be considered evidence for ID?PLEASE???
     I'm sure that evolution does have "holes", but darwins theory has held up remarkably well over the past 150 years both in its predictions and its original claims.
     As to your hitler remark, well thats absolutely nonsensical. Darwin did not coin the term survival of the fittest, in fact he flat out stated (I'm obviously paraphrasing here) that his work should not be used in such a manner. This really would not be worth addressing, however some people think that there is some type of weight to this claim. I'd rather not bother with it, so I'll let wiki speak for those who choose to live their life by science.
     http://wiki.cotch.n[url http://wiki.cotch.net/index.php/Hitler_based_his_views_on_Darwinism][/url]et/index.php/Hitler_based_his_views_on_Darwinism
     
     If you want to live up to your name I'd suggest doing the slightest bit of research and attempt to educate yourself on the topic before parroting stein's claims. And no, answers in genesis is not a place where you should start.
     Sorry if this reads as though its a little chippy, but using a phrase (never used by darwin) as an explanation for nazi war crimes, and then suggesting that these "moral implications" have anything to do with the consequences of studying/teaching evolution is inexcusable, and I find it ridiculous that it weasels its way into a relatively intelligent discussion.

     Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

117. 117. user0101 06:11 AM 6/4/08

     www.creationevidence.org

     Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

118. 118. Beckfield 06:12 AM 6/4/08

     "...using a phrase (never used by darwin) as an explanation for nazi war crimes, and then suggesting that these "moral implications" have anything to do with the consequences of studying/teaching evolution is inexcusable, and I find it ridiculous that it weasels its way into a relatively intelligent discussion."
     
     Unfortunately, it's a common tactic. Knowing they have no way to support their position, creationists often resort to inflammatory, dishonest tactics such as this to distract their opponents from their inadequacy.
     
     Not a flattering image for "christians," is it?

     Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

119. 119. jrtimp 02:43 PM 6/4/08

     "1. As has been stated over and over (and over) again, the Theory of Evolution does NOT attempt to explain the origin of the universe. It attempts to explain how life diversifies over time. Your question shows a complete lack of understanding of the Theory of Evolution."
     
     If the "theory" of evolution only explains how life diversifies over time, wouldn't one of the first questions that a person studying evolution ask is HOW life started? (This is what I did and what turned me off.) I mean in order to get a full understanding of how life diversifies over time you need to know what it started with and how it started. So if the "theory" of evolution does not attempt to explain the origin of the universe (which is when life "started") then it's to incomplete to except as anything more then a educated guess. Thus the "theory" part of it.
     
     So when someone comes along and has another "theory" that is not evolution (i.e. ID) they are condemned for it. You call that good science? Isn't this same type of "science" the same one that said the world was flat? The same science that said that nothing is faster then the speed of light? Just to name two that are wrong. (Speed of light, http://archives.cnn.com/2000/TECH/space/07/20/speed.of.light.ap/ just one example) It took someone with a non conformist "theory" to prove otherwise.
     
     I have not stated that I believe in evolution or ID. I'm also not stating that I am the smartest person in the world. I am however saying when I see a theory as flawed as evolution I have a tendency to look in another direction. I after all am a thinking being. It was the way I was MADE!
     
     I also don't expect to change anyones mind about anything. All I'm stating is that if you blindly except something as fact, without experiencing and studying it for yourself, you are doing yourself a great disservice.
     
     One other thing, I have raised and breed six different types of chameleons and as a breeder with over 15 years of experience with these animals, I did try and breed certain traits into them. Their number one reason for changing color is their mood! This is one of the main things a breeder looks at when housing and purchasing a chameleon. Next is temperature. While there are chameleon that do not change as much and ARE camouflaged strictly to look like their environment (i.e. the Brookesia stumpffi or Plated Leaf Chameleons) this is the exception. I have found them to be some of the smartest animals I've had the pleasure of raising.

     Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

120. 120. Beckfield 05:11 PM 6/4/08

     By your logic, the theory of gravity is also flawed because it, too, does not attempt to explain how the universe began.
     
     "Why does my yogurt taste like raspberries?" Oh, first I have to find out how the universe started before I can answer that.
     
     One of the hallmarks of good science is the ability to break concepts into component pieces, and study them independently. When a certain level of understanding of the component is reached, then it is re-examined in the context of a "bigger picture." The human mind simply isn't powerful enough to grasp the concept of the immensity and complexity of the universe in one fell swoop. At least mine isn't. If yours is, then I expect great things from you, things that will leave Einstein, Darwin and Hawking in the dust. I won't hold my breath.
     
     And, again, even if your first premise were valid, do YOU think it's "good science" to consider an idea (intelligent design) that has absolutely no evidentiary support as science? I mean, if another theory came along that actually had enough observable correlation to the evidence to approach the plausibility of the Theory of Evolution, then sure, bring it on, and let's study it as science.
     
     But no intelligent design proponent yet has presented any evidence that rises to the level of scientific viability. If that ever happens, then it might be taken seriously. Until then, leave it in church, where it began, and where it belongs.

     Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

121. 121. jrtimp 07:18 PM 6/4/08

     It's funny how when pushed on this subject so called "open minded" people close their minds real fast and tell me to leave the theories I believe in at church as they spew their gibberish anywhere they see fit because it meets "their" criteria. .
     
     As I stated before, no one will ever be able to make something from nothing. No matter what anyone states about evolution, it boils down to this. There had to be a beginning to everything. Until you or anyone answers how nothing can make everything (which I will not be holding my breath) your science is flawed no matter what you think you know. You ask me for proof of ID. Yet evolutionists are the ones who expect everyone to believe that we all just appeared from nothing! How foolish. How much "faith" in evolution you must have! One branch of science disproves something while another branch clings to it like rats on a sinking ship!!

     Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

122. 122. Beckfield 07:30 PM 6/4/08

     Clearly you haven't been paying attention. Every comment you just made I answered earlier in this thread. Rather than waste my time, I suggest you reread the thread.

     Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

123. 123. Beckfield 07:42 PM 6/4/08

     Most of the 'evidence' given at www.creationevidence.org is not evidence supporting creationism. They are arguments against evolution. Not the same thing.
     
     What little else there is boils down to GMHDI ("God" Must Have Done It), the incredibly lazy argument that, because things are far too complex for our minds to comprehend it, therefore some "god" must have designed it.
     
     Not to mention the fact that the founder of that museum, Carl Baugh, has what at best can be called "questionable" credentials.
     
     Long ago debunked.
     
     --
     Edited by Beckfield at 06/04/2008 12:46 PM
     
     --
     Edited by Beckfield at 06/04/2008 12:57 PM

     Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

124. 124. Tommo0809 02:15 AM 6/5/08

     That type of stuff is tantamount to child abuse. How can a parent indoctrinate their kid with that kind of nonsense and then expect them to be a member of a real society.

     Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

125. 125. jrtimp 02:15 PM 6/5/08

     Alright since you apparently worship Darwin let me put it this way.
     
     "…Natural selection acts only by taking advantage of slight successive variations; she can never take a great and sudden leap, but must advance by short and sure, though slow steps." Thus, Darwin conceded that, "If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down."
     
     -Darwin
     
     Such a complex organ would be known as an "irreducibly complex system"
     
     Remember the "ABSOLUTELY BRAKE DOWN " part!
     
     For the people who are ignorant of the definition of "irreducibly complex system", an irreducibly complex system is one composed of multiple parts, all of which are necessary for the system to function. If even one part is missing, the entire system will fail to function. Every individual part is integral. Therefor, such a system could not have evolved slowly, piece by piece.
     
     
     
     Guess what?? There ARE irreducibly complex systems! Apparently you need to do some studying up on molecular biology, biochemistry and genetics. Each of these fields have proven that irreducibly complex systems do in fact exist!
     
     "Although the tiniest bacterial cells are incredibly small, weighing less than 10-12 grams, each is in effect a veritable micro-miniaturized factory containing thousands of exquisitely designed pieces of intricate molecular machinery, made up altogether of one hundred thousand million atoms, far more complicated than any machinery built by man and absolutely without parallel in the non-living world."
     
     -Molecular biologist Michael Denton
     
     Another statement.
     
     "To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree."
     
     -Darwin
     
     Did you get the "absurd in the highest part" bit?? Or do you just pick and chose what you want to believe instead of looking at the entire theory?? Seems to me you are the one who needs to get a grasp on The Theory on evolution and not just bits and pieces!
     
     So the proof you've asked for about evolution being false? According to the very person who came up with the theory (Darwin) that, if you remember the first part about, "If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down." according to him(Darwin, not me) his theory of evolution has absolutely broken down!
     
     Now seeing as how you stated that you apparently agree that Darwin is vastly more intelligent then yourself, "The human mind simply isn't powerful enough to grasp the concept of the immensity and complexity of the universe in one fell swoop. At least mine isn't. If yours is, then I expect great things from you, things that will leave Einstein, Darwin and Hawking in the dust. I won't hold my breath." Any more arguments on this subject that you make are empty at best! After all it was Darwin himself that made the statement not I!
     
     "False facts are highly injurious to the progress of science, for they often endure long; but false views, if supported by some evidence, do little harm, for everyone takes a salutary pleasure in proving their falseness; and when this is done, one path toward errors is closed and the road to truth is often at the same time opened."
     -Charles Darwin,
     
     --
     Edited by jrtimp at 06/05/2008 7:17 AM
     
     --
     Edited by jrtimp at 06/05/2008 7:20 AM

     Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

126. 126. Beckfield 02:30 PM 6/5/08

     Not much time now, but a couple of thoughts:
     
     Michael Behe, the biochemist who I believe proposed the irreducible complexity argument, has admitted that there is evidence of an evolutionary path for the structures of the eye, so it appears he himself is backing off his claim.
     
     And here is a refutation of irreducible complexity
     http://www.millerandlevine.com/km/evol/design2/article.html
     
     Furthermore ONCE AGAIN, NOBODY HAS ASKED FOR PROOF THAT EVOLUTION IS FALSE. What has been requested is proof that creationism is valid science, and you still have failed to provide any.
     
     
     
     --
     Edited by Beckfield at 06/05/2008 8:21 AM
     
     --
     Edited by Beckfield at 06/05/2008 8:22 AM

     Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

127. 127. jrtimp 03:17 PM 6/5/08

     Proof?? I'm here and your here and we just didn't appear from nothing.
     
     I just can't MAKE myself believe that we all just appeared from nothing. There is nothing in nature that we can observe that shows how this can be true. It has been proven time and again that you can not create something from nothing. Knowing this, the only reasonable conclusion is that we were made.
     
     Let me put it this way, Can you show me ANYTHING in nature that is made from nothing? Can you show me anything that just appearers from nothing at all? I mean if we did, why has it stopped! Why aren't there any more big bangs? Why aren't there new life forms appearing out of nowhere? There had to be a point in evolution where a non living thing became a living thing. So why aren't we seeing things like this today? Why would it just happen one time and stop??

     Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

128. 128. Beckfield 03:26 PM 6/5/08

     Look, if you insist on running in circles and bringing up old, outdated, and off-topic information that has already been investigated and found insufficient by qualified scientists, then I invite you to do so with someone else. If you can provide some credible, substantive evidence that hasn't already been hashed and rehashed, then maybe I'll respond, IF you can do it without resorting to the childish, insulting tone you seem prone to in the face of contradictory facts.
     
     Good day.

     Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

129. 129. jrtimp 04:25 PM 6/5/08

     Why then can't you answer my questions in my last post? Are they not legitamet?
     
     I'll ask. Prove evolution. Anyone? You can about as much as I can prove ID.
     
     So my dear friend where do you propose we came from? Some cosmic magic trick?
     
     Evolution is at best a fictitious story about how man is nothing more then a glorified monkey made up buy it's cult like followers just so they can continue living their self serving lives without having a God to answer to for what they do.
     
     I have no problem with Mr. Stein's movie simply because our children have an even weaker theory spewed at them every day as fact by our so called open minded higher education facilities, called evolution.
     Good day to you my friend.

     Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

130. 130. Tommo0809 06:18 PM 6/5/08

     For starters- IC has on numerous occasions been refuted as inaccurate when looked at in the most benign lens possible. The bacterial flagellum, blood clotting etc... have all been shown to be made of parts that developed independently, or at the very least alternative explanations for the nature of their existence have been offered and verified, here are some examples of REAL scientific work in the field. Not just a PR campaign to put creationism back in the classrooms.
     
     [url http://pandasthumb.org/archives/2008/05/behe-vs-lamprey.html][/url]
     
     [url http://evolutionlist.blogspot.com/2008/04/serial-endosymbiosis-and-intelligent.html][/url]
     
     
     As to Darwins quote: Are you familiar with the term quote mining? Creationists have this nasty habit of posting chopped up quotes from evolutionary biologists, scientists, people with half a brain, and point to them as though they somehow refute the validity of evolution or whatever theory of the day they are attempting to attack.
     That Darwin quote is just one of many upon which religionists base their case. However, if, like any other intellectually honest person, you read the entire quote, within its context AND refer to it as such you will see that Darwin was saying the exact opposite. What Darwin was doing for his more intelligent readers, whom he knew wouldn't jump to such an antithetical conclusion so quickly was draw the reader in by making a hypothetical argument, which he then summarily refutes.
     
     Here is the rest of the paragraph:
     Yet reason tells me, that if numerous gradations from a perfect and complex eye to one very imperfect and simple, each grade being useful to its possessor, can be shown to exist; if further, the eye does vary ever so slightly, and the variations be inherited, which is certainly the case; and if any variation or modification in the organ be ever useful to an animal under changing conditions of life, then the difficulty of believing that a perfect and complex eye could be formed by natural selection, though insuperable by our imagination, can hardly be considered real. How a nerve comes to be sensitive to light, hardly concerns us more than how life itself first originated; but I may remark that several facts make me suspect that any sensitive nerve may be rendered sensitive to light, and likewise to those coarser vibrations of the air which produce sound. (Darwin 1872, 143-144)
     
     Next time do your research, don't just stop at the answers in genesis/dr. dino homepage. Try to take a more objective approach and then maybe you will make some progress in "understanding the vast complexities of the universe" or whatever.

     Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

131. 131. Beckfield 06:49 PM 6/5/08

     Great reply, Tommo. I've written him off as far as serious discussion goes.
     
     It's funny how jrtimp insists that we can't separate Cosmology from Evolution, but it's perfectly fine to take a quote out of context.

     Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

132. 132. Finster 06:54 PM 6/5/08

     Ben Stein is proving why we should be scared of the religious right and creationists. They are our American Shiites (extreme to the point of terrifying). They are nonchalant about shootings at abortion clinics, they would rather tell you what to think that ask you what you are thinking, they support Imperialistic Democracy, and they put saddles on the backs of dinosaurs in museums.
     We should thank George Bush for showing us the true colors of the right wing; maybe from this we can "evolve."

     Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

133. 133. Tommo0809 07:44 PM 6/5/08

     > It's funny how jrtimp insists that we can't separate
     > Cosmology from Evolution, but it's perfectly fine to
     > take a quote out of context.
     
     Becks: Seriously, I would like to write him off too, but then I think about how I got into it. I started as a casual observerbut the more I saw ID proponents and creationists parroting these claims about how their "right to teach what we want taught" has been violated or that evolution has been disproved the more galling I found their approach to be. And its like you said, they confuse different fields of science (let alone different theories within the same field), misquote and misapply historical sources, and ignore contrary evidence with ASTOUNDING regularity. And as I became more involved the more useless I found debating many of the people to be, but then I remembered that others who are just casual observers will come to this site and check out the discussion and see some moron getting off on "the eye is too complex" or "darwin was hitlers 2nd cousin" and I can only hope that they see a reply where such claims are summarily dismissed for the bunk they are.

     Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

134. 134. Beckfield 08:45 PM 6/5/08

     You're right, Tommo. I get frustrated and disgusted when they insist on ignoring everything you say, and insist that you are saying something completely different, then arguing against that. It's ignorant. Or dishonest, I can't tell which sometimes.

     Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

135. 135. Freethinker 12:42 AM 6/6/08

     Give me a break. Most of you folks at Scientific American are unabashed secular humanists who wouldn't accept a Creationist's argument even when it [i]is[/i] backed up with overwhelming scientific evidence. Admitting intelligent design forces you to admit there is a designer who might have rules you need to follow, and that chaps your hide. Take the time to sincerely look beyond what you [i]want[/i] to believe and you just might be surprised by what you find. If intelligent design is so foolish, do an honest in-depth study of it. If it's as silly as you claim, you have nothing to fear. I did the study, and I was astonished by the skeleton that evolution is.

     Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

136. 136. rooseveltdecosta 02:15 AM 6/6/08

     Ok,
     
     Show me a creationist argument that actually has science backing it up. Please provide the reputable scientific journal that it was published in. When one of you can actually do that, maybe then we will entertain a discussion with you wacko's.
     
     Mahalo,
     
     R

     Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

137. 137. Tommo0809 02:17 AM 6/6/08

     > Give me a break. Most of you folks at Scientific
     > American are unabashed secular humanists who wouldn't
     > accept a Creationist's argument even when it
     > [i]is[/i] backed up with overwhelming scientific
     > evidence. Admitting intelligent design forces you to
     > admit there is a designer who might have rules you
     > need to follow, and that chaps your hide. Take the
     > time to sincerely look beyond what you [i]want[/i] to
     > believe and you just might be surprised by what you
     > find. If intelligent design is so foolish, do an
     > honest in-depth study of it. If it's as silly as you
     > claim, you have nothing to fear. I did the study,
     > and I was astonished by the skeleton that evolution
     > is.
     
     -the first problem with this statement is it assumes that secular humanism has anything to do with the independent validity of evolution. Again, religionists mixing up their fields. Thank you for living up to the stereotype so my last post doesn't look like bluster.
     
     -the second problem here is that you're making the assumption that creationists arguments, when/if rational, are supported by "overwhelming scientific evidence". Where is this evidence? are we talking about ken hovind, the guy who is against "evil-ution" and can proves that men and dinosaurs lived together or dembski and his already debunked irreducible complexity? because the difference between those two is only one of degree. I've asked this several times and unfortunately nobody is willing to oblige, but I'll ask again anyways... PLEASE point me to where I can find some evidence as to whatever it is your claiming. be it the validity of ID or the invalidity of evolution.
     
     Or is this the type of evidence youre talking about:
     [url http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y4yBvvGi_2A][/url]
     
     -what really gets me is this "rules you need to follow" part. So the designer in ID is god? because in the court room its proponents say it isn't. and you know what, I'm going to stop there because if I start on about the "morals" displayed by the catholic church (I'm roman catholic) or promoted by the bible, well this post will just get inflammatory.
     
     We've at least provided the smallest scintilla of evidence against ID and/or for evolution throughout this thread by posting links to various studies (and it really just seems so redundant to post more when all you have to do is pick up introductory level biology text), obviously our end of the bargain has already been upheld, so until you come up with something better you should can that manufactured outrage.

     Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

138. 138. rooseveltdecosta 02:20 AM 6/6/08

     JRTIMP,
     
     You may want to take an elementary spelling class before you aspire to be taken seriously by the adults. Please do not litter this forum with your ignorance. I have a book from my childhood that may help you in that regard, its called Chick a Chick a Boom Boom Will There Be Enough Room? Thank you for your consideration.
     
     Mahalo,
     
     R

     Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

139. 139. Beckfield 02:31 AM 6/6/08

     "If intelligent design is so foolish, do an honest in-depth study of it."
     
     I tried. Really, I did. Problem was, there IS no depth behind creationism. There are two basic arguments made by intelligent design. The first is GMHDI ("We can't comprehend it, therefore God Must Have Done It").
     
     "I did the study, and I was astonished by the skeleton that evolution is."
     
     Well, that's certainly consistent with the creationist superstition I've heard. You did an "in-depth" study of intelligent design and learned that evolution is a skeleton. Which brings us to the second basic argument of ID: "The Theory of Evolution isn't perfect, therefore intelligent design must be true."
     
     Give me a break. I honestly can't comprehend how someone can be intelligent enough to use a computer, but dumb enough to be duped by those arguments.

     Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

140. 140. AHolst 11:35 PM 6/9/08

     I believe God created the earth. I hold a BS in Mathematics, receiving honors for a paper in discrete mathematics, received my MD, currently study Neonatology and do research at NIH. My logic is at least on par of the most vocal critics in this audience and while my science is not as strong, it was good enough to get me through medical school and into critical care fellowship.
     
     We are not all stupid, we just come to different conclusions. People on both sides of the extremes of the Creation versus Evolution debate can be extreme and devoid of science. I am in the middle. I am a vocal critic of the illogical debates used in many ID conferences. Its painful to sit in them sometimes and listen to stuff thank frankly is just not logical. But it is also just as painful to sit in the NIH Evolution conference as see people so dead set on their conclusions, devoid of allowing scientific discover. Let’s be honest, we all know those people. You might be one of them, especially if you wrote that all Creationists are idiots, should be killed, or should not get medications. As a doctor, that last one was my personal favorite.
     
     Faith, or religion, is believing God created the earth. Science is figuring out how. I don’t try to separate the two, anymore than I would ask an atheist to believe in God – its just part of who I am. If someone doesn’t believe in God, that’s reasonable. Not everyone does. But if someone does, is that not also reasonable?
     
     So, if you still think all people who believe God created the earth are stupid, speak up; but, please include your educational credentials and current accomplishments. Maybe I am stupid compared to your academic prowess and abilities in deduction and if only had just a little bit more brain power would see the world just like you do. Until then, thank goodness we are still free to observe and think about the world using the brain God gave us, or not-God, depending on your personal beliefs.
     
     Until then, answer me this, if you believe God created Adam and Eve, how old was Eve when she was created and how old did she appear. Just one of my favorite Evolution/Creation logic puzzles.

     Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

141. 141. Freethinker 12:23 AM 6/10/08

     It fascinates me--sincerely--how grown, college educated adults (if that's indeed what we are in this thread) can see the same hypotheses, facts, theories, and information and come to such different conclusions.
     
     Take polystrate fossils, for example. [url http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polystrate_fossils][/url] I see a petrified tree standing upright, its root system still intact, running through multiple layers of strata that evolutionists say are millions of years old. [i]I[/i] see that situation and believe that there's no way the tree stood there for millions of years while layers built up around it. I see it as the result of rapid sedimentation and rapid petrification in layers that simply can't be millions of years old. There goes the geologic column theory. Evolutionists offer a completely different explanation. Two adults see the same facts and come to different conclusions. If truth is truth and facts are facts, there must be something else at play that colors our beliefs.
     
     Creationists and evolutionists are both looking for something, and the ID/evolution debate can really ignite strong feelings--even anger. I offer this challenge for both sides. Why does the debate provoke such anger? I'm not looking for your public answer, because it's probably not genuine. Rather, I challenge each person on each side to search his/her soul (or "non-religious" inner self) and discover why we cling so desparately to our beliefs even if there is convincing evidence that says our beliefs are not true.
     
     I had evolution shoved down my throat for 17 years of education and I didn't even know there were other credible explanations for the Earth we see today. When I took the time to look outside of my own little box, I was amazed by what I found.
     
     --
     Edited by Freethinker at 06/09/2008 5:26 PM

     Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

142. 142. AHolst 02:17 AM 6/10/08

     I had the chance to go back and read the previous posts, and it seems that the greatest critique of IDer’s or Creationists is our inability to create a good scientific question. First, I am not really sure of my label. Irreducible complexity is a flawed argument, but I also do not believe (key word believe) that we share a common ancestor with any animal, despite the evidence of which I am familiar, and despite the conclusions of Francis Collin’s writings in “The Language of God”. But I willingly admit my own bias in this belief and that scientific evidence as it is currently available would suggest this, I just think we are missing a few puzzle pieces that will show conclusively, and not just in a wishy-washy way, that what I think is true. Science will never be able prove God exists, I just think we can prove we (ie, humans) didn’t evolve.
     
     So here is my simple scientific question – Assuming we continue to discover new things, what would the evidence have to be to convince you that humans did not evolve from a common ancestry? What scientific evidence would be required to disprove that man evolved from non-human form? What would make you accept the null hypothesis, which would be that man did not evolve; as people have currently shown that rejection of the null hypothesis is appropriate within their own alpha. Or, put simply, how is it falsifiable, as any scientific theory must be? I am asking the same question, just phrasing it differently each time.
     
     --
     Edited by AHolst at 06/09/2008 7:19 PM
     
     --
     Edited by AHolst at 06/09/2008 7:31 PM

     Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

143. 143. Beckfield 08:33 PM 6/10/08

     I can't speculate what the specific evidences would be, but it would have to achieve the following goals (off the top of my head):
     
     a. It must support a theory that specifically and positively accounts for the body of evidence. (by 'specifically,' I mean that the presumption that "God Must Have Done It" simply because we can't comprehend the complexity of nature is neither specific nor scientific, and therefore insufficient. By 'positively,' I mean that it must propose its own explanation for the diversity of life, not just identify knowledge gaps in competing theories.)
     
     b. It must support that theory to a degree of confidence that at least approaches the degree achieved by the Theory of Evolution. It may even need to surpass that degree. Evolution has the advantage of decades of having survived rigorous probing. Any new theory will have to do the same.
     
     c. It must account for the fact that, given an environment where evolution has been directly observed in some species, humans somehow avoided evolving in an environment where evolution seems to be the norm.
     
     I won't say that the conditions set out above are absolutely correct or complete. I'm just winging it here.
     
     Observation has shown that evolution is a fact. It has occurred. It has been directly observed (not necessarily in humans). I believe the Theory of Evolution is the explanation that best fits the existing body of evidence available to us. I accept that future discoveries will necessitate modifications to the Theory, and gaps in the theory may be answered eventually. It is possible that enough evidence will eventually be discovered that the Theory will change enough that it may not be recognizable to today's scientists. I think it unlikely that this will happen in my lifetime, if ever.
     
     I know of no alternative explanation that comes even close to satisfying these conditions. Certainly not creationism/intelligent design.
     
     --
     Edited by Beckfield at 06/10/2008 3:19 PM

     Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

144. 144. Freethinker 10:45 PM 6/10/08

     I think evolutionists' first mistake is assuming that theories about creation or intelligent design are just extended "Bible fantasies." Some "scientists" or believers in evolution arrogantly wave creationists away like flies because they truly don't think creationists use their heads.
     
     On the contrary, creationists have logical, scientifically supported facts and theories for the earth we see today. They have factual proof that shows a lot of the "evidence" for evolution is just speculation and that a lot of the "evidence" for evolution in school textbooks was proven to be lies or hoaxes decades ago.
     
     But evolutionists who grew up through the present day education system are likely to know nothing [i]but[/i] evolution, and the only way to know if one's theories and beliefs are true is to go out and do a sincere study of competing theories. I speculate many evolutionists have done only a cursory study of intelligent design or have only studied those creationists who they feel have "quack" ideas, which makes them all the easier to quickly dismiss or ridicule. To be more precise, I speculate evolutionists don't truly delve into the evidence that shows evolution just might not be true. On the contrary, there is something much deeper that they are fighting for that prevents them from considering other ideas, and I don't think it is "truth" or "scientific reason".
     
     --
     Edited by Freethinker at 06/10/2008 3:46 PM

     Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

145. 145. EastwoodDC 11:37 PM 6/10/08

     Aholst:
     
     I would note that most of the ID/Creationism supporters posting here don't show your level of understanding when it comes to a rational discussion of this topic. Thank you for offering a reasoned position.
     
     This really come down to what we teach the next generation of adults. The details of evolution (or any other science) are the means in which we instruct others (generally our children) how to reason for themselves. This is why there are science classes in schools. If you have belief or faith in God or Creation, that also has value; These things are taught by church and family. The problems arise when matters of faith are misrepresented as science.
     
     Given your background and profession, you no doubt have a profound appreciation for the strengths (and weaknesses) of the scientific method. Would you want, or can you even imagine, medical science to be guided by anything other than the best of reasoning? Would you accept the deliberately misleading assertions of a privately funded media campaign as a basis to change your practice?
     
     It is import to understand the difference between faith and reason, and also the value of each. You demonstrate this understanding, and so I can have little quarrel with your opinion (even though I disagree). I only wish that more people could admit to your level of reasoning.
     
     --
     Edited by EastwoodDC at 06/10/2008 4:39 PM

     Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

146. 146. Beckfield 11:39 PM 6/10/08

     > On the contrary, creationists have logical,
     > scientifically supported facts and theories for the
     > earth we see today.
     
     You've said this before, yet you fail to point any of these "logical, scientifically supported facts and theories" out. What few attempts others have made have been merely regurgitations of long-disproven, often dishonest arguments.
     
     > They have factual proof that
     > shows a lot of the "evidence" for evolution is just
     > speculation and that a lot of the "evidence" for
     > evolution in school textbooks was proven to be lies
     > or hoaxes decades ago.
     
     As has been repeated ad nauseum, evidence that a competing theory may be incorrect or incomplete is not proof that another theory is correct.
     
     You keep speaking in generalities. Let's have some substance.

     Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

147. 147. Freethinker 01:59 AM 6/11/08

     There are many non-religious scientists who don't believe the theory of evolution is accurate. It's also easy to automatically label all intelligent design proponents as religious. It's much easier to dismiss them that way, but believe it or not, many creationists love science and the scientific method just like evolutionists. They use the scientific method to to show that the theory of evolution is not valid. In the end, they may subscribe the beginning of life to an intelligent designer, but the process used to arrive at the decision is the same scientific method we all love.
     
     "Those who don't believe in evolution just want to teach religion in school!" That 's not true. It's easier to dismiss opponents of evolution using that logic, but it's not true. We just don't want blatant lies taught in school. If the theory of evolution doesn't hold water, get a new theory.
     
     I realize some of you will have a field day with this, but I have neither the time nor the inclination to get into long blog debates about complicated scientific research supporting or refuting evolution. Besides, there are many books and videos that can present the information more accurately than I can. Do a Google search. Look at the resources put out by Creation Science Evangelism [url]http://www.drdino.com[/url] or Answer in Genesis [url]www.answersingenesis.org[/url] or any other number of creation/intelligent design proponents. Sure, you're going to get some "religion" in there, but a true scientist will eat the meat and spit out the bones. Heck, it doesn't even have to be an intelligent design proponent. Go study the resources of people who simply don't believe the theory of evolution.
     
     Some of you, no doubt, will use my lack of interest in long, technical blog debates as unwarranted justfication for why any theory other than evolution is wrong. I challenge you, however, to look beyond what you've always been taught, and I don't mean you should go to church and learn about the Creator. Rather, if you never look beyond your own little box, you'll never be exposed to the scientific information that may change your theories. Be honest. If you never look beyond the community that fervently supports the theory of evolution, how likely are you to find other explanations? Purposely seek out ideas and theories that are in direct conflict with your beliefs. Study them with honesty. Use the scientific method on [i]all[/i] information you come across...even the unpalatable stuff. Then, accept the outcome of that study despite its moral, philosophical, or religious consequences.
     
     I used the scientific method to come to the conclusion that the theory of evolution is not true. The science came first. [i]Then[/i] I discovered that I was made by a Creator who loves me and has a purpose for my life. That has brought an unspeakable level of joy and excitement to my life.

     Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

148. 148. Beckfield 02:17 AM 6/11/08

     > In the end, they may subscribe the beginning
     > of life to an intelligent designer...
     
     Gaah!! Yet [i]another[/i] creationist who doesn't even understand what the Theory of Evolution claims. THE THEORY OF EVOLUTION DOES NOT ATTEMPT TO EXPLAIN HOW LIFE BEGAN! How many times do you have to hear that before you get it straight??
     
     > I used the scientific method to come to the
     > conclusion that the theory of evolution is not true.
     
     Well, as we've just established that you don't know what the Theory of Evolution is, I think we can take this statement with a grain of salt.
     
     The "scientific" websites you trotted out are, as predicted, long-ago-debunked arguments. EVERY argument by those sites, indeed any argument put forth by any creationist I have ever encountered, boils down to one of 2 arguments:
     
     1. Evolution isn't perfect, therefore intelligent design must be true.
     2. We can't comprehend the complexity of nature, therefore God Must Have Done It (GMHDI)."
     
     I trust that you, with your experience using the scientific method, can see the fallacy of those arguments.

     Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

149. 149. Tommo0809 01:46 PM 6/11/08

     I'd like to reply to some of what Aholst and freethinker have brought up.
     
     Aholst- No one is doubting your credentials, your ability to reason or use logic. However, I think it has become a fairly wide ranging misunderstanding (one that stein is trying to perpetuate) that there is this monolithic association called science that is trying to halt any and all progress by way of ridicule. As you stated earlier:
     
     "But it is also just as painful to sit in the NIH Evolution conference as see people so dead set on their conclusions, devoid of allowing scientific discover."
     
     The problem many scientists, proponents of evolution, rational thinkers have with this is that ID is not science. Not in the slightest bit. It is a form of rhetoric that relies on a false (at least a shaky, untestable as of yet) assumption to which a few mathmeticians only try to seek out confirming evidence.
     What stirs people up so much about it is the unwillingness to do [b]real[/b] work. We have talked about Margulis's SET theory which, after 30 years of work has finally gained mainstream acceptance. ([url http://evolutionlist.blogspot.com/2008/04/serial-endosymbiosis-and-intelligent.html][/url]
     )
     
     -The difference between Margulis and the fellas at the discovery institute is that she did real work. She didn't rely on propaganda, court battles and poorly made movies by washed up game show hosts. She came up with a falsifiable theory and put it to the test. Now I'm not by any means saying that her theory is the end all be all of this debate. But what if she was an adherent of intelligent design? what would happen? she would use that behe characters (or is it dembskii) probability bound, she would do some calculations and when she found out that the probability of endosymbiosis occuring was 10^400000 she would have said "SEE LOOK AT HOW IMPROBABLE THAT IS, THERE IS NO NATURAL EXPLANATION!!" and then she would finish her work and use it to publish a book that would attempt to trash evolution, even though all the while there was a perfectly rational explanation for it.
     
     What complicates this even more is that the discovery institute has followed the neo-con movement by co-opting fundamentalists/evangelicals. SO they now have these people screaming and yelling about academic freedom and trying to ram bills that would mandate teaching of ID into schools. Not because ID is a valid theory, not because they know anything about "evil-ution" but because ID asserts that god exists, while evolution leaves little room for such an actor.
     Now I would never call you stupid for believing in god, or being religious, personally I have no appetite (but will refrain from trashing it). But I [i]would[/i] think someone is stupid for raising all of this hulabaloo and screaming about religious/scientific persecution when nothing of the sort is really happening.
     
     
     Freethinker: you provide a perfect example as to why people get so worked up.
     
     "I see a petrified tree standing upright, its root system still intact, running through multiple layers of strata that evolutionists say are millions of years old. I see that situation and believe that there's no way the tree stood there for millions of years while layers built up around it. I see it as the result of rapid sedimentation and rapid petrification in layers that simply can't be millions of years old. There goes the geologic column theory. Evolutionists offer a completely different explanation. Two adults see the same facts and come to different conclusions. If truth is truth and facts are facts, there must be something else at play that colors our beliefs."
     
     -so with no evidence to back you up, you claim that the earth simply can't be millions of years old. But by doing this you are ignoring every scientific means of dating and evidence found in the field. Now, do you think that any type of radiometric dating is inaccurate? or are you one of the types who think that "its all a bunch of lies?".
     However, that is somewhat irrelevant. What is relevant is your underlying means of coming to this conclusion. You say the tree can't be millions of years old because you "see" it a different way so that disproves the geologic column theory. Even a person of faith should know the saying "seeing isn't believing". How many germs have you seen? How many times have you looked at atoms with an electron microscope?
     Now I know you didn't mean to say that your means of investigation is by mere sight alone, but what I am trying to get across is how would we know that any of these things exist in the nature that they do if we were to rely upon ID-style pseudoscience? The answer is that we would not. We would still be living a 1500's lifestyle because the answer for every question would be "god did it" and leave it at that.
     And one last thing, it has been stated several times by becks and myself, answers in genesis is not a scientific resource, neither is conservapedia et. al. So if you want to show anyone PROOF of evolutions invalidity youre going to need to go somewhere else. (and if youre going to use the discovery institute make sure that we can verify it somewhere else)

     Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

150. 150. DirkDP 10:28 PM 6/12/08

     Short comment on a post from last week.
     
     Man actually did walk with dinosaurs, and still does...
     But we call them birds now... That's evolution at work.
     
     --
     Edited by DirkDP at 06/12/2008 3:30 PM

     Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

151. 151. PaulFrost 11:31 PM 6/13/08

     I think you completely missed a very important point. The main purpose behind tenure was to allow professors to voice unpopular opinions/research/ideas/etc. without having to worry about their jobs. Forget ID versus creationism, there are plenty of other examples. Niels Bohr and the development of QM could provide you with a canonical example.

     Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

152. 152. Tommo0809 12:06 AM 6/14/08

     Paul: who was that addressed to?

     Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

153. 153. PaulFrost 12:16 AM 6/14/08

     In reply to Beckfield:
     
     [quote]
     > In the end, they may subscribe the beginning
     > of life to an intelligent designer...
     
     Gaah!! Yet another creationist who doesn't even understand what the Theory of Evolution claims. THE THEORY OF EVOLUTION DOES NOT ATTEMPT TO EXPLAIN HOW LIFE BEGAN! How many times do you have to hear that before you get it straight??
     [/quote]
     
     Technically, biogenesis is not a part of the theory of evolution. But, practically, it doesn't really matter. Almost everyone who's passionately on one side regarding evolution is on the same side regarding biogenesis. To a creationist, in particular, it's the same issue. Feel free to point it out, but I would refrain from becoming emotional or frustrated as it's almost certain to continue.
     
     [quote]
     > I used the scientific method to come to the
     > conclusion that the theory of evolution is not true.
     
     Well, as we've just established that you don't know what the Theory of Evolution is, I think we can take this statement with a grain of salt.
     [/quote]
     
     You're attacking the person behind the argument here. Poor form. An argument stands or falls on it's own. Any discussion of the people involved is irrelevant and poor form. If you don't think they're qualified to discuss the topic then don't get involved. If you choose to comment, don't get personal.
     
     [quote]
     The "scientific" websites you trotted out are, as predicted, long-ago-debunked arguments. EVERY argument by those sites, indeed any argument put forth by any creationist I have ever encountered, boils down to one of 2 arguments:
     
     1. Evolution isn't perfect, therefore intelligent design must be true.
     2. We can't comprehend the complexity of nature, therefore God Must Have Done It (GMHDI)."
     [/quote]
     
     This is somewhat unfair. What I would classify as a straw man argument.
     
     A creationists' assumed model is that God directly intervened to cause the "result" we see today. How do you prove intervention? Something happened that would not have happened without intervention. How else? Seriously... given the age of the evidence we're examing, how else would you prove this?
     
     If I walk into a room and there are millions of quarters neatly stacked, all heads up, I'm going to assume they were placed there by someone. You could say I'm making the argument that "I don't understand how nature could have produced these quarters and placed them in such an orderly fashion, therefore an external force must have intervened!" And I'd have to agree with you, that is essentially my argument. That doesn't make it wrong. And, in this case, I think I'd be right by asserting someone placed them there deliberately and carefully. You can fervently state your opinion that "we just don't know how nautre did this but some day we'll be able to prove that this entire event was just nature's doing" but I think you'd be wrong.
     
     The evolutionist see's things he can't understand in the record and has faith that there must be an explanation void of external influence (of the intelligent and purposeful variety).
     
     A creationists see's things that science doesn't understand in the record, things that, according to our current understanding would be very unlikely, and has faith that it's evidence of an external force.
     
     It's hard to prove a negative (i.e. God doesn't exist). It's hard to prove intervention.
     
     [quote]
     I trust that you, with your experience using the scientific method, can see the fallacy of those arguments.
     [/quote]
     
     The first one is an obvious fallacy. I'm not so sure about the second one (though I'm not the person you aimed this response at).

     Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

154. 154. kyedh3 02:33 AM 6/16/08

     I didn't see the movie and I can tell you missed the point, which was that modern scientists who cling to this "evolutionary faith" (and that's what it is, faith) reject, repudiate, and ridicule anyone who believes in ID (or, dare I say it online) God! But, that's not enough for you guys. You are trying to put us out of education (with great success) and have us declared insane. You think we're committing intellectual suicide and need to be pushed aside. You are telling us that our opinion on the matter needs to be silenced and that violate the "free speech" society we live in. We put up with your horse manure on a daily basis. All we want in schools and universities is equal time. And yes, in spite of your "learned" opinion, it is science. We use the same set of facts you use, but get a different conclusion. You see, it's not about who is biased and who isn't biased. It's about which bias is the best bias to be biased with, and ours is quite superior to yours.

     Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

155. 155. kyedh3 02:36 AM 6/16/08

     And another thing: just where did the "pre-existent matter" come from anyway?

     Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

156. 156. kyedh3 03:42 AM 6/16/08

     A couple of quotes and responses:
     
     “Who says all matter/energy came into being all of a sudden? What's sudden anyway, in universal time? Perhaps all that exists has always existed. Even Big Bang theory allows that such a scenario as the Big Bang could be a cyclical process.”
     
     If not suddenly, then when? That still does not answer the question. It is not good logic to answer a question by dodging it. Where did the matter come from? The answer “matters”.
     
     “Put a small piece of God in a vacuum container. Wait six days. If life arises from absolutely no matter, then ID proponents have a claim to teach ID in public school science classes. Or find fossil records showing humans, in the same form as we exist today, who lived alongside the dinosaurs. Then ID proponents would have a claim to teach ID as science. Otherwise, they are just trying to introduce religious teaching into publicly funded schools. In the United States, we have a separation of church and state as Thomas Jefferson spelled out in his letter to the Danbury Baptist Association in 1802. “
     
     
     Put GOD in a vacuum container? That’s ludicrous. Life didn’t come from planting God. God spoke it into existence. And if you check the fossil record, humans do exist next to dinosaurs. And separation of Church and State means the ‘STATE SHOULD NOT TELL THE CHURCH WHAT TO DO!!!” The idea of separation of church and state, or rather the phrase, does not exist in that precise language. It was an ideological proposal for those who want to take God out of this country, when in reality, this nation was formed to make use of and follow Biblical principles. DO THE HISTORY AND THAT’S WHAT YOU WILL FIND! I like Biblical principles because they are logical and keep us safe. Where do you think the idea that murder is wrong came from? “Thou shalt not kill”. Does that even sound remotely familiar? Try the book of Exodus in the Bible.
     
     When you boil it down, Evolution is, was, and always shall be nothing more than a “system of beliefs”. And that is the very definition of religion. They can talk all they want, but there is NO SCIENTIFIC PROOF that evolution is credible. It’s all opinion. And yes, the question is about where life came from because the theory of evolution is telling us amoebas to fish to something to apes to man. That’s pretty plain. Deny that.
     
     “Let's be clear, evolution, if true, takes so long it cannot be observed. It is unseen and unobservable. Yet it is believed to be true based on inference. This is not entirely unlike belief in God. Unseen and unobservable, but believed in by inference mingled with faith.”
     
     Now here’s a person with his head on straight.

     Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

157. 157. Tommo0809 02:14 PM 6/16/08

     Ky: I'm going to ignore such a woefully misguided attempt at debate but I will provide you with a link to some information that will hopefully enlighten you as to some of your claims in re: evolution
     
     [url http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/6/11/15631/9132/632/527201][/url]
     
     As to your claims that morality stems from god or the bible, you are mistaken. There were laws against murder long before exodus was written. Something tells me that if the doctrines related to christianity were never adhered to, we would still have laws against murder etc...
     And, believe it or not, the separation of church and state is very real. As a constitutional law scholar I can tell you there are few more certain functions of the bill of rights.
     
     There are a great deal of rights that are not specifically enumerated in the constitution but they are still widely understood as "existing" in the minds of Supreme court justices and the public at large (not to mention the founding fathers). For example, there is no "right to privacy" enumerated anywhere in the constitution, however that same right is (pre-Bush administration) one of the most widely and thoroughly enforced. So before you go making these wild claims about evolution, the constitution, or morality in general please choose to educate yourself prior to.

     Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

158. 158. thatfeller 05:47 PM 6/16/08

     Funny. The movie was not about evolution, but about the scientific community's highly biased campaign to keep ID out of public discussion. So SCIAM blasts Stein for being nearly as biased as they are, and for not making their points for them. This isn't about ID vs evolution. This is about SCIAM (and others) not even permitting the conversation.
     What a laugh: SCIAM is completely missing the point, possibly on purpose: the point they argue (Stein's lack of objectivity - which nearly equals their own) is easier to argue than Stein's actual point. How sad that SCIAM - the herald of the scientific method as the be-all end-all of scientific conversations - has fallen so far that they resort to false arguments in order to avoid dealing with their own failure to exercise the scientific method.

     Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

159. 159. PaulFrost 06:08 PM 6/16/08

     > Paul: who was that addressed to?
     
     
     That particular comment was addressed to the original article. Evolution versus creationism is... well, it's a very difficult discussion. The evidence is all quite old, making things even more difficult. And, to be honest, the output doesn't matter that much. Even if scientists can show the whole picture from biogenesis to now and that, because of "insert reasons here" life is actually incredibly likely to happen the creationist will just conclude that God created such an environment where life was so... favored. Is that convenient reasoning or just God being a good scientist (set up the experiment and then observe). Make up your own mind. This battle is going rage for the rest of my lifetime and I'm not going to convince a single person to change their mind. I'm not going to put effort after foolishness.
     
     But there is something very important that needs to be addressed. I'll call it intellectual bullying.
     
     "We don't like what you have to say so... we won't publish your results."
     
     "Your research would actually disprove the fundamental assumption that much of our current funding is based on... so we're not funding you."
     
     The examples I would cite come more from physics than biology, but I have no doubt you can find it in any branch of science. If you're interested in a good read (and a good example of exactly what I'm talking about) find a book published.... about 10 years ago I think. It was titled "Seeing Red" by Halton Arp.
     
     When I started college I thought the world of academics was about intellectual integrity. It wasn't who you knew... it was what you knew. Turns out, we're all human and even though I still believe my "world" is less "political" with more "intellectual integrity" than yours... (yours in the generic sense... I don't really know you personally) then it's by the slimmest of margins....

     Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

160. 160. JohnDoe 05:25 AM 6/17/08

     Freethinker-
     
     Your statement in post 151 (quoted below) begs a strong response.
     
     You claimed, "On the contrary, creationists have logical, scientifically supported facts and theories for the earth we see today. They have factual proof that shows a lot of the "evidence" for evolution is just speculation and that a lot of the "evidence" for evolution in school textbooks was proven to be lies or hoaxes decades ago."
     
     This is sheer crap, a regurgitation of propaganda from a source totally divorced from the mainstream scientific community. If you were as free a thinker as your moniker suggests, you would realize this and would never have posted such twaddle.
     
     While this forum is about science, not law, one of the best recent pieces of writing on evolution, ID, and creationism comes from the legal world. The 2005 Dover PA court decision (Kitzmiller) was written by a GW Bush selected judge who contradicted every word of your statement quoted above. His conclusion was that ID (and creationism) are not science, and that only science (including evolution, but absolutely NOT creationism or ID) should be taught in science classes (DUH!). Part of his conclusion was, "that it is unconstitutional to teach ID as an alternative to evolution in a public school science classroom."
     
     If you have not read this decision, you should. If you are indeed a free thinker, you will read it with an open mind and will carefully consider the compelling logic of Judge Jones' arguments.
     
     As a biologically trained scientist in my 3rd decade post-PhD, I have had broad exposure to the science that you so easily dismiss, not to mention a wide range of working scientists around the globe. For you and all the non-scientists on this forum, I would like to make two points- 1) the science on evolution, when you dig deep into it is compelling, comprehensive, overwhelming, and nearly universally accepted by working scientists as supporting the evolutionary theory you deride; and 2) most of the working scientists I know would consider your statement quoted above to be so senseless as to be not worth attacking.
     
     My perspective on that second point is different- I see a broad and reactionary attack on science which needs to be countered. Your specious arguments and recycled propaganda are a good place to start, as is your implication that you are a "freethinker".
     
     So try to really think freely (i.e. for YOURSELF!). Read the Kitzmiller decision and try to understand why a religious and politically conservative man like Judge Jones wrote what he did.

     Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

161. 161. JohnDoe 05:38 AM 6/17/08

     To thatfeller (post 165)-
     
     You wrote this...
     
     "This is about SCIAM (and others) not even permitting the conversation."
     
     ...on a free ranging and open discussion board on the SciAm web site.
     
     Are you trying to be hilarious or just bizarrely ironic?
     
     As for your outrageous and moronic assertion about..."the scientific community's highly biased campaign to keep ID out of public discussion.", I simply refer you to my previous post (167).
     
     On the contrary, the more the light of day is shed on the idiotic arguments to install ID teaching in science classrooms, the more they will be seen correctly as attempts to force one religious viewpoint on all (as determined by Judge Jones in Kitzmiller). Read Kitzmiller and try and grasp the WHY of this decision by a conservative and religious judge.

     Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

162. 162. JohnDoe 12:06 PM 6/17/08

     PaulFrost-
     
     Interesting mention of Arps, but ultimately a specious argument in this context. No question that your "intellectual bullying" exists, and has been an issue to some extent in his career, but you need to look deeper. Note for example that in the time since most of his original claims against "conventional" cosmology, the weight of observational evidence has gone seriously against him. Yet he continues on his path without adequately dealing with that new observational evidence. One Occam's Razor style interpretation of this is that Arps has closed his mind to the new data because they contradict his life's work. Sad though it is, some scientists die after a life of being that voice in the wilderness without ever grasping that they are dead wrong.
     
     The fact that Arps is still swimming against the tide, so to speak, is not in any way evidence of "intellectual bullying". Quite the opposite in fact- that he has a voice at all in a field where he is overwhelmingly in the minority is profound testament to the tolerance of those irritating dissenters in science. That a particular journal editor does not see a certain viewpoint as worthy of his/her journal's scarce and expensive space does not in any way indicate "intellectual bullying". A simple test, especially for the internet age, is whether that viewpoint has gotten out to the rest of the scientific world- an unequivocal yes for Arps and ID both.
     
     Mentioning Arps in the context of evolution is rather a red herring (maybe his book should have been titled "Seeing Red Herrings"). He and any other dissenters in science are not privileged relative to all other scientists. They and their theories must still deal adequately with established scientific observations (those stubborn facts!), just as much as all their scientific opponents. Arps has not done this in the post-Hubble Space Telescope era, and his views are correspondingly weakened.
     
     In the same vein, but far worse than Arps, evolution critics rarely, if ever, even acknowledge the massive accumulation of established scientific observations (those stubborn facts again!) which evolutionary theory attempts to explain. If there is intellectual bullying occurring in the debate about evolution, it is generally on the part of the dissenters, who demand to be heard as intellectual/scientific equals despite their being grossly unprepared to deal with the observational foundation of the evolutionary theory they decry. Suppression of debate? Not in evolutionary biology as I've watched it for decades. Anything is fair game for discussion, but that doesn't mean all ideas floated have equal value- they clearly do not, just as in any other marketplace of ideas.
     
     Most of the evolutionary biologists I have known over the years would welcome any open-minded person into their classrooms, including evolution opponents who are able to check their religious dogma at the door. If you are a critic of evolution and its teaching, have you ever tried this? If not, open your mind and take a university level course in evolutionary biology. If you get past your preconceptions and understand that these people are not attacking your personal beliefs, you may be surprised at what you will learn.
     
     --
     Edited by JohnDoe at 06/17/2008 10:09 AM

     Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

163. 163. JohnDoe 06:33 PM 6/17/08

     kyedh3-
     
     I agree wholeheartedly with Tommo0809 on the "woefully misguided" (and much more). For the most part, your diatribe (post 163) is simply misinformed or uninformed. The solution to that problem is information, if you are willing to assimilate it. It would help you a great deal in this forum (and elsewhere) to understand what science and evolution are (and are NOT) all about.
     
     For a brief and very helpful guide on all this, check out this National Academy of Sciences link (http://books.nap.edu/html/11876/SECbrochure.pdf) for a brochure on a book written by evolutionary biologists for the general public.
     
     The most fundamental concept in all of science is hypothesis testing. If you can form a hypothesis (theory) and design experiments that would falsify it, given certain results, then you are in the realm of science. If this simple task is impossible, then you are outside of science.
     
     By this standard, most things religious are clearly outside the realm of science because they are not falsifiable by experimentation. Note that by definition a hypothesis must be falsifiable, so it is always possible to disprove it with the right experimental results. However, the flip side of this is that it is not possible to absolutely prove a scientific theory- disprove, yes; prove, no. If this makes you uncomfortable, look no further for real life examples than the theories of gravity or quantum mechanics- falsifiable, yet accepted by physicists as the only plausible way of explaining the observed universe.
     
     Most scientists stay completely away from entanglement of their profession with religion because it is clearly outside their realm. However, observations based on living and dead organisms of all kinds are part of the objective and testable reality of science, and as such form the foundation for evolutionary theory that may be in conflict with certain religious beliefs. Your belief in the literal truth of your particular religious book constitutes an individual and subjective reality that is not objectively testable and is therefore outside science. When you claim that your individual faith trumps all of objective scientific reality, but you can offer no objective proof for this claim, and no testable hypothesis, then you are outside of the realm of science. Such claims (the stuff of creationism and ID) have no place in a science classroom because they are not science.
     
     Though at first glance it may seem impossible to test hypotheses about evolution because of its historical nature, it clearly is not- ask any historian, ballistics expert, forensic pathologist, or geologist. All work with things that have happened in the past, but they must be able to develop and test theories (hypotheses) about how those things happened. Once you are done talking to those people, stop by your local university for a chat with an evolutionary biologist. They will have a strikingly similar take on things because all use the scientific method and they all live or die professionally on objectively observable reality.
     
     The theories formed and hypotheses tested by evolutionary biologists are akin to the examples I cited above, but much more complex. Yet, because of the fossil record and the record of DNA sequences that all organisms carry in their cells, we are able to develop and test ever more sophisticated hypotheses about the relationships among organisms of all species and ages (including using fossil DNA). One crucial part of science often missed by critics of evolution is that it must all work together- biology with geology, physics with genetics, and chemistry with astrophysics. The interlocking nature of these diverse disciplines in support of evolutionary theory is astounding and generally outside the training of the average non-scientist. Ponder for example the fact that plate tectonics, a geological theory, is now so solidly supported by satellite data, including GPS data, that it is accepted as factually correct by scientist worldwide. The attitude of evolutionary biologists toward evolution is essentially the same, but the weight of evidence is vastly greater.
     
     --
     Edited by JohnDoe at 06/17/2008 11:34 AM
     
     --
     Edited by JohnDoe at 06/17/2008 11:37 AM

     Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

164. 164. Tommo0809 10:54 PM 6/17/08

     Mr. Doe, thanks for joining us....P.S. did anyone happen to catch Ken Miller on the Colbert report last night?
     
     --
     Edited by Tommo0809 at 06/17/2008 3:55 PM

     Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

165. 165. Freethinker 11:11 PM 6/17/08

     We all hold tightly to our own beliefs and teachings. Despite our academic titles, investigating issues that run contrary to our values--be they "religious" or "scientific" values--can be difficult and uncomfortable. In fact, some will consciously or unconsciously refuse to investigate competing facts and theories because of the consequences to and impact upon personal values and peer group relationships.
     
     Just as a purely religious person may choose not to investigate scientific information about evolution because the end result may point to the lack of an intelligent designer, so too might a purely atheistic scientist refuse to investigate claims that counter evolution theories because of the impact that changing his mind might have on his personal beliefs. We should at least be honest with ourselves and admit that "scientists" struggle with the same weaknesses that may jade their vision. The title "scientist" does not exempt any of us from the struggles of the human condition.
     
     Here's another factor. We humans--"scientists" and non-"scientists" alike--tend to form a set of beliefs and values, and then we surround ourselves with others who are in agreement with those beliefs. It's certainly not universal, but it surely is a consideration that may skew our perspective. Once those beliefs are well-established, changing them can be like changing the direction of a moving freight train. However, if we consciously or unconsciously choose not to look outside of our own little box, we will never have to opportunity to discover if a competing idea is true.
     
     For example, let's presume that intelligent design is absolutely false. If the pure Creationist surrounds himself only with material that supports intelligent design, then he is not likely to discover that intelligent design is false. Likewise, let's presume that evolution is absolutely false. If an evolutionist only surrounds himself with facts and theories that seem to support evolution, he's not likely to discover that evolution is false. Both sides have to consciously look beyond their entrenched beliefs in order to consider the possibility of competing ideas.
     
     Having the courage to explore competing ideas has to be a lifelong commitment. Just as there seems to be increasing evidence to support evolution, so too does there seem to increasing evidence that counters evolution. One must consciously choose to revisit those competing ideas on a regular basis. This applies to [i]all[/i] scientists, regardless of their religious leanings.

     Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

166. 166. JohnDoe 03:53 AM 6/18/08

     Tommo- Thanks for the welcome. It seemed that there was room here for a working scientist to weigh in and try to counter some of the misconceptions. My ambitions are purely educational- the frustrations of daily life in private industry are mitigated by digging into issues of substance such as here.
     
     
     Freethinker-
     
     Your statement in post 172, quoted below, demands further attention.
     You wrote, "In fact, some will consciously or unconsciously refuse to investigate competing facts and theories because of the consequences to and impact upon personal values and peer group relationships."
     
     This goes right to the core of something fundamental in science, not in science as a body of facts and theories, but rather on the human side of how science is done. Any decent scientist will have learned from their earliest professional training that the situation you describe is absolutely unacceptable in science. The issue of intellectual honesty is essential to the success of the scientific enterprise. If you cannot set aside any potential barriers to objectivity, then you will probably have reality handed to you quite rudely at a later date.
     
     It is very important that you as a non-scientist understand how central this intellectual honesty is to science. Journal articles are retracted, tenured professors resign, careers are ruined, lawsuits are filed, and companies fold because of failures of intellectual honesty. Your implication that this is a problem with scientists is a profound slight to the profession as a whole, yet I'm willing to excuse it as mere ignorance rather than ill will. That you are suggesting this is a significant problem with evolutionary biologists firmly establishes the profundity of that ignorance.
     
     Please, do yourself (and all of us) the favor of truly educating yourself about real science and how it is done, especially with respect to evolution. While some of your statements in that post are reasonable (looking outside the box to see if a competing idea is true), you revert to what seems like parroted propaganda in your last paragraph. Certainly at the Ph.D. level, the intellectual honesty required for success in science should have been pounded very deeply into your brain.
     
     More on that final paragraph: On your comment about courage- do creationists have the courage to face up to the scientific facts that can potentially undermine part of their religious beliefs? Or are they trained to turn off their questions when those dangerous moments loom ahead? True courage from their side would allow them to dig into the facts of evolutionary biology and be intellectually honest about what they learn. I simply do not EVER see this, so don't even think about maligning the courage of scientists.
     
     ...and more: Being a working scientist is itself a lifelong commitment to the exploration of competing ideas, contrary to your implication. You are right that there is increasing evidence in support of evolution, but your accompanying claim that there is increasing evidence against it is total crap. This is repeated endlessly by creationists and ID advocates without ever being supported by facts. With the advent of gene sequencing of entire organisms, the strength of the support for evolutionary theory has increased very rapidly, to a point where acceptance among professional biologists is virtually universal.
     
     ...and yet more: The individual rewards for disproving established theories (yes, including evolution) are very high- instant superstardom and its perks. This constitutes a powerful incentive for individual scientists to continually search for holes in existing theories. So, again contrary to your implication, scientists as a group are constantly revisiting competing ideas and evaluating their merit. However, in the case of evolution, there simply is no significant competing scientific theory.

     Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

167. 167. Freethinker 05:07 AM 6/18/08

     JohnDoe: Good post in #170. It was a nice explanation of the scientific method and how personal beliefs (be they religious or otherwise) can conflict with that method.
     
     It still amazes me how two educated adults can look at the same facts and theories but come to different conclusions. I look at some of the glaring holes, misconceptions and outright lies in evolutionary theory and wonder how a man with your education and experience could miss them. You look at me and wonder how I could be stupid enough to believe things that you just [i]know[/i] are untrue. We use the same scientific method and end up with different results, but we both can't be right. Are learned scientists who don't subscribe to evolutionary theory just dumb? Or, is it possible that they may be onto something even if they are in the minority? Does majority make right? Ahh, in the spirit of finding the real truth, we both trudge on. May we all have the courage to constantly look outside our own little boxes.
     
     To that end, I challenge you to spend a few bucks on a 17-hour video series produced by Creation Science Evangelism. [url http://shopping.drdino.com/product-exec/product_id/31/nm/Creation_Seminar_Boxed_Set_8_DVDs/category_id/39][/url]. It raises many questions about evolutionary theory for which I have not yet found satisfactory answers. Perhaps there are a few ideas in it that will help prove or disprove your existing theories. Are you going to get some "religion" in the series? Yup. Are you going to get some bias? Yup. I challenge you, however, to look at the scientific value of the series, to examine the many questions it raises about evolutionary theory and to formulate adequate, scientific responses to them. Likewise, I will do my very best to keep an objective perspective when I discover new information.
     
     Have a great rest of the night.

     Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

168. 168. Tommo0809 01:34 PM 6/18/08

     Free:
     Dr.Dino? This is what makes discussion on this topic next to impossible. One side is using evidence derived from experimentation and observation while the other side relies on propaganda. I'm not sure what word I would use to describe Ken Hovind (Dr. Dino's real name) but the words "snake-oil" do come to mind.
     
     You said:
     "Likewise, I will do my very best to keep an objective perspective when I discover new information."
     
     Next time you would be better off just posing the actual questions you have in your post then belying where you go for your affirmations.
     
     --
     Edited by Tommo0809 at 06/18/2008 6:36 AM

     Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

169. 169. JohnDoe 03:40 PM 6/18/08

     Freethinker-
     
     Your response in #174 to my #170 is somewhat gratifying in that you obviously read what I wrote about the scientific method and religion. However, you begin the substance of your post by making a preposterous assumption- that you and I have somehow looked "at the same facts and theories". NOT LIKELY, and this point is both implicit and crucial in my earlier posts, as well as being the main focus of this one.
     
     My background includes a bachelors degree in zoology, several years of basic research in virology and molecular biology, MS and PhD in environmental toxicology, and 2+ decades in that field since my degrees. Along the way I have studied evolutionary biology, geology, biochemistry, molecular biology, genetics, etc. I've spent nearly twenty years at 4 different large universities, worked directly with a wide variety of university faculty up to the National Academy of Science member level, and have had the opportunity to meet multiple Nobel laureates.
     
     Please bear with me if this seems like chest-thumping. On the contrary, I've simply recited my academic history in thumbnail form as I would in meeting a new colleague, and as they would do for me. One key point of this recitation is that the breadth and depth of my history is fairly typical among the geeks who are my peers. This kind of training and work in academic science exposes a person to far more information about evolution and related topics than the average non-scientist would see in a lifetime, even if they are not an evolutionary biologist (I am definitely not).
     
     Building on this I will point out to you only two key observations I have made during my multi-decade journey: 1) Throughout my training and career, factual/observational support for evolutionary theory has been profound, ubiquitous, continuous, and derived from multiple disciplines in an amazingly interlocking fashion. 2) During this time, the only people I've met who both earned a living in biology and denied evolution were a few who accepted the literal truth of creation as described in Genesis. These people seemed to shut off their critical thinking when the question of evolution arose, because (my conclusion) it conflicted with and could potentially undermine their religious faith. This struck me then (and I still feel this to be so) as profound intellectual dishonesty.
     
     It may seem logical to counter point 1 with the contention that the truth is not determined by a majority (and in fact, you have raised this in your paragraph 2). However, I and my peers, not to mention my mentors and their peers along the way, tend to be fiercely independent when it comes to their intellectual lives. No one among these people has embraced evolution because others have done so. They have all made a journey similar to mine, learning the factual support for evolution along the way and reaching their own decisions INDEPENDENTLY. The reason is quite simple- both the strength of evolutionary theory itself and the overwhelming assortment of factual/observational support for it. An aside which I know will interest you is that this group includes some who are highly religious and some who are hard core atheists.
     
     The atheists you will likely write off as lost souls, but you certainly should ask yourself why there are so many religious scientists who find no conflict between evolution and their religion. The answer is simple- [b][u]there is no intrinsic conflict between the concept of god in most religions and the theory of evolution[/b][/u]. Only when biblical literalists parade their religious beliefs as scientific truth is there a problem, and universally, the courts in the US have found that they are flat wrong in doing this because their claims are entirely religious rather than scientific.
     
     Numerous evolutionary biologists have recounted their "debates" with creationists over the years, and one aspect uniformly stands out from all these accounts. Very simply, the creationists are truly clueless about the strength of evolutionary theory because they have not studied it as a true student of the discipline would. Instead, they read each others pseudoscientific writings and discuss "holes" or "gaps" in evolutionary theory, small flaws which they hope to use to bring down the whole evil edifice, but which in reality are but minor irritations to evolutionary theorists themselves. To the evolutionary biologist at the debate podium facing such opponents, if the discussion stays focused on science, it is like shooting fish in a barrel because their opponents just do not grasp the depth, breadth, and strength of evolutionary theory. Additionally, and obviously not a trivial point, they have no scientific support for their claims, only their religious convictions.
     
     The final part to this response before I check out- I will decline your challenge to buy and examine some creationist propaganda for one simple reason. I refuse to do anything to enrich practitioners of pseudoscience, especially anti-evolutionists, who try to pass off religion as science. If you wish to post a succinct summary of a particular creation science claim or a critique of evolution, I will gladly dismantle it for you. Rest assured I have looked at many such tracts and associated web sites over the years, and they are universally intellectual trash.
     
     Counter to your challenge, I will reiterate my charge to you to exhibit some intellectual honesty and read two good starter documents, both available free on the web- the Kitzmiller decision from the Dover PA case (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/dover/kitzmiller_v_dover_decision.html) and the NAS brochure linked in my post # 170. From there, any of the cited references will get you in deeper. Until you have done this and demonstrate some grasp of the science of evolutionary theory, we have nothing further to talk about. I can only hope that you and your peers and any others reading these discussion boards will fully open their minds and begin to truly understand the scientific basis of evolutionary theory. I expect to be disappointed, but would be thrilled if it were otherwise.
     
     --
     Edited by JohnDoe at 06/18/2008 10:49 AM

     Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

170. 170. EastwoodDC 05:19 PM 6/18/08

     [b]Freethinker[/b]:
     I'm fairly sure you are [u]not[/u] stupid. I do think you have gotten lost in the details of the argument and lost sight of the real issue. Indeed, many people on both sides of this debate make the same mistake. The "details" of evolution and creationism are just the latest version of the ongoing discussion between science and religion.
     
     As JohnDoe so ably stated:
     
     > The answer is simple- there is no intrinsic conflict between
     > the concept of god in most religions and the theory of evolution.
     
     The only conflict is that which some people choose to create, and such conflict is at best unnecessary, and at worst ... stupid. Science and religion can coexist independently and (usually) harmoniously. Can there be anything wrong with that? Is there any purpose, logic, or reason to even try to validate any religion by means of science?

     Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

171. 171. Freethinker 11:00 PM 6/18/08

     Thanks for your contribution and links, JohnDoe. I've been reading the information you suggested. Sorry to see you go. Best wishes as you continue to seek the truth.
     
     As we continue this discussion, I get the impression that anyone who has wholesale buy-in to evolutionary theory feels justified in automatically dismissing someone with religious beliefs even if that religious person may have used time honored scientific principles to poke holes in evolutionary theory. Indeed, it's dishonest to assume that a scientist who has religious beliefs is somehow automatically incapable of presenting valid problems in evolutionary theory, and it's dishonest to automatically assume that his information, his facts, and his purposes are religiously biased. That includes experts and amateurs alike who criticize evolutionary theory and who happen to have mainstream religious leanings.
     
     I hope we can all be honest and recognize that a person adhering to mainstream religious tenets has just as much capability to separate religion from scientific methods as does an atheist. In the same way that an atheistic scientist can display intellectual honesty, so too can a theistic scientist display intellectual honesty. And don't forget that atheism and agnosticism are indeed religions that come with their own set of religious beliefs and values. Wholesale dismissal of the "competition's" scientific information--not religious information, but scientific information--simply because the competition adheres to a mainstream religion is an intellectually bankrupt practice. It may be easy, it may make us feel vindicated, it may make us feel superior, but it sure doesn't indicate an interest in exploring for the truth. That goes for "creationists" and atheists alike.
     
     For example, it would be dishonest of me to dismiss a scientist's evolutionary ideas simply because that scientist is an atheist. I think the same respect should be afforded to a scientist who happens to be Christian, Jewish, or Catholic, and if that religious scientist happens to come to a different conclusion about evolutionary ideas, it is dishonest to dismiss his ideas based merely on the fact that he is "religious." We should each consider what scientific information a person has to offer and refrain from attacking the individual. THAT is true intellectual honesty.
     
     You're right. Some people start with religious beliefs and then try to force science to adhere to their religious beliefs. That's not good for science or religion. By the way, atheists can be just as guilty of that as theists. But what about those people who start with science and then develop religious beliefs as a result of that science? Let's say a scientists looks at the bulk of scientific information, concludes that evolutionary theory is incorrect and concomitantly concludes that there is a Creator. Some might be quick to dismiss him because he is biased by "religion." But what about the scientist who concludes evolutionary theory is fact and therefore becomes an atheist? Shall we dismiss him as well? Is he somehow superior to followers of theistic religions? Is he somehow immune to human tendencies?
     
     We all have to keep our eyes wide open and consciously choose to look outside of our own boxes. That's the only way any of us will ever discover the truth.
     
     --
     Edited by Freethinker at 06/18/2008 4:03 PM

     Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

172. 172. PaulFrost 11:49 PM 6/18/08

     > PaulFrost-
     >
     > Interesting mention of Arps, but ultimately a
     > specious argument in this context. No question that
     > your "intellectual bullying" exists, and has been an
     
     How can you admit that it exists but call the argument specious at the same time?
     
     > issue to some extent in his career, but you need to
     > look deeper. Note for example that in the time since
     > most of his original claims against "conventional"
     > cosmology, the weight of observational evidence has
     > gone seriously against him. Yet he continues on his
     > path without adequately dealing with that new
     > observational evidence. One Occam's Razor style
     > interpretation of this is that Arps has closed his
     > mind to the new data because they contradict his
     > life's work. Sad though it is, some scientists die
     > after a life of being that voice in the wilderness
     > without ever grasping that they are dead wrong.
     
     Theory is not Arp's strong point. But look at the reasons given for some of his rejections. I don't have the book with me (not sure if I could even find since I've moved a couple times since I purchased it) but one that comes to mind was a rejection because "NO ONE ELSE IS PUBLISHING ANYTHING LIKE THIS." Just let that sink in. That should never be a reason for rejecting publication (and if you disagree with that point then I think we're going to simply disagree on this matter in general).
     
     What Arp is an expert at, however, is documenting the red shift of stellar objects and pointing out structures that are not explained by current popular theories.
     
     I didn't put that particular book forth because the science was perfect, but rather because he talks (complains) more about the politics involved than most writers.
     
     History is rife with examples of leading edge science being met first by ridicule, then by silence... and only after years in many cases by acceptance.
     
     > The fact that Arps is still swimming against the
     > tide, so to speak, is not in any way evidence of
     > "intellectual bullying". Quite the opposite in fact-
     > that he has a voice at all in a field where he is
     > overwhelmingly in the minority is profound testament
     > to the tolerance of those irritating dissenters in
     > science. That a particular journal editor does not
     
     Majory... minority... these are political terms. The preponderance of a belief has no bearing on whether it is true or false... The terminology shouldn't even be present.
     
     > see a certain viewpoint as worthy of his/her
     > journal's scarce and expensive space does not in any
     > way indicate "intellectual bullying". A simple test,
     > especially for the internet age, is whether that
     > viewpoint has gotten out to the rest of the
     > scientific world- an unequivocal yes for Arps and ID
     > both.
     
     The pragmatic argument... we can't afford to consider science that doesn't fit the norm. Editors simply don't have the time to have every article properly reviewed... etc. Probably the strongest argument for what I would classify as "intellectual bullying." Yet, in such a case the editor should state his reasons clearly "Time does not allow us to review papers that are outside the main stream of research at this time." And, perhaps, you'll argue that's exactly what Arp was being told by "NO ONE ELSE IS PUBLISHING ANYTHING LIKE THIS" but, if that were the case, there are much better ways of communicating the reasons involved. And if I wasn't directly involved in publishing papers and the politics therein, I might be inclined to go along with that argument. But I am involved... and because of that I'm not so inclined...
     
     > Mentioning Arps in the context of evolution is rather
     > a red herring (maybe his book should have been titled
     > "Seeing Red Herrings"). He and any other dissenters
     
     I think you've missed my whole point. My whole argument was that SA has focussed in on an issue that they can't hope to change and ignored another very important issue where they might actually be able to make a change. In my argument Arp has absolutely nothing to do with evolution or ID. I read his book years ago but I don't recall it dealing with either topic.
     
     > in science are not privileged relative to all other
     > scientists. They and their theories must still deal
     > adequately with established scientific observations
     > (those stubborn facts!), just as much as all their
     > scientific opponents. Arps has not done this in the
     > post-Hubble Space Telescope era, and his views are
     > correspondingly weakened.
     
     First, I think if you understood the point I was making you'd understand that this is not relevant. I was pointing to a rare book where the writer actually discusses some of the politics involved in publishing scientific work. Papers that were rejected because of poor science, discount those. They were handled properly. Don't waste time discussing those. They're not relevant. Look at what's left... the papers and finds that were rejected NOT on the basis of scientific/logical fault.
     
     In other words, when I'm pointing out that the current filter is malfunctioning X % of the time, it's not really relevant to discuss how well it functions (1-X)% of the time. Yes, papers are rejected for appropriate reasons all the time. The system works fine (1-X)% of the time.
     
     Second, the favored method today seems to be adding "warts" to your theory every time the data doesn't agree with your current model. No one rejects a model anymore simply because it doesn't fit the data...
     
     > In the same vein, but far worse than Arps, evolution
     > critics rarely...
     
     Yes yes... fine fine... I'm not interested in evolution versus ID. Again, you seem to completely miss my point that you're not going to change anyone's mind on evolution versus ID, so why not concentrate on an issue you can change where you have much more in common with the entire audience? No? Ok... well, if you have to go off and fight a religious war (or THAT religious war anyway) you're not taking me with you. Ciao...

     Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

173. 173. JohnDoe 09:50 AM 6/19/08

     PaulFrost-
     
     Intellectual bullying may exist, but it is not responsible for the failure of creationists to make headway in their attempts to tear down evolutionary theory. That failure is due to their inability to fully understand both the scientific process and its result, evolutionary theory. They have nothing to offer scientifically, so they remain shut out of the scientific discussion. Religious beliefs have no place in that discussion, so they currently have nothing to add to the discussion. These facts make specious (as I said, "in this context") any argument connecting intellectual bullying and creationist frustrations and failures. Show me a scientifically viable idea from their camp that has been denied publication and I'll admit I'm wrong.
     
     Your points on the trials Arps described and on publication issues are well taken and must be a concern to anyone working anywhere in science. I've seen plenty of politics in my time in science, some of it disturbing. Scientists are people and therefore not immune from human foibles. But hopefully this is less of an issue than one might think from Arps and his/your writing. I personally have not observed it to be a significant issue in the publication process in my field.
     
     Your point about ridicule to silence to acceptance is well illustrated in the history of science. But that does not automatically mean that an idea ridiculed is worthy of ultimate success. The idea must stand on its own merits. One might prefer every scientifically worthy idea to be met immediately with cheers and acceptance, but that will never happen with humans running the scientific enterprise. The best we can hope for is to give all potentially worthy ideas time and exposure to demonstrate their merits and gather acceptance. This done properly also takes care of the issue of preponderance of belief- one proponent of a worthy idea under these conditions can change the world. In fact, it would not be unreasonable to argue that this has been the dominant process of scientific advancement for some time now.
     
     The argument you make about SA remains unclear to me, but I disagree with your implication that the ID vs. evolution issue is a hopeless religious war. I've been concerned for years about the poor quality of science education in the US and this is one small effort to counter a disturbing trend.

     Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

174. 174. JohnDoe 12:41 PM 6/19/08

     Freethinker-
     
     Some final comments because of some of the confusion in your last post (178).
     
     Several times you have referred to "time honored scientific principles" as though you are a working scientist using those principles every day. Yet the message I read between the lines of your writing is that you dismiss evolutionary theory without grasping how the scientific method supports the theory. Additionally you continue implying that somehow the criticisms of evolution developed by creationists are supported by your "time honored scientific principles". This has been and continues to be pure crap... ...and will continue to be so until creationists act like scientists and develop some viable (meaning not based just on a literal reading of Genesis) alternative hypotheses for testing.
     
     You are indeed correct in stating that a theistic scientist can demonstrate intellectual honesty. I've seen many in my career and have respected the generally good quality of their science. But to be "trained" as a scientist and then turn off that critical thinking which makes you a scientist, just because you are facing the most powerful unifying theory in all of biology... ...that is the very definition of intellectual dishonesty- not looking carefully at the evidence before you because it contradicts your religious dogma. Anyone who does this is no scientist. Further, any claims such a person makes to be a scientist (or to be using "time honored scientific principles") merely compound the intellectual dishonesty. A start at comprehensive intellectual honesty would be to sign up for that university level biology course and eventually learn the factual/observational basis of the theory you wish to dismiss, from the people who know the most about that basis.
     
     More on the perceived conflict between science and religion- If you accept that the massive amount of observable physical evidence around us denies the literal truth of Genesis, and if you accept the Genesis account of creation as the "myth" it is, then there is plenty of room for you in evolutionary biology (or geology or paleontology). However, if you insist on the literal truth of Genesis, you will always be butting heads with the geologists, paleontologists, molecular biologists, geneticists, evolutionary biologists, etc. who have spent their careers examining the physical evidence and helping to build the body of work that provides overwhelming support for evolutionary theory.
     
     Regarding your comments on "mainstream" religion- the competent scientists I've known over the years who practice mainstream religions (Hindu, Catholic, Islamic, non-fundamentalist-Christian, Jewish, Bhuddist, Confucianist, Taoist) do not allow their religion to dictate their scientific beliefs, because they understand it is intellectually dishonest and will destroy their ability and standing as a scientist. They are capable of working with each other because their religious beliefs are irrelevant to their science. The same goes for their ability to work with atheists, and vice versa. Science can not claim any knowledge about their religious beliefs. It can neither falsify nor endorse those beliefs, and so this diverse group of scientists can coexist with each other and work in science because (as I pointed out in an earlier post) there is no intrinsic conflict with their religion. Religion should not be and generally is not an issue in science and among scientists. For example check out Francis Collins (http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/ngm/0702/voices.html and http://www.beliefnet.com/story/198/story_19848_1.html).
     
     But toss a biblical literalist into the mix and everything instantly changes, for reasons noted above and in prior posts.
     
     On your last full paragraph- I'm not sure exactly what it is that you are missing about the divide between science and religion, but you are indeed missing it. To discuss conclusions about a supernatural creator in a context of science is just plain inappropriate. Science can no more deny the religious truth of any of the mainstream religions I listed above than it can confirm that same religious truth. Science cannot prove or deny the existence of the supernatural creator held to exist by most religions. What science can do is clearly defined- science CAN (and does) make observations of the natural (NOT supernatural) world. Science can and does construct testable hypotheses to explain those observations. Science can and does test such hypotheses, discarding or continuing to test hypotheses according to their ability to withstand whatever experiment scientists can design.
     
     If science produces a scientifically sound conclusion that goes against a particular religious teaching, then perhaps that religion is out of bounds in its claim to have an explanation of the physical world. Such has occurred in the past and religions have adjusted (think Galileo for example). In that case, the Catholic church attacked the messenger, but eventually (centuries later!) dealt sensibly with the undeniable scientific reality by embracing modern science (including evolutionary biology!) and acknowledging that Genesis could not be literally true. Have they abandoned Genesis and the Bible? No. Are there many successful scientists who are practicing Catholics? Yes. Do they believe in a creator who works through the process of evolution? Yes. Do they accept that the fossil record reflects that process? Yes.
     
     If I've accomplished anything with my writings here, I want you and your peers to better understand the boundary between science and religion. Science has enormous value to us all, whether we believe all it's teachings or not, and it's best to understand such enterprises which support your life every day. Attacking science and scientists because of ignorance about them, their profession, and its findings is just plain stupid. I would love to see it stop, but as a scientist, I must be realistic in my expectations.

     Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

175. 175. PaulFrost 05:16 PM 6/19/08

     > PaulFrost-
     >
     > Intellectual bullying may exist, but it is not
     > responsible for the failure of creationists to make
     
     Of course it exists. Have you ever read anything about Bohr? Anything at all?
     
     > headway in their attempts to tear down evolutionary
     > theory. That failure is due to their inability to
     > fully understand both the scientific process and its
     > result, evolutionary theory. They have nothing to
     > offer scientifically, so they remain shut out of the
     > scientific discussion. Religious beliefs have no
     > place in that discussion, so they currently have
     > nothing to add to the discussion. These facts make
     > specious (as I said, "in this context") any argument
     > connecting intellectual bullying and creationist
     > frustrations and failures. Show me a scientifically
     > viable idea from their camp that has been denied
     > publication and I'll admit I'm wrong.
     
     For that matter, have you read anything I've posted? I'm not getting involved with a religious war you can't win. I'm not interested in discussing why you can't win. I'm old enough to have learned to pick my fights better than that. You're free, of course, to do what you wish but I won't be joining you.
     
     > Your points on the trials Arps described and on
     > publication issues are well taken and must be a
     > concern to anyone working anywhere in science. I've
     > seen plenty of politics in my time in science, some
     > of it disturbing. Scientists are people and
     > therefore not immune from human foibles. But
     > hopefully this is less of an issue than one might
     > think from Arps and his/your writing. I personally
     > have not observed it to be a significant issue in the
     > publication process in my field.
     
     That is actually good news to me. It's certainly active in my field. I wouldn't characterize it as crippling, but I've certainly seen good work go unpublished/unreported which is very disturbing.
     
     > Your point about ridicule to silence to acceptance is
     > well illustrated in the history of science. But that
     > does not automatically mean that an idea ridiculed is
     > worthy of ultimate success. The idea must stand on
     > its own merits.
     
     My point EXACTLY! It should be about the work, the ideas, the experimental methods employed, etc. It should NEVER be about WHO did it or WHY it was done, or whether publishing the paper could affect future funding of the institutions involved, etc., etc.
     
     And, yes, there are certainly examples of poor science being ridiculed as well... some "cold fusion" findings come to mind...
     
     > One might prefer every
     > scientifically worthy idea to be met immediately with
     > cheers and acceptance, but that will never happen
     > with humans running the scientific enterprise. The
     > best we can hope for is to give all potentially
     > worthy ideas time and exposure to demonstrate their
     > merits and gather acceptance. This done properly
     > also takes care of the issue of preponderance of
     > belief- one proponent of a worthy idea under these
     > conditions can change the world. In fact, it would
     > not be unreasonable to argue that this has been the
     > dominant process of scientific advancement for some
     > time now.
     
     The ideal has certainly been there. And I would even agree that it has been the "dominant" model based on my personal sample set... simply because most people are doing research along the same lines as the main stream.
     
     > The argument you make about SA remains unclear to me,
     > but I disagree with your implication that the ID vs.
     > evolution issue is a hopeless religious war. I've
     > been concerned for years about the poor quality of
     > science education in the US and this is one small
     > effort to counter a disturbing trend.
     
     By all means push to improve science education. You may make some headway there. We certainly need better math and science education in the US.
     
     But looking at one of your previous posts on the evolution vs. creationism discussion I notice that you clearly stated that you expected to fail in your endeavor to change opinions. Was that some form of manipulation (common in these forums and if it was I'm not criticizing you for it) or was it truth? If you were being truthful, then why are you throwing effort after folly? Even if it is a "small effort" where is the logic in that.
     
     A lottery ticket is only $1. A small "effort" indeed. I still don't buy them.

     Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

176. 176. JohnDoe 06:41 PM 6/19/08

     PaulFrost-
     
     Interesting post. Yes I've read a modest amount about Bohr, but always focused on the substance of the physics and it's historical context. Clearly any intellectual bulllying issues did not stick in my mind as much as in yours. I know and would never deny that this has always been an issue, often with some very famous and important scientists. My key point on this, which I suspect that you grasp well by now, is that bullying claims by creationists in the context of evolutionary biology are specious because they have yet to produce any scientific work that justifies publication in reputable journals. They can cry foul all they want, but until they have something to offer beyond the usual religiously motivated pseudoscience, there is no foul in refusing them publication in any scientific journal, or in refusing debates, etc.
     
     Good work unpublished is probably more likely in some fields than others- certainly there is always a level of direct and sometimes immediate relevance in the environmental field that may explain my observation. A quietly suppressed research study about some new contaminant endangering public health would be fodder for 60 Minutes or the like, so there is little likelihood of effective suppression. A paper on the latest twist on superstring theory or one on arcane n-dimensional geometry would not have the same level of interest to the public and might be much more easily quashed by an antagonistic editor.
     
     ...ahh yes, cold fusion- a case study in how not to do science, but even more, how not to do science PR. Bunch of idiots! Let us not forget its lessons, the most important of which is that $$$ in the eyes really prevents clear vision.
     
     On the education/manipulation question, I was being as truthful as possible. The expected failure I referred to was individual case failure, not an overall failure. On this topic I'm an optimist, as supported by history- the general level of education in the world continues to grow steadily, which can only be a good thing. It's like voting- if you don't vote, then you have no right to bitch about the political situation. If you as a scientist do nothing to raise the level of science understanding among the general public, then you have no right to criticize them for not understanding what science is all about and how scientists work.
     
     My educational efforts are sometimes frustrating, but rarely demoralizing, and sometimes quite rewarding. Like you, I've been around the block a few times, as outlined in an earlier post. I've also jousted with creationists on numerous prior occasions. And I even count among my friends in my home town a number of young earth creationist evangelicals, so I am acutely aware of the educational and other issues. My efforts here have been partly directed toward the (apparent) creationists on the antagonistic side of this forum (Freethinker especially because of his/her obvious intelligence), largely because I've gotten the impression over the years that no one has ever sat them down and explained to them the things I've included in my recent posts. There is usually too much emotion & too much acrimony in such encounters for them to be educational. I've tried to keep things away from that, but to be crystal clear on the science/religion debate and its epistemology.
     
     However, in response to your queries, my most important target from the start has been the educated non-scientists who are trying to understand all the flap. Sometimes clarity on this issue is hard to come by, so I hope I've been able to help a few such people. Feedback from them would be greatly appreciated. They certainly are not getting clarity from the creationist side, and many scientists consider debates with pseudoscientists to be below them or a waste of their time. I disagree specifically because these other people deserve to know the kind of things I've written about. They and the people they can educate are important. And you and I both know that the public schools are rarely if ever teaching such stuff.
     
     Interesting final comment on the lottery tickets. I've never bought one myself- voluntary taxation for the math-challenged.

     Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

177. 177. PaulFrost 09:39 PM 6/19/08

     > PaulFrost-
     
     > now, is that bullying claims by creationists in the
     > context of evolutionary biology are specious because
     > they have yet to produce any scientific work that
     > justifies publication in reputable journals. They
     
     I don't care about creationism. I don't care about evolution. I thought I'd made it clear I was referring to "intellectual bullying" in the bigger picture. I thought I'd made it clear I considered that religious war a waste of time.
     
     > Good work unpublished is probably more likely in some
     > fields than others- certainly there is always a level
     > of direct and sometimes immediate relevance in the
     > environmental field that may explain my observation.
     
     Environmentalism... another religious war...
     
     > A quietly suppressed research study about some new
     > w contaminant endangering public health would be
     > fodder for 60 Minutes or the like, so there is little
     > likelihood of effective suppression. A paper on the
     > latest twist on superstring theory or one on arcane
     > n-dimensional geometry would not have the same level
     > of interest to the public and might be much more
     > easily quashed by an antagonistic editor.
     
     String theory is dead as far as I'm concerned. But you're certainly getting closer to my interests now. Not that it matters. This is an issue as you pointed out earlier, endemic to human nature. It's in every branch of science because people are there...
     
     > ...ahh yes, cold fusion- a case study in how not to
     > do science, but even more, how not to do science PR.
     > Bunch of idiots! Let us not forget its lessons, the
     > e most important of which is that $$$ in the eyes
     > really prevents clear vision.
     
     Enthusiasm coupled with bad science. Not a good mixture. But it gave a bad name to the whole field of study for years. Everyone lost. The aftermath is yet another example of what I've been referring to.
     
     > On the education/manipulation question, I was being
     > as truthful as possible. The expected failure I
     > referred to was individual case failure, not an
     > overall failure. On this topic I'm an optimist, as
     > supported by history- the general level of education
     > in the world continues to grow steadily, which can
     > only be a good thing. It's like voting- if you don't
     > vote, then you have no right to bitch about the
     > political situation. If you as a scientist do nothing
     > to raise the level of science understanding among the
     > general public, then you have no right to criticize
     > them for not understanding what science is all about
     > and how scientists work.
     
     I'm not sure the level of education is increasing in this country. I have no data to support that premise at hand but I'd have to see data to the contrary to believe otherwise. My personal sample set, very limited of course, supports the view that the quality of education in this country has not increased. The world on the other hand, that's possible but outside my sample set. My lab brings in local highschool students several times a year to boost interest in science. Supporting education is certainly something I believe in and support (with both my time and money). I'm employed by a university so it's part of the environment. But that's really another topic.
     
     >
     
     It's your time...
     
     > However, in response to your queries, my most
     > important target from the start has been the educated
     > non-scientists who are trying to understand all the
     > flap. Sometimes clarity on this issue is hard to
     > come by, so I hope I've been able to help a few such
     > people. Feedback from them would be greatly
     > appreciated. They certainly are not getting clarity
     > from the creationist side, and many scientists
     > consider debates with pseudoscientists to be below
     > them or a waste of their time. I disagree
     > specifically because these other people deserve to
     > know the kind of things I've written about. They and
     > the people they can educate are important. And you
     > and I both know that the public schools are rarely if
     > ever teaching such stuff.
     
     I just did an internet search. Took me less than 60 seconds and I found numerous resources for people wishing to learn more about evolution, creationism, etc. I think people who really want to find the truth are enabled.
     
     > Interesting final comment on the lottery tickets.
     > I've never bought one myself- voluntary taxation for
     > r the math-challenged.
     
     I spent years fighting religious wars when I was younger. I think my favorite was Macs versus PCs (my friend and I actually concluded in 1987 that Macs and PCs would eventually share the same hardware... but they would STILL be incompatible). Man sharpens man, the way steel sharpens steel. I loved a good debate. But not with someone who doesn't understand the evidence. No point. No benefit. No payoff.
     
     I expected more from SA. They've become increasingly more politically bent over the years. I'm sure some of them believe it is their responsibility to "educate" the masses, which I can understand but I find horribly inappropriate and inevitably wasteful. More religious zealots, blind to their own particular brand of lunacy.

     Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

178. 178. rgtrumps 11:15 PM 6/19/08

     Scientists get to make their points & are greatly distressed when we call them a "THEORY." God Bless Ben & his movie. It is about time for someone to speak our for God. But remember to duck because to teach the alternative, the Bible is tacky! Too bad! I love science, but the teachers of Science are free to teach texts as fact, not as theory, and not the "other" side.
     
     Why? Well, we can't talk about religion for fear of hurting the tender feelings of those who do not believe the Bible.. What CAN you talk about where God doesn't enter into the picture at some point? EVERYTHING was created by Him, and every archaeological and geological find proves geographical, sociological and other facts of the Bible. Not a single scientific find has EVER proved one single verse of that old book wrong!! NOT ONE!! A book which hasn't changed in 2000 years, and no "revisions" or "updates," science is constantly being a witness to the accuracy of the Bible. However, science text books are fraught with errors as soon as an update is printed. Not so with the Bible! Why does this country cater to the few, less than 5% of the population, who call themselves Atheists, rather than to the majority who call themselves by Biblical names. We MUST be fair in presenting both sides! Even prisoners of our war are allowed to worship in a peaceful atmosphere and unimpeded in doing so.
     R. G. Trumps
     richardgtrumps@verizon.net
     
     --
     Edited by rgtrumps at 06/19/2008 5:58 PM
     
     --
     Edited by rgtrumps at 06/19/2008 5:59 PM
     
     --
     Edited by rgtrumps at 06/19/2008 6:00 PM
     
     --
     Edited by rgtrumps at 06/19/2008 6:02 PM

     Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

179. 179. Freethinker 12:19 AM 6/20/08

     JohnDoe: Glad you're back. One of the drawbacks of written debate is that intended ideas often go unnoticed. Additionally, antagonists are hesitant to agree with each other for fear of appearing weak or wrong. You'd be surprised at how much you and I agree on about the roles of science and religion.
     
     I gather one of your main points is that the supernatural is untestable by the scientific method and is therefore outside the realm of science. Religion and science, therefore, do not mix. I get it. I really do. I agree with you. Supernatural events--even though they do exist--are not testable by science. I think you're missing (or I'm not explaining very well) the crux of my argument. Let me try to restate it:
     
     You've studied science for a long time and as a result have come to the absolute conclusion that evolution is an absolute and undeniable fact. In appears, also, that you dismiss anyone who shoots a hole in evolution if that person also happens to have religious (read "creationist" or "ID") leanings. You seem to outright reject or ignore a scientific contribution if it happens to be offered by one of "those creationists". My impression is that you don't think a religious person (who also happens to believe in ID) is capable of contributing an intellectually honest idea that happens to conflict with evolutionary theory because you believe he's obviously biased. Is that a correct impression?
     
     You speak several times in your previous posts about how IDers and creationists allow their beliefs and myths to interfere with their scientific studies. Yet you seem unwilling to admit or accept that your own religious beliefs (and I gather you are an atheist, an agnostic, or a humanist) may impact [i]your[/i] focus. You seem to ascribe weaknesses to antagonists of evolutionary theory but are reticent to recognize that you (and your peers) may also be biased.
     
     I'll make an assumption here, for the sake of argument, that you are an atheist. In your case, which came first: atheism or science? Did you start out as an atheist and then your decades of study confirmed that religious belief? I'm not talking about scientific confirmation: We've already established that the scientific method can neither prove nor disprove the existence of a Creator. Rather, did your scientific studies strengthen your personal belief that there is no God?
     
     Or, did science come first and [i]that[/i] led to your atheism? In other words, did your professional studies convince you (your personal beliefs and values) that there is no God? When you go home at night, have you ever quietly whispered to yourself, "Because of what I've studied, I know there is no God"?
     
     My point is this: we all have personal values that influence our abilities to see things objectively. You're quick to convict a Christian scientist who believes in ID of religious bias, but you give the impression that your scientific studies are immune to your own religious beliefs. I think that's insincere.
     
     You turned down my challenge to view Creation Science Evangelism's Creation Seminar because you consider it a bunch of creationist propaganda. Is that your response to anyone who disagrees with evolutionary theory and also happens to subscribe to creationist beliefs? Is your scientific objectivity clouded by your disdain for opponents of evolutionary theory? (Please understand, that's a sincere question...not fighting words.)
     
     Although I'm relatively certain you won't take me up on this, I don't need you to respond to those questions here. They are philosophical questions that are likely only answered honestly in the privacy of your own brain (in the same way we [i]all[/i] are not completely transparent when debating.)
     
     In the end, I stand by this simple phrase: if each one of us never looks outside our own little box to [b]sincerely[/b] examine opposing ideas, we'll never know if we really have the truth. That goes for a non-scientist like me as much as it does for a learned scholar like yourself.
     
     I've enjoyed reading your responses. It's nice to read complete, well-written, stand-alone posts that are (relatively ;-)) free of invectives.

     Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

180. 180. Tommo0809 01:47 AM 6/20/08

     RGTrumps: Im going to refrain from addressing any of your claims re: science/evolution/ben stein because its fairly obvious that your mind is made up on those topics. However, there is one point that fundamentalists have been latching on to since the scopes trial and unfortunately they are absolutely mistaken. You said:
     
     [b]Why does this country cater to the few, less than 5% of the population, who call themselves Atheists, rather than to the majority who call themselves by Biblical names.[/b]
     
     We have the constitution for a reason. It is there to protect the minority, especially from the arbitrary whims of a perceived majority. Arguments for majoritarianism fly in the face of what this country was truly founded upon. You are free to hold whatever beliefs you'd prefer to hold, no matter how ill-informed I may consider them, but you do not have the right to force them upon others just because, in your estimation, "everyone else thinks so too".

     Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

181. 181. Charles Darwood 01:58 AM 6/20/08

     John Rennie: No Integrity Displayed. in his shameless bashing of a movie that attempts to bring to light the proliferance of evolution's religious dogma in schools, where no alternative thought is allowed. is this just another banana thumping tailless monkey picking at the irrelevant details of the movie to avoid the intended communication of the movie? JR goes to great length to avoid the fact that evolution requires several leaps of faith itself, and that it is NOT a scientifically proven fact. That teachers have been fired and demoted for simply suggesting there might be an alternative source of creation.

     Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

182. 182. JohnDoe 03:20 AM 6/20/08

     Charles Darwood and RGTrumps-
     
     Tommo's comments are dead on.
     
     For a primer on the boundary between science and religion, which neither of you seem to grasp at all, you could do worse than to take a look at some of my prior posts here (167, 170, 173, 176, 181).
     
     Post 170 includes a link to the Kitzmiller decision, written by a conservative GW Bush selected judge. Both of you desperately need to read this. You are the reason why the wall of separation between church and state exists. Your twin rants make me appreciate the clear logic and common sense of Judge Jones' decision even more than before.

     Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

183. 183. JohnDoe 10:56 AM 6/20/08

     Freethinker-
     
     It's not that I'm back, but that I can't quite bring myself to leave when you yourself are so close to grasping what I'm getting at. This is quite a tome, but I've found it interesting and satisfying to write these comments and hopefully they will benefit readers other than you.
     
     You seem to understand what I've written about the boundary between science and religion and about hypothesis testing, at least as far as I've written. You are correct about science and religion not mixing- they do not even overlap... ...unless someone insists that their particular religion or their favorite religious book somehow describes an objectively observable reality at odds with what science has established. I've written on this conflict previously, and you have grasped some of it. But I have not accused creationists of religious bias in their "science". I have stated flatly that none of them whom I have encountered have done credible science. While doing poor science does not necessarily have anything to do with religion, in this case it is quite clear (and generally confirmed by their own writings) that the continued attacks on evolutionary theory are motivated by their religious beliefs. As science, this is just dead wrong, and as religion... ...suffice it to say that most religions have the good sense to avoid beating their heads against the wall of objective physical reality (science).
     
     In your third paragraph you wrongly impose on me an "absolute conclusion that evolution is an absolute and undeniable fact". You expose here the crux of your misunderstanding of the science end of what I have written. To be fair, I have not addressed this point much previously, but I will do so aggressively here.
     
     In science, there are observations (facts) and there are explanations for those facts (theories). The difference between them and the role each plays in science is crucial. This is where much of the misunderstanding of science by non-scientists occurs. As I have stated before, a scientific theory MUST BE FALSIFIABLE! Also as I have stated, this same theory can never be absolutely proven. Note carefully the contrast to your statement about my "absolute conclusion", quoted above. This may seem to be a semantic difference only, but rest assured it is not. If the right evidence were presented to me and stood up to rigorous examination, I would throw evolutionary theory out in a minute. Do I expect that to happen? No. Why not? Read below as well as my earlier posts. Why do I so easily dismiss creationist "science"? Because it is pseudoscience with a religious foundation that does not respect the division I've defined for you between science and religion. Also, creationists universally DO NOT grasp the incredible strength and resilience of evolutionary theory because (as I've said before) they have not studied it as true students of science would. Thus they remain clueless about scientific reality and accuse science of excluding competing ideas, when in fact those ideas are consistently so scientifically feeble as to be laughable. Because they steadfastly refuse to become serious students of science and because they shut off their critical thinking at a point determined by their religious dogma, they are not being intellectually honest with themselves. If you or any creationist comes up with a scientifically supportable theory as an alternative to evolution, great- show me! However, anything invoking any aspect of the supernatural is by definition unacceptable because it is not objectively falsifiable. Also, any creationist must (as any scientist must) deal adequately with all the facts supporting evolutionary theory- fossils, DNA sequences, anatomy, physiology, taxonomy, geology, etc. Selective/willful ignorance is not acceptable because it is intellectually dishonest. If you ask yourself honestly where the typical creationist "research" fits into this scheme, the answer will probably not be pretty.
     
     Now, more on fact vs. theory. Most of the time, the facts/observations come first, established by 1) simply looking around (the sky looks blue), or 2) field work, sometimes in massive amounts (there is a thin layer of iridium deposited uniformly worldwide at a depth corresponding to an enormous worldwide extinction shown clearly in the fossil record), or 3) extensive lab work/experimentation (the DNA sequences of humans and chimps have greater than 99% homology). These three things are facts, established beyond scientific dispute. Care in the use of language is important- there are no theories here, just undeniable facts.
     
     From the first observation we reach via basic physics a relatively simple explanation (a theory)- Rayleigh scattering disperses certain wavelengths of visible light and makes the sky appear blue. Even this simple case can demonstrate the predictive power of scientific theories. In the absence of an atmosphere to do the scattering, the sky should look black. It was not possible to obtain experimental confirmation of this until observations could be made from above the atmosphere, but it is indeed true, and Rayleigh scattering reigns as the best explanation for why the sky looks blue.
     
     The second observation is much more complicated, but is a good example of large scale science. The truth of this complex and compound observation has been established over many years of work over the entire planet, by thousands of scientists from many countries. From their work and a couple of other facts come a theory that was shocking and quite revolutionary at first, but is now widely accepted as the most plausible explanation for the observed facts. From astronomy comes the observation/fact that iridium is common in certain extraterrestrial objects. From geology comes the observation/fact that iridium is quite rare on earth. The resulting explanation/theory is that a large extraterrestrial object hit the earth and caused the observed extinctions. This theory, as with any good theory, has predictive power. Various research teams have scoured the earth looking for the crater this object must have left, and have identified a very good candidate in the area of the Yucatan Peninsula of Mexico. Confirmation of the crater is ongoing, but thus far has included solid data from ocean floor drill cores showing evidence of a very large meteor impact. This case is also a good illustration of the interlocking nature of seemingly unrelated disciplines. This interlocking nature often includes predictions which cross those (false) boundaries between disciplines.
     
     The third observation is less complicated than the second in terms of what goes into making it- this particular truth can be (and has been) verified independently in a few months or less by any lab with the technology to sequence DNA. However, the implications of this undeniable fact are more profound because they go straight to the heart of our discussion on this forum. The most powerful aspect of this observation is that it comes well after paleontologists firmly established the sequence of human development based on the fossil record. Primatologists jumped all over DNA sequencing as soon as it was available and established that the DNA sequence homology among primates matches well the previously established evolutionary relationships. This blithe statement summarizes a huge amount of work involving many species and many independent hypotheses about what would be found when the DNA of a particular species was sequenced. Thousands of research papers plus books and books worth of data consistently support what was established previously on a totally different basis (fossils vs. DNA sequencing). This kind of work now extends to ALL forms of life, including studies that show significant sequence homology between humans and yeast. Why should that be? Both species have DNA, the enzymes to make and repair it, cell nuclei to contain it, and a variety of associated cellular machinery that is made of proteins which are coded for by DNA. This is no big surprise to anyone on top of modern molecular biology, and provides powerful support for evolutionary biology. I'll stop here on this point, but you should get the message. These are the bricks of which the foundation of evolutionary biology is built.
     
     In your third and forth paragraphs, you comment on the possibility of my suffering from bias against religious scientists and that my own religious beliefs, such as they are, influence my thinking. Nothing could be further from the truth. I work hard and continuously to be as objective as possible, though I will freely admit a very strong bias against bad science. As I noted before, religion, mine or others, is not relevant to science, unless you are trying to claim that your religion describes an objectively testable reality in conflict with science. Continuous self-questioning and frequent revisitation of first principles are crucial to this process. Another aspect of this can be found in my post 181 and also in 182 in PaulFrost's response to one of my statements- he wrote, "It should be about the work, the ideas, the experimental methods employed, etc. It should NEVER be about WHO did it or WHY it was done..." This is the absolute kernel of truth at the core of science- ANY IDEA MUST STAND ON ITS OWN.
     
     While it is not relevant to my writings, I will confirm for you that I consider myself an atheist (highly moral, small "a" atheist, non-militant, individualistic) in the hope that you and others will begin to grasp that atheism is not so evil as you have likely been taught. I'll answer your simple and honest question simply and honestly- my interest in science and my atheism evolved in close synchrony. They are distinct but related, and neither was firmly established until I had reached adulthood. Note however, that children by nature tend to ask deep and unrestricted questions- I was clearly one of these from an early age, so that is probably the seed for both my interest in science and my atheism.
     
     In response to your question about any possible personal thoughts about "God", I will try to answer for my many atheistic science colleagues as well- some version of my view is quite common, for what I feel should be obvious reasons. Carl Sagan was wonderful as an educator and explainer of things scientific, but he also had a profound sense of wonder. As an astronomer, he knew a huge amount about the universe, but he also understood how small we are in that universe and how little we truly know about it. He conveyed that sense of wonder and amazement better than any scientist in my memory and was admired by many non-scientists for just that ability. His universe (and mine) is incalculably vast and astonishing, ranging from subatomic particles to galaxies 14 billion light years away, from the intricate and sophisticated machinery of the cell to the chaotic organization of the earth's biosphere. My personal view is that to put any kind of traditional God in that universe would take away from its magnificence. If this view leaves room for some people to see the presence of a cosmic watchmaker or engineer who designed a system and set it in motion billions of years ago, that's fine with me. I personally do not need that, but if you do, so be it. Just don't ask me to share any of your supernatural beliefs. Objective reality, a sense of profound wonder, and a deep appreciation for the gift of life (from whatever source) are sufficient for me, but I also recognize that some people need more. I just ask that you live in a manner (as I do) that allows us to all coexist peacefully in that objective reality.
     
     The last of your points I'll address is those "...not fighting words". I'll reply in kind, gently, but firmly. Science is sometimes harsh. Scientists can invest a lifetime in pet theories only to have them squashed like a bug on the windshield. Physical reality is a merciless arbiter of truth- just ask the Challenger crew. Any theory in science undergoes vicious dissection, probing, questioning, and analysis before it is allowed to stand. Then it survives only as long as the observed data support it. New data falsifying an old theory and leading to a new theory is part of the system. Emotional attachment to theories is professionally very dangerous- I am not in love with evolutionary theory, but rather in awe of its power, comprehensiveness, compelling logic, and sheer intellectual beauty. This feeling is common among scientists because evolutionary theory is simply the most powerful unifying idea in all of biology. Without it, biology and a lot of related science falls apart. I'm also personally honored to be part of this astonishing progression from lifeless molecules to sentient beings with self-consciousness, morality, love, etc. It's an awesome responsibility to be human, but a thoroughly enjoyable one, and I wish I could be around to see where humans go from here.
     
     Back to science for a final point- the arena in which all this dissection, probing, questioning, and analysis takes place is anywhere that real science is done- universities, research foundations, private industry labs (like mine), etc. The license to participate in this circus is not a PhD or a profound intelligence, but rather a willingness and ability to ask a question, and then figure out the answer. Acceptance of objective reality is MANDATORY. No part of that reality can be spun, scammed, or ignored- religion and the supernatural have no place here. NO QUESTION IS OFF LIMITS, though answers are not guaranteed by any means.
     
     If you cannot play by these rules, you are not a scientist and you can only look into the arena. If you step into the arena, you are immediately subject to these rules. Ignoring them, you can watch safely from the sidelines, but if you jump in unprepared, you may be squashed by scientific reality like that bug on the windshield. From the perspective of someone who has worked a career in biology, creationists with their pseudoscientific religiously motivated "research" are metaphorical bugs on the windshield. Want to stop being a bug? Learn and abide by the rules of science, check your religious beliefs at the door (you can take them home with you after work), and prepare yourself for an exhilarating life in the arena of science. Otherwise, you will remain a metaphorical bug as the scientists go on with their work.

     Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

184. 184. EastwoodDC 07:49 PM 6/20/08

     I keep hearing from those supporting ID and Creationism that belief in evolution is just another form of religion, and therefore ID theories should be just as worthy of consideration. OK, fine ... I do have a sort of belief in evolution, but it is inherently different from that of my religious faith. A belief in religion is not equivalent to belief in the scientific method.
     
     If I have a question about some aspect of evolution or science, I can look up what is known about that question. If there is some aspect of that conclusion I do not understand or that I doubt, I can look at the methods and sources used to reach that conclusion. And - If I am sufficiently ambitious - I can repeat the method and see if I reach the same conclusion. If need be I can follow this line of reasoning back to first principles.
     I also value my faith, but I understand that I cannot verify my faith in the same manner. This does not mean my faith is invalid, just that it has a different justification.
     
     In short, I believe in the scientific method because I understand how it works. I have a high level of confidence that conclusions based on the scientific method are correct. If I truly disagree with a scientific conclusion, I could do the work needed to show that there is a better explanation. While this would not be a simple task, there are clearly defined methods for how it can be done properly and in a scientific manner.
     
     [Because I am posting this to my blog as well, I should note the following comments originate from this[url=http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=ben-steins-expelled-review-john-rennie&ec=b_cnet1_q2] forum discussion[/url]]
     
     Freethinker @ 186, in response to JohnDoe>
     > ... My impression is that you don't think a religious person
     >(who also happens to believe in ID) is capable of contributing
     > an intellectually honest idea that happens to conflict with
     >evolutionary theory because you believe he's obviously
     >biased. Is that a correct impression?
     
     Whether or not they [the ID folks] are capable of contributing an intellectually honest idea is nearly a moot point, because they have not done so. Most of those ideas simply are not intellectually honest, and they have not done the work needed be worthy of consideration. I would distinguish between dishonest ideas and dishonest people, because I think most people repeating the ideas do not have an understanding of why it is dishonest.
     
     rgtrumps @185 wrote>
     >... Not a single scientific find has EVER proved one single
     >verse of that old book wrong!! NOT ONE!! A book which
     >hasn't changed in 2000 years, and no "revisions" or
     >"updates," science is constantly being a witness to the
     >accuracy of the Bible. ...
     
     Actually, the interpretation some people place on the Bible has changed considerably. For instance, the fundamentalist interpretation of the Bible as absolute truth is in large part a reason to Darwin's Origin of Species and subsequent development of the theory of evolution. Religion also updates and revises itself over time as an adaptation to the social environment. (Does that sound familiar?)

     Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

185. 185. Tommo0809 09:20 PM 6/20/08

     Eastwood: you should forward this response (and john does) to seph on the other thread :)

     Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

186. 186. EastwoodDC 10:04 PM 6/20/08

     Tommo0809:
     
     Actually, I already suggested to Sephers that he should read JohnDoe's comments. I used a private message though, so that [i]you-know-who[/i] might not catch on and start SPAMming this thread too. ;)

     Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

187. 187. Tommo0809 11:46 PM 6/20/08

     damn damn damn, always one step ahead of me. ha.

     Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

188. 188. JohnDoe 10:40 AM 6/21/08

     Tommo & Eastwood-
     
     I greatly appreciate your appreciation of my comments. Distribution in any fashion is fine with me (with my anonymous attribution of course!?). You both are part of the choir to whom I might be preaching, but there are many on the church floor (amusing metaphor, isn't it) who could benefit from a careful read. As noted before, they are my target.
     
     I'm curious to hear feedback from Freethinker and the intelligent few among his/her friends posting earlier in this thread. Hope the bug metaphor didn't seem too harsh to them, but it is intellectually apt. Mostly I would be thrilled to see some of them make a commitment to becoming more than onlookers at the edge of the arena or bugs on the windshield.

     Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

189. 189. JohnDoe 03:03 PM 6/21/08

     Eastwood-
     
     Your point below from post 191 is excellent and an important addition to the discussion.
     
     "I would distinguish between dishonest ideas and dishonest people, because I think most people repeating the ideas do not have an understanding of why it is dishonest."
     
     I suspect creationists are mostly the former and few of the latter, but some of the ideas are so blatantly dishonest that sometimes it makes me wonder. I can do nothing here about the truly dishonest people, and I hope (and believe) they are indeed a small minority. The gist of my efforts on this forum have obviously been directed at helping honest people recognize scientifically dishonest ideas.
     
     As noted by me and PaulFrost earlier, this IS about the ideas, not the people. But dishonest purveyors of good ideas can easily undermine the acceptance of such an idea by causing it to be associated with dishonesty. Within science it is unfortunately too common for someone to end their scientific career by falsification of data (radically different than falsification of a hypothesis, which is part of the process). The paramount importance of honesty in the scientific enterprise is clearly demonstrated by the harsh fact that such people generally do not get a second chance within science- elsewhere yes, but not in science.
     
     To put this in the terms of the analogy at the end of my post 190, dishonest people are expelled from the arena just as vigorously as dishonest ideas. The scientific enterprise distinguishes between them, but rejects them both. Both ultimately become bugs on the windshield, with just as much relevance to real science. Honest people ultimately should be able to learn how to avoid this fate, but only if they check their religion at the door and play by the rules of science while they are in the arena.

     Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

190. 190. JohnDoe 06:05 PM 6/23/08

     Freethinker-
     
     Are you still there?
     
     If so, are you-
     
     A) thinking about the content of what I wrote in post 190
     
     B) insulted by the bug metaphor
     
     C) not interested in talking to an avowed atheist
     
     D) convinced that I (and perhaps other scientists also) have closed my mind to input from all theists.
     
     E) appalled at the apparent harshness of science
     
     F) all of the above
     
     G) other (fill in the blank) _________________________
     
     Hope to hear from you, curious to know the answer to this little mystery.

     Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

191. 191. Tommo0809 07:06 PM 6/24/08

     For anyone that's been following the Lenski experiment, I think the following is pretty pertinent to the discussion of the nature of the evo-religo debate, the post is the result of a back and forth between the head of the study and a "skeptic" from conservapedia (yes, oxymoron, i get it)
     
     
     
     [url http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2008/06/lenski_gives_conservapdia_a_le.php#more][/url]

     Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

192. 192. JohnDoe 02:34 AM 6/25/08

     Tommo-
     
     Thanks for the excellent link- should be read by both sides of this debate.

     Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

193. 193. EastwoodDC 11:17 PM 6/27/08

     On a different subject - if you have read your email, you know by now that these discussions are going away for a few days (July 1-7). ([url=http://science-community.sciam.com/topic/Everything/Improve-Sciam-Community/300000979?start=15&#msg570007552]Or see post 22 in this thread[/url].) If I understand correctly, this discussion thread will reappear in the new format on the SciAm.com site. I look forward to seeing you all there.

     Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

194. 194. Mad Scot in reply to TracerBullet 05:11 PM 7/12/08

     Funny, I have had the same experience with dogmatic and intellectually arrogant people espousing that evolution is more than simply one theory that cannot be proven by verifiable observation but rather by scientific speculation. Trying to talk reasonably with them can be quite difficult and reminds me of the old saying, "never wrestle with pigs. You both get covered with filth and the pig likes it."

     Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

195. 195. Mad Scot in reply to luckyrucksack 05:16 PM 7/12/08

     I know, it's like having second rate comedians Bill Mahr and John Stewart educating people on politics, culture, and well just about anything! Laughable really how gullible people can be!

     Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

196. 196. ken_wilsonii 02:19 AM 7/15/08

     Science = Science
     
     Religion = Religion
     
     You gotta' keep'em separated
     
     That light bulb didn't light up all it's own, it took a lot of tries and a lot science to get to that point.
     
     (Can't believe they actually asked you guys to a viewing, lmao)
     

     Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

197. 197. ken_wilsonii 02:23 AM 7/15/08

     Science = Science
     
     Regligion = Religion
     
     Gotta keep'em Seperated
     
     That light bulb did'nt light up on it's own, it took a lot of tries and a whole
     lot of science to get to that point.
     
     (Can't Believe they invited you guys to a viewing, lmao)

     Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

198. 198. MartinEU 08:27 AM 7/18/08

     It is nice to read the US debate on evolution and its various aspects from Europe and especially from a former Soviet block country (Czech Rep): (1) Author John Rennie is simply false on how the commies treated evolution. They did not reject it at all, on the contrary, evolution was the only official teaching in my high school years (like is in SciAm today, it seems). Ben Stein is right on the newsreel footage, the knowledge gap is with John Rennie. (2) Do you really think that all these genetic algorithms and its hardware infrastructure (DNA, etc.) evolved "just so", without any intelligent agent? In spite of the absolute lack of historical data about the algorithms of life? If you deny the possibility of an intelligent agent interfering the evolution, it is just your faith. Similar to the faith in God. Two faiths, two reasonings.

     Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

199. 199. Weatherby 05:37 PM 7/18/08

     personally, I wish to ban all allusions to darwin outside of classrooms and other plausible venues of intelligent conversation...it's tedious, man...whereas lynn margulis (symbiosis), ed wilson (kinship selection) and jay gould (catastrophism) rock...also the use of the phrases "the old ticker", "awesome, dude", and "you never know" (yes i do)...also, again, hitler drew on much scientistic drek, including an obscure book written on africa in which the idea was propounded that a species may survive within a habitat, but it needs EXPANDING habitat (ok, range) to THRIVE (thus, liebenstraum)...."preservation of favored races in the struggle for life (the subtitle of "origin") is not the same as "survival of the fittest (to survive?)" but it IS a bit leading, nicht wahr?

     Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

200. 200. illogicalatheists in reply to ppayne 06:15 PM 7/18/08

     whether it orginated with Darwin or not, it's the logical conclusion of his theory. material atheism cannot account for moral absolutes and for an atheist to call anything immoral (when they mean it in an absolute sense which is, let's face it, is what all people do when they make moral judgments) is flat out contradiction of his professed metaphysical view of the world. It's logical for someone who believes in no God (therefore no divine law giver) to do whatever he wants so long as he has the force to back it up. On the contrary, it's illogical for a Christian to do the things the God of the Bible prohibits and deems as sin. Learn about world views and something about logic.

     Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

201. 201. illogicalatheists in reply to TracerBullet 06:20 PM 7/18/08

     "their position is inherently anti logic", read this please,
     
     To be true with material atheism you would have to say that logic and reason is just something that happens in the brain. But because my brain is not the same as your brain is not the same as any other brain on the entire earth, what happens in your brain cannot be a law (laws of logic). It would be pointless for us to argue, because our brains just do what they do according to the laws of physics and chemistry. Like weeds grow so the "mind" of man does whatever it does by the laws of physics and chemistry.

     Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

202. 202. illogicalatheists 06:36 PM 7/18/08

     The author of the article is a fool. He needs to learn how to think and look at people's underlying assumptions and beliefs to follow them to their logical conclusion to see how dangerous the theory of evolution is. It's logical for an atheist to behave like Hitler, it's not logical for a Christian to behave lawlessly. It's logical for a Christian to do science (God's command to have dominion over the earth and rule over it) and to do good and have love for one another (we're made in image of our creator).
     It's meaningless and illogical (if atheism is true) for Atheists to pursue social, political, and/or scientific advancment; there's no obligatory authority in an atheist universe so why "choose" to do the above if you're a hitler, napoleon, stalin, etc.
     
     Atheists need to bend the knee to Christ not only for salvation from Hell, but so that they may know the underlying foundation for humanity. The evil in the world is a result of sin.

     Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

203. 203. Darwin's Myth 10:02 AM 7/24/08

     This is some more anti-truth/anti-academic propaganda. Evolutionists and atheists are so worried everytime a little resistance comes their way, that it only proves just how weak the evidence is for evolution. What are they (Darwinists) afraid of if Darwinism, Special Creation or Intelligent Design is studied and debated in the same room? If Darwinism is shown to be so weak, even without having it debated in a classroom, will it be proved to be the lie of the century if everything is talked about freely, without fear of ostracization and losing jobs after giving an opinion that doesn't favor evolution? The fact is, this documentary did better than atheists would've liked, and it's bugs them to the point of having to make their own anti-Expelled YouTube videos and going to Rotten Tomatoes just to give Expelled low ratings. They know, that by skewing the truth with such tactics will persuade weak minds, but such tactics from atheists/Darwinists won't ever expell the truth that Darwinism is just a fabrication that is built on hoaxes, computer graphics, charts, and a lot of empty words. Unlike a lot of atheists, who only got the info from atheists websites, I actually paid to see Expelled, and found it to be truth and revealing. Near the end of the movie, Dawkins finally admitted that there was probably an intelligent designer, but the designer was an "alien", and not an intelligent, all powerful Creator/God. To Dawkins, I ask,"Who created the alien?". As for the question of who created God... nobody did. He's the uncreated, everlasting, ultimate First Cause, who needs no creator, and atheists would love to keep me from saying that, by expelling me.

     Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

204. 204. Darwin's Myth 12:32 AM 7/26/08

     This article is some more anti-truth/anti-academic propaganda. Evolutionists and atheists are so worried everytime a little resistance comes their way, that it only proves just how weak the evidence is for evolution. What are they (Darwinists) afraid of if Darwinism, Special Creation or Intelligent Design is studied and debated in the same room? If Darwinism is shown to be so weak, even without having it debated in a classroom, will it be proved to be the lie of the century if everything is talked about freely, without fear of ostracization and losing jobs after giving an opinion that doesn't favor evolution? The fact is, this documentary did better than atheists would've liked, and it's bugs them to the point of having to make their own anti-Expelled YouTube videos and going to Rotten Tomatoes just to give Expelled low ratings. They know, that by skewing the truth with such tactics will persuade weak minds, but such tactics from atheists/Darwinists won't ever expell the truth that Darwinism is just a fabrication that is built on hoaxes, computer graphics, charts, and a lot of empty words. Unlike a lot of atheists, who only got the info from atheists websites, I actually paid to see Expelled, and found it to be truth and revealing. Near the end of the movie, Dawkins finally admitted that there was probably an intelligent designer, but the designer was an "alien", and not an intelligent, all powerful Creator/God. To Dawkins, I ask,"Who created the alien?". As for the question of who created God... nobody did. He's the uncreated, everlasting, ultimate First Cause, who needs no creator, and atheists would love to keep me from saying that, by expelling me.

     Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

205. 205. Hunter 07:10 PM 9/1/08

     Evolutionary conjecture does not answer the questions concerning the orgin of life. It is unscientific to teach that the Law of Biogenesis is valid and at the same time say at one point in time it was invalid. From nothing nothing comes!
     

     Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

206. 206. infinitelink in reply to ppayne 08:44 AM 9/17/08

     A little late to this old post, but I noticed the whole "hatred of Jews by Christians" comment above: however I also note that in Nazi Germany it were man Christians who helped Jews escape, hiding them etc. so...?
     
     Anyway, I looked-up the "Wedge Document"; it seems quite innocuous, actually, and there's also a little response by Discovery here:
     http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/filesDB-download.php?id=349

     Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

207. 207. infinitelink 08:45 AM 9/17/08

     A little late to this old post, but I noticed the whole "hatred of Jews by Christians" comment above: however I also note that in Nazi Germany it were man Christians who helped Jews escape, hiding them etc. so...?
     
     Anyway, I looked-up the "Wedge Document"; it seems quite innocuous, actually, and there's also a little response by Discovery here:
     http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/filesDB-download.php?id=349
     
     As for this discussion, the information on "survival of the fittest"'s origins is great to know. : )

     Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

208. 208. infinitelink 08:51 AM 9/17/08

     And continuing to read the wedge doc...I must comment that so far the "Christian and theistic convictions" type language is more philosophically oriented than religiously...something I don't know that sciam readers would understand (that is, the distinctions) since it's a philosophical one that usually only specialists get... anyway, I think these are reviewed, and more comments as I read that doc are perhaps pending. : )

     Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

209. 209. infinitelink 08:54 AM 9/17/08

     Sorry about the double post above, by the way.

     Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

210. 210. jtoothpick1 in reply to Hunter 08:55 PM 10/29/08

     This movie was about how evolution could have explained life's progression but not its beginning and even if it was, it makes no sense. I mean people think we, super complex human beings, came from the backs of crystals

     Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

211. 211. Dekon 10:42 PM 11/9/08

     Perhaps the saddest of all of this is the pure dissonance and anger.
     
     Allow me to state a few things : First, of course Hitler was -influenced- by Darwinism (which is, apparently, an actual word - and not just something made up). Does that implicitly imply Darwinism is bad or evil? It doesn't imply anything about Darwinism except that it can be used negatively. As can faith. Big deal.
     
     By it or not, there is a point to be made by Ben. There are massive, unanswerable holes in today's theories of evolution. Of the things that were not mentioned include the complexity of the eye, the complexity of blood clotting, and the complexity of the cilia of a bacteria. These are important factors because if any single part of these three processes did not happen, the -entire- organ/function ceases to have -any- use at all. If one small part of the eye doesn't work, or blood clotting doesn't work, or the Boeing 747 complexity level of cilia does not work, it is entirely useless. This is not important as a proof of ID or a god. It is important because it means that many ideas still need to be considered. There is still much to be researched - much of which that isn't.
     
     Allow me to clarify something else. Something was mentioned on 'humans walking with Dinosaurs'. This isn't ID. ID does not state the world is only 6k years old and BamBam had his own T-rex. ID simply states that evolution -alone- could not have produced the given results.
     
     What is annoying is the hellish manner in which this rather rational concept of ID is considered. Both in the story and the comments, the very idea that there -might- be an ID is ridiculed and made simplistic, and thus, absurd. The reality is that there are many scientists and professors, including biologists, who hold views of ID, and yet are not utterly insane.
     
     Just as I find Christians who persist in crushing others with threats of hell annoying and childish, so I find atheists who believe themselves gods of all wisdom and self-righteous in their little logic box annoying as well. I have friends of faith and atheism who I can hold rational, friendly discussions of such concepts with -because- they do not see me a fool for what I do or do not believe.
     
     Perhaps this is all Ben Stein wishes - or perhaps it is all he should wish for. That the Scientific Community would remove the pedestal from its .... and give some respect for the alternative ideas that gave it birth to begin. Post-Modernism stems from the metaphysics of people frustrated with the absolutism of fundamentalist science.

     Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

212. 212. pridonwa 11:53 PM 11/9/08

     This review by Scientific American is just irresponsible and delusional. I do not know who authorized this article to be published, but they are certainly suffering from the grips of a theological delusion known as Darwinism or neo-Darwinism for the people that can not let go. Darwinism was recognized as a cause of Nazism over 40 years ago by Carroll Quigley.
     
     Carroll Quigley wrote the following in "Tragedy and Hope":
     
     The application of Darwinism to human society changed this idea again, toward the end of the nineteenth century, and provided the ideological justification for the wars of extermination of Nazism and Fascism. Only after the middle of the twentieth century did a gradual reappearance of the old Christian ideas of love and charity modify this view, replacing it with the older idea that diverse human interests are basically reconcilable.

     Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

213. 213. Delhomme 07:19 PM 11/13/08

     Darwin DID cause the holocaust, and the fucking evolutionist will bring about the destruction of the environment. I hope you all die. May the Goddess have mercy on your pitiful spirits.

     Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

214. 214. klyoung 05:38 PM 11/17/08

     I am in awe of how irrational and "converted" to evolution most posters on this forum are - and from reading the posts, it is pretty obvious that not many of you have actually seen the documentary. If you have, Ben Stein's points are clear. He is not linking Darwinism to racism as one poster would suggest, rather, he illustrates that eugenics and the holocaust were derived from the concept of natural selection (which IS a Darwinian principal) essentially "Weeding out" members of the population who don't quite frankly measure up
     
     Also, where did you all get the idea that evolution is hard truth ensconced in scientific evidence?? Ben demonstrates how even the most firm believers in the evolutionary theory can neither prove this theory, nor intelligently disprove the existence of a creator. In fact, these people accept the possibility that alien life forms created the first cell, but refuse to even entertain the possibility that it could have been a god.
     
     Ben's main point in the movie is to promote the notion that the debate needs to be had (and that healthy debate IS a catalyst for truth!) The other side of the evolution debate is ID, and the big players in the science community have decided to do all they can to ensure this debate doesn't take place.
     
     People on this forum and in the movie keep saying creationists are crazy, irrational and even stupid - those are the arguments of a five-year-old who doesn't know how to explain himself. Science and the existence of God are not mutually exclusive! Why cant evolutionists grasp that a creator could have used SCIENCE to create what we see in the world? Furthermore, how do you explain the presence of emotion, love or even intelligence for that matter? Do you mean to honestly try and convince me that a living cell emerged from nothing, then all of a sudden started to multiply to become an ape, who then became a human and proceeded to become more and more intelligent? Another question - how did this ape mate? Did another ape randomly appear too? And if we evolved from apes wouldn't we continue to evolve into something else or do you suggest we are perfect? Why haven't we seen evidence of any MORE evolutionary changes in humans?
     
     Looking at the facts, it truly is a debate about world views - at least the people who argue on the side of ID are willing to recognize this very important fact (and THAT my friends is what Ben Stein was getting at, by comparing this situation to the Stalinist regime - he wants people to recognize the control of freedom that is taking place.
     

     Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

215. 215. GOD in reply to binaryeric 08:52 AM 11/18/08

     In response to binaryeric ...comment.
     
     Because there is no other alternative ...Listen Science is Science Intelligent design is a religouse belief built on by Word of mouth and has no place in a scientific debates.
     
     You want to know why Scientific America would bother with engaging Creationist in debate......simple it wants to reduce the effect of Creationist miss-information to the public, so has many free thinking people understand that Micro Vs Macro ..is just Science and religion , except this time giving religion a scientific twist, with the hope of confusing poorly educated people (who don't know the difference), it get's people angry not because we want to tell you what to believe, it's becuase you teach your young earth science to children that are to young to have a choice in what they believe.
     
     Again you can't teach Religion as fact not even if you call it science...I know that evolution is refered to as a theory ...but it's back up with lot's of evidence ...of course it's not complete, but with Geology,Carbon dating, physics, mathamatics, Biology, supporting the thoery ...it's pretty solid.
     and scientific findings don't have to fit into a book that has already been writen, how the hell can you match science to a pre concieved notion and expect to be taken notice of ?.
     
     Again there is no Science and iteligent design argument ...there is and has always been Science .......................................&..........................................Religion
     the two don't mix and never will , we are not argueing with creationist ....Science is just damage limitating the Creationist Propganda.
     
     Hitler was a master at missinforming his public with propoganda, in fact nearly all of Germany believed the propogand served to them ...we are talking millions of people ......were they wrong despite having millions of followers? I would say so...volume of members is not an advocacy of being correct ...it just points out how many people are as gullable as you are.
     
     I personally will post for the Sciencetific approach .........right until I meet my Maker , which I hope will be female, with nice legs , and a pleasant nature.

     Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

216. 216. chrishavel 01:08 AM 11/22/08

     @Merry Joe K: "I believe in evolution, but I'm not gonna say that it's 'fact' - it's a theory."
     
     If you don't think a "theory" is a factual idea -- one that began as a hypothesis and has survived tests to prove it's factual basis -- perhaps you need to revisit your understanding of the word. Theory doesn't mean "unproven belief." That's what "hypothesis" is for.

     Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

217. 217. jcknight 09:34 AM 11/24/08

     You people are just Bizzarre. The movie wasn't designed to promote creationism. It was designed to show you the venomous attitude of today's mainstream scientific community towards anything outside the status quo. The very community that boasts of the scientific method and to "question everything" does nothing of the sort. The fact remains that YOU don't have the answers and neither does anyone else. To discount an alternative explanation as heresy based on your arrogant theories is draconian at best. Talk about a witch hunt! Good grief! Ben Stein's movie was thought provoking and well done. (but then, thinking outside the box is heresy right?) Having an open mind is fundamental to scientific research. Try opening yours. Oddly, I'm not even religious (atheist), but the bile and venom spewed by you people is appalling. You So adhere to your "theories" that you cannot even speculate on whether you might be wrong. You want strict Darwinism? Fine. Start on the social level. A good dose of Eugenics should clear the air.

     Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

218. 218. jcknight in reply to Tommo0809 09:57 AM 11/24/08

     Tatamount to child abuse? Let me give you an example of such: Remove all hope that life has meaning. If that's not the ultimate abuse, I don't know what is.

     Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

219. 219. lemelin_Andre 02:19 PM 11/26/08

     Creationism and Special Design though not fully understood historically, are open to dialogue with true scientific and ongoing research. In their simplified positions respectfully speaking, one logically can say creationism deals with an adequate Cause, and evolution whether theistic or secular, has to do with secondary causes and effects and systems of intelligent processes in organisms. Why then is their such disrespect for theology or science when there is definite common ground for the physical and the metaphysical? An arrogant mind is no longer fully scientific. There needs to be fairness to both parties. Please stop political correctness in Science, as science's reputation loses out to bigotry and persecution of mankind which science is supposed to serve.

     Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

220. 220. skwab5 02:27 AM 11/27/08

     I hate to discredit anything published here, but I just have a quote from the document referenced here, from Senator Souder's website, "Scientific controversies should be decided through research and open debate, not through on-the-job harassment at federally-funded institutions or the blacklisting of certain scientists because of their outside activities. Scientists such as Dr. Sternberg have a First Amendment right to express their skepticism toward Darwinian evolution without having to fear government-sponsored retaliation." I have to agree.
     Now, whether or not you agree with Dr. Sternberg, or think that ID has any credibility or not, you must admit it is scary when the government finds an institution like the Smithsonian is harassing its scientists.

     Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

221. 221. skwab5 in reply to GOD 02:53 AM 11/27/08

     I'm not sure what your educational background is, but I'm sure you know at least the basics of biology. I have a question for you, How did life begin? We know a lot about how it works, and we know some about how it got to look like it does today, but what do we know about how life began? Not much at all. What we do know is that our current understanding of natural laws and functions is inadequate to even approach the topic. Ben Stien got Richard Dawkins to admit that life might have started by an ancient intelligent race that somehow spawned life on earth. Obviously no one knows how we got here. But the truth remains that we are here.
     That's why it's such an important question to answer. We are here, but Why? I'm sure you've noticed that just about everything natural to this planet has a purpose, so we must have one, right?

     Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

222. 222. skwab5 in reply to IAT1MG 03:01 AM 11/27/08

     Interesting, you say you "felt" God? Is that what made you believe in God? Or did you only believe because of your family history?

     Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

223. 223. skwab5 10:25 AM 11/27/08

     I must apologize. Mark Souder is a State Representative, not a Senator.

     Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

224. 224. Pearl 06:31 AM 12/1/08

     Call ID junk science, call people of faith idiots till the sun sets on your self existent world, truth be told that science and faith have a long history of being beneficial to each other. Read your history books and see the perspectives of those brave enough to question basic issues..such as" the world is flat". Bottom line the antagonistic, intolerant, closeminded view that the majority of Darwinian scientists or just it's fans take....resembles exactly the mindset us supposed mindless, drone-like, fantasy seekers embrace. Have your view, let somone research thiers without complete character assasination. Don't take it so personal folks, we're idiots anyway.

     Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

225. 225. Pearl 06:37 AM 12/1/08

     I know, I know people of faith are idiots, just like the founders of what has become this incredibly open minded discipline. I still can't believe that someone had the audacity to question that the world is flat, and that guy had faith in a higher power too! I used to think we cornered the market on being judgmental, you folks have us stomped.

     Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

226. 226. irepress 02:35 AM 1/7/09

     This review misses the entire point of the movie.
     
     Darwinian evolution must be examined philosophically. It must be because it attempts to explain truth. Whenever something attempts to explain how the world is, it is, by definition a philosophy.
     
     All Ben Stein exposes in this film is the inherent problem evolutionists (who accept the basic fundamentals of macro-evolution presented by Darwinian theory) face in terms of the origin of the universe and the philosophical problem with methodological naturalism.
     
     Overall, Mr. Stein isn't scientifically attacking Darwinism. He is arguing that the philosophy of Darwinism has metaphysical implications in terms of the origin of life just as any other world religion does.
     
     Ben Stein then shows how the Darwinian philosophy, when implemented in a government structure, is incompatible with basic moral philosophy. This is not a personal attack on Darwin or science itself. Ben Stein is simply stating that Darwinian theory has holes in it's philosophy. When Darwinian based moral philosophy is set into a government structure (i.e. the NSDAP), and if that government, to an extreme, obey those philosophical theories, you will have events like the holocaust. That is not an attack on Darwin himself or science, just it's philosophy.
     
     Darwinists or any other form of macro-evolutionist use naturalism, or more specifically, methodological naturalism to explain their moral philosophy. The movie also show this worldview to be problematic.
     
     Ben Stein didn't make this movie to simply bash scientists or prove Darwinism wrong. Mr. Stein is showing that Darwinism is the fundamental premise upon which evolutionary and origin based science is founded. Darwinism is a philosophy. Darwinism has a moral philosophy. Evolutionaty science is based on a philosophical worldview.
     
     Darwinism is a philosophy based on an atheistic worldview. ID is a philosophy based on a theistic worldview. They both have metaphysical implications in dealing with the origin of the Universe. Not allowing the possibility of one when allowing another is simply wrong.
     
     You don't have to be an authority on evolutionary biology to make an argument against it. This is a ethical and philosophical argument. IF YOU WATCHED THIS MOVIE AND THOUGHT BEN STEIN WAS MAKING AN ATTACK ON SCIENCE YOU MISSED THE ENTIRE POINT OF THE MOVIE. THE ARGUMENT IS PHILOSOPHICAL AND ETHICAL. Read up...
     
     

     Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

227. 227. cellist 02:18 AM 1/8/09

     Subtitle of article: "A shameful antievolution film tries to blame Darwin for the Holocaust".
     
     You may be good scientists but your hermeneutics needs some help. Here it is in context;
     
     What Ben Stein was seeking to demonstrate was expressed by David Berlinski during his interview, "Darwinism is not a sufficient condition for Nazism but it is a necessary one."
     
     Stein then says, "This was a connection I had to explore myself".
     
     If you miss the context you will misrepresent not only Stein but Berlinski as well.
     
     What Berlinski said is a fair argument. It is much more nuanced than simply "blaming Darwin for the Holocaust". In fact, the whole section on the Holocaust was filled with qualifications about how Darwinism doesn't necessarily lead to a Holocaust.
     
     Are the scientists at Scientific American are a little too black and white?

     Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

228. 228. C-Ann in reply to luckyrucksack 07:12 PM 1/11/09

     This is awesome. Ben Stein, game show host...now authority on evolutionary biology!?
     
     Hey Luckyrucksack, check it out, public knowledge and based of facts...what's your point?
     
     Ben Stein scored a 1600 on his SAT's "He went on to major in economics at Columbia University's Columbia College, where he was a member of Alpha Delta Phi society and the Philolexian Society. After graduating with honors from Columbia in 1966, Stein went to Yale Law School, from which he graduated as the class valedictorian in June of 1970. "
     

     Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

229. 229. mctig22 11:19 PM 1/19/09

     He is in no way stating that Darwinism led to the Holocaust, he is saying that people like Hitler used Darwins ideas to justify his actions, using natural selection as an important reason to kill people that in his idea should have naturally parished prior to the modernized man. You people are idiots....all he is saying is that science should have the RIGHT, and FREEDOM...to explore all options of how we became to inhabit this earth. I myself am an Agnostic, and I would it if we had the freedom to explore all options of how we became what we are, no matter if the answer is evolution, or some higher intelligence. Why is that so hard for people to allow!!!!!

     Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

230. 230. mctig22 11:20 PM 1/19/09

     He is in no way stating that Darwinism led to the Holocaust, he is saying that people like Hitler used Darwins ideas to justify his actions, using natural selection as an important reason to kill people that in his idea should have naturally parished prior to the modernized man. You people are idiots....all he is saying is that science should have the RIGHT, and FREEDOM...to explore all options of how we became to inhabit this earth. I myself am an Agnostic, and I would it if we had the freedom to explore all options of how we became what we are, no matter if the answer is evolution, or some higher intelligence. Why is that so hard for people to allow!!!!!

     Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

231. 231. mctig22 11:21 PM 1/19/09

     He is in no way stating that Darwinism led to the Holocaust, he is saying that people like Hitler used Darwins ideas to justify his actions, using natural selection as an important reason to kill people that in his idea should have naturally parished prior to the modernized man. You people are idiots....all he is saying is that science should have the RIGHT, and FREEDOM...to explore all options of how we became to inhabit this earth. I myself am an Agnostic, and I would it if we had the freedom to explore all options of how we became what we are, no matter if the answer is evolution, or some higher intelligence. Why is that so hard for people to allow!!!!!

     Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

232. 232. CreationistMom 05:11 PM 1/26/09

     I study science from a creationist point of view. This meaning that I come to the facts with a presupposition that what I see was created by God. That leads me to see facts in a different light than someone studying science from an evolutionist point of view. This meaning that the same set of facts are viewed with the presupposition that there is no God, which you are free to do , this is America. I will watch a movie that will show the intricate workings of the human heart or the human eye. I will stand in awe of the complexity, delicacy, and intricacy and think to myself "How is it even remotely possible someone could see this and not know it must have had a designer? How is it possible that people could actually believe life just happened by chance?" Evolutionists and athiests have to understand that you sound no more logical to us than we do to you. It is honestly the most bizarre thing in the world to me that someone can actually look into a microscope or a telescope or at a person and say they don't believe in God and that what we see around us and in us was not created. Personally, all I am asking for is to stop teaching children that mindless, Godless, chance evolution of all of life from nothing is a fact proven by science. It is not. It is a presupposition to your study and interpretation of scientific data. Give someone like me a chance to say "Hey ya know what? There might be another explanation for the data. I believe that there is a God, that he made everything, that the same God who created Canus Majorus also numbered the hairs on your head. Evolutionists interpret the facts differently, but that's the point, its the interpretation. My interpretation comes from the presupposition that there is a God and He created." If this truly is a free America, which we have always prided ourselves on this idea that our country is free, stop quashing other viewpoints that don't agree with yours. Isn't that what you have always asked of the Christians? Why not give the same courtesy you asked for in the monkey trial. Why the venom? Are you scared of a little debate? Why? We're not. As to the whole Hitler, abortion, genocide, Darwin tie, Hitler did use religious ideas, mixed with evolutionary ideas to propogate his ideas, but I think really their point (and mine) is if there is a God and an abortion doctor knew he or she was going to give and account of his actions before that God at the end of his life, might he pause before puncturing the skull of a living child, killing it by choice? Probably.

     Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

233. 233. CreationistMom 05:15 PM 1/26/09

     I study science from a creationist point of view. This meaning that I come to the facts with a presupposition that what I see was created by God. That leads me to see facts in a different light than someone studying science from an evolutionist point of view. This meaning that the same set of facts are viewed with the presupposition that there is no God, which you are free to do , this is America. I will watch a movie that will show the intricate workings of the human heart or the human eye. I will stand in awe of the complexity, delicacy, and intricacy and think to myself "How is it even remotely possible someone could see this and not know it must have had a designer? How is it possible that people could actually believe life just happened by chance?" Evolutionists and athiests have to understand that you sound no more logical to us than we do to you. It is honestly the most bizarre thing in the world to me that someone can actually look into a microscope or a telescope or at a person and say they don't believe in God and that what we see around us and in us was not created. Personally, all I am asking for is to stop teaching children that mindless, Godless, chance evolution of all of life from nothing is a fact proven by science. It is not. It is a presupposition to your study and interpretation of scientific data. Give someone like me a chance to say "Hey ya know what? There might be another explanation for the data. I believe that there is a God, that he made everything, that the same God who created Canus Majorus also numbered the hairs on your head. Evolutionists interpret the facts differently, but that's the point, its the interpretation. My interpretation comes from the presupposition that there is a God and He created." If this truly is a free America, which we have always prided ourselves on this idea that our country is free, stop quashing other viewpoints that don't agree with yours. Isn't that what you have always asked of the Christians? Why not give the same courtesy you asked for in the monkey trial. Why the venom? Are you scared of a little debate? Why? We're not. As to the whole Hitler, abortion, genocide, Darwin tie, Hitler did use religious ideas, mixed with evolutionary ideas to propogate his ideas, but I think really their point (and mine) is if there is a God and an abortion doctor knew he or she was going to give and account of his actions before that God at the end of his life, might he pause before puncturing the skull of a living child, killing it by choice? Probably.

     Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

234. 234. Britishbulldog in reply to ppayne 05:01 PM 1/29/09

     However you want to paint the picture or lead the argument, there does seem to be one general trend between Darwin and Hitler. Darwin's basic premise, when coupled with other prominent philosophers, like Freud, lead a socially prominent school of thought that was very destructive to the dignity and morality of humanity (i.e. the Jews are worth extinguishing). Hitler was heavily influenced by this philosophical trend, as is clearly displayed in Mien Kampf...now, clearly, Mr. Hitler took a socially dangerous idea (Social Darwinism, which ironically both Darwin and Freud agreed if taken to its end would result in destructive consequences) and ran with it to the most extremes. There is a plausible connection between the conclusions that one can easily draw from Darwin to Hitler's fanatical beliefs...Hitler wasn't original, he pulled from what was culturally popular and relevant.
     
     In comment to the first response about Christianity being the true reason Hitler killed millions of Jews, is filled with a little too much contempt and lack of understanding between the separation of a belief system and a political system that adopted a belief system to maintain power. Blurring the two concepts marginalizes and belittles a religion that at its core theology does not promote such behavior towards anyone and makes you look like a bigot and idiot.
     

     Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

235. 235. Britishbulldog in reply to ppayne 05:03 PM 1/29/09

     However you want to paint the picture or lead the argument, there does seem to be one general trend between Darwin and Hitler. Darwin's basic premise, when coupled with other prominent philosophers, like Freud, lead a socially prominent school of thought that was very destructive to the dignity and morality of humanity (i.e. the Jews are worth extinguishing). Hitler was heavily influenced by this philosophical trend, as is clearly displayed in Mien Kampf...now, clearly, Mr. Hitler took a socially dangerous idea (Social Darwinism, which ironically both Darwin and Freud agreed if taken to its end would result in destructive consequences) and ran with it to the most extremes. There is a plausible connection between the conclusions that one can easily draw from Darwin to Hitler's fanatical beliefs...Hitler wasn't original, he pulled from what was culturally popular and relevant.
     
     In comment to the first response about Christianity being the true reason Hitler killed millions of Jews, is filled with a little too much contempt and lack of understanding between the separation of a belief system and a political system that adopted a belief system to maintain power. Blurring the two concepts marginalizes and belittles a religion that at its core theology does not promote such behavior towards anyone and makes you look like a bigot and idiot.
     

     Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

236. 236. peterwilson1 02:15 PM 2/24/09

     Certainly not any more ludicrous than Richard Dawkins attempting to write a book on religion that demonstrates both scholarly and theological ineptitude...

     Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

237. 237. peterwilson1 02:16 PM 2/24/09

     Certainly not any more ludicrous than Richard Dawkins writing a book on religion and faith that demonstrates both scholarly and theological ineptitude.

     Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

238. 238. peterwilson1 02:18 PM 2/24/09

     Certainly not any more ludicrous than Richard Dawkins writing a book on religion and faith in which he demonstrated the poverty of both his scholarly and theological technique(s).

     Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

239. 239. tremoe777 07:45 PM 3/27/09

     I think early Christian communities were spot on with the idea of an almost socialist community, sharing everything and keeping nothing for themselves alone. To think that zealous capitalism was encouraged by the Evolutionary theory is not so far fetched. I can't think of a much better way for money grubbing socialites to exhaustively justify their greed and encourage the status-quo. We've forgotten that Jesus' agenda was not to crush scientific institutions but "help the widows and the orphan." We live in a broken world where many people suffer in vain, and we cannot justify not doing something about it. Christ was a movement that was meant to inspire us to reach out and not waste time theorizing about it.

     Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

240. 240. QuestionAllThings in reply to ppayne 01:46 PM 4/13/09

     The concept of the origin of all life on our planet beginning by chance is indeed mathmatically improbable. The unliklihood of an irreducably complex single cell coming together, given the stereochemical nature of amino acids necessay for life to occur, all coming together by "random chance"-at the same instant, should be apparant to the most reasonable "thinker". There is not enough time in the scope of the Evolutionary Model for this to be accomplished.
     Ben Stein has "pushed the button" of the scientific community. Without question, progressive "thinkers" believe that our ancestors created the myth of God (and gods) to solve unanswered questions about life. The thought of God creating man is a fearfull, and humbling, proposition for EVERYONE to face, myself included. Time will tell which argument is correct.
     
     

     Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

241. 241. WhyLooseHopeINEolution? 05:49 PM 4/21/09

     Evolution is a theory. There is no hard evidence of it being true, in fact, there is more evidence against it then there is for it. People who believe it are blind to the holes that it is filled with. As seen in the final interview in Expelled, the main argumentor for Darwinism cannot even tell you how life could have jump started except maybe "molecules piggybacked on crystals," (what?). He didnt even say where these molecules came from even though those molecules are the life that is in question. There is no plausible explination for the theory of evolution. If you look at the world around you, all the perfect designs for the smallest animals and cells. The brilliace of how they work and what is needed to be done to keep them alive, and if one out of thousands of circumstances is slightly different, it cannot happen, they cannot survive or work. How can all this, the beautiful world around us, the perfect placement of the planets and stars, the size of the universe, everything made in this world, how can it have happened through chance? How could it happen through a process of one out of millions of possibilities, the right one happens every time, in all of the billions of situations that it happend? It couldnt have. Evolution is a theory full of mistakes. It cannot explain how this world came into place. Tell me this, if life is just a world evolving, and goes on with no purpose but to keep the evolving process moving, what is the purpose of our living? What is going to happen after we die? Before this theory was ever even dreamed of, the tribes of the Aztecs, the Egyptians, the Chinese, the Russian Mongols, all civilizations believed in an afterworld. Evolutions dissolves this belief and leaves us with nothing. If evolution is true, then we are here for nothing and leave no impact on this world, life is pointless, there is no reason to our being. Why belive in a theory that strips us of our humaness and sets us on the level of dogs? Why belive in a theory that strips us of our reason to life? Why believe in a theory that leaves us hopeless? Why? There is no point, if you believe in evolution I am sorry, but you believe your life is destined for nothing. Why believe this? I would like to know why this appeals to you evolutionists. The world was created in all its majesty, created, not evolved over billions of years. Please, if you believe in this theory, I implore of you to leave it behind. If you believe it happend then your life has no point, why not explore other possibilities?

     Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

242. 242. djicebread 12:15 PM 5/6/09

     Ben Stein is an actor! He had a game show where he was a trivia expert and sold eye drops to pot heads. Buller? Buller? His usage of the Holocaust is inflammatory to me as a person of jewish lineage. He insists that our freedom as americans compels us to allow ID to be considered. But he doesn't do the research, allowing ID to be tested has several flaws.
     
     1. All of the "questions" that it raises are ones that have been thoroughly researched and debunked.
     
     2. How does one test for ID? If it were a legitimate pursuit wouldn't the research in any field be considered helpful to his cause. After all if it is science then doesn't having new data about the mechanics of nature help him in his inquires?
     
     3. If you are going to test for the supernatural then doesn't that allow for any religious or spiritual to use cherry picked data to outline their world view?
     
     4. Putting god into the argument shuts downs digging deeper and instead builds a wall of ignorance.
     
     Yes, he got Richard Dawkins to suggest that intelligent design is possible. But he is taking the path of logic, outlining that no possiblity can ever be completely ruled out. He says that if we find a signature in the makeup of life on our planet it is entirely possible that we were designed and seeded by a higher intelligence. No such signature has been discovered, everything so far can be broken down. An alien life form seeding the earth has nothing to do with ID ultimately because that just describes one part of the process.
     
     "Darwinism" should not be blamed for the tragedies of the holocaust any more than gravity should be blamed for the bombs that fell out of the sky. Any true knowledge of the workings of existence can be wielded for good or evil.

     Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

243. 243. djicebread 12:15 PM 5/6/09

     Ben Stein is an actor! He had a game show where he was a trivia expert and sold eye drops to pot heads. Buller? Buller? His usage of the Holocaust is inflammatory to me as a person of jewish lineage. He insists that our freedom as americans compels us to allow ID to be considered. But he doesn't do the research, allowing ID to be tested has several flaws.
     
     1. All of the "questions" that it raises are ones that have been thoroughly researched and debunked.
     
     2. How does one test for ID? If it were a legitimate pursuit wouldn't the research in any field be considered helpful to his cause. After all if it is science then doesn't having new data about the mechanics of nature help him in his inquires?
     
     3. If you are going to test for the supernatural then doesn't that allow for any religious or spiritual to use cherry picked data to outline their world view?
     
     4. Putting god into the argument shuts downs digging deeper and instead builds a wall of ignorance.
     
     Yes, he got Richard Dawkins to suggest that intelligent design is possible. But he is taking the path of logic, outlining that no possiblity can ever be completely ruled out. He says that if we find a signature in the makeup of life on our planet it is entirely possible that we were designed and seeded by a higher intelligence. No such signature has been discovered, everything so far can be broken down. An alien life form seeding the earth has nothing to do with ID ultimately because that just describes one part of the process.
     
     "Darwinism" should not be blamed for the tragedies of the holocaust any more than gravity should be blamed for the bombs that fell out of the sky. Any true knowledge of the workings of existence can be wielded for good or evil.
     
     
     
     

     Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

244. 244. djicebread in reply to QuestionAllThings 12:24 PM 5/6/09

     If you run the numbers backward then the statistics look impossible. But if you were to calculate the likelihood of a particular grain of sand being accidentally moved from the beach and then transported on a pair of flip flops to another part of the world the statistics become equally improbable yet, this happens all the time.
     
     Time is endless, so anything no matter how statistically unlikely has every opportunity to take place.

     Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

245. 245. Laughing gravy 03:55 PM 5/16/09

     WhyLooseHopeINEolution?
     
     
     " Evolution is a theory."
     Are you back with that old chestnut
     Read 15 answers to creationists - answer 1
     
     "There is no hard evidence of it being true, in fact, there is more evidence against it then there is for it. "
     Go on - Produce some (ANY) evidence against it
     There is NO scientific evidence that contradicts the theory
     
     " People who believe it are blind to the holes that it is filled with. "
     What holes might they be ?
     
     "As seen in the final interview in Expelled, the main argumentor for Darwinism cannot even tell you how life could have jump started except maybe "molecules piggybacked on crystals," (what?). "
     Sorry I dont know where you got the "main argumentor" from
     Did you check the credentials of this "main argumentor" ?
     IF you have read the article you would know not to accept anything Expelled says at face value.
     
     "He didnt even say where these molecules came from even though those molecules are the life that is in question.
     So you expect 1 person to have all the answers ?
     
     "There is no plausible explination for the theory of evolution."
     Sorry I dont follow -
     Evolution is a theory that explains other things - Why should it require an explanation.?
     
     "If you look at the world around you, all the perfect designs for the smallest animals and cells. The brilliace of how they work and what is needed to be done to keep them alive, and if one out of thousands of circumstances is slightly different, it cannot happen, they cannot survive or work. "
     Stupid argument -
     1) You have assumed that animals and cells have ALWAYS been like they are today - This is a fallatious argument as it based on an assumption that has no evidence to support it..
     2) Of course they work NOW,(though I would not assume perfectly). Thats how they evolved.
     If they did not work with a great degree of efficiently then is is likely they would have died out before - Thats evolution theory.
     
     " How can all this, the beautiful world around us, the perfect placement of the planets and stars, the size of the universe, everything made in this world, how can it have happened through chance? How could it happen through a process of one out of millions of possibilities, the right one happens every time, in all of the billions of situations that it happend? It couldnt have."
     Sorry - "perfect placement of planets and of stars" (whatever that means) + "size of universe" ?
     Nothing the do with evolution (by natural selection) but explained by cosmology/astronomy
     Secondly - Do not know what you mean by "perfect" - perfect for what ?
     
     Someone else who has no idea of probability
     "The right one happens ever time " - What "right one" ?
     ( AN analogy
     Roll a ball along a surface
     The chances are billions to 1 against a particular point will be at the bottom
     But low and behold the "right" one will ALWAYS be at the bottom. i.e we are now certain of the point.)
     You use the same stupid probability argument used by many id/creationist believers
     Comparing the certainty of a result after the event, with the probability of the result BEFORE the event.
     
     "In all the billions of situations that it happened"
     What "billions of situations"?
     What is the "that" that happened ?
     
     "Evolution is a theory full of mistakes. It cannot explain how this world came into place."
     Sorry I dont know what you mean by "mistakes"
     Do you mean "holes" ie.e unexplained phenomena - If so then these are not mistakes
     IF you mean evidence that contradicts evolution - There is NO scientific evidence that contradicts evolution
     If you mean hoaxes - These are NOT mistakes i.e. evidence that contradicts evolution
     
     Dont know what you mean by "this world came into place" ?
     Cosmology/astronomy explains PERFECTLY how the world came into place.
     Evolution (by natural selection) explains how life came to be as it is today
     
     "Tell me this, if life is just a world evolving, and goes on with no purpose but to keep the evolving process moving, what is the purpose of our living? "
     No idea.
     I also dont see how this is relevent to any theory
     
     "What is going to happen after we die?"
     No idea.
     
     "Before this theory was ever even dreamed of, the tribes of the Aztecs, the Egyptians, the Chinese, the Russian Mongols, all civilizations believed in an afterworld."
     So what ?
     
     "Evolutions dissolves this belief and leaves us with nothing. If evolution is true, then we are here for nothing and leave no impact on this world, life is pointless, there is no reason to our being."
     So what?
     
     "Why believe in a theory that strips us of our humaness and sets us on the level of dogs? Why belive in a theory that strips us of our reason to life? Why believe in a theory that leaves us hopeless? "
     So you are saying the theory is wrong because you cannot face the alternative.
     Very good scientific reasoning
     
     "There is no point, if you believe in evolution I am sorry, but you believe your life is destined for nothing. Why believe this? I would like to know why this appeals to you evolutionists. "
     Who said science has to appeal ?
     You want someone to reject a theory because YOU cannot face its implications.
     
     
     "The world was created in all its majesty, created, not evolved over billions of years. "
     ALL the evidence says you are wrong?
     
     "Please, if you believe in this theory, I implore of you to leave it behind. If you believe it happend then your life has no point, why not explore other possibilities?"
     Very good example - YOU appear to only reject a theory because you cannot face it's implications. -
     

     Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

246. 246. Laughing gravy 04:29 PM 5/16/09

     QuestionAllThings
     
     "The concept of the origin of all life on our planet beginning by chance is indeed mathmatically improbable. "
     Dont know how you calculated the "probability" - based on what?
     
     You have also ignored the possibility of the existence of billions( I dont know- possibly gozillions) of other planets
     
     We are "here" because "here" is where we are.
     IF we had evolved on another planet (i.e not earth) then "earth" would still exist but we would be "there" (i.e the other planet) not "here" (i.e. earth). Possibly there could be life "there" as well as "here".
     
     "The unliklihood of an irreducably complex single cell coming together, given the stereochemical nature of amino acids necessay for life to occur, all coming together by "random chance"-at the same instant, should be apparant to the most reasonable "thinker". There is not enough time in the scope of the Evolutionary Model for this to be accomplished."
     
     Stupid argument
     You have assumed
     
     1) That life MUST be complex - This is ONLY an assumption of id/creationism
     Evolution can start with very simple life.
     2) That the molecules came together by "random chance" at the same instant
     This argument is ONLY a requirement presented by id/creationism - There is no such requirement in evolution
     There is an element of randomness in evolution, but the evolution of life is not random.
     
     You have then applied the requirements of id/creationism to evolution, in requiring evolution to follow the assumptions of id/creationism (by saying there was not enough time)- THIS IS STUPID
     
     So I would not include you as a reasonable "thinker"
     
     "Ben Stein has "pushed the button" of the scientific community. "
     I would say he has made a film to appeal to the non-"thinkers" as evidenced by the blatant lies/mistakes in his film

     Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

247. 247. Laughing gravy 04:58 PM 5/16/09

     CreationistMom 01/26/09
     
     " If this truly is a free America, which we have always prided ourselves on this idea that our country is free, stop quashing other viewpoints that don't agree with yours. Isn't that what you have always asked of the Christians? Why not give the same courtesy you asked for in the monkey trial. Why the venom? Are you scared of a little debate? "
     
     Sorry - science isn't a democracy. There isn't a vote on what is valid or non-valid science
     
     "Why? We're not. "
     Again there is no point to a debate - as I have said science is not a democracy, nor can it be decided by a debate.
     You can decide what to believe in a debate but you cannot decide the validity of science.
     
     If you want to present creationism/id presented as a science, then present is as science.
     
     BUT THIS REQUIRES FOLLOWING THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD. A method creationist/id COMPLETELY IGNORE
     THIS IS WHAT THE ARGUMENT IS ABOUT.?
     
     (sorry - but reading your post you dont appear to have studied or follow the scientific method)
     

     Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

248. 248. Laughing gravy 07:43 PM 5/16/09

     WhyLooseHopeINEolution?
     Sorry - I had to add this
     
     "Please, if you believe in this theory, I implore of you to leave it behind. If you believe it happend then your life has no point, why not explore other possibilities?"
     
     The point in life is to enjoy it, - cos that all you have that you can be sure of.
     You can believe in an afterlife, but if you're wrong and waste this life , then you have wasted everything you had.
     If you're right then we ALL have an afterlife.
     (after all you have no reason to suppose that a believer (of any faith) has led a "better" life than an unbeliever . Just because you "believe" does not automatically make you a better person)
     

     Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

249. 249. Laughing gravy 07:54 PM 5/16/09

     WhyLooseHopeINEolution?
     
     Just one last thing
     
     IF i were a creator I would welcome an "unbeliever" who has led a "good" and full life - i.e has made the most of what I gave,well in preference to "believer" who has wasted what I gave.
     
     (almost the tale of the prodigal son ?)
     

     Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

250. 250. melocoast 01:07 PM 9/20/09

     I completely "get" this film. Ben's point is that we need to BE CAREFUL, because real science (and education) requires one to stay open-minded, unbiased and free to explore and question. I was married for 10 years to a govt. biologist and atheist. I respected his spiritual and political beliefs and expected the same from him. Unfortunately, the political/social climate has changed so that some of the most intelligent people are the worst offenders of biased thinking and even catagorizing anyone with any kind of spiritual belief into the "religious right", ignorant or even "wacko" categories. What has happened to critical thinking and respect for differences of opinion--has Rush Limbaugh made openly hating differences and name-calling so acceptable to even the scientific community? Censoring just slows the progress of science.

     Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

251. 251. imgoingMad440 01:20 PM 11/23/09

     Aetheists like Richard Dawkins would run in fear in God showed up on Earth and spelled it all out. Scientists like him don't want to know the origins of everything if it involves God, even if the answers were staring them in the face. So if intelligent design theories lead towards a higher deity like God, those efforts should be squashed. But if the theories lead towards Aliens or other advanced civilizations, it's OK? What are these scientists so fearful about? Their grants? Their money? Their close-minded, egotistical idiots.

     Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

252. 252. gwdodd 08:57 AM 12/21/09

     Funny how the author compares this movie to Michael Moore's production, yet takes Michael Moore as fact. Also typical is the instant labeling of dissenting views as radical, stupid, right wing, etc. This is what the movie points out. The scientific community absolutely refuses to discuss dissenting opinions. Like they say in the movie, Darwin's opinion was a "dissenting opinion" at the time. What's wrong with options? When we can't speak freely we have lost our freedom!!

     Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

253. 253. thesenator 02:57 PM 12/21/09

     Biological change or transformation from one of the 5 "kinds of flesh" to another is literally impossible, illogical, contrary to the historical and fossil facts, mathematically outside the limits of numbers theory, etc., and violates the Third Law of Thermodynamics, etc., etc. It is therefore a myth perpetrated by the Hindu pagan religionists for thousands of years, whom Charles Darwin and his father were anti-intellectual slaves to as the President and financial backers of the Theosophical Society of Great Britain and using an Indian guru for their so-called theories and "information". Charles was a mere specimen collector, with a prior pagan theological mind-set to promote, and as an anti-Christian like his unbelieving Anglican fellows at its seminary. He was literally too stupid to be admitted to any other school or department at Oxford or Cambridge U., despite his father's great merchant wealth and attempted bribery to get him in them. "Evolution" is a false Eastern pagan theology, not science. Sound minds reject such non-sense.

     Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

254. 254. thesenator in reply to geoguy 03:14 PM 12/21/09

     Ben Stein's Dad, an ecomomist and a liberal Democrat, was a friend of mine, and had a very sharp mind. I also know US Sen. Ben Cardin, from my days in the Maryland political scene, beginning at the UofM in 1960 with Cong. Steny Hoyer. The co-founder of AEI, where Stein's father was a fellow, Ben Wattenberg, was also a good friend, and a decent, rational gentleman who joined with me in 1976 to back the great US Senator Henry M. "Scoop" Jackson of Washington State, perhaps the most-beloved modern-day Gentile by the world-wide Jewish people for his stalwart lifetime defense of them and their basic human rights and freedoms, for President. Seems that all these liberal Democrats named Benjamin are very politically active! I'd like to know more about the history of that particular tribe of Israel.

     Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

255. 255. thesenator in reply to Laughing gravy 03:32 PM 12/21/09

     Good works ARE helpful, and far too many "Christians" are "into" "works salvation", which is a deep heresy, condemned by the Christian Church at Rome for 2000 years. God does appreciate the "ethical atheist", while still rightly calling him or her in Scripture a "fool" for their rejection of Him, truth, and the obvious facts. Read Romans 1 also, re. the multiple evidences of God and the "invincible ignorance"---an excellent and penetrating Calvinist phrase---of His disbelievers. BUT they do not "get to Heaven" for their "good works", which is THE reason for our temporal existence and its great hope. See the very 1st chapter of the Baltimore, Roman Catholic, and the Westminster cathechisms. As we learn from God in Matthew, 'the Sun shines and the rain falls on the unrighteous as well as the righteous"---He cares for them, and deeply hopes for their change of heart toward him. So, therefore---God exists, He is very gracious, He provides for us SO abundantly, etc., and only asks us for one thing---that we believe in Him and are faithful to Him, just as His martyrs have rightly done throughout the ages and the millenia.

     Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

256. 256. thesenator in reply to Britishbulldog 05:36 PM 12/21/09

     An excellent comment. Evil governments and its murderous bosses MIS-use "religion" to gain and maintain power, as did Hitler and Mussolini and the Japanese military dictators, etc., of WWII, and ALL the way back to the mass-murderous pagans like Nero and the Mayans and the Aztecs and long before him and all of them. It was just a power play, especially by NON-Christians . Virtually ALL of the very few---a few hundred documented cases over 300 years, NOT 10s of thousands as so falsely averred---of the Inquisition "tortures" were committed by the governments, NOT by the Christian Church, which only sought repentance to sound doctrine from heretics, not their torture and deaths, and the protection of the Faith of the faithful, whom, like the good shepherds, they were sworn to protect from deadly lies and deceit.

     Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

257. 257. scotland 10:31 AM 12/27/09

     "Expelled" is not a science bashing movie as your headline indicates. It is about academic freedom.

     Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

258. 258. KeithOU1 03:53 PM 12/31/09

     you people cant even say how life began but you preach that Darwin has the answers. science cannot have a consensus and a consensus is not science. you are the idiots.

     Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

259. 259. KeithOU1 in reply to geoguy 04:04 PM 12/31/09

     So killing innocent children in the womb is ok. Then the next rational step is to kill the feeble the old and the non-producers. congratulations your a Communist and a Nazi all rolled up into one. Now thats evolution!!

     Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

260. 260. IAmThatIAm 06:18 PM 1/14/10

     As we look around the world and see it coming unhinged via ever accelerating national and international conflicts accompanied by ever increasing concern regarding natural disasters which science itself proclaims are all but unavoidable, can we as rational human beings conclude that somehow we are going to stem this tide of insanity and eventually save ourselves? For if evolution is correct that is our only hope; a very dim hope as my eyes see it.
     
     In 1962 we avoided a nuclear conflagration of unimaginable proportions in the Cuban Missile Crisis! Now at this time in history, we see ever escalating desire of unstable nations to have nuclear capability and they have been working to that end now for some time. We see an out of control conflict created by religious and ideological differences that has generated unspeakable terrorism and continues to grow unabated as both sides continue in the mistaken belief that they have some moral high ground! Earthquakes and other natural phenomena are occurring at alarmingly unprecedented rates and frequencies!
     
     Natural events aside, do we really believe that we can solve these differences and bring peace to the world. The world does not want God! That is painfully evident! Yet, here we are facing our own extinction by our own hands, after thousands of years of managing our own affairs with various forms of governments, economies, social structures and religions. In our own blatant arrogance as a species we still want to believe that the soon coming and prophesied World War III can be averted and we can bring about peace! Nothing but rhetoric; empty, hollow rhetoric, and denial of the true realities we face.
     
     Yes, "religion" has been at the root of the majority of mankind's conflict but to attribute that to God is making a false assumption. That is, that all the religion in the world stems from God! But, just as He has allowed us our own way by our own choosing in governing ourselves and deciding what is right and wrong, He has also allowed us to use our own intellect in understanding His word. Thus all religion is not of God! God is truth, and there is not much of that in the world or in religion.
     
     I don't present a creationist view that argues with evolution! Both sides are wrong! The entire world has been deceived as God's word the Holy Bible states. We have allowed ourselves to be deceived by one who desires to destroy us because we chose not to believe the God who created us and want to be right in our own minds.
     
     If God does not exist, who then will save us from ourselves??

     Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

261. 261. Felix Penzias 10:03 AM 6/23/10

     Shame on you and your magazine for calling this documentary "anti-evolution". Mr. Stein's documentary is simply offering the notion that the two world views do not need to be mutually-exclusive. If you call your publication scientific then think cosmically instead of just globally - explain to me the cosmic microwave background radiation and the Big Bang and tell me there is no possibility of a Higher Power the split second BEFORE that. The militants of academia are the ones that feel threatened and are too narrow-minded to be challenged.

     Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

262. 262. pandag 02:59 PM 7/4/10

     Ben Stein is a loud-mouthed fanatic. After reading some of the posts of those who like him, several things they seem to have in common are stridency, bigotry and an appalling lack of spelling & grammar skills.
     

     Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

263. 263. shadowfaxngc 04:34 AM 7/11/10

     Interesting how, as usual, the tenacious followers of popular scientific opinion can warp the intended meaning of a film as though it actually implies Darwinian causation of Nazism and related political movements. My recommendation: watch the film and form your own conclusions. Additionally, it's quite ironic that the article mentions using quotes out of context when Ben Stein's film was not primarily focused on Darwinian links to the holocaust.

     Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

264. 264. shadowfaxngc in reply to TracerBullet 04:37 AM 7/11/10

     Interesting, Ben Stein's film does not support creationism. Have you yet watched the documentary?

     Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

265. 265. TimP in reply to AncientTruth 10:28 PM 7/11/10

     Dear Ancient Truth: If life cannot come from nothing, then who or what created God?
     
     We have empirical evidence that shows that life can come from inanimate objects - namely, that amino acids can combine, and the combination of chemical elements creates a reaction whereby the amino acid doubles itself. It then doubles again, and so on. Voila - life. It's no longer a theory that certain chemicals, when placed together, MIGHT form life - it's an INEVITABILITY that life will occur.
     
     We've pretty much worked out now how the Earth was formed, what it looked like for millions of years, how the crust cooled, how oxygen was formed by primitive relatives of these amino acids (which we believe were delivered via asteroids), and thus the proper 'soup' was mixed and ready to support life. It's all very explainable, even in a 60 minute episode on television. I've spent decades trying to figure out God, and still nothing about it makes sense to me. Occam's razor, I say.
     
     So in the meantime, I will continue to mock God. Thanks.

     Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

266. 266. Atheist 01:30 PM 7/22/10

     I've read Mein Kampf from cover to cover and it's SO obvious that Social Darwism played a BIG role in Hitler's thinking. Christianity also plays a role, but only because he believes Christ was betrayed by his own people. Most Christians today don't believe that. They see it as a Roman execution played out as a part of Biblical prophecy. In fact, even then Hitler complains about getting Christians to turn on "God's Chosen". His toughest critics initially were Bible believers.
     You guys should be grateful Christians are VERY over-represented in the US Army, fighting for Israel while you guys want nothing to do with a war to defend your own people. I'm an atheist and think it's all just nonsense but if I was jewish, I'd recognize right now brainwashed Xtains are the only friends you guys have because they STILL think you're all "God's Chosen". Would people who worship you commit genocide against you? I was raised Xtian and trust me; they think you guys are made of GOLD. Their Bible tells them so.

     Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

267. 267. Atheist 01:35 PM 7/22/10

     "anti-evolution film" And "tries to blame Darwin for Holocaust". Kinda irrational reporting, isn't it?
     I suppose I can see why you guys would rather blame Jesus.

     Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

268. 268. Anan in reply to TracerBullet 10:27 PM 8/13/10

     The author misses the whole point of the film. The point is that scientists aren't free to "follow the evidence wherever it leads." Whether you think it ridiculous or not, the establishment shouldn't be able to smother opinions they don't like. This article just reinforces what Mr. Stein has said. You can't stand it when anyone else has a different opinion. It's really sad. The fact of the matter is 92% of Americans (according to a poll sited by the Washington Post) believe in a higher power. Why is the majority of the scientific community so worried and angry about this? FEAR breeds anger.

     Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

269. 269. FigaroMoon 04:16 PM 11/3/10

     The whole point of “Expelled” isn’t to espouse or repulse any scientific theory for another or even to try and replace it. Stein made a very valid point and that is to remind us all to keep scientific research and discovery open to all possible venues no matter where they lead. At the very least, scientists should be allowed to participate in a dialogue among peers and not be excluded or treated unfairly for having a differing idea. Unfortunately, the Evolution theory (and let’s not forget it’s a “theory”) has become just another closed-minded dogma not unlike the Creationism they have dethroned. Perhaps Stein was reminding us all that maybe the truth lies somewhere in between.

     Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

270. 270. just listen 11:49 AM 3/31/11

     "Expelled" is an open discussion that simultaneously appeared biased and yet represented two sides of an issue. This article just continued the same tired rhetoric of trying to sound smarter than the ones challenging their position and in fact did it in a very non-scientific way. The law of gravity is still a theory every time it is tested. Once it works again it becomes a law for that moment. If modern scientist viewed empirical laws this way, at least for the sake of argument, then think what measures of scrutiny they would apply to hypotheses which are, in fact, just theories. Objective science should always welcome dissent or doubt from any skeptic as an opportunity to validate or prove a theory and the more entrenched a skeptic already may be in a bias, ideology, counter argument or even agenda driven deception, the better for the theory's triumph, or inversely the theory's dismissal or altercation. This review article instantly labels Stein's "Expelled" as “a shameful anti-evolution film tries to blame Darwin for the holocaust." Reading the article does not expound on the content or substance of the film and particularly the two most profound arguments made in the film (described below). Instead the author dismisses the numerous protagonists as losing their jobs due to procedural circumstances or other mitigating factors without even a modicum of deference to the fact that some level of discussion about “intelligent design” is inextricably linked to each case. Even more effort is made at ad-hominid and red-herring postulations about Ben Stein’s ideological history or capitalist propensities, which again, have nothing to do with the interrogatives presented in the film, and as I have stated, are actually better for the scientific discussion. Here’s why. The first of two main profundities mentioned in the film is the conundrum of which came first, one’s worldview or one’s subscription to origin of life theories. The second is the idea that a review of scientific evidential information is better served in a climate where beforehand everyone submits full disclosure of all heretofore bias, presuppositions, ideologies and perhaps especially religious postulations (even atheism is non-deistic religion). Imagine two scientists as polar opposites in all regards, except one, that being a willingness to disclose and then put aside, all subjectivity for an objective analysis of scientific theories. In this regard “Expelled” is quite pro-evolution, a point lost in the non-scientific approach of this article’s author.

     Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

271. 271. greenie34 12:38 AM 7/9/11

     I was just suggested this movie by a childhood friend who is a strong Christian, as I am the non-believing black sheep of the group. Seriously?!?! This is what you're coming with. Please do better than this. This is on par with their truth is relative argument. WTF?

     Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

272. 272. un-naturalism 11:51 AM 8/10/11

     Regardless of your perspective, you have to find the words of Dr William Provine very sobbering (Dr William Provine atheist, American historian of science, evolutionary biology and population genetics)
     
     According to Dr Provine “...it starts by giving up an active Deity, then it gives up the hope that there is any life after death. When you give those two up, the rest of it follows fairly easily. You give up the hope that there is an Imminent Morality. And finally there is no human free will. If you believe in evolution you can’t hope for there being any free will. There is no hope whatsoever for there being any deep meaning in human life. We live, we die, we are absolutely gone when we die.”
     
     I don’t think really he is talking about evolution, but rather Scientific Naturalism which like Theism is a worldview with presuppositions which are themselves not scientific.
     If Scientific Naturalism leads inescapably to what Dr Provine is saying then it really should give us pause.
     

     Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

273. 273. ggrubbs in reply to Merry Joe K 11:16 AM 12/28/11

     Like many people, you are confusing the meaning of the world "theory." A scientific theory like the "Theory of Evolution" and "Relativity Theory" are scientific explanations for certain natural phenomena. A scientific theory is based on facts and has stood up to the scrutiny of the world's scientific community. A 'theory' in the general sense is not a scientific theory, but merely an educated guess. Evolution is a fact.

     Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

274. 274. kitapbigi 12:41 PM 9/13/12

     I believe in evolution, but I'm not gonna say that it's "fact" - it's a theory. I have no problem with people discounting it, as it's their own business to have that belief. But when they try to make their ideas a de facto facts, then we have problems. The <a href="http://www.evimsahanemobilya.com">evim şahane</a>religious nuts need to keep God in their hearts, and we need to understand that extremes on any side suck, so let's not get sucked into the rhetoric that both sides want us to promote because it creates homeostasis instead of good discourse<a href="http://www.lisem.net" target="_blank">chat</a>ass.

     Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

275. 275. kitapbigi 12:43 PM 9/13/12

     The notion that Darwin is responsible for the Holocaust did not originate with Ben Stein. Paul Johnson's treatment of the theory of evolution in MODERN TIMES (page 5) assures us: "Darwin's notion of the survival of the fittest was a key element both to the Marxist concepts of class warfare and of the racial philosophies which shaped Hitlerism." Darwin never even mentioned "the survival of the fittest;" Darwin's notion was of adaptation to the environment by species variation. The phrase "survival of the fittest" was coined by Herbert Spencer, who was a philosopher, not a biologist. The phrase was quickly picked up by social Darwinists, who, in the pseudo-scientific climate of the nineteenth century, used it as a justification for exploiting peasants. Marx accepted evolution as an explanation for human consciousness, but "survival of the fittest" has never been part of Marxist doctrine. Obviously, it is the doctrine of industrial capitalism. As for Hitlerism, "intellectual" Nazis were far more likely to be influenced by Hegel's notion of natural spiritual progression than Darwinian evolution. Admittedly, the German and American industrialists who helped Hitler acquire power were quite likely social Darwinists. Obviously, one of the factors that made Hitler so popular with the Germans populace <a href="http://www.lisem.net" target="_blank">chat</a>was his exploitation of their hatred of the Jews, a hatred propagated over many centuries by Christianity. Trying to blame Nazism on Darwin while completely ignoring the far more genuine influence of the uglier aspects of Christianity is just as blatantly dishonest as it is possible to be.

     Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this