Anyone planning on going to see Expelled starring Ben Stein

[genie]

So going back to my original reason for posting in this thread. Why cannot both or all theories of origins be discussed in a classroom? That is really my bottomline point related to the OP on Ben Stein's movie. Not coercing anyone to believe one theory over another but at least allow room for debate of all, as they are all faith based.

And you are right, I cannot prove to you that God exists just as you cannot prove to me that He does not. Not seeing is not adequate. I cannot see many things I rely on every day: air, thought, reason, etc.

 

Okay, a few points here:

 

1. The OP simply asked if anyone was going to go see it. It has morphed into something quite different, but, no, that wasn't the bottom-line point for the OP. (Not saying she would disagree, just that it wasn't her point when she started the thread.)

 

2. I don't believe schools should teach creation any more than they should teach in a science class that lightning comes from Thor, or that the Earth is the center of the universe. I don't believe schools should teach creation because at various points in in time, both of those aforementioned ideas appeared to require no more faith than any scientific explanation. An average ordinary person living in the times before concrete scientific proof would have been asking scientists the same questions you are asking me, and the scientists' answers would have seemed as ridiculous to them as mine may seem to you. "So what you are saying is that little thingies in the clouds jump to the ground and it makes a pretty light and a big boom? I don't see how that takes less faith than just believing Thor throws it when he's angry. I mean, you can't prove what you said. Just because I don't see Thor doesn't mean he isn't there. I can feel his presence every time there is a thunderstorm. I think you should be teaching about Thor in science classes alongside your lightning 'theory' and let it be debated." The way creationists feel about their theory right now is the same way proponents of every other myth must have felt in the years preceding the complete dissolution of their myth by science.

 

Private schools can teach whatever they like. Parents can teach whatever they like. I have no problem with public schools teaching creation myths in a history or literature or debate class, but they have no place in science classes.

 

3. Proponents of creation really like to try to put evolution and creation on the same level. As you put it, "they are all faith based." I understand your desire to do that, because, well, it's really all that's left in the bag of tricks. However, one requires a belief in a mystical being, one does not. Science has consistently explained away religious myths, proving them false. Religion has never once proved science false. So they are not exactly on the same level, you see?

 

4. It's a logical fallacy, as I'm sure you know, to assert that something (in this case God) must be true because you can't prove it is false. The burden of proof of anything, including the existence of God, as I'm sure you know, rests with the individual making the claim. Simple rules of logic, but thanks for trying. :)

[Julie in WA]

We'd like to see it, but will probably wait until it's out on DVD.

 

Julie :001_smile:

[Phred]

Ok. First of all I am not referring at all to microevolution or adaptation, only macroevolution (i.e. one species turning into another). Where is the evidence that this has ever happened or the transitional fossils in the fossil record? Or why don't we see any living thing in "transition" right now? Or documented in the past 6-10,000 years of semi-well recorded history?

That list I printed out? It is a list of one species turning into another. Evolution is, by definition, a process that takes place over vast periods of time. If we suddenly saw a dog giving birth to a non-dog then evolution would be proven wrong. What you're asking for is a strawman created by creationists who don't understand evolution and passed onto folks like yourself. Once a population splits into the original population and the new population (speciation) then they can't help but become more and more different. Normally you would count on interbreeding to pass any changes back into the population as a whole. But once they can't interbreed they will continue to become more different. Speciation is the key to this and we've observed this numerous times. We've even observed what we call "ring species" where an environmental obstacle like a mountain gets in the way and a species spreads out around it. Each population that is a little bit different can interbreed with the group behind it but when the ring closes the new group can't interbreed with the original population.

 

The answer to your question is that every species that doesn't go extinct is a transitional species.

 

Another one, the obvious first cause: where did the universe that you described as a "singularity" (I get the extremely dense thing...no need to go there again) come from? Was it eternal as I would say God is? I am really trying to understand what evolutionists believe how it all got started as I have never read an answer that did not require some amount of faith.

Now, this has nothing to do with evolution. (disclaimer overwith) Here's It's too far over my head to explain properly. The best answer is that I don't know and we don't know... yet.

 

Thank you for being much sweeter this time.:D

Awww... I've always been sweet. You just had to have faith. :001_huh:

[Phred]

This is just a brief list of the many things going on in this field.

 

http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/4039/

http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/3511/

http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/3491

Technical Journal: http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/3873/98

http://www.creationresearch.org/vacrc.html

http://www.icr.org/research/

http://www.icr.org/research/index/researchp_papers/

Hi Kate... the first three are not research at all just testimony from some scientists who happen to be creationists. The next two are not research. The next two are from ICR who hold their scientists to a pledge that they cannot publish anything that contradicts scripture. Exactly the kind of censorship we're all complaining about here, just in reverse. Also none of these papers have been through a peer-review process, just published on the site. I personally can refute most of the ones listed in the last link.

 

This isn't science, it's apologetics.

 

You see... it's why you don't spend time refuting every idea that comes along, or granting them a place at the table. If you do you spend every waking moment doing so. Science is about evidence and studying that evidence then drawing conclusions from that evidence. If you don't have evidence then you're philosophy or religion and you don't get to be in a science classroom. What Ben Stein and others are insisting is that creationism should be granted a special dispensation. 'tain't right.

[inquirer]

recommendation.

 

I would encourage everyone to read or at least look into Dr. Francis S. Collins' book the Language of God. Here is a well-respected scientist (he headed up the US Human Genome Project) and Christian who not only movingly recounts his story of belief, but also makes some extremely valid points about this very issue.

 

I would quote him, but I listened to his book in the car, and haven't purchased a hard copy yet. Not everyone will like his points or agree with him, but i think we would all be able to respect his manner and judgement.

[angela in ohio]

We would like to see it, but there is a rumor around town that there has been pressure for our theater not to show it (ironic, LOL.) When called, they say they don't know when/if it will be shown, even though it is listed on the site. :001_huh: We may have to drive out of our area to a different sort of area where they will show it. :001_smile:

[PineFarmMom]

We would like to see it, but there is a rumor around town that there has been pressure for our theater not to show it (ironic, LOL.) When called, they say they don't know when/if it will be shown, even though it is listed on the site. :001_huh: We may have to drive out of our area to a different sort of area where they will show it. :001_smile:

 

That doesn't surprise me. It's okay to show drivel like Fahrenheit 911 but heaven forbid they put something like this in. It makes me laugh.

 

Oh, yeah...I think this is my 49th post!! I only have one more until I can sell stuff. It's a monumental moment for me...almost! :)

 

Teresa

[genie]

We would like to see it, but there is a rumor around town that there has been pressure for our theater not to show it (ironic, LOL.)

 

Not as ironic as this. :)

[nmoira]

 

You see... it's why you don't spend time refuting every idea that comes along, or granting them a place at the table. If you do you spend every waking moment doing so. Science is about evidence and studying that evidence then drawing conclusions from that evidence. If you don't have evidence then you're philosophy or religion and you don't get to be in a science classroom. What Ben Stein and others are insisting is that creationism should be granted a special dispensation. 'tain't right.

If ID gets in, so should astrology. :)

[Guest Lorna]

Again this is your belief. You can't debate belief, no way to look at it logically. How do we know there are not numerous universes, realities, levels of existence? Our understanding of the natural world as multiplied at an amazing speed over these last 100 years, and yet I think we are no closer to finding whomever or whatever created this Universe. Yet, sadly folks will fight, kill, and die over their "belief" in whose story is right.

 

:iagree:

 

It surprises me too that belief is something that people want to prove or disprove and argue.

The Universe is a wonderful place. Our knowledge is always going to be limited by the extent of our experiences and the capacity of our brains to understand. We can scratch around for evidence and search and discover but we can never know it all.

Scientists can only present facts and should never be swayed by their beliefs (religious or secular). We look to scientists for the full factual picture, free of bias and emotion. If scientists have faith then they will not be frightened about what they discover and they certainly should not be too frightened to look. This requires an open mind on the part of the religious and the atheist (yes, you too Mr Dawkins!).

These are the reasons I believe that religion (and also belief in no God) should have no place in the study of science. Ethics has a place in the practicalities and what to do with science, but it has no place in the canon of science.

[Phred]

We would like to see it, but there is a rumor around town that there has been pressure for our theater not to show it (ironic, LOL.) When called, they say they don't know when/if it will be shown, even though it is listed on the site. :001_huh: We may have to drive out of our area to a different sort of area where they will show it. :001_smile:

Yet, there is no uproar when theaters refuse to show movies that mention evolution.

 

 

People who follow trends at commercial and institutional Imax theaters say that in recent years, religious controversy has adversely affected the distribution of a number of films, including "Cosmic Voyage," which depicts the universe in dimensions running from the scale of subatomic particles to clusters of galaxies; "Galápagos," about the islands where Darwin theorized about evolution; and "Volcanoes of the Deep Sea," an underwater epic about the bizarre creatures that flourish in the hot, sulfurous emanations from vents in the ocean floor.

 

"Volcanoes," released in 2003 and sponsored in part by the National Science Foundation and Rutgers University, has been turned down at about a dozen science centers, mostly in the South, said Dr. Richard Lutz, the Rutgers oceanographer who was chief scientist for the film. He said theater officials rejected the film because of its brief references to evolution, in particular to the possibility that life on Earth originated at the undersea vents.

Entire article here.

[freethinkermom]

Not as ironic as this. :)

 

That is funny. I will have to go check out Dawkins forum and see if he posted a review.

 

Of course, in my town they are not very likely to play it at the theater either. This is a very conservative, very christian area, but it is also ant-intellectual. They never show any documentaries or anything that might require more than two brain cells unless it is a blockbuster type film.

[genie]

That is funny. I will have to go check out Dawkins forum and see if he posted a review.

 

 

Yeah, he did. I skimmed over it a time or two, but have been meaning to go back and read it more thoroughly.

[Soph the vet]

That list I printed out? It is a list of one species turning into another. Evolution is, by definition, a process that takes place over vast periods of time. If we suddenly saw a dog giving birth to a non-dog then evolution would be proven wrong. What you're asking for is a strawman created by creationists who don't understand evolution and passed onto folks like yourself. Once a population splits into the original population and the new population (speciation) then they can't help but become more and more different. Normally you would count on interbreeding to pass any changes back into the population as a whole. But once they can't interbreed they will continue to become more different. Speciation is the key to this and we've observed this numerous times.

I actually don't have a problem with anything you are saying here. I did read the article on wolves/dogs (as a veterinarian I happen to see hybrids quite frequently, not to mention the myriad of breeds out there). But how does speciation, the splitting of genus into more and more species variation (as I read it) account for the classic single-celled organism becomes a fish becomes an amphibian becomes a land mammal becomes a primate becomes a person? Where is the evidence for new information being added? Not genetic manipulation/hybridization as some of the articles you referenced, but new information added to the DNA?

 

Even Darwin struggled with this and I'll quote "As by this theory, innumerable transitional forms must have existed, why do we not find them embedded in the crust of the earth? Why is all nature not in confusion instead of being as we see them, well-defined species? Geological research does not yield the infinitely many fine gradations between past and present species required by the theory; and this is the most obvious of the many objections which may be argued against it. The explanation lies, however, in the extreme imperfection of the geologic record." (Origin of Species, p. 49). But modern geology, unavailable to Darwin, has uncovered billions of fossils at this point, hasn't it?

 

A little more recently in history respected evolutionist Dr. Colin Patterson (the then director of the British Museum of Natural History) was quoted in a letter (in an interview by Luther Sunderland) as responding when asked about the lack of illustration of transitional fossils in Patterson's book on evolution: "I fully agree with your comments on the lack of direct illustration of evolutionary transitions in my book. If I knew of any, fossils or living, I certainly would have included it...I will lay it on the line. There is not one such fossil for which one might make a watertight argument." This was a man who had seven million fossils in his museum at the time.

 

I'll just give you one more quote from another vertebrate fossil expert, Nils Eldridge "No wonder paleontologists shied away from evolution for so long. It never seems to happen. Assiduous collecting up cliff faces yield zigzags, minor oscillations, and the very occasional slight accumulation of change - over millions of years, at a rate too slow to account for all the prodigious change that has occurred in evolutionary history. When we do see the introduction of evolutionary novelty, it usually shows up with a bang, and often with no firm evidence that the fossils did not evolve elsewhere! Evolution cannot forever be going on somewhere else. Yet that's how the fossil record has struck many a forlorn paleontologist looking to learn something about evolution." (Reinventing Darwin: The Great Debate at the High Table of Evolutionary Theory, 1995, p. 95).

 

I appreciate all the clarification you have provided and if I did not have other responsibilities I would love to discuss this further. Maybe my question is not even so much why ID cannot be taught in schools, but how about allowing evidence that refutes evolution (maybe that addresses Genie's question) I mean at least allowing students the knowledge of a lack of transitional fossils in the fossil record, the contradiction of the law of biogenesis with abiogenesis, the contradiction of simple to more complex with the second law of thermodynamics, etc. etc. And you and I can go round and round on this which I really do not want to do, we are coming from different worldviews, different presuppositions. It has been helpful though.

[Kate CA]

Hi Phred,

 

The first link I sent you was written by a man who is a involved with:

 

"His current research includes work on carbon-14 dating methods. He is author of the book Scientific Theology, which deals with a number of science–Bible areas, including dating methodology and biblical chronology."

 

The second is a man that is:

 

"Senior Research Scientist with the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation (CSIRO), Division of Forestry and Forest Products, in Australia. (...) At CSIRO, Dr Downes researches climatic and environmental effects on wood formation."

 

I was also not necessarily linking you to the research itself, (and I should have probably specified that) but offering the links as information on the fact that research is going on. Several of the men, as I listed above, are involved in ongoing research. The Technical Journal I linked to does print some of it. I was sharing that these men do research and that there is research being done.

 

I was also honest enough to share, in other conversations ongoing in this thread, that they are going to come from a particular presupposition as I believe every honest scientist does. There is really no such thing as "unbiased" research as we are all biased in some way. At least that is my opinion. I think this is played out as I stated in another conversation by the level of discrimination creation scientists experience in the main stream scientific community. I am not trying to convince you of my position, just sharing information since you stated, "So why is there no creation science being performed by groups devoted to creation science?"

 

I am not "deep" within in this community. In fact I am quite the layperson here. :) If you really and truly wanted some honest-to-goodness specific research information, you could very easily contact any of those organizations and request it from them. I don't know that it would be what you are looking for, but at least they would be honest enough to tell you that their presuppostion is that God was right about Himself. :)

[Phred]

I actually don't have a problem with anything you are saying here. I did read the article on wolves/dogs (as a veterinarian I happen to see hybrids quite frequently, not to mention the myriad of breeds out there). But how does speciation, the splitting of genus into more and more species variation (as I read it) account for the classic single-celled organism becomes a fish becomes an amphibian becomes a land mammal becomes a primate becomes a person? Where is the evidence for new information being added? Not genetic manipulation/hybridization as some of the articles you referenced, but new information added to the DNA?

I'm not sure exactly what you want. There are only four bases so any rearrangement is just rehashing old information. Or that's what the creationists would have you believe. A, C, G and T. But for clarity let's just use English. (with thanks to HRE)A mutation can happen in one of two ways.

 

POINT MUTATIONS

 

The first type of mutation is called a point mutation. It occurs when one byte of DNA is replaced with another, so we would have:

 

The dog ate the cat who ate the rat

 

The dog ate the bat who ate the rat

 

When you translate this DNA, you'll simply replace one amino acid with another -- or maybe nothing will change at all, because we have so many codons for so few amino acids.

 

FRAMESHIFT MUTATIONS

 

A frameshift mutation occurs when the DNA is changed in such a way that the actual sentence is changed by shifting it one way or another.

 

 

Insertion

 

 

 

An insertion occurs when something is added to the DNA -- squeezed in, if you will. This can be a single nucleotide or a whole chunk of DNA:

 

 

 

The dog ate the cat who ate the rat

 

 

 

The dog ate t

y

h eca twh oat eth era t

 

 

 

That was caused by simply inserting a single base.

 

 

 

Deletion

 

 

 

A deletion is where a single base or whole bit of DNA is deleted, shifting the reading frame. In this example, I'm going to delete a larger portion:

 

 

 

The dog ate the cat who ate the rat

 

 

 

The dog ate

atw hoa tet her at

[deleted - 'the c']

 

 

 

Inversion

 

 

 

Inversions are where a chunk of the DNA is flipped around. Again, this can be anything from two bases to a whole gene:

 

 

 

The dog ate the cat who ate the rat

 

 

 

The do

t eta ohw tac eht eta g

he rat

That's how you get new information.

 

Even Darwin struggled with this and I'll quote "As by this theory, innumerable transitional forms must have existed, why do we not find them embedded in the crust of the earth? Why is all nature not in confusion instead of being as we see them, well-defined species? Geological research does not yield the infinitely many fine gradations between past and present species required by the theory; and this is the most obvious of the many objections which may be argued against it. The explanation lies, however, in the extreme imperfection of the geologic record." (Origin of Species, p. 49). But modern geology, unavailable to Darwin, has uncovered billions of fossils at this point, hasn't it?

 

A little more recently in history respected evolutionist Dr. Colin Patterson (the then director of the British Museum of Natural History) was quoted in a letter (in an interview by Luther Sunderland) as responding when asked about the lack of illustration of transitional fossils in Patterson's book on evolution: "I fully agree with your comments on the lack of direct illustration of evolutionary transitions in my book. If I knew of any, fossils or living, I certainly would have included it...I will lay it on the line. There is not one such fossil for which one might make a watertight argument." This was a man who had seven million fossils in his museum at the time.

 

I'll just give you one more quote from another vertebrate fossil expert, Nils Eldridge "No wonder paleontologists shied away from evolution for so long. It never seems to happen. Assiduous collecting up cliff faces yield zigzags, minor oscillations, and the very occasional slight accumulation of change - over millions of years, at a rate too slow to account for all the prodigious change that has occurred in evolutionary history. When we do see the introduction of evolutionary novelty, it usually shows up with a bang, and often with no firm evidence that the fossils did not evolve elsewhere! Evolution cannot forever be going on somewhere else. Yet that's how the fossil record has struck many a forlorn paleontologist looking to learn something about evolution." (Reinventing Darwin: The Great Debate at the High Table of Evolutionary Theory, 1995, p. 95).

There are many transitional fossils. The only way that the claim of their absence may be remotely justified, aside from ignoring the evidence completely, is to redefine "transitional" so to refer to a fossil so to call it a direct ancestor of one creature and a straight-line descendent of another. However, direct lineages are not required; they could not be verified even if found. What a transitional fossil is, in keeping with what the theory of evolution predicts, is a fossil that shows features from both an older and more recent organism. I don't think I can be more clear. What these quotes represent is creationists asking for things that don't exist, never did exist and never could exist. Then the answers, taken out of context, of people agreeing that they don't exist.

 

Further, transitional fossils may coexist with gaps. We do not expect to find finely detailed sequences of fossils lasting for millions of years.

 

I appreciate all the clarification you have provided and if I did not have other responsibilities I would love to discuss this further. Maybe my question is not even so much why ID cannot be taught in schools, but how about allowing evidence that refutes evolution (maybe that addresses Genie's question) I mean at least allowing students the knowledge of a lack of transitional fossils in the fossil record, the contradiction of the law of biogenesis with abiogenesis, the contradiction of simple to more complex with the second law of thermodynamics, etc. etc. And you and I can go round and round on this which I really do not want to do, we are coming from different worldviews, different presuppositions. It has been helpful though.

ID can't be taught in schools because it's not science. If you'd like it to be taught in a comparative religions class then that's fine. If you'd like to offer evidence that refutes evolution then publish the papers and let the scientists fight it out. You don't do that in schools.

 

And the simple to complex with the second law of thermodynamics is refuted when you consider that it only applies to a closed system. If only we had a large ball of energy pouring same into the earth each and every day. :D

 

See, that's the thing about science. Your belief doesn't matter. No matter what you've been told.

[Storm Bay]

2. I don't believe schools should teach creation any more than they should teach in a science class that lightning comes from Thor, or that the Earth is the center of the universe. I don't believe schools should teach creation because at various points in in time, both of those aforementioned ideas appeared to require no more faith than any scientific explanation.

 

4. It's a logical fallacy, as I'm sure you know, to assert that something (in this case God) must be true because you can't prove it is false. The burden of proof of anything, including the existence of God, as I'm sure you know, rests with the individual making the claim. Simple rules of logic, but thanks for trying. :)

 

How about more than one scientific explanation? How about showing how some scientist believe in the cataclysmic theory (with lots of data) as opposed to the uniformitarian theory? How about teaching a bit of history to show that ideas change? How about demonstrating the fact that different theories can equally predict the same results? How about schools teaching kids to THINK.

 

As for rules of logic, not everyone who disagrees with evolution disagrees due to faith. As another poster mentioned, no one us unbiased and everyone starts with assumptions. As I mentioned before, I was an AGNOSTIC who found too many illogical jumps in the theory of evolution and too many broad assumptions for me to think it strong enough to be a paradigm theory. And I WANTED to believe in evolution. Even with what I've read here, I still don't see enough to support macroevolution. I do think some of these discoveries exciting and interesting, though, such as the one about the fish.

[pixelroper]

Not as ironic as this. :)

 

a double irony :lol: the expelled expelling & who paid to see it

[genie]

How about more than one scientific explanation? How about showing how some scientist believe in the cataclysmic theory (with lots of data) as opposed to the uniformitarian theory?

 

Both of these theories deal with formation of life on this planet, am I right? (I Googled them but didn't get very good hits.) I tried to be very careful in all of my posts to avoid discussing evolution and to stick to the Big Bang theory, because my background is in physics, not biology. The only time I remotely debated any issue on evolution was trying to explain why I thought evolution required less faith than creation. That's more of a philosophical issue. I will openly admit to being woefully ignorant to the details of evolution or the theories of ID, and as I said, I tried to sit back and allow those far more knowledgeable to go at it.

 

I think the thread that Eliana posted regarding whether ID theories were science was indeed very well thought out. She very eloquently summarized what the rest of us were trying to say. Scientific theories as defined in that post are what should be in science classes.

 

How about teaching a bit of history to show that ideas change?

 

Why would you assume I would want the history of science, or history in general, to not be taught?

 

How about demonstrating the fact that different theories can equally predict the same results?

 

I'm not sure exactly what you're referring to here. But I would suppose that if both theories were (appropriately defined) scientific theories, then I would have no problem with that. If they were not, then they belong in a different class. I have never stated that any of these alternative ideas should be banned from classrooms - just certain classes, namely science.

 

How about schools teaching kids to THINK.

 

Well golly, I really hope nothing I posted implied I would want anything but that. :confused:

 

As for rules of logic, not everyone who disagrees with evolution disagrees due to faith.

 

This was a reply to what Soph had said regarding the possibility of proving that God does or does not exist, not the proof of evolution or creation. If this statement was directed at me, I'm afraid you're taking me out of context.

 

As another poster mentioned, no one us unbiased and everyone starts with assumptions. As I mentioned before, I was an AGNOSTIC who found too many illogical jumps in the theory of evolution and too many broad assumptions for me to think it strong enough to be a paradigm theory. And I WANTED to believe in evolution.

 

And I was a Christian who found the Bible to be too much of an illogical jump for me. And I wanted to believe the Bible. Yes, of course we all start with our assumptions. And if indeed there are the illogical jumps that you refer to, (and I'm not saying there aren't... remember, woefully ignorant) then eventually scientists will have to fill those gaps, right? If I'm not mistaken, they're busy right now trying to do just that.

[Soph the vet]

I'm not sure exactly what you want. There are only four bases so any rearrangement is just rehashing old information. Or that's what the creationists would have you believe. A, C, G and T. But for clarity let's just use English. (with thanks to HRE)A mutation can happen in one of two ways.

 

POINT MUTATIONS

 

The first type of mutation is called a point mutation. It occurs when one byte of DNA is replaced with another, so we would have:

 

The dog ate the cat who ate the rat

 

The dog ate the bat who ate the rat

 

When you translate this DNA, you'll simply replace one amino acid with another -- or maybe nothing will change at all, because we have so many codons for so few amino acids.

 

FRAMESHIFT MUTATIONS

 

 

 

A frameshift mutation occurs when the DNA is changed in such a way that the actual sentence is changed by shifting it one way or another.

 

Insertion

 

 

 

 

An insertion occurs when something is added to the DNA -- squeezed in, if you will. This can be a single nucleotide or a whole chunk of DNA:

 

 

 

 

The dog ate the cat who ate the rat

 

 

 

 

The dog ate t

y

h eca twh oat eth era t

 

 

 

 

That was caused by simply inserting a single base.

 

 

 

 

Deletion

 

 

 

 

A deletion is where a single base or whole bit of DNA is deleted, shifting the reading frame. In this example, I'm going to delete a larger portion:

 

 

 

 

The dog ate the cat who ate the rat

 

 

 

 

The dog ate

atw hoa tet her at

[deleted - 'the c']

 

 

 

 

Inversion

 

 

 

 

Inversions are where a chunk of the DNA is flipped around. Again, this can be anything from two bases to a whole gene:

 

 

 

 

The dog ate the cat who ate the rat

 

 

 

 

The do

t eta ohw tac eht eta g

he rat

That's how you get new information.

 

See, that's the thing about science. Your belief doesn't matter. No matter what you've been told.

 

I understand what mutations are but thanks for the biochem review (you are giving me flashbacks of vet school :glare:). I don't agree that mutations add new information. The overwhelming majority of mutations result in deleterious effects. According to your own source the occurrence of beneficial mutations resulting in some advantageous adaptation are slim.

 

I am going to leave one more quote as I think it really speaks to what is really under all this debate and was reflected in you saying "your belief doesn't matter" which actually I wholeheartedly agree with. Beliefs do not matter, science, when it has been wrong, (and any well-read scientist knows there are countless papers in peer-reviewed journals countering other papers in other peer-reviewed journals) doesn't matter, only the truth matters.

 

Richard Lewontin, Harvards genetics prof and staunch evolutionist: "Our willingness to accept scientific claims that are against common sense is the key to an understanding of the real struggle between science and the supernatural. We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs...in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior committment, a committment to materialism. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door. To appeal to an omnipotent deity is to allow that at any moment the regularities of nature may be ruptured, that miracles may happen." (Billions and Billions of Demons, 1997, p. 31)

 

Thanks for the conversation.

[Storm Bay]

 

I think the thread that Eliana posted regarding whether ID theories were science was indeed very well thought out. She very eloquently summarized what the rest of us were trying to say. Scientific theories as defined in that post are what should be in science classes.

 

Right. I don't even agree with ID theory the way I read it, but that's another topic. But I still think that only ONE main theory is taught and that is uniformitarianism. At least what I've seen.

 

Why would you assume I would want the history of science, or history in general, to not be taught?

 

Well, I don't think the history of science is WELL taught, and that's what I should have put. I didn't get a decent look at this until university/college. How often do teachers show the link between paradigm theories and prevalent philosophies? How many even know the intellectual climate that was going on the the nineteenth century that really helped open doors for Darwin? Not that I think this will be taught, of course. I think that postmodernism, uniformitarianism and evolution go together very well right now.

 

I'm not sure exactly what you're referring to here. But I would suppose that if both theories were (appropriately defined) scientific theories, then I would have no problem with that. If they were not, then they belong in a different class. I have never stated that any of these alternative ideas should be banned from classrooms - just certain classes, namely science.

 

Now we get to another thing. There are theories, appropriately defined, that are different than uniformitariansim that could go in a science class. There are evolutionists (I've met them) who believe in a cataclysmic view of the earth. I really left this behind years ago, but will be searching for good sources next year as I prepare for my dd's high school. She's going to study scientific theories and also theologies. We're also going to really examine how science is defined and why, etc.

 

This was a reply to what Soph had said regarding the possibility of proving that God does or does not exist, not the proof of evolution or creation. If this statement was directed at me, I'm afraid you're taking me out of context.

 

No, I'm guilty of choosing one post to address a number of things, mostly because you put a lot in one post. Sorry for not making this clear!

 

And I was a Christian who found the Bible to be too much of an illogical jump for me. And I wanted to believe the Bible. Yes, of course we all start with our assumptions. And if indeed there are the illogical jumps that you refer to, (and I'm not saying there aren't... remember, woefully ignorant) then eventually scientists will have to fill those gaps, right? If I'm not mistaken, they're busy right now trying to do just that.

 

Yes they are. I'm not convinced they'll find them, of course, but I know many are sure they will.

 

One thing that I would like to mention, that isn't directed at you per se, is that I question, philosophically, perhaps, just who decided that true science has to be falsifiable and when. I'm not arguing for or against that with this question, but I'd like to know. I'm wondering how closely tied in this with with the philosophies of postmodernism and authenticity. I find the tie in between the prevalent philosophy, politics and science interesting.

[Phred]

I understand what mutations are but thanks for the biochem review (you are giving me flashbacks of vet school :glare:). I don't agree that mutations add new information. The overwhelming majority of mutations result in deleterious effects. According to your own source the occurrence of beneficial mutations resulting in some advantageous adaptation are slim.

That's what natural selection adds... those with beneficial mutations breed and those with negative mutations either aren't born or don't breed.

 

I am going to leave one more quote as I think it really speaks to what is really under all this debate and was reflected in you saying "your belief doesn't matter" which actually I wholeheartedly agree with. Beliefs do not matter, science, when it has been wrong, (and any well-read scientist knows there are countless papers in peer-reviewed journals countering other papers in other peer-reviewed journals) doesn't matter, only the truth matters.

 

Richard Lewontin, Harvards genetics prof and staunch evolutionist: "Our willingness to accept scientific claims that are against common sense is the key to an understanding of the real struggle between science and the supernatural. We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs...in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior committment, a committment to materialism. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door. To appeal to an omnipotent deity is to allow that at any moment the regularities of nature may be ruptured, that miracles may happen." (Billions and Billions of Demons, 1997, p. 31)

 

Thanks for the conversation.

And all you have to do is show one miracle, one event of the supernatural that has happened and is documented. One thing we can study and determine the effects of. There is no "supernatural" because the instant it happens it becomes natural and therein lies the rub. Science can only study that which is natural. If you have something that can exceed the natural then it cannot be studied because it cannot be repeated... or documented with any certainty. The "supernatural" is forever beyond the reach of science. I would contend that such a thing does not exist. You might say otherwise. But since you believe in it... ok, that's fine. I don't. We'll never bridge the gap. Now do you see why your belief shouldn't be taught in science class?

[Phred]

How about more than one scientific explanation? How about showing how some scientist believe in the cataclysmic theory (with lots of data) as opposed to the uniformitarian theory? How about teaching a bit of history to show that ideas change? How about demonstrating the fact that different theories can equally predict the same results? How about schools teaching kids to THINK.

You wouldn't like it much. Creationism is a failed scientific theory that was falsified in the 1800s by Christian scientists.

 

As for rules of logic, not everyone who disagrees with evolution disagrees due to faith. As another poster mentioned, no one us unbiased and everyone starts with assumptions. As I mentioned before, I was an AGNOSTIC who found too many illogical jumps in the theory of evolution and too many broad assumptions for me to think it strong enough to be a paradigm theory. And I WANTED to believe in evolution. Even with what I've read here, I still don't see enough to support macroevolution. I do think some of these discoveries exciting and interesting, though, such as the one about the fish.

I have yet to find anyone who disagreed with the Theory of Evolution who didn't disagree with a strawman.

[Storm Bay]

That's what natural selection adds... those with beneficial mutations breed and those with negative mutations either aren't born or don't breed.

 

. Science can only study that which is natural.

 

Right. However, perhaps more questions could be asked, though, to show mysteries such as the bombadier beetle, etc, where a number of mutations would have had to occur simultaneously in order for the benefit to be seen. How does the current evolutionary model address this? Interestingly, animals like this are often difficult to find data on. Why?

 

Let students realize how many more questions still need to be answered. Show them clearly the lack of links (that was definitely lacking in my high school science classes.) One of the things I loved about some of my professors in university is that they weren't dogmatic, asked questions to get students to think, etc.

[CookieMonster]

Anyone planning on going to see Expelled starring Ben Stein?

 

Yep.

 

But, then again I am a Progressive Dispensationalist, Young Earth Creationist, Biblicist, Calvary Chapelite. What in the world would compell me not to go to this pep rally?

 

ETA: Guys, I was being cheeky, slaphappy, and otherwise trying not to be too serious about the movie. It's a movie. I have a brain. I use it. And - AND - my comment was directed at the OP, in lighthearted answer to her question. I was purposely trying to distance myself from the *cough* discussion that I stopped reading after page 5.

 

In other words, please stop taking this comment too very seriously.

[Phred]

Right. However, perhaps more questions could be asked, though, to show mysteries such as the bombadier beetle, etc, where a number of mutations would have had to occur simultaneously in order for the benefit to be seen. How does the current evolutionary model address this? Interestingly, animals like this are often difficult to find data on. Why?

Not hard at all. Here's how the beetle's defenses evolved.

 

Let students realize how many more questions still need to be answered. Show them clearly the lack of links (that was definitely lacking in my high school science classes.) One of the things I loved about some of my professors in university is that they weren't dogmatic, asked questions to get students to think, etc.

Many times the perceived lack is just that ... a perception that the creationists love to perpetuate.

[Phred]

Yep.

 

But, then again I am a Progressive Dispensationalist, Young Earth Creationist, Biblicist, Calvary Chapelite. What in the world would compell me not to go to this pep rally?

Oh... I dunno... the fact that you don't condone lying for Jesus?

[Phred]

I couldn't help but add this to the pile. Why do creationists think it's just fine to do exactly what they're supposedly railing against? (bolding mine)

 

 

 

On Wednesday, my colleague Maggie and I went to an advance screening of Ben Stein's upcoming documentary,

Expelled: No intelligence allowed

. It purports to be about threats to academic freedom, but it seemed more like a pro-religion, pro-intelligent design propaganda film that looks like a bad Michael Moore rip-off.

 

 

 

The film was just silly, with virtually zero scientific content, which, of course, is not surprising coming from

Ben Stein

- a comedian, speech writer and game show host . . . but not a scientist.

 

 

 

I'm hopeful that anyone with the least bit of intelligence (no pun intended) will see straight through the film's hokey attempts to distract viewers from the lack of scientific credibility with appeals to their emotions - like the dark lighting, foreboding music and harsh camera angles that set the scene for Stein's interview with -

dun dun dun

- biologist Richard Dawkins, an avowed atheist.

 

 

 

Or worse, the countless images and references to Nazis that culminate in Stein dopily wandering through the Dachau concentration camp pondering the ways in which the "Darwinian gospel" was a "necessary but not sufficient condition" for the atrocities that took place there.

 

 

 

But the real silliness came after the credits rolled, when the audience had a chance to pose questions to Mark Mathis, the film's producer.

 

 

 

One woman said it was morally reprehensible to equate the death of six million Jews with Darwin. I clapped, and was astounded when nearly everyone else remained silent.

 

 

 

I shot my hand up to ask a question. "The intelligent design movement has gone to great lengths to

argue that intelligent design is not religion, that it's science

. And you made a whole film arguing that it

is

religious. How do they react to that?"

 

 

 

"Well," Mathis said, "I guess it makes them a little uncomfortable."

 

 

 

Some arguing ensued concerning the scientific merits of ID, and someone asked, "Where's the evidence? Where are the peer reviewed papers?" to which Mathis proudly proclaimed, "Actually, there are

ten

peer reviewed papers."

 

 

 

A guy in the front row scoffed. "

Ten

papers?" he asked sarcastically.

 

 

 

Mathis told the guy not to interrupt, and then mockingly called him "Mr Darwinist." Zing!

 

 

 

He began calling on others in the crowd, who asked friendlier questions. But Maggie and I quickly realised that we'd seen some of these people before - earlier that evening, in fact, working at the movie's registration table. These friendly audience members

worked

for the film? Had Mathis planted questioners?

 

 

 

People asked what they could do to help the film succeed, and a young woman in the front row inquired: "How can I pray for you and for the movie?" Mathis grew excited. "We need to start a grass roots movement!" he said, encouraging people to tell their "networks" about the movie and to get as many people as they could to go on opening weekend.

 

 

 

Another man in the front row wondered about the film's premise that supporters of ID are being silenced. He pointed out that a recent

trial about the teaching of intelligent design held in Dover, Pennsylvania

, gave supporters of intelligent design all the time in the world to make their case, but most of the 'leading lights' of ID didn't even show up.

 

 

 

When Mathis was responding, the guy asked another question, and the producer shot back, "How about you let me finish talking?" Then, a security guard for the film approached the calmly seated man and told him, "I may have to ask you to leave."

 

 

 

"Does anyone else see how ironic this is?" the guy asked.

 

 

 

"Shut up!" someone shouted from the back.

 

 

 

I had another question to ask and held my hand up high, but Mathis called on anyone and everyone else who appeared to be more sympathetic. Finally, he looked at his watch and said, "Well, I think that's all the time we have," and began to walk out. I followed him out into the lobby to speak with him.

 

 

 

I said that the film spent a lot of time making the point that proponents of evolution can't explain how life arose from non-life, and asked how intelligent design explains it.

 

 

 

It doesn't, he acknowledged. "Then don't you think it's strange that you tried to pin that on the scientists?" I asked.

 

 

 

"Well, it's a real hole in their theory," he said.

 

 

 

"Actually, it's not - the theory of evolution never purported to touch on the issue of how life arose from non-life, it's about how species arose from other species."

 

 

 

I said that in science, criticising someone else's theory doesn't make your theory right, and that the film never bothers to say how intelligent design explains anything at all. He countered that intelligent design says there are things that are too complex to be explained by natural selection.

 

 

 

I asked how ID explains the complexity, but he said, "I don't have time for this," and walked away.

 

 

 

Throughout the entire experience, Maggie and I couldn't help feeling that the polarised audience in the theater was a sort of microcosm of America, and let me tell you - it's a scary place. I also couldn't help thinking that the intelligent design folks aren't being silenced, so much as they're being

silent

. Because when it comes to actually explaining anything, they've got nothing to say.

 

 

[Storm Bay]

I couldn't help but add this to the pile. Why do creationists think it's just fine to do exactly what they're supposedly railing against? (bolding mine)

 

 

 

Honestly, with all I've read about this movie and what I know about the ethics of Hollywood, I'm not even convinced this movie was made to help Intelligent Design or others. But it's controversial, will generate lots of PR, makes a big sensation and hopefully a lot of money. Hollywood movies aren't usually the apex of scientific accuracy. Nor is the media. Nor are most people who don't spend a lot of time discussing it. Nor am I convinced that evolutionary biologist are out trying to disprove evolution (one poster talked about how scientists try to disprove others' findings). My point is that the data, all the data, can be interpreted MORE THAN ONE WAY and give predictable results, and you absolutely cannot prove macroevolution yet. That's the point that gets my goat, not that people disagree.

[Storm Bay]

Not hard at all. Here's how the beetle's defenses evolved.

 

 

Many times the perceived lack is just that ... a perception that the creationists love to perpetuate.

 

Do you READ my posts? I learned about the lack of proof for MACROevolution from my non-Christian, evolutionism believing liberal biology professors. You're still touting MICRO evolution, and I think that this article you gave still proved nothing as there are no fossilized remains of a bombadier beetle in process, nor how it would learn the new behaviour to use this new development.

 

Anyway, enough said as I'm confident that neither of us is going to convince the other by arguing.

[CookieMonster]

Oh... I dunno... the fact that you don't condone lying for Jesus?

 

Phred, I consider this an unnecessary personal attack. I don't think this constitutes respectful discussion of differences of opinion.

[Phred]

Do you READ my posts? I learned about the lack of proof for MACROevolution from my non-Christian, evolutionism believing liberal biology professors. You're still touting MICRO evolution, and I think that this article you gave still proved nothing as there are no fossilized remains of a bombadier beetle in process, nor how it would learn the new behaviour to use this new development.

 

Anyway, enough said as I'm confident that neither of us is going to convince the other by arguing.

"micro" and "macro" evolution are the same thing. Just in different amounts. If you agree that "micro" evolution happens then given enough time "macro" evolution will happen as well. There is only one evolution. I'm sorry I didn't stop to make that clear earlier.

[Phred]

Phred, I consider this an unnecessary personal attack. I don't think this constitutes respectful discussion of differences of opinion.

I didn't mean it as an attack. I meant it as a simple statement of fact. On one hand you're dying to jump on the bandwagon... on the other hand the only reason the band wagon is there is because of deceit and lies. You made a comment of the sort that nothing would stop you from getting on and I pointed out that perhaps there was something that might.

 

Have you weighed your options? I know that given a Richard Dawkins documentary produced only thru lies and deceit I'd skip it. Sure, I'd love to see him rip apart ... oh, who's still alive? D. James Kennedy? Dead. Jerry Falwell? Dead. Ted Haggard? Gay... may as well be dead. Pat Robertson... there we go. I'd love to see him rip apart Pat Robertson but if he lied to get him in the film I just wouldn't feel right about going.

 

So after reading about the lies used in production, the strongarm tactics used at the theaters, the sheer deceit in the storyline... this is more than just an opposing viewpoint. Yet you're thrilled to go.

 

I simply don't understand. But I'm all ears. :bigear:

[Pam "SFSOM" in TN]

Nor am I convinced that evolutionary biologist are out trying to disprove evolution (one poster talked about how scientists try to disprove others' findings).

 

 

Mmm, that was me, but that's not the what I meant when I talked about falsifiability. So I would very much agree with you that the aim of an evolutionary biologist is not going to be to disprove evolution. Just like a gravitational theorist isn't out to disprove gravity.

[sarahli]

And yes evolution is a theory. When you talk of the beginning of earth and time, all it can be is someone's hypothesis. As we've been learning in science, you look at the evidence and make your best guess as to what you believe happened from the evidence. You weren't there and neither was I. Yes, our beliefs will color which hypothesis we choose to believe, but it's still a hypothesis, therefore a theory.

 

A theory is not a hypothesis.

Evolution is accepted as scientific fact due to the overwhelming evidence, and yes, missing "links" have been found in the last 20 years.

Science is hesitant to call anything a "law" anymore, esp. since Newton's "laws" were not found to be absolute, but an approximation. Science uses the term "theory" now for what has been proven over and over again for the above reason.

 

Ben Stein's comments are hateful.

"Darwinism is still very much alive, utterly dominating biology. Despite the fact that no one has ever been able to prove the creation of a single distinct species by Darwinist means, Darwinism dominates the academy and the media. Darwinism also has not one meaningful word to say on the origins of organic life, a striking lacuna in a theory supposedly explaining life.

"Alas, Darwinism has had a far bloodier life span than Imperialism. Darwinism, perhaps mixed with Imperialism, gave us Social Darwinism, a form of racism so vicious that it countenanced the Holocaust against the Jews and mass murder of many other groups in the name of speeding along the evolutionary process."

:confused:

Why can't he just make up a movie with facts insteading of blaming science for grievous social injustices?

 

 

Lastly, I know of several people who have or are attending Pepperdine University. (DH attended their sister school) It is not an anti-religious University. It is very religious. However, as the subtitle of his movie states, "no intelligence allowed". No wonder they had to hire extras.

[Peek a Boo]

It surprises me too that belief is something that people want to prove or disprove and argue.

The Universe is a wonderful place. Our knowledge is always going to be limited by the extent of our experiences and the capacity of our brains to understand. We can scratch around for evidence and search and discover but we can never know it all.

Scientists can only present facts and should never be swayed by their beliefs (religious or secular). We look to scientists for the full factual picture, free of bias and emotion. If scientists have faith then they will not be frightened about what they discover and they certainly should not be too frightened to look. This requires an open mind on the part of the religious and the atheist (yes, you too Mr Dawkins!).

These are the reasons I believe that religion (and also belief in no God) should have no place in the study of science. Ethics has a place in the practicalities and what to do with science, but it has no place in the canon of science.

 

I've been happily munching popcorn watching this thread, lol.

 

Definitely a strong Christian here, but because of the well-worded quote above [esp the part i put in bold], I am content to watch, learn, and listen :)

I don't think I'd agree that God has "no" place in the study of science -it's HIS creation, anyway!

 

but again: "If scientists have faith then they will not be frightened about what they discover and they certainly should not be too frightened to look."

 

God did it, that's good enough for me.

Whatever "it" is....;)

 

thanks for all the discussion!

[Storm Bay]

 

I am disturbed by the lack of integrity in the use of techniques more appropriate for propaganda than documentary (I have the same concerns about 'documentaries' from very different points of view as well.), and I am distressed by the dishonest (imnsho) attempt to entrap proponents of evolutionary theory into participating in this film.

.

 

I agree with this. If what I've been reading on these links is true (I have developed some skepticism for the media--as much as I have for Hollywood) then it is not only abhorrent, but doing a disservice.

[Storm Bay]

"micro" and "macro" evolution are the same thing. Just in different amounts. If you agree that "micro" evolution happens then given enough time "macro" evolution will happen as well. There is only one evolution. I'm sorry I didn't stop to make that clear earlier.

 

Interesting, because there are evolutionary biologists I've met who don't assume this to be a fact. Until you have solid evidence of real links, or an animal truly doing this now without any genetic manipulation, then you're standing on the grounds of assumption, which hardly differs from faith if you're dogmatically adhering to it without any willingness to admit that it could be proven wrong. The ability to be proven wrong is what being falsifiable is all about. A theory, in order to be scientific, has to be falsifiable according to modern scientific convention. If what you're saying here is correct, then it is no longer falsifiable.

[fivetails]

I'd barely heard of this movie (I think I saw a blurb about it somewhere before) until this thread, and I really don't know what I believe in terms of the whole big bang and evolution stuff...

 

but I am definitely wanting to go see this movie - for the controversy alone even! ;)

[Hannah]

Here's an interesting article criticizing Expelled in the Skeptics Society E-newsletter. Michael Shermer, president of the Skeptics Society, was interviewed for the movie.

[Phred]

Interesting, because there are evolutionary biologists I've met who don't assume this to be a fact. Until you have solid evidence of real links, or an animal truly doing this now without any genetic manipulation, then you're standing on the grounds of assumption, which hardly differs from faith if you're dogmatically adhering to it without any willingness to admit that it could be proven wrong. The ability to be proven wrong is what being falsifiable is all about. A theory, in order to be scientific, has to be falsifiable according to modern scientific convention. If what you're saying here is correct, then it is no longer falsifiable.

Of course it's falsifiable. For example... if there wasn't enough time for it to have taken place.

 

Again, "macro" evolution is the same thing as "micro" evolution unless you have some barrier that separates the two we're not aware of.

[Phred]

Oh... and it seems that this movie is a long way from being done generating controversy. I guess ol' Ben and his production team "borrowed" some animated graphics without permission but the biggie that they're going to pay out the nose for is they put the song "Imagine" by John Lennon in the film without permission and without paying any sort of copyright fee. Source.