Expelled: The Movie You Have to See
By MInTheGap on Apr 15, 2008 in Bible, Creation, Culture and Noteworthy
Visited 948 times, 3 so far today
Have you heard about this movie yet?
I started seeing ads for this movie show up at my site, but I had no idea what it was about. It turns out that Ben Stein has created a movie that documents how professors that choose not to believe in Evolution are systematically denied access to teaching positions, research positions, etc.?
This is from Ken Ham:
As you know, Darwinists have been expelling any hint of creation or intelligent design from public schools and research institutions. Now, many of them are expelling people from their academic posts in a desperate attempt to defend their evolutionary worldview. The upcoming film Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed comes to theaters on April 18.
Already a highly controversial film, its host Ben Stein (whom I met last month) is on a personal quest to discover more about the topic of origins and to expose the ruthlessness of many evolutionists. Even though Stein is not a creationist and is not a Christian, he presents the evidence of intelligent design we see in the world and exposes the censorship efforts of leading evolutionists. I encourage you to visit www.GetEXPELLED.com right now and discover more about this excellent, entertaining, and enlightening film. I’ve seen it twice now, including at a special preview screening at our Creation Museum. You need to see how our education system is expelling freedom of speech—and then you should do something about it.
“For a theater listing, go to:
www.expelledthemovie.com/theaterap.php
If you don’t see your local theater listed, call the manager and say you want to watch Expelled. Please be a “creation evangelist.” Let your family and friends know about this film, and then direct them to our website where they can find out more about the gospel message.
Right now it’s not offered in my area, but I’m definitely interested to see this movie!
If you're new here, you may want to subscribe to my RSS feed. Thanks for visiting!
I really want to see this film and am looking for a theater near us that’s playing it.
My home Bible study is currently going through Focus on the Family’s Truth Project on DVD, and this would dovetail nicely with that. We may try to go as a group.
Christine @ Serenity How?’s last blog post..A Tale of Two Toys (A Hot, Melted Sob Story)
I’m so amused by this! Only because at the same time your post showed up in my feed reader, Berlzebub also had a post about this movie… but of course you’re pro and he’s against.
Amanda’s last blog post..Escapism and Medievia
I wish it were playing in our area. I want to see it, but we’ll have to wait and see if it gets more popular I guess.
Mr. Gap, have I got newz for you!
I have a Leader’s Edition DVD for EXPELLED with discussion questions and whatnot. Fer ’cause I have connections.
Yeah, I feel cool.
(Okay, I need to read fewer blogs by sassy, fiery women late at night. It’s carrying over into my posting on normal blogs.)
Oh yeah. I might share once I watch the DVD. If you’re interested, that is.
AG’s last blog post..Shout to the Lord
Amanda, that’s quite the coincidence.
AG, you could go do a guest post here, if you’d like, and give us a review!
Wait Ben Stein is not a christian or a creationist?!? What, in his early commercials he specifically said he was both.
Definitely looking forward to watching this on Friday. Told everyone I know about the film and taking a group to watch it as well
My understanding is that Ben Stein is a Jew and a creationist. I could be wrong.
MIn, let me find time when my roomie’s not using the TV and when I’ve watched the movie and the leader’s DVD, I’ll let you know. I hope it’s as good as everyone’s making it out to be. Apparently, Jim Dobson endorses it, and he never endorses movies of any type.
AG’s last blog post..Shout to the Lord
I’m not sure what religion Ben Stein adheres to. I believe that this is one of those movies that you’re either going to agree with or disagree with based on your worldview. Then again, maybe there are some in the middle that will be swayed?
Frenzy, nice to see you back!
AG, if you have a big enough space, why not invite us all over so we can watch it together?
Sure. Ya wanna bring the popcorn and Loc and Frenzy can bring over some pizza and soda and we’ll just make a night of it? :p
Actually, that really sounds fun. I wish someone would hurry up and invent transporters (you know, like in Star Trek) so things like that could be possible.
AG’s last blog post..Shout to the Lord
You are all more than welcome to come out to Colorado to watch the movie with me and Prince Frenzy + group.
I was so surprised to see an ad for this on regular TV programming, last night! We had to rewind to watch it, again.
Oh, Jami! I’m in Colorado, too. Hooray for the prettiest state ever!
AG’s last blog post..Shout to the Lord
The scientific truth:
http://www.expelledexposed.com/
@onein6billion: To me, it isn’t a matter of truth vs. falsehood as much as it is a clash of worldviews. I think that’s how you’ll see the reaction work out as well.
If you believe in evolution, you’re obviously not going to agree with this documentary, and you’re going to find anything and everything you can do to claim it’s false. Can you or your site refute that there are qualified scientists who aren’t getting published simply because they don’t believe in or are skeptical of evolution? I know that there are colleges that won’t let people who do not believe in evolution in their science programs.
Yes, they should not have used deception when making their documentary, but is their premise wrong? And if there isn’t any truth to it, why not just laugh it off? Seems to me that someone’s scared of the impact it could have.
“clash of worldviews”
There is scientific truth and there is religious nonsense and ne’er the twain shall meet.
“the reaction”
Well, you need to learn about the laws that the creationists are trying to pass in certain state legislatures. The creationists were legally slapped down in the Dover case by the constitutional “separation of church and state”. Unfortunately, high school teachers will continue to be encouraged to stop teaching evolution at all. But worse, the new laws would encourage high schools teachers to teach religious nonsense against evolution.
“qualified scientists” … “because they don’t believe in or are skeptical of evolution”
They are not really “qualified scientists” if they are trying to publish non-scientific nonsense. So they should not be able to publish in the scientifically peer-reviewed literature. They cannot be stopped from writing books, popular articles, blogs, etc. So they are not really “suppressed”.
“is their premise wrong?”
Their premise is that there is some science backing “intelligent design”. That is wrong. See the Expelled Exposed web site.
“Seems to me that someone’s scared of the impact it could have.”
Yes. The “dumbing down” of high school science education is a frightening prospect. And Christian home-schoolers are proud that they can teach their little ones that creationism is true and evolution is false. Fortunately, there are a lot of foreign students able and willing to come to the US to learn and become scientists and doctors. But, …
Ken Ham above:
“he presents the evidence of intelligent design we see in the world”
There is no such scientific evidence and Ben Stein does not even try to present the religious pseudo-evidence.
“You need to see how our education system is expelling freedom of speech”
Yes, religious nonsense is prevented from being taught in high school science classrooms by the “separation of church and state”. And religious nonsense will not be accepted for peer-reviewed scientific publication.
“Dobson endorses it” A scientific authority?
@onein6billion: Funny, I didn’t think “science” had anything to say in regards to the realm of the supernatural since you can’t subject it to the scientific method. And macro-evolution truly deals more with history (what happened when) than dealing with how things happen. I would also add that your position that you “own” truth would carry more weight if your theory was actually falsifiable. Seems to me that Evolution is more a theory in progress (as it changes constantly) than something concrete.
Let’s see, so far as I’ve read (and I do try keep up with this topic) the most that creationists have tried to pass is something like “teaching the controversy”, “putting a sticker in a book to say there’s a controversy” and perhaps teaching both theories. So, you’re afraid of a sticker? You’re afraid to have your “superior” truth to be taught along side something that’s “nonsense”? Sounds like you’re not as secure as you lead us to believe.
Somehow I’m not quite so sure you are the arbiter of who is and who is not a scientist. Nor do I believe your test as to who qualifies as a scientist. The whole point of this documentary is to show that this very point is wrong. You cannot impose a test about belief about origins (a historical question) and discriminate based on it.
Tell me, how much do scientists actually work with Evolution on a daily basis? And is it not fruitful to explore different lines of thought. For instance, the whole “superbug” idea. One could say that the bugs are getting stronger, because they’re resisting antibiotics. Or they could also say that we have weaker bugs, because they’ve lost information that allowed them to be effected by it. And then propose two totally different treatment concepts. Are we wrong for having options and different view points?
And what about natural selection? Do you know that Creationists actually support the concept? Or is that the part where the Evolutionist name swap has messed with your mind too?
The evidence that is in the world can be interpreted either way based on your worldview. Contrary to the sites you read and the circles that you choose to dwell in, Evolution has not been proven true.
“clash of worldviews”
There is scientific truth and there is religious nonsense and ne’er the twain shall meet.
According to your worldview. According to mine, science and faith confirm each other.
Ben Stein does not even try to present the religious pseudo-evidence.
That’s not his purpose. His purpose is to expose the bigotry of the scientific community, not the errancy of it.
Yes, religious nonsense is prevented from being taught in high school science classrooms by the “separation of church and state”.
Separation of church and state was intended to keep either the church or the government from becoming too powerful and becoming a tyranny over the citizens. Different worldviews are allowed to be discussed in school as long as participation in religious rituals are not required.
“Dobson endorses it” A scientific authority?
That wasn’t my point. There is a lot of junk that’s been put out in the name of Jesus and the church, which really isn’t representative of what Jesus or the church stands for. While I haven’t seen Expelled yet, the fact that a man I respect as a godly leader endorses it makes me think it will be a more respectable work than a lot of other things.
Don’t have such a closed mind. Once upon a time science said the earth was flat and the government and church alike ostracized those scientists who claimed it was round. Explore different options. I have - I’ve studied evolution as well as creation. I just think creation is hands down more plausible than evolution.
AGs last blog post..Shout to the Lord
Thanks Min! *waves to everyone in greeting*
I would be glad to bring the pop and pizza for a night of fellowship, breaking bread, and good discussions!
I wish someone would hurry up and invent transporters (you know, like in Star Trek) so things like that could be possible. <– Ditto!
“teach the controversy”
But there is no scientific controversy.
“taught along side something that’s “nonsense””
The world is full of nonsense and high school students don’t need to learn any more nonsense. Now if you want to teach this in a university philosophy class so that students learn to recognize nonsense, …
“this very point is wrong”
Which is, of course, nonsense.
“discriminate based on it.”
Of course not. The discrimination is based on who is actually capable of doing science. They didn’t grant tenure to someone that they felt was not capable of doing good science. They didn’t invite someone who was not capable of good science to their parties. They did not renew the contract of someone who was deliberately teaching bad science. This was “intelligent discrimination” in my opinion.
“do scientists actually work with Evolution on a daily basis?”
Some do. Many don’t. So what?
“And is it not fruitful to explore different lines of thought?”
A “line of nonsense” does not count as a “line of thought”.
“Are we wrong for having options and different view points?”
When one is scientific and one is nonsense, then the nonsense view point is not productive.
“Evolution has not been proven true.”
Nothing is ever “proven” in science. But there is currently no scientific theory that threatens evolution. So evolution is just as “proven” as gravity, electromagnetic theory, nuclear theory, and quantum theory.
“Don’t have such a closed mind.”
Hilarious from someone who does not understand science, the scientific method, or the evidence supporting evolution. Of course the genetic evidence is the strongest.
“I just think creation is hands down more plausible than evolution.”
In other words, in this war between science and religion, you have chosen religion.
Expelled will open today. There was no local preview for the local movie critic. So our newspaper picked up a very scathing unfavorable review from the Orlando Sentinel.
Yeah, I’m not being closed-minded. Like I said, I’ve studied both sides of the coin. I can respect people who believe in evolution, I just don’t agree.
Please stay respectful in your commenting.
You said “Hilarious from someone who does not understand science, the scientific method, or the evidence supporting evolution. Of course the genetic evidence is the strongest.”
You don’t know who I am. I’ve studied science for plenty of time, mostly in the pre-med capacity. The scientific method is simply this: Ask a question, research your question, develop a hypothesis, test your hypothesis, collect data and analyze. If your test confirms your hypothesis, you’re good to go and if it doesn’t, start the process over with more research, a new hypothesis, and a new experiment.
I’ll admit that I wasn’t there when the world started. But neither were you. We can each only surmise what’s happened based on evidence and some ill-equipped experiments. My method is no less scientific than yours.
As far as genetic evidence, I can’t disagree with you more. I do believe in natural selection and macro-evolution. I believe that a long-haired dog can be bred into a short-haired dog. But that’s not Darwinian evolution. That’s really more like adaptation.
Species can’t mate with members of a different genus. And even when members of the same genus reproduce (mules and ligers are good examples) they offspring is always sterile.
How in the world could natural selection have come up with all the diversity on earth when each new creature would’ve been sterile?
AGs last blog post..Shout to the Lord
“Ask a question”
If humans and chimpanzees had a common ancestor about 10 million years ago, about what percentage of the human and chimpanzee chromosomes should “match”?
“But neither were you.”
Creationist alert! I wasn’t there when OJ Simpson …, but I have a pretty good idea …
“My method is no less scientific than yours.”
Sorry, I failed to notice that you had a method for creating new species and placing the fossil bones in the proper rock layers so that it surely looks like evolution is the best explanation. And creating the genetic evidence to support evolution. I thought this took millions of years. How do you do it?
“How in the world could natural selection have come up with all the diversity on earth when each new creature would’ve been sterile?”
How in the world can you ask such a stupid question?
“Please stay respectful in your commenting.”
Please make intelligent comments. Oops, I suspect that’s an impossible request.
@onein6billion: You weren’t there when OJ Simpson, but I bet you read and saw first hand accounts, and I also bet you trust those accounts over the lawyers there too. And yet you have a first hand account of Creation and you choose the lawyers over it too.
Fascinating.
You are begging the question twice. First in your dating method. You date the rock layers by what’s in them, and then use the date of the rock layers to date what’s in them. That’s absurd and totally irrational.
But then you add on the second– you presuppose that evolution is true and that the evidence supports only your interpretation (which you do not take any steps to prove) and then try to perform an implication that reflects back on your presupposition which you haven’t proven to be true.
Indeed, you have not even tried to explain why their are fossil records for underwater life on the top of mountains, or why there are things that are in the “wrong” rock layers. The topic is far more complicated than you want to discuss in your arrogance.
Let’s go a step further, shall we? If you’re so concerned about teaching children nonsense in the classroom, how do you feel about the peppered moths in England, or Haeckel’s embryos, or the Piltdown man. Indeed, how many times do we have some body digging up something and claiming it is my ancestor, it gets into the science class room as absolute truth, only to be refuted a few years later?
And how about that exact science that is predicting hurricanes, global warming, etc. Seems that scientists aren’t even good at knowing what they don’t know, let alone what they do know. Lastly, what do you make of the fact that evolution keeps changing. First its uniformitarianism, then it’s catastrophe theory. And what about the whole generation of students that believe that the dinosaurs are the source of oil!
Methinks you doth protest too much, for all downright garbage you and those that ascribe to your belief have foisted upon the American children in their schools in the name of trying to prove what science cannot– that there is no God, that He didn’t create, etc.
And while you’re at it, start trying to explain why the engineering level of the early Egyptians and Aztecs is of the caliber that cannot be reproduced today. Then go and explain why almost every people group from the aborigines to the Native Americans to the Europeans has a flood story that correlates with the Biblical one.
And don’t give me “aliens”– that’s just weak. It’s a cop out because Expelled and the Creationists are right: You’re simply refusing to consider the possibility of God– you’re not even open minded to look and see, to you you’ve already concluded that there isn’t and that you’re smart enough to know that for a fact. Or perhaps you’re more closed minded than those you dare to suggest cannot make intelligent comments.
“And yet you have a first hand account of Creation”
Eye-witnesses can be unreliable. What was his name and when did he live? The science behind the “Big Bang” seems very reliable. Your first hand account failed to describe the origin of the 4 degree background radiation.
“You date the rock layers by what’s in them.”
Your misrepresentation of the physics of dating methods is erroneous.
“the evidence supports only your interpretation”
Do you have a different scientific interpretation?
“why there are things that are in the “wrong” rock layers.”
Well, that really would be a “problem”. Can you be more specific? Or is this simply yet another creationist assertion with no actual evidence?
“how do you feel about the peppered moths in England, or Haeckel’s embryos, or the Piltdown man?”
I do not approve of “lying for science” or “lying for Jesus”. But two supposed examples of “problems in the past” and one deliberate hoax do not disprove thousands of confirming examples. And there is Tiktaalik.
“Methinks you doth protest too much, … trying to prove what science cannot– that there is no God, that He didn’t create, etc.”
Sorry to disappoint you - I’m not trying to “prove that there are no gods”. I think that it is up to you to prove that there are one or more gods.
“You’re simply refusing to consider the possibility of God”
Yes. If I disregard your “written evidence” as unreliable, there really does not seem to be any evidence that would indicate that that possibility has any merit.
“open minded to look and see”
Look and see what? A 14 billion year old universe? A 5 billion year old sun? Some 4 billion year old rocks on the Earth and the Moon? A 375 million old fossil named Tiktaalik that was the ancestor of all land animals (not to mention whales)? I look and I see an entirely natural universe.
@onein6billion: The name of my eyewitness was/is Jesus Christ. He was never created, and although He did die once, He’s now alive. He seeks a personal relationship with you. And He was there at the Creation and documented it– stating what was created each day.
As to the background radiation, it’s anything but a slam dunk, since it was based on three pieces of observation that all have alternative possible explanations. First, the background radiation itself is actually more a problem for the Big Bang than it is for creation. This is because the radiation itself was found to be uniform– which is only a problem because the universe is clumpy, not uniform. This is a problem for the theory, so the search went out to find discrepancies. However the only ones that were claimed to have been found were discrepancies of around 30 millionths of a degree. This is less the the noise level on the instruments that perform the measurement.
Science May 1, 1992 (p. 612): the variations in temperature claimed are ‘well below the level of instrumental noise’—they have been obtained by statistical methods which still need careful checking.
Nature (March 30, 1992, p. 731): all one can say is that they are ‘consistent with the doctrine of the Big Bang’, and that it is a ‘cause of some alarm’ that the media has called it ‘proof that “we now know” how the Universe began.’
The same Nature paper also says that neither of these has any ‘true independent support, outside the cosmological arena for which they were invented.’ It goes on to indicate that those with alternative theories to the ‘big bang’ will probably be able to ‘claim the new data as support for their theories also’.
This hardly sounds like the Big Bang has been proven by background radiation.
So, correct my misrepresentation of dating methods, please. Tell me, how do we originally come up with the dates? Do we use radioactive decay (even though the half-life of some of the things we test with is much less than the scale of the number of years that the Earth is supposedly been around)? Do we use historical evidence as a calibration for dating, with all the inherent problems there? What happens when a given item is found in a layer it should not be in?
How about testing of rock flows where it yields millions of years?
I’m still researching the evidence on the wrong layers. I will retract until I can find the evidence to back up the assertion.
It’s commendable that you stand equally against “lying for science” and “lying for Jesus”. However, you don’t follow through with your logic. Tell me, please, how can teaching students about Creation (how the worldview interprets the data) or even the controversy cause the irreparable harm you indicate to their future careers and science but teaching them outright lies like the Piltdown man, Haeckel’s embryos, peppered moths and dinosaurs to oil will not cause the same harm? Certainly the same students that are able to discern for themselves (or do the research to prove for themselves) that one set of “lies” is untrue will be able to do the same with the other set of “life”.
Tiktaalik– what about this fish? Even evolutionists believe “in some respects Tiktaalik and Panderichthys are straightforward fishes: they have small pelvic fins, retain fin rays in their paired appendages and have well-developed gill arches, suggesting that both animals remained mostly aquatic.” (Nature - Ahlberg and Clack) and although they also go into the fish’s “missing” gill cover one would have to say that they knew that it had it in the first place! And whose to say what the snout size should have been?
So, this “missing link” is far from conclusive proof. Is that the best you have? A fish that some claim lost a gill cover and has a long nose? Do you realize how many kinds of fish there are alive now, and all their differences. Tiktaalik is a fish, not a transitory animal from fish to tetrapod.
Actually, you can correct me if I’m wrong, but I think the burden of proof lies with those trying do disprove the existence of the supernatural. That for almost all of recorded history man has believed that there was a God (or gods) and have attributed works to Him (them) means to me that it is the default set, and therefore evolution/atheism need to disprove it. All evolution has managed to do is provide a quasi-plausible wordview by which to interpret evidence, and it must contort to all evidence, effectively redefining itself over time.
Again, I’m not speaking to natural selection, I’m talking about goo-to-you-via-the-zoo. My main supposition, and that which is being put forward by the movie, is that there are other plausible explanations for the evidence that we see around us. Evolution is nothing more than a worldview applied to a set of facts. Creation is the same thing, with the same set of facts. To say it slightly differently, we both have the same set of facts, and we can make plausible explanations for those facts that fit perfectly within our worldview.
However, there’s one set of people that are being close minded about it, believing that they are dogmatically correct and refuse to even let the other side be heard. And I’m not talking about the Creationists.
I spent 10 minutes typing and got an error message.
1992 was 16 years ago - see WMAP.
“we can make plausible explanations for those facts that fit perfectly within our worldview.”
And one is science and the other is anti-science religious nonsense. Well, you know which I prefer.
“I think the burden of proof lies with those trying do disprove the existence of the supernatural.”
Ouch - this is so crazy that I think I’m just going to take my science and go home.
“other plausible explanations”
You keep failing to use the word “scientific”.
“refuse to even let the other side be heard”
Riiiiight. They can’t publish books, articles, blogs. And their movie was completely suppressed before 500,000 true believers saw it this last weekend. But there’s no science there. So scientists point and laugh at the ridiculous.
One-in-six, I see you’ve been busily defending your faith over here as well!
When one reads all the comments, it’s fairly obvious which comments reflect actual science. MIn, some of your comments are article-worthy, I hate to see them wasted here in the comment section. I also find it incredibly sad that the truth can be so easily dismissed as nonsense, when the evidence to support it is so well-rounded in the areas of history, science and archaeological discoveries.
AG above said that the government and church actually ostracized scientists who said the earth was round–I just have to add that the evidence of it being round came about through scripture. Christopher Columbus was actually inspired by Isaiah 40:22 to sail around the world. He disregarded what science believed (that the earth was flat) and went on scripture’s reference to the “circle of earth”…and he found it to be true.
We’ve recently gotten into watching Bob Cornuke’s investigative searches for Noah’s Ark, the Ark of the Covenant and Mount Sinai. Very awe-inspiring, especially his DVD on Mount Sinai. There could be no doubt that the Biblical accounts of the miracles on Mount Sinai actually happened after seeing his documentations and pictures of the blackened top of this mountain, the 12 stone pillars and altar for burnt offerings (mentioned in Exodus 24:4-5), the altar to the golden calf, Elijah’s cave, and most impressive, the monolith Moses struck which spewed water enough to quench the thirst of millions in the Saudi desert…There are water grooves ripping UPward in the massive split-down-the-middle 4-story rock, which was obviously ripped apart from the bottom up as if a geyser burst forth. The granite rocks were worn smooth below the split, and evidence of water-flow running down the desert landscape and the basin like area which must have held the river of water. Amazing for that part of the country which normally gets 1/2 inch of rain every ten years! Exodus 17:6 is the account of God having Moses strike the rock for water…and Psalm 78:15-16 says, “He split the rocks in the wilderness And gave them abundant drink like the ocean depths.
He brought forth streams also from the rock And caused waters to run down like rivers.”
Anyhow, just wanted to drop a line and say I’m hoping to see Expelled. Glad someone is trying to get the truth out there…and I’m off to check that link to see if it’s playing in a theater near us!
Marys last blog post..Healing Promises Blog Tour
Time to pop in and add a couple of cents worth…
MIn, you said;
Yes, they should not have used deception when making their documentary, but is their premise wrong? And if there isn’t any truth to it, why not just laugh it off?
It goes deeper than just deception about interviews… the entire premise is wrong in that the people featured as having been “discriminated against” lost their jobs/were denied tenure because of factors other than their beliefs. Laughing it off would be nice, except that there’s a whole segment of the US population prepared to accept the claims in the film as gospel without any fact checking.
Moving on…
Seems to me that Evolution is more a theory in progress (as it changes constantly) than something concrete.
All theories are “in progress” as each new little bit of data turns up. It’s a never-ending process.
One could say that the bugs are getting stronger, because they’re resisting antibiotics. Or they could also say that we have weaker bugs, because they’ve lost information that allowed them to be effected by it.
I’m going to start by assuming that this version of the argument comes from the AiG resistance article. Correct me if I’m wrong. The problem with the article is that it’s horridly guilty of a sin of omission in that not all antibiotics act in the same manner and not all resistance is due to a mutation in whatever that substance is supposed to act upon. One huge example is where some bugs produce enzymes to actively digest the antibiotic in question. This is not a loss of information by any measure I can see.
I could spend weeks discussing the structure and function of many antibiotics and the processes on which they act (and I will, if need be), but for now I’d prefer you take it from a guy involved in antibiotic resistance and persistence research that the AiG article is missing a couple big somethings.
You date the rock layers by what’s in them, and then use the date of the rock layers to date what’s in them. That’s absurd and totally irrational.
It certainly would be, if that’s how it really worked. Thankfully it isn’t…
Indeed, you have not even tried to explain why their are fossil records for underwater life on the top of mountains
Please. Modern mountain ranges weren’t always there in the same form given our current understanding of the geologic processes on earth. Any mountain range on the border of two plates was likely part of the ocean floor at some point.
If you’re so concerned about teaching children nonsense in the classroom, how do you feel about the peppered moths in England, or Haeckel’s embryos, or the Piltdown man.
True, Haeckel’s drawings are still in some books. However, his sin was claiming a developing organism traces its evolutionary history, which was totally wrong. Saying that many organisms look fairly similar to each other at a certain stage in development is not wrong (we go by photographs now… not drawings). No book that I’ve ever seen from the last couple decades teaches that Haeckel’s recapitulation hypothesis is true.
And what about the peppered moths? And Piltdown? Exposed as a fraud by scientists… not some creationist group.
Lastly, what do you make of the fact that evolution keeps changing. First its uniformitarianism, then it’s catastrophe theory.
Neither of which have anything to do with the theory of evolution… those are geology.
And what about the whole generation of students that believe that the dinosaurs are the source of oil!
Plant matter… not dinosaurs.
Methinks you doth protest too much, for all downright garbage you and those that ascribe to your belief have foisted upon the American children in their schools in the name of trying to prove what science cannot– that there is no God, that He didn’t create, etc.
None of it has anything whatsoever to do with proving or disproving a god. It doesn’t even enter the discussion. Sorry.
And while you’re at it, start trying to explain why the engineering level of the early Egyptians and Aztecs is of the caliber that cannot be reproduced today. Then go and explain why almost every people group from the aborigines to the Native Americans to the Europeans has a flood story that correlates with the Biblical one.
Need a cite for the first claim. As for the second, most of those flood stories are only similar in that there was a flood and some people survived to repopulate. The details differ quite a bit. As for why there are so many, before irrigation it was often necessary to live near water. Guess what? Floods happen… a lot. A recurring event or important substance has a way of insinuating itself into cultural identity (think salt, for instance)…
Enough for now…
P.S. For the Columbus arguments, people who took the time to observe the evidence knew the earth was round long before the Bible… they observed lunar eclipses to figure out the round shape, and sailors noted masts appearing before hulls on the horizon. Navigation during Columbus’ time relied on a spherical earth and star charts.
Columbus’ disagreement with others of his day, contrary to popular belief, was not the round/flat thing. It was over the actual size of the earth (he thought it was considerably smaller than it was). A fairly accurate circumference for the earth was figured out in the 2nd century BCE by a Greek man.
AG, I promised Mandi that I’d be nice, so I hope you’ll forgive my skepticism toward your claiming to have examined both evolution and creationism and concluding that creation seems more plausible. You have to understand I’ve been around this debate for a long time, and every time I’ve seen a creationist make this statement - and I do mean every time - it’s usually followed by total misconceptions as to what evolution really is about or says… or outright distortions (not always intentional… usually just repeated from a creationist source that gets it totally wrong). If you care to respond, I’d like to get a feel for your understanding of evolution as we know it.
IAMBs last blog post..Score One for the Good Guys
IAMB, thanks for being nice.
And you ask a very valid question. Even as a Creationist, other Creationists sometimes bug me because they don’t know what they’re talking about. I’ll admit, I am naturally inclined to be a parrot, so I try hard to work against that and not just parrot anything I hear. I try to look at varying viewpoints. While I’m not good at coming up with ideas on my own, I can determine which idea I think is best. (I hope all that made sense - I think I even confused myself.)
My understanding of evolution:
The word “evolve” simply means “to change.” Biological evolution refers to changes made in the genetic code throughout generations, which yields new traits, behaviors, species, etc.
There are two types of evolution: Macroevolution is any change which results in a new species. Microevolution is any change kept within an existing species.
I don’t have a problem with microevolution. In my brain, this is synonymous with the word adaptation. A species can adapt to its environment via natural selection (those organisms best suited for an environment reproducing at a higher rate than those less suited) and can, over generations, retain mostly those traits which aid that species in survival, while losing mostly those traits which don’t.
The reasons I have a problem with macroevolution:
1) Natural selection can favor beneficial traits only if they are pre-existing. Natural selection cannot introduce new genetic information. If you breed a black cat with a white cat, even if you do it for generations, you will not end up with a marmalade cat unless one of its ancestors had a recessive marmalade gene. Unless you consider mutation.
2) Mutation could, theoretically, produce new genetic information. However every mutation recorded is not only not beneficial, but harmful. For instance high cholesterol, cystic fibrosis, cancer, sickle cell anemia, and over four thousand other diseases are results of genetic mutation. The combination of different types of organisms breeding could, theoretically, produce a new species.
3) Except that viable offspring can only be produced between members of the same species. Members of different species and the same genus can reproduce, but their offspring is sterile. Members of different genera cannot reproduce.
I don’t see a way new genetic information can occur. In my understanding, this undermines every principle Darwinistic evolution stands on. Genetic codes can’t just be rearranged for a new species to occur. There must, somehow, be an introduction of new genetic information.
AGs last blog post..Shout to the Lord
“Even as a Creationist, other Creationists sometimes bug me because they don’t know what they’re talking about.”
Do you own a mirror?
Apparently, lizards evolved into a new species in about 30 generations:
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyn.....lizard.php
Do you own a mirror?
Onein6, grow up.
As far as the lizards, that’s cool that they can microevolve like that. But they could already eat and digest plants - they just didn’t do it as often. Are they the same species? Then it’s not macroevolution.
AGs last blog post..Shout to the Lord
They’re still the same species, technically, but have evolved completely new structures in the gut for handling plant matter that aren’t present at all in the ancestral population. That’s a big deal.
AG, you’re basically right in the idea of evolution, however a never-ending argument can be had over the micro/macro thing and whether it really exists at all. Strictly speaking, they are the same thing in that they rely on the same mechanisms and it’s really a matter of scope. Another issue is that the “species barrier” isn’t really a concrete thing at all, so it’s very difficult to tell at which point micro becomes macro. Especially difficult is the fact that we’re talking a considerable amount of time in many cases, so a person looking at either end of the scale will see vast differences whereas small changes from generation to generation aren’t as easily noticed. Think of it sort of like looking at a baby picture and then a graduation photo without having all of the years in-between (or how you don’t seem to notice a puppy getting bigger every day, but it’s plainly obvious if you have mom and dad dog sit while you leave town for a couple weeks).
As for your issues:
1) You pretty much covered it: mutations as a source of novel traits. Another consideration is co-option of existing structures into something new (like building a bridge and then removing the supports once all the parts are in place). The original functioning structures, if useful, will hang around as well as the new structure that does something different. If the code for the “new” structure happens to end up on a mobile bit of genetic material (such as a plasmid) it can hop over into something else, insert itself and continue chugging happily along as if it always existed. This becomes an interesting thing when working with bacteria when plasmids jump into organisms that are less closely related than you and a cactus.
2) The problem here is that not every mutation is harmful (you’re looking at a few well-known examples, but not nearly the whole scope). Most are actually completely silent in that they don’t happen in a highly conserved portion of the genome. Others are helpful or harmful depending entirely on the context. The HbS mutation you mentioned, which causes sickle cell, is only bad if one possesses two copies of the mutated gene. With one copy, malaria resistance is conferred without side-effects that even remotely compare to malaria. Of course, this is only useful in an area where malaria is prevalent. On the same note, a more recent mutation (HbC) confers resistance with two copies with only a very mild anemia as a product while a single copy does nothing. As you can imagine, it’s highly selected for in malaria-prone areas.
A mutation I mentioned earlier in passing adds a nifty little enzyme called beta lactamase which actively breaks the beta lactam (penicillin is one) family of antibiotics and enables the bacteria who have it to survive quite well. I’d call that one beneficial. These enzymes trace back to a mutation in cell wall synthesis enzymes known as D-Alanine D-Alanine peptidases and the conversion only takes a single mutation. As long as the cell still has the regular enzymes as well, you’ve added a new function without losing anything. Anyway, the list of beneficial mutations is a long one, especially in bacteria (I’m of the mind that very little is actually interesting when you’re looking at something bigger than a few micrometers). In fact, I have a mutant strain of one bug hanging around the lab that can handle four to five thousand times the lethal radiation dose for a human… very useful for life under certain conditions.
Another issue is that beneficial mutations in something like a human - the kind readily noticed, at least - carry an “ick factor” for our vain species, so they’re often seen as a bad thing. Imagine, for instance, the added benefit of an extra thumb… then try to imagine how many parents who had the resources available would actually let their offspring grow up without having it surgically removed. Hopefully that made a little sense at least.
3) You’re still laboring under the impression that the species barrier is actually a concrete line. In many cases, it just ain’t so.
Hopefully I’ve cleared a few things up just a little… sorry the comment grew to novella length. Unfortunately, very few interesting subjects can be chopped into useful small bites while still retaining the all-important accuracy.
IAMBs last blog post..Rolling Out the Welcome Mat
@IAMB: Pardon me, I’m a computer scientist by trade so whereas I can understand logical concepts, my field is definitely not microbiology. Probably my worst class in high school.
That being the case, can you explain why this is wrong?
And here’s my big problem. I don’t have a problem with someone using Evolution to explain what they see around them– I really don’t. I don’t think they’re right, but I don’t have a problem with them seeing it that way.
I have a problem when they (a) decide that it’s unquestionable truth, even when I read multiple places with what I consider plausible explanations for the arguments that are brought up and (b) when people that I know have degrees, have spent the time and training, and are definitely brighter than I in these fields are told that they have nothing to add or nothing to offer or lose their jobs (or are– however unreasonably– concerned that they will lose their jobs or positions) because they may have a different worldview on this topic.
I understand the whole “the theory is alive and adjusts” argument as a way to justify changing whole concepts of TENS (Theory of Evolution through Natural Selection). I also understand Creationists that look at the evidence and explain it through their worldview.
What I cannot fathom, and perhaps you can help, is why the assertion that “it’s the same evidence, just different interpretations” does not apply, and why I should switch my position and believe your worldview.
I’m not saying this to be antagonistic. I know that you are brighter than I in the area of this science, so humor me. Explain for this logical human being why I should accept your worldview.
Essentially my issue with that particular article is that it’s a few years out of date. They’re essentially saying that we know it’s a flexible enzyme but no one has explained how it came into being in the first place. As of 2004, that’s out-of-date, since we now have a pretty concrete idea of the how, as well as knowing how fast it can happen (a single generation can be measured in minutes in many bacteria if you get them in the right growth phase). Scroll through my last reply to AG for slightly more detail as to the how and how fast.
More later…
IAMBs last blog post..Rolling Out the Welcome Mat
@IAMB: Actually, I read your whole comment to AG. It was very well written.
My main issue boils down to this… Given any arbitrary set of evidence labeled A, B, and C if methods X and Y have different theories and both can take into account and give an explanation for A, B, and C, then what makes X better than Y?
Let’s say that D and E are something that was previous unknown, and may invalidate part of X and Y respectively. If theory X changes to account for D and theory Y adapts to account for E, does that make either theory invalid?
Back into concrete terms. Evolution continues to grow in its understand and adapt (how very natural selection of it) to evidence as it comes. It still seeks, at its foundation, to explain evidence– and extrapolate it historically. The constant is that Evolution must explain observations based on changes over time and the primary use of natural selection/mutation. Anything else, I would believe, would not be Evolution.
However, Creation operates in much the same way. It seeks to understand and adapt to evidence as it comes. There are many things that its source and foundation does not explain, because it’s outside of the purpose of the Bible. The constant is that Creation must explain observations based on the concept that there is a God and that He was Creator. Anything else would not be Creation.
Each of us believe that our worldview is correct, each of the worldviews adapt to the evidence, and yet I don’t believe that Evolution will ever be invalidated until Jesus appears again, or that Creation will be invalidated until the sun goes SuperNova.
Or is this too simplistic?
IAMB, may I say your rational, logical approach to this debate is so refreshing after some of the comments I’ve read on this page. Thank you for that!
I’m having a spring cleaning day at home, so I can’t address everything I’d like to. I’ll have to come back to it another day.
Have a great, spring day!
AGs last blog post..Shout to the Lord
“each of the worldviews adapt to the evidence”
Riiight. But one is science and one is not. One assumes that the supernatural is not required and one assumes that the supernatural is required. So you can see how a “scientist”, by definition, is going to prefer a scientific explanation.
Someone can explain anything by saying “God did it”, but that’s not science. So fortunately, the courts have prevented that view from being taught in public school classrooms. And scientists have pretty much prevented it from being taught in university classrooms and from being published in peer-reviewed journals.
Back to the top:
“he presents the evidence of intelligent design we see in the world”
But actually he doesn’t even try. And the word “scientific” does not appear in that claim.
“exposes the censorship efforts of leading evolutionists”
As I said above, creationists publish books, articles, blogs, and 500,000 people have seen their movie. That’s not censorship! But they can’t publish nonsense in peer-reviewed scientific journals. Is that censorship?
So the religious war against science continues. And one of the primary “weapons” in this war is: Evolution can’t explain THIS, therefore creationism is true. But that’s a silly argument and evolution really can explain THAT. Unfortunately, even plant and animal genes are somewhat related and a billion years is a long time, so evolution can explain almost anything that is halfway reasonable.
@onein6billion: Sometimes following your comments is strange. You attempt to rebut my argument, but then turn around and make it for me.
This is close to true. Science operates on a system that it can reliably test. Science cannot test the supernatural. This, however, does not stop Creationists from being Scientists. They can still create hypothesis and test them.
Again, I wish there was a formal term for this tactic (and there probably is, if I spent the time to look), but a common tactic in Evolutionist arguments that I’ve read is this change in focus tactic. First we’re looking at “How the Earth began” and then we’re looking at “How the Earth operates”. You have yet to explain why a person who believes something different about the first would have problems with the second.
Again, Science has yet to tell me how something comes from nothing, how life truly began, and why we have a moral code. Science is great for telling me how something operates, and the specific laws that govern what is going on today, but cannot guarantee that what is happening today will continue to operate the same way tomorrow.
And then you go off and make my argument for me.
Perfect. I have no problem with evolution explaining evidence. My problem is when you say that it’s the only way to explain the evidence, and every other way is wrong.
Oh, and by the way, It’s just as silly of an argument if you switch evolution and creation in the above quoted section.
IAMB, may I say your rational, logical approach to this debate is so refreshing after some of the comments I’ve read on this page. Thank you for that!
I’m having a spring cleaning day at home, so I can’t address everything I’d like to. I’ll have to come back to it another day.
Normally my vitriol dispenser operates at a much higher frequency, however I think primarily venting on usenet over the last while has toned down my blogosphere style a bit. Plus I promised Mandi I’d be nice, and I’ll hold to that since she’s someone I greatly respect.
I also respect that this is MIn’s space, so whether I agree with him or not, which I obviously don’t, it does me no good to be a complete ass while trying to make any points. My comment threads have an open everything policy when it comes to tone and language, but this is not my house and I’d be a poor guest to act otherwise. Besides, it’s much more productive to stay civil in a case like this.
Enjoy the cleaning, and don’t hurry too much on my account. I’m pretty patient most of the time when it comes to responses (I’d be a hypocrite to expect everything on my terms in a discussion when sometimes it takes me a while to get back to people).
Cheers
IAMBs last blog post..Rolling Out the Welcome Mat
“They can still create hypothesis and test them.”
Every “hypothesis” that a creationist has tried to make that is actually “testable” has been falsified. For example, that there was in fact a “worldwide flood” is a hypothesis and it is false.
“I read multiple places with what I consider plausible explanations”
There you go again - reading creationist nonsense.
“this change in focus tactic. First we’re looking at “How the Earth began””
If we are actually discussing evolution, “how the Earth began” is irrelevant. So it is you who is trying to change the focus.
““it’s the same evidence, just different interpretations””
Yes, and for the tenth time, one is scientific and one is religious. You can choose the religious explanation, but it is not fair to complain that a “scientist” who rejects the scientific explanation is not rejecting his basis for employment.
“Again, Science has yet to tell me how something comes from nothing, how life truly began…”
The subject under discussion is evolution and you continue to try to change the subject.
“why we have a moral code”
It is evolutionarily advantageous. Even if it’s the Islamic moral code. When everyone conforms and cooperates, … When they have religious conflicts, …
“cannot guarantee that what is happening today will continue to operate the same way tomorrow.”
Silly, silly, silly. If you wish to place a wager that the fundamental operation of the universe (science) is going to change by the end of next year, I accept.
“it’s the only way to explain the evidence”
I say it’s the only SCIENTIFIC way to explain the evidence. If you wish to reject science, that’s fine with me. But …