Hosted by Ben Stein of Ferris Beuller's Day Off and Win Ben Stein's Money fame, Expelled is a revealing documentary on the hypocrisy of today's modern biologists. The film reports on several seemingly isolated occurrences of people losing their positions in the scientific field because they dared to even consider the theory of Intelligent Design. When these "isolated" firings are grouped together, the apparent intolerance for any scrutiny of the theory of Evolution is rather disturbing. The film also puts forth a well organized and well executed argument that Darwinism was one of the major stepping stones that gave rise to Hitler's Nazi regime.
The film's contention is that, thanks to the concept of natural selection, Hitler believed he was bettering the human species by exterminating the Gypsies, the mentally and physically handicapped, and the Jews. Also, because evolution provided a Godless origin for man, he had no ethical qualms with which to wrestle. To him, the actions were amoral and beneficial.
Throughout the course of the documentary scientists from both sides are interviewed. It came as no surprise that the Intelligent Design scientists were lit with warm light in bright open locations while the Darwinist scientists were lit with stark cool light in cramped spaces. I have to say, whether one agrees with the theory of I.D. or not, this picture raised many ethical and sociological questions that beg for a response from the Evolutionist community. If Darwinism is fact, what's to stop us from cloning, organ harvesting, or other scientific ventures that are currently considered unethical? Why are those scientists that are seriously researching the possibility of I.D. facing such staunch and active discrimination. Evolution and Darwinism are still theories! They are good ideas but there is no solid proof with which to anchor them in the category of fact. I'm amazed that the theory of evolution is held in such a tight strangle hold by today's modern "scholars" that it can't take any type of scrutiny from other theories! If it is as air tight as has been suggested then, by all means, question it. It should be able to withstand without wavering. Is not questioning the basis of scientific discovery? How would it look if Christians didn't welcome questions from atheists or other religions? We assert that what we believe to be true. If it is true, it should be unshakable regardless of the inquest it falls under. Why won't Darwinists allow for the same dialog?
The single best moment in the movie occurred when host Ben Stein sat down with the undisputed champion of the anti-intelligent design movement Richard Dawkins. Mr. Dawkins wrote a book called The God Delusion in which he uses the theory of Evolution to prove that God doesn't exist. Don't be mistaken, this is not a scientific treatise, this is a philosophy book. When discussing the origin of life (an event that Darwinism still struggles to explain) Mr. Dawkins offered several different possibilities: The most common primordial soup plus lightning equals life theory, "Life may have piggy-backed on crystals." (whatever that might mean...), and the "Seed" theory.
The "Seed" theory states that life on Earth may have been seeded here by some higher life form from another planet. Here is the direct quote from the movie:
Well... it could come about in the following way: it could be that uh, at some earlier time somewhere in the universe a civilization evolved... by probably by some kind of Darwinian means to a very very high level of technology and designed a form of life that they seeded onto... perhaps this... this planet. Um, now that is a possibility. And uh, an intriguing possibility. And I suppose it's possible that you might find evidence for that if you look at the um, at the detail... details of our chemistry molecular biology you might find a signature of some sort of designer. [Emphasis added] Um, and that designer could well be a higher intelligence from elsewhere in the universe. But that higher intelligence would itself would have to come about by some explicable or ultimately explicable process. It couldn't have just jumped into existence spontaneously. That's the point.And here we come to the crux of the issue. You see, Intelligent Design is not a problem, even for the most ardent anti-Intelligent Design biologist Richard Dawkins. It's only a problem when God is thrown into the mix. (Oh, and Mr. Dawkins apparently isn't up on his theology. If there is a God, it didn't "jumped into existence spontaneously." The theology he's refuting states that God always was. God has no beginning.) Of course, with the Seed theory, no one stops to ask how life began for the advanced civilization that designed and seeded life here. In fact, the Seed theory doesn't actually answer the question of how did life begin, it just moves the location of the event to another planet. Why is Intelligent Design ok if it's been done by aliens but not God? Morals, ethics, and responsibility. Without a God, we do not have to answer for how we live our lives.
The bottom line of this whole issue (having been brought to light by this movie) is that I can't help seeing a parallel between how the I.D. scientists of today are treated and how "Round Earth" and "Heliocentric" scientists were historically treated. Darwinism is the new religion and Intelligent Design scientists are the heretics.
4 out of 5 stars
52 comments:
I don't believe the arguement in this article is ID vs evolution, one can even agree at there could have been ID and then evolution. your opinion does not reject darwinism, and that is fine. I do agree that ID gets no credence in America today. As to what created the first speck of life I don't know and I probably could not concieve it in my mind if I did.
What I wish to challenge is the charge that Darwinism supports genocide. The theory of darwin simply argues that perhaps I will not choose to mate with someone with poor genetics. Also implies that if one person with legs and one person without legs were stuck in the savannah of Africa it is most probable that the lion will eat the person without legs first.
The theory does not support humans going out within our own race to cleanse our society of what one person or group believes to be weaker people. Just because people have used it in their promotion of genocide or slavery does not mean that that was the intent of the theory.
In fact, Darwain would believe that if , lets say Jewish people, since your example related to Hitler, if Jewish people were go genetically inferior nobody would mate with them, they would be unable to make a living so then they would starve to death en massse and soon enough there would be none left. Darwinism promotes the idea that their physical inferiority will cause their demise on its own, not that other humans should seek them out and kill them.
Now you could argue that a "differentness" of Jewish people was their tragic flaw. the fact that they were identifiable as different caused them to be persecuted and they were unable to protect themselves against human on human persecution, but I maintain that darwainism was not intended to explain malevolence within the same species.
Welcome MissMotxo (Will you be MrsMotxo soon? August is it?)
I'm not saying that ID excludes Evolution. Neither do the ID scientists from the documentary. Hence the difficulty in understanding why they face such opposition. Their ID theory is simply the origin of life. They are fine with "The Origin of the Species."
I find your argument interesting. If we are truly Darwinists, then humans do not rise above the natural order of things whether we are doing good or evil. Truth be told, if we are truly Darwinists there is no good or evil. Unless those are concepts that we've evolved to create. Of course, if it were a mutation that caused the first homosapien to believe in good vs evil then all of the others that didn't probably would have killed that one, so it seems that natural selection would have snuffed out morals and ethics before they had a chance to take root.
Having said that, I'm not arguing that the theory of Evolution was designed to support genocide. That's no more true than the discovery of the splitting of the atom was designed to create nuclear weapons. Nor was the self propel motor designed to cause vehicular homocide. But we must look at the ends of what we create or theorize.
Natural selection hasn't yet rid the world of the Praying Mantis or the Black Widow Spider who devour their mate. Are they exempt from Darwinism because we would shudder at their actions? Is it a requirement that natural selection only occurs across species groups? Natural selection works when the bird eats a certain moth, but not when the Queen bee kills its female young?
Bear in mind, it was not external minds that placed Darwinism in the forefront of Hitler's extermination and experimentation. It was his scientists and Hitler himself.
Logically, he was right. If there is no God and Darwinism and Natural Selection are fact and truth, there is nothing wrong with what he did because there is no "wrong."
Gotta admit, as a fellow Christian I can certainly sympathize with the plight of the Intelligent Design movement, so long as it is attempting to make sense of the Christian story by seeing creation as something that points to God.
Intelligent Design has hardly a place in the scientific community however, as it is by definition, not science. I can test scientific elements of the creation all i want, but the moment I arrive at a conclusion that states "A higher being must have created this," it is no longer science.
Have the ID discussion. I have no qualms with that. Just move it into the appropriate field; that being philosophy or religion.
Also, the conclusion that evolution was what allowed Hitler to embark upon his killing spree i believe is superseded by the fact that he was raised a Catholic and while disagreeing with much of Catholic doctrine, continued to uphold God as the creator and a defendant of his work. Mein Kampf states:
"The folkish-minded man, in particular, has the sacred duty, each in his own denomination, of making people stop just talking superficially of God's will, and actually fulfill God's will, and not let God's word be desecrated. For God's will gave men their form, their essence and their abilities. Anyone who destroys His work is declaring war on the Lord's creation, the divine will."
This he speaks of the superiority of the Aryan race.
Also during the 44 or so assassination attempts on his life, he attributed his not being assassinated to Divine will and further affirmation that he was carrying out God's divine plan. He saw it as God's protection of him.
All this doesn't even begin to look at how the Nazi's used some of Martin Luther's anti-semitic writings as further justification for their cause.
Of this entire review, probably the most short-sighted element is your last paragraph. Couldn't disagree more. You're completely overlooking that "Round Earth" and "Heliocentric" science was indeed persecuted by the church and upheld by scientific methods. ID is supported by the church, however. And the only science the church vehemently disagrees with is the science that doesn't back their cause, i.e. evolution, global warming, etc. You're backwards in your application here friend.
Why is it that fellow Christians can't just look at Genesis and take it for what it is? It is a creation story. Moses (or whomever wrote it) wasn't a scientist. There's nothing wrong with allowing science to be science and religion to be religion. The two can coexist.
Many blessings to you my friend. :)
Great reveiw Marc! I was up in Maine during Christmas break and the pastor of my home church gave a sermon on the exact same topic, and even showed the clip of the interview of Richard Dawkins that contained the quote you listed. I hadn't even heard of this movie, and have resolved to rent and watch it.
Being a biologist myself I encounter this stuff on a daily basis. Thankfully my co-workers are all well aware of my faith and have respected it. It's lead to many an interesting conversation on this very topic (always civil and thought provoking). To address something that James said about keeping Faith and Science separate, I just wanted to say that that is a nice sentiment in theory, but does not help those Christians who happen to work in scientific fields. Would you have us segregate our faith to our personal lives and not use it to inform our work and use it to evangelize to our co-workers the way other Christians can? I also don't think that believing in ID can not be scientific. It is highly unlikely that anything we do in the scientific realm with answer the beginning of life question beyond a reasonable doubt, so it is all theory and speculation and yes a bit of faith *gasp* (though very few scientists would admit to their faith in science).
Thank you for your thoughts, oh good doctor.
So, am I to understand your stance that anything not testable must be removed from science? Ok. I'll agree to that. Let us then also remove black holes. While mathematically feasible, it cannot be tested or proven. Let us remove all theories of the origin of life. Seed theory certainly cannot be discussed, nor can the crystal theory. The primordial soup theory also cannot be included in "science." Oh, sure, we've created a very controlled environment with certain specific elements that we theorize would have been present in the early days of life. We add some electricity and Voila: we get life? No. We get amino acids. Yes, the building blocks of life but never have we created a self replicating life form. Gosh, based on how I read your comment, we even need to move Evolution from under the umbrella of science. We cannot test it. The theory of evolution has never been used to accurately predict any scientific discovery. More often the theory is being changed to fit the evidence rather than the evidence falling in line with the theory. So, once these are absent from science text books, class rooms, labs, and museums, I'll be ok with ID being ousted as well.
According to 38 Nobel laureate scientists in a letter to the Kansas Board of Education in 2006, evolution is "an unguided, unplanned process of random variation and random selection." Unguided? Unplanned? These are not scientific terms, these are philosophical.
I appreciate your insight on Hitler's twisted world view. I wasn't trying to say that Evolution was the only stone in his house of insanity, just a component among others. (this was a primary point in the documentary...) I wasn't aware of much of what you added. Thanks.
"You're completely overlooking that "Round Earth" and "Heliocentric" science was indeed persecuted by the church and upheld by scientific methods." I think you missed my point. I wasn't overlooking the fact that "round earth" and "heliocentric" scientists were persecuted. I was saying there's been a flip flop. Evolution is the new "church" (religion, if you will) and they are persecuting ID scientists as heretics, just as the old church persecuted those that went against the grain. The "backwards application" was intentional to attempt to prove a point. The fear of ID by Evolutionary scientists.
Not sure where your last paragraph fits... Not claiming a seven day creation/young earth theory. This argument is an attempt at having science and religion coexisting. They could be great roommates (and they were for millennia) but now science wants it's own apartment.
Thanks for your thoughts. Many blessings to you and your family as well.
Here's the letter:
http://media.ljworld.com/pdf/2005/09/15/nobel_letter.pdf
*sigh*
http://media.ljworld.com/pdf/
2005/09/15/nobel_letter.pdf
"Logically derived from confirmable evidence, evolution is understood to be the result of an unguided, unplanned process of random variation and natural selection. As the foundation of modern biology, its indispensable role has been further strengthened by the capacity to study DNA. In contrast, intelligent design is fundamentally unscientific; it cannot be tested as scientific theory because its central conclusion is based on belief in the intervention of a supernatural agent."
Of course, this paragraph requires me to tear it to shreds.
"Logically derived" as though ID is illogical.
"confirmable evidence" because ID is using different evidence? Some magical nonconfirmable evidence?
"it cannot be tested as scientific theory because its central conclusion is based on belief in the intervention of a supernatural agent" As opposed to Evolution whose central conclusion is based on the belief of the intervention of an unintelligent "unguided" "unplanned" random natural agent that somehow causes beneficial changes totally and utterly counter to the second law of thermodynamics.
Hello Kerri,
Nice to meet you. I think it's great that you can work in the field of Biology and have your Christian beliefs respected. I know I appreciate it when persons of differing opinions respect my Christian beliefs as well.
I'd like to be clear in stating that I believe that Science and Religion can have a conversation. I do not believe they can have it in the halls of academia however by nature of what they are and what each field represents. When it comes down to scientific processes, faith is not something that can be tested, and therefore ID is not a testable field of research.
It would be like asking Astrology to be included in the field of Astronomy.
Allow me to use the "black holes" Marc mentioned previously to try and illustrate an example. (And by the way, i'm uncertain as to the claim that black holes are unprovable. Most astronomers in the scientific community seem to be ok with this.)
For the sake of argument, let's say Marc's argument is correct in that Black Holes cannot be tested. We'll assume that because no one can get close enough they therefore cannot test it specifically. What scientists can however do is observe the material they do know which surrounds the black hole. They can study the light nearby, the electromagnetic radiation, as well as light shifts, etc. From this they can make educated guesses as to what is happening in this region. And if something turns out to be incorrect they can always scrap it and start over.
You cannot however test faith in this way. It is a pure and simple category error. Neither can you test a conclusion (yes, science tests conclusions) that states that a higher being made the black hole. You can guess of course. And it certainly doesn't mean that the higher being doesn't exist. It only means that insofar as the application of science is concerned it cannot test potential deities or the kinds of work deities produce. They can only test the works themselves.
To belabor the point, say group of scientists were to run thousands of scientific observations on a black hole and after some time one of the scientists posits a conclusion stating, "I have seen the evidence for this black hole. And I conclude that an evil green whippity-dippity put this black hole into motion." Well, that's great and all, but no one can test the evil green whippity-dippity or the means by which an evil green whippity-dippity can put a black hole into motion. Science needs something testable (or observable) and as it stands such a statement cannot be tested.
Yes...have the ID discussion. But have it in it's appropriate field.
My good friend Dr. James, if your arguement is that evolution is testable science, please explain how the belief in Macro-evolution is anything but faith.
We cannot duplicate it. We cannot replicate it. We cannot find "crossover" species. Any mutation of DNA that we've come across causes disease, nonbeneficail malformation, or death.
Look, I'm all about micro-evolution. Anybody with a brain is for that. But it's no more faith to believe in ID than it is to believe in Macro-evolution.
It's nice to "meet" you also James. :)
I agree that ID is "untestable", but I also agree with Marc, that it is no more "untestable" than any other theory on how the earth and life itself got started. So there isn't any conflict and no issue between the the theories in my opinion.
I really do like your explination of the black hole issue! We can only make observations about the natural effects that they have from a distance and hold those observations up against each theory of what causes them and how they work. If those observations directly conflict a theory then we can rule that one out. Until an observation is able to do that, ANY theory is "plausable" no matter how silly or outrageous. So in reality, if a scientist wanted to make the assertion that they are cause by "evil green whippity-dippity", then they could, and that is their perogative until proven otherwise. I don't think there is any conflict there even if people would think the guy was crazy.
My biggest problem with Dawkins is that he asserts that it is fundamentally impossible to be a scientist and a person of faith at the same time. And that the vast majority of scientists are athiests because science directly points to the absence of any God. I personally have not found this to be true both in my own life as well as in my current field of work. A large number of my co-workers belong to a religion of one sort or another, and have no issues reconciling their faith and their scientific studies. For me personally, everything I see in how life itself works only farther confirms in my head that there HAS to be a God. Everything is just too complex and perfect. Changing just ONE molecule in an organism and that organism is unable to survive. The balance is too fine, and the intricacy too delicate and beautiful.
To wrap this post up a bit, I don't think that you and I have a whole lot of conflict. I think that most scientists with faith are not attempting to prove that there is a God, we just do not want to be told that we are an impossibility ourselves as Dawkins trys to do.
Thanks for your words Kerri. Appreciate the thoughts.
Marc to answer, you stated:
"if your arguement is that evolution is testable science, please explain how the belief in Macro-evolution is anything but faith. We cannot duplicate it. We cannot replicate it. We cannot find "crossover" species.
Actually, we are duplicating it as we speak; you and i, your family and mine... we are all cross-over species. We are the transitional fossils evolution speaks of. It is constantly being duplicated.
The faith leap you are speaking of is essentially the question of what happened in the beginning. How did it all start?
Here are the two theoretical options: 1) Based upon the study of a rapidly expanding universe, doppler shifts, the speed of light and various forms of radiation, scientists find that their best guess is that something in the beginning sparked all these things into motion. Scientists continue to study these doppler shifts, the speed of light and various forms of radiation to test and retest their thoery.
Option 2) A known or unknown deity created and pushed all of the known universe into motion.
Are they both guesses, or leaps of faith? Yep. But which one's guess is based upon scientific study? Which guess can be continually studied scientifically?
Does this make any more sense? I sure as hell believe that God created it all. But in terms of scientific study my belief can neither be tested nor physically studied. There is nothing to test it with. It is my belief that you are making a category error here. Science's guesses or leaps of faith can be wagered using scientific study. Religion can only make its best guess using faith. How do you scientifically test faith?
That's all that i'm saying man. And based upon this, I'm insisting that ID is not science. It is faith.
Hi there Troy,
Glad to be part of the conversation with you! Nice to meet you as well.
In essence, I think you've helped me to prove my point. What you've done is to state that ID is possible by the process of elimination. And because you have stated this I will therefore maintain that ID is not science, because science does not operate solely on process of elimination.
Your point essentially stated that because the eye cannot be replicated, evolution can be ruled out, and therefore ID can be considered valid. That is in and of itself an estimation and not science. It is pure guess work and nothing else. Science makes a guess, or conclusion, after it has done numerous tests and then tested and retested it's conclusion over and over, constantly refining it's theories. If one were to do thousands of studies on the eye in numerous species and then draw a conclusion based upon the said research of the eye, that would be science.
For example: "Biologists use the range of less complex light sensitive structures that exist in living species today to hypothesize the various evolutionary stages eyes may have gone through.
Here's how some scientists think some eyes may have evolved: The simple light-sensitive spot on the skin of some ancestral creature gave it some tiny survival advantage, perhaps allowing it to evade a predator. Random changes then created a depression in the light-sensitive patch, a deepening pit that made "vision" a little sharper. At the same time, the pit's opening gradually narrowed, so light entered through a small aperture, like a pinhole camera.
Every change had to confer a survival advantage, no matter how slight. Eventually, the light-sensitive spot evolved into a retina, the layer of cells and pigment at the back of the human eye. Over time a lens formed at the front of the eye. It could have arisen as a double-layered transparent tissue containing increasing amounts of liquid that gave it the convex curvature of the human eye." source here.
That is the scientific study of the eye. As soon as one says, "a deity made the eye" the study moves into the category of philosophy and religion, for one cannot test the deity or the eye the deity made.
I guess I'm not stating myself very well. I apologize for that. For the record, I'd like it to be known that just because i state rather conclusively that "ID is not science" doesn't mean God does not exist. I believe in God! I believe God exists. I believe the Bible is trustworthy and useful for teaching. I believe in the crucifixion, death and resurrection of Jesus and confess this every Sunday. I do not believe that ID is science, however, just by sheer definition of the term. It posits a conclusion that cannot be tested scientifically. The fact that it already has its conclusion before it has its hypothesis is more evidence that this is not science because it is completely backwards from the scientific method!
Lastly for Marc. Just as you had me answer questions regarding neverfindout.org, i'd now like you to answer the questions found here: expelledexposed.com. In particular, i'd like to see your response to their debunking Ben Stein on speciation and on genetic mutation.
Peace my friends. May the Lord's blessing be upon all of you and your families. :)
(Apologies up front my fat fingers that caused this post to follow James, which makes all of this look rather out of sync) Hi, everyone. I'm Troy, a friend of Marc's from church. I don't have a lot of time but I wanted to throw my hat in the ring briefly, because this is a subject of great interest to me.
James, at the end of your last post, you asked, "How do you scientifically test faith?" Well, I believe the short answer is you don't. However, I don't see that the argument is whether or not you can scientifically test faith, the argument is whether or not you can scientifically test the ID theory.
I believe you can absolutely test it scientifically by using process of elimination. If the Big Bang theory yields no definitive proof, we cross that off the list. If the Seed theory leads us no where, that gets removed. Eventually, if we run out of ideas, we're left with a choice that we arrived at scientifically.
We can go so far as to attempt scientific examination of the ID theory itself by testing the natural world. Can we duplicate something such as the eye, a highly complex part of the body, by some other means? If not, we can reasonably assume that the ID theory has validity.
These points are made with the assumption that were I a scientist, my goal is to attempt to prove the ID theory valid. I could even make such an attempt without laying claim to any religious belief. The founding fathers of the United States were only deists. They didn't believe in the God of the Christians, they believed in a creator deity. They weren't religious per se, but I'd be willing to bet that many of them took the ID theory seriously, and scientifically.
All of this is off the cuff (disclaimer, I am not a scientist!), and I'm really tired (new baby in the house) but I wanted to take a shot at joining your conversation! Nice to meet you all :)
Having read this entire blog, I feel as though responding is a bit of a waste of time. There are so many gaping issues that I've found. This blog is not a debunking of Exposed. More accurately, it is a poor attempt to justify actions that the film documents.
The movie, like 48 hours or 20-20, had documentation of the reason of the expulsion of these individuals. I don't know who the originator of this Blog is (as all this website is is a blog) but he's obviously drinking the cool-aid. I have no question that the individuals were ousted for the very reasons stated in the documentary. They had letters, emails, and other correspondances. This blog offers none of those. It merely provides post expulsion justification.
On a side note, in regards to the Expulsion of the journalist (not scientist... journalist) Pamela Winnick, the blogger writes "This is not “just writing about” intelligent design. This is an endorsement." As though this were actually a reasonable reason to fire her. The blogger chastises her for presenting an uncritical stance to ID comments in a previous article, then slams her for being critical of evolution. As a journalist, should she be critical or uncritical? Or should she only be critical of what they want her to be critical of?
And here is the compelling refutation of Dr. Michael Egnor:
"The Claim
Michael Egnor says in Expelled that he expected criticism, but was shocked by the “viciousness” and “baseness” of the response.
The Facts
Michael Egnor had apparently never been on the Internet before."
HOw convincing that he should have been fired for writing an essay on ID in response to an indoctrinating contest for high school students to write an essay called "Why I would want my doctor to have studied evolution." Now I see the light.
"Intelligent design is scientifically unproductive, and this perhaps explains why scientists like Guillermo Gonzalez and Michael Behe publish far fewer papers after they become attracted to intelligent design" It has nothing to do with the fact that, in order to publish, it has to be approved? Not only that, but ID is not scientifically unproductive.
"Intelligent design is a scientific research program that investigates the effects of intelligentcauses," How is this not scientific? If we come at things from random mutation, we have no choice but to apply random solutions. If we have a foundation of intelligent design, we can research what sheer pin has come loose or what spark plug isn't functioning and work to repair it. Evolution has lead to the belief that some of the things that we have are "DNA junk" or leftovers from a previous evolutionary state that are no longer necessary. ID believes that DNA junk would not exist. So, rather than throw out, say, the appendix or the thymus, the ID scientist continues looking for what they do because a designer wouldn't have put something useless in the complex machine.
"Expelled’s inflammatory implication that Darwin and the science of evolution “led to” eugenics, Nazis, and Stalinism is deeply offensive"
That's great. Doesn't make it any less true that those that participated in the activities used (however misguided it may have been) the theory in question as justification or perhaps even instigation.
The Crusades offend me as a believer. Misguided religion led to that. Blowing up abortion clinics offend me as a pro-lifer. George Bush offends me as a conservative. Misguided politics led him to do what he does. The fact non-misguided people are offended doesn't change the fact that insane people used a theory to carry out henious acts. A theory that, yes, logically ends in a "Handmaid's Tale," "Brave New World" and "1984" future.
"Questionable interview tactics" I hope that these same people are up Michael Moore's butt about the same thing.
"But why assume that Richard Dawkins or Kenneth Miller speak for science?" The film doesn't assume this. It uses the words of scientists as their own words, it makes no further ascertations.
"If the claim is that accepting evolution logically requires a devaluation of human worth, it is clearly wrong. For a biologist, life and death are indeed natural processes, but evolutionary biology doesn’t and can’t show that they are “just” natural processes, any less important or meaningful. That inference is a philosophical, not scientific, conclusion."
Thus confirming that evolution, like ID is both scientific and philosophical. The existence of God is philosphical. The possiblity that life as we know it might have some intellegent design is testable. Remove parts, change DNA, alter genomes, can we reverse engineer (like we've done with sheep) to previous life forms? The more we learn, the more this should be possible. In fact, experiementing with reverse engineering is testing ID to show that step by step random evolution is not possible. (Oh, and to your claim that science doesn't use process of elimiation: House does it, is he not a scientist? Are inventors not scientists? Edison had observation, hypothesis, experimentation and conclusion for all of his failures for the light bulb filament. I think you'd be in the minority in calling him a non-scientist.
I see now information that makes the belief that we've randomly changed from ameboas to humans any more testable than the belief that there is some intelligence behind the formation of all beings. Either they are both philosphical AND science or neither is science.
My turn:
Testable?
http://www.ideacenter.org/
contentmgr/showdetails.php/id/1156
DNA Junk
http://www.ideacenter.org/
contentmgr/showdetails.php/id/1155
Unexplained=unexplainable?
http://www.ideacenter.org/
contentmr/showdetails.php/id/1167
Marc,
I think we're making little progress here.
1) I apologize if i somehow hacked you off. You sounded really frustrated or pissed in your last comment. Sorry if i said something to make you mad.
2) I do not completely understand everything you are arguing in your last paragraph. I'm not making total sense of it. From what i do understand it appears that you are using circular logic; i.e. "I don't believe expelledexposed.com because it doesn't line up with "Expelled" because i believe "Expelled" and I believe "Expelled" because "Expelled" said so."
3) Each time you present a claim (mutations, DNA, transitional fossils) or make an argument, I make an attempt at either refuting it or providing evidence to the contrary. You've subsequently ignored my answers to these and in turn you introduce a whole 'nuther set of propositions. Have to admit this is a little frustrating to me.
4) I don't know how else I can say that ID is not science, but i've tried to say this in numerous ways. It's not a rip or a threat it just IS. I maintain that the in the same way that a boy is not a girl and a girl is not a boy that ID is not science.
5) Michael Moore...dude come on. Where were these people when Michael Moore made his movies? How about Fahrenhype 9/11? How about the "immoral athiest" Christopher Hitchens who ripped Moore a new one for Fahrenheit 9/11? How about people who actually have power in the media (owned by the conservatives by the way) Coulter, O'Reilley, Hannity and such? And i can guarantee you that had Moore been behind "Expelled" the scientific community would have ripped him a new one. You're bordering on the "Christian persecution complex" with that one and that lights a big fire under my ass. No offense, just being honest here.
5) I've asked this before and I'll ask it again. What on earth are you afraid of? Someone with this large a beef against the scientific community's acceptance of ID must be afraid of something? Are you afraid of losing your faith if science is correct about evolution? If so, i'd say you need to re-examine and start talking to God about your faith.
Lastly, I love you man. No love lost here. You've been a tremendous friend to me while you were out here, and i love when you come back and we can have some cigars and play poker.
Hope to see you soon my friend.
Marc stole my thunder by posting the link to Idea Center, but I couldn't tell from your last comment, James, if you actually visited the link. If not, in the interest of supporting the argument that ID is a scientific theory, I'll post a short blurb here and if anyone is interested, follow the links in Marc's previous comment that lead to the site. Without further adieu -
"Question: Does intelligent design theory implement the scientific method?
Answer: Yes. The scientific method goes from observation --> hypothesis --> experiment --> conclusion. Intelligent design begins with the observation that intelligent agents produce complex and specified information (CSI). Design theorists hypothesize that if objects were designed, they will contain CSI. They then seek to find CSI. One easily testable form of CSI is irreducible complexity (IC). ID researchers can then experimentally reverse-engineer biological structures to see if they are IC. If they find them, they can conclude design."
Again, my only point that I wish to see validated is that ID is in fact scientific theory, and I believe the above explanation satisfies that point. The website does have a long answer to that question, so please feel free to review it for further information.
Also, James, I can't say I enjoyed the trouncing earlier regarding my process of elimination post, but it was certainly an education. *tips hat*
Troy, yes thank for posting that portion from the link. It reminds me that I left one thing out from my previous comment.
7) Marc, this is the second time you've pulled the you're-facts-suck-now-read-mine hat trick. Have to admit this is frustrating too. It would be helpful if you'd address my questions specifically before jumping into a new topic. As it stands you ignored my link on mutation and speciation.
Now to Troy's comment. Thanks for that hat tip my friend. *virtual hand shake* for you.
You listed "The scientific method goes from observation --> hypothesis --> experiment --> conclusion." No problem here so far. This looks legit.
To continue: "Intelligent design begins with the observation that intelligent agents produce complex and specified information (CSI)." Here is our first Big problem, and this helps to illustrate my point that ID is not science. -> 1) "Intelligent agents" cannot be tested in the realm of science, and as a result the specified information "Intelligent agents" produce also cannot be verified to have indeed come from this intelligent agent. We're already at a loss. Science by definition requires testing with measurable objects and also testable predictions which can be verified. We simply cannot do this with an "intelligent agent" in the equation. We can relegate this to Philosophy or religion at this point, but not to science.
2) The statement above is not primarily an observation but a more of a conclusion based upon an observation of the physical world. It's kind of backwards.
I don't think i need to go through the rest of the model's equation as we've already determined that this cannot be scientifically tested.
And again, i'm not trying to crap on ID, just saying that the discussion needs to happen in the appropriate field, and in this case it is not the field of science.
Many blessings to you man. Best to you and Marc and the kids in your ministry.
i would like to know if marc or troy have degrees in any science field.
i have a minor in anthropology and am about a semester short of my masters in anthropology. i've held a cast made from transitional fossils. and it isn't "junk DNA" in that it is useless. it was only thought to be junk because no one knew where it came from. now we know. early on in our evolution we encountered retro-viruses (things that still exist and still do what they did way back when) and they mixed theirs with ours. it is likely that they are the trigger for the biological changes from species to species.
we've seen insects change so much that they could not interbreed - that is called speciation. there is a lizard that has been observed to change so drastically that it is a new species. and we have observed black holes.
of course you all would know this if you would have read the links james provided but you won't because you don't agree with the conclusions.
you are suffering from confirmation bias. that is; you have a belief about something and you only listen to input that confirms that belief and reject anything that refutes your belief. it doesn't make you bad or dumb. we all do it.
i used to be a 6 day, bible is true blah blah blah christian and i made all the arguments you've been making. they sound very familiar. i also made some arguments you haven't yet made but i wouldn't be surprised when you do.
i used to be a pastor. i used to teach and train people in apologetics. i used to help people make the same arguments you are making. then i started turning those arguments on christianity. after all if christianity were true it would hold up. it didn't. i discovered that all my struggle against evolution was really about fear. fear that my faith would fall apart if i examined it too closely. and you know what? it did. is that what you fear?
i have hesitated to jump into this thread (i won't call it a discussion because in a discussion people actually respond to each others statements and that isn't happening here). i was hesitant because i have these kinds of "conversations" to be pointless. they are pointless because they aren't about finding out what is true, they are about fighting for ones own belief out of fear. they are pointless because of the circular reasoning. they are pointless because of the solipsistic manner of debate.
that is just my rambling 2 cents.
Hi Mike, nice to meet you!
The specific part of this comment thread that I am involved in is making an argument in favor of ID being a legitimate scientific theory. I'm not arguing for or against that theory being correct, nor am I taking a stand against evolution. I'm actually very comfortable with evolution and it doesn't shake my faith in the slightest. I also don't consider the Bible a scientific resource.
I just wanted to clarify some of the points you mentioned in your comment as they related to me.
troy,
i think you miss understand what would make something a "legitimate" scientific theory.
is the flat earth theory legitimate?
is the theory that there is a space ship behind Halleys Commit legitimate?
what makes a theory "legitimate" and "scientific" is that it holds up to the scientific method.
you come up with a hypothesis that explains a particular phenomenon. you test that hypothesis. others test the hypothesis and they btw also will test your tests. repeat. if it holds it is considered a legitimate scientific theory.
we have observed speciation (children cover your ears evolution). we can test the theory by observing speciation, the genetic code, etc. it isn't a theory. it has been proven that all life evolved from other life forms. we came from apes. you get the point.
we cannot test "god did it" because that cannot be observed. ID is not a legitimate scientific theory. it might, for some, be a legitimate cosmology.
it does not belong in a science classroom.
Wow, so much to cover. However. Before I respond to anything, I think some air needs to be cleared.
James: I ask your forgiveness. I thought I was responding to your comments. Apparently, based on your responses and those of Mike, I've missed the mark. Let's try to take them one at a time. I'll do my best to review what you've written and I'll try to respond. If I miss anything, please point that out before responding to my responses. Will that work?
(oh and I reread my last comment. Yeah, I did sound "hacked off" as you put it. Sorry. Wasn't intentional. (Admittedly, I was attempting to duplicate the dismissive tone that your commenters had on my "never find out" request. Guess I failed.)
Ok, here's a response that I feel is most important:
1) What on earth are you afraid of?
You've asked me this on my political views as well. I have to say that there are very few things that I do out of fear. My politics isn't one of them and neither is this view. In my introspection (as flawed as that may be) I believe I have a strong sense of justice. (something that taints my Christianity as well...) I get annoyed when refereeing/umpiring isn't fair. I get perturbed when I feel that a political party openly caters to special interest groups (yes I see the irony, let's let it pass for now). I have a hard time when I see things that are, to me, obvious double standards.
Having said that, here is the crux of my issue with Evolution v ID. Based on my research, what I've seen, read, heard, experienced, etc [and no, Mike, I do not have a science degree. But if we could only speak on or act on those things in which we are highly educated then there would be very few conversations in the world, about 1/3rd of the people who vote now would be allowed to vote in the future, and education would be difficult because I can't discuss a subject unless I already know everything about it. (end tangent)] The Theory of Evolution is no more testable than ID. I cannot take an animal and conduct some type of experiment on it and conclude that Evolution is true any more than I can do an experiment that proves that there must be an intelligent Designer. To be honest, I have no qualms with ID being "not science" as long as the theory of Evolution is in the same category. I do not see the gaping difference in the two theories that you apparently do.
So. the short answer: I rant, not out of fear, but out of injustice. ID or Evolution has no real bearing on my daily life or my faith. It really doesn't matter to me how God chose to make life happen. Neither does the no-call that Flaco stepped out of the back of the end zone. But they both bug me like a bur in my shoe. It's just kind of annoying and all I'm looking for is that the belief in either theory is essentially the same: faith. Both sides claim to have evidence and yet neither can truly test their theory in the truest vein of the scientific method.
OK, now you mentioned "mutations, DNA, transitional fossils" so here's my response to that:
2) Are you referring to this comment: "you and i, your family and mine... we are all cross-over species. We are the transitional fossils evolution speaks of. It is constantly being duplicated."?
I don't even know what to say to this. As long as humans have been recording their history (which I do have a degree in, Mike) we've been essentially the same. We've gotten taller (though some scholarship denies this). So, what are we crossing over to? Or from? Where's the evidence of these changes? (not being a jerk. honestly asking questions...)
2 continued) (because I'm not seeing specific mentions of mutations, DNA, transitional fossils I feel I'm forced to guess...) the eye: So I went to the source website, and, honestly I have no issue with what's written there. It says: "Scientists have come up with scenarios through which the first eye-like structure, a light-sensitive pigmented spot on the skin, could have gone through changes and complexities to form the human eye, with its many parts and astounding abilities." [emphasis added] Sure, smarter people than I can guess at what happened so it fits their theory. It also says, "Here's how some scientists think some eyes may have evolved: "[emphasis added] Absolutely. And I wouldn't expect anything less. Evolutionary scientists use their theory to hypothesize how it might have happened devoid of any fossil proof due to what they currently see and what they believe (if there were some fossil proof, I'd have expected to see a link to an image? a website? on the "eye" page). This is exactly my argument. ID scientists guess at what might have happened based on what they currently see and what they believe. Where is the difference?
[TANGENT: (I had to chuckle at this argument: "If God or some other omnipotent force was responsible for the human eye, it was something of a botched design." with this line of thought the very existence of disease or cancer disproves the existence of an intelligent designer.) End tangent]
2 continued) Ok, I visited On Speciation (not sure how I missed these pages, thought I hit them all the first time through). Again, I have no argument with this page. I have no doubt that animals can change into different like animals. Yes, the lizard became a different lizard. It's not becoming a frog. The fly became a different fly, it's not turning into a bird. The argument that a new species is reproductively isolated is fine. I have no argument with that aspect of Darwinism. There's proof for that. That is science. It's the leap of faith that says that these mutations will lead to a chinchilla becoming a lion that I place in the same category as ID.
[Whoops, another tangent. {this page said: "Maybe you should start using some of those eyedrops you peddled to open your eyes a bit wider so that you can see the world as it really is." really? That's really how you want to convince people? Really?) End tangent.]
2 continued) "On Mutation Ok, no problem. Expelled was wrong on that point.
(how am I doing so far at answering the points I missed?)
Oh, please ignore the Michael Moore comment. Upon reflection it was in poor taste.
OK. I think I've hit on the points I missed? Yay, Nay?
And I just wanted to make one teensy weensy response to your most recent comment. You said, "'Intelligent agents' cannot be tested in the realm of science." I think there is a disconnect here. The "Intelligent agents" mentioned in the "observation" section of the model aren't the "intelligent agent" that supposedly made the "complex structures" in life forms. The IAs in the beginning are humans. We are intelligent agents and we create complex
and specified information. Based on that observation, if their hypothesis is correct then they will see the same from the theoretical Intelligent agent.
After rereading this comment, I think that Troy and I are coming at this from two different angles. It is his desire to say that ID is viable science. It seems to be my aim to say that neither ID nor Macro Evolution is because they are both completely theoretical and untestable.
Bottom line: Don't hold your "leap of faith" theory as science and tell others that their "leap of faith" theory is crap. (no you personally… science in general)
Thanks for the kind words, James. I have been missing friendships like ours since I moved to CT and there are so many circumstances conspiring to keep me from MA for poker, performances, or people. Leave an empty chair for me next time you play...
Mike. The simple fact that DNA is similar from species to species does not mean conclusively that macro evolution is fact.
In my last comment you might read that I've no qualms with a lizard becoming another lizard. Only a fool would deny that.
Is Macro-evolution a good idea? Sure. But until we observe a cat that becomes a cow that is all it will remain: a good idea. A theory. A step of faith.
Marc, thank you for saying all that you did and for taking the time to write it all out. I think there are a few things i'd like to see answered but you attempted the big ones.
I can see where we are at an impasse at present. Let's see if we can move through it. I think it's possible.
I understand that you're in the frame of "Hey ref, call it both ways" with regard to science and ID both having their "leaps of faith" so to speak. What i'm trying to maintain here, however, is that we are on two different playing fields. What i mean is that the ref in one case is a like basketball ref and in the other case it is a Judge on the 3rd circuit court of appeals. The Judge can't step in and call a foul in the basketball game, and the ref can't step into the courtroom and pronounce a sentence.
This is the kind of category difference i'm referring to with ID and science. They are two different categories. ID has the right to say that God created it, but to do so is not science simply by definition. And in the case of science, any claim that science makes will have been the result of repeated testing, and it's conclusion will be subject to further testing. The claims that ID makes however are untestable. If we could test them, they would be science. But by ID's nature it is not. That's all i'm trying to get at here.
Now science cannot say that God does not exist. It can't speak for God either way because claims about God are untestable. Sure guys like Dawkins will deny God but that is their own personal conjecture, not science.
I'm going to draft a brief post on the topic we've been discussing here, because I have a small article that sums all of this up pretty well. Pop on over if you can.
by the way . . . my confirmation password code for this post is "sucke"
James.
On one hand I want to agree with you just because the Theory of Evolution is so broad that there are aspects that are completely testable. Species becoming other like species for example.
However, because the theory also holds the conclusion that a wolf became a whale and a T Rex became a chicadee (hyperbole, though the current scholarship isn't that dinosaurs totally became extinct but that they became birds) I am forced to group it with ID. Until the theory separates itself into two categories then the whole theory must be under the same heading.
I'll check out your post.
"In my last comment you might read that I've no qualms with a lizard becoming another lizard. Only a fool would deny that.
Is Macro-evolution a good idea? Sure. But until we observe a cat that becomes a cow that is all it will remain: a good idea. A theory. A step of faith."
marc, please show me where in the scientific literature anyone claims that cows evolved from cats.
you demonstrate a dramatic misunderstanding of the nature of biological evolution.
no one claims that a cat becomes a cow, or a monkey becomes a human.
that is not evolution. it is a straw man argument that creationists like to use because it is easy to defeat. but when you do so you are not disproving evolution.
i would like to hear your definition of evolution.
Sure, Mike, no problem:
It's my understanding of evolution that everything evolved from a single ancestor. From there we have the different kingdoms, classes, families, etc. So, no, a cow didn't come from a cat. That would be an attempt at literary hyperbole on my part, not setting a strawman. A cow and a cat would have had a common ancestor that mutated into these different mammals. But, if we go back far enough, that ancestor not only evolved into mammals, but also birds, insects, reptiles, etc (Should plant life be included in this? Did plant life come from the same single celled organism? That's something I was never clear on regarding the theory...)
So, you are right, as I said, I was using hyperbole in my comment. However. There must have been some dramatic mutations for that first single celled organism to become something that could evolve into both a fish and an amphibian. So while there hasn't been any extreme phylum changing evolutions in recent history, it must have occurred at some point.
And if this spark of life, through natural selection, was evolving into what was best suited for it's environment, why did it evolve into so many different things? Wouldn't there have been one best? Shouldn't it only have evolved along a single track rather than splitting into different species?
As I failed in the past to properly respond to the questions posed to me, I'd like to make sure I've answered your request. Would you say I've accurately responded to your comment?
marc,
biological evolution, which is what we think we are talking about is defined as changes, through time, in the frequencies of different genes throughout an entire species, or within a single population of that species, from generation to generation.
these changes are subtle changes in the frequency of genes that accumulate over time.
it is accepted based on the fossil record and what we know about genetics that the first "life" evolved into more complex life forms. these life forms at first were neither plant nor animal but rather a proto Eubacterium. it is also possible that the first forms were simply strands of DNA or some thing that might look a lot like modern retro viruses. as these forms were acted upon by the environment thus turning on and turning off genes, and also selecting for certain traits (the ones that replicated the most successfully passed on their genes and the modifications) they became more complex.
you said, "And if this spark of life, through natural selection, was evolving into what was best suited for it's environment, why did it evolve into so many different things? Wouldn't there have been one best? Shouldn't it only have evolved along a single track rather than splitting into different species?"
there are a few assumptions you make here that are not accurate. first, not all evolution is what is best for the species environment. some gene frequencies are not beneficial but are passed on and ultimately lead to the extinction of the species.
you also ask "why did it evolve into so many different things? Wouldn't there have been one best?"
behind this question is the assumption that evolution is advancement which it is not. there is no such thing as a best one. there are only mutations that are either "beneficial" in that they enable the passing on of the genetic code or there are "negative" mutations that kill off the species, and there are "neutral" changes that make no difference at all. but there are changes in the frequency of genes nonetheless that lead to variation. when you pile on variation after variation you get speciation. at that point the two forms are incapable of interbreeding and as they both continue to change over time do to changes in gene frequency the changes in their forms and therefore the differences between them become more and more dramatic.
why would you think that a multi-faceted system such as evolution which involves random mutations of gene frequencies caused by a myriad of environmental factors would result in a "single track" rather than multiple outcomes? where in life do you see complex systems with multiple variables result in a single outcome every single time? if you multiply all the factors by all the times genes replicate over billions of years you will get x number to the nth degree of variations.
sorry i should explain gene frequencies.
Gene frequency measures the frequency in the population of a particular gene relative to other genes at its locus. Expressed as a proportion (between 0 and 1) or percentage (between 0 and 100%).
In the simplest case, gene frequency is measured by counting the frequencies of each gene in the population. If a genotype contains two genes, then there are a total of 16 genes per locus in a population of eight individuals:
Aa AA aa aa AA Aa AA Aa
In the population above,
frequency of A = 9/16 = 0.5625
frequency of a = 7/16 = 0.4375.
Algebraically, we can define p as the frequency of A and q as the frequency of a. p and q are always called 'gene' frequencies, but in a strict sense they are allele frequencies: they are the frequencies of the different alleles at one genetic locus.
The gene frequencies can be calculated from the genotype frequencies (P, Q, R ):
p = P + 1/2Q
q = R + 1/2Q
(and p + q = 1). The calculation of gene from genotype frequencies is highly important. Although the gene frequencies can be calculated from the genotype frequencies, the opposite is not true: the genotype frequencies cannot be calculated from the gene frequencies (p , q ).
that is from a basic biology textbook.
i bother to explain all of this because i constantly hear creationists (and that is really what ID is about) say that they believe in "micro" evolution but not "macro." when in reality micro evolution is what leads to macro evolution. small changes in the genetic code over time leading ultimately to speciation and further changes in individual species leading to the great variations we have now.
Did all that answer your questions?
my word verification is duloc. isn't that from a movie or something?
hey just a heads up. i've been trying to click on the tag cloud down there at the bottom of your blog but it doesn't take me anywhere.
Mike, thanks for taking the time to explain all of that.
(In regards to the tag cloud... not sure what's wrong with it but the links have never actually worked... I've been playing with it but can't seem to fix it.)
You've definitely answered my questions regarding the multiple strains of life. I guess I kinda thought that the first "life" was one single cell, failed to expand that thought to millions and billions of life forms. Whoops.
You said: " these life forms at first were neither plant nor animal but rather a proto Eubacterium. it is also possible that the first forms were simply strands of DNA or some thing that might look a lot like modern retro viruses. as these forms were acted upon by the environment thus turning on and turning off genes, and also selecting for certain traits (the ones that replicated the most successfully passed on their genes and the modifications) they became more complex."
How much of this is theory, and how much is in the fossil record? I had read that the first "life forms" were Amino Acids, not strands of DNA or retro viruses.
That's part of my issue with the theory: we see certain aspects of the theory as being correct even in modern life forms so we assume that all of the theory must be accurate, no matter how theoretical. We see speciation in like species (to beat a dead horse: the lizards) Or horses, I suppose. And we assume then that the lizard could move so far from being a lizard that it because something completely different. Where have we seen that happen? Where is there a record of a cross-over species?
I'd love to have this debate be over. I'd love for there to be indisputable proof that a wolf-like creature became a whale (and I have read that theory.) Or that a cephalopod became a shrimp. Or that some animal resembles both a turtle and an alligator. That would make life much easier. I wouldn't have to leave room for the possibility that evolution doesn't explain everything. (clearly a difficulty that most modern scientists don't wrestle with.)
Thanks for your time and thoughts.
"And we assume then that the lizard could move so far from being a lizard that it because something completely different. Where have we seen that happen? Where is there a record of a cross-over species?
I'd love to have this debate be over. I'd love for there to be indisputable proof that a wolf-like creature became a whale (and I have read that theory.) Or that a cephalopod became a shrimp. Or that some animal resembles both a turtle and an alligator. That would make life much easier."
marc, what part of my explanation above didn't account for or explain to you how what you just said was wrong? why do you keep going back to extreme morphological (mythological) shifts such as a half turtle half alligator? i don't think you understood what i wrote above if you think that is how evolution works. is it that you don't understand or that you only know how to use the same tired creationist responses?
"I wouldn't have to leave room for the possibility that evolution doesn't explain everything. (clearly a difficulty that most modern scientists don't wrestle with.)"
biological evolution does not attempt to explain everything. it only attempts to explain how life got to where it is today. it has nothing to say about god, nothing to say about purpose and meaning.
since i took the time to explain evolution to you - and although i am doubtful you understood it or you simply are ignoring it because it doesn't fit with your worldview - i think it would be only fair of you to define Intelligent Design.
how is it not a religious theory? how does it work without inserting a deity? because if it does require a deity it is religious and not a scientific theory.
i would like to hear your definition of "intelligent design." how does intelligent design explain the complexity of life? how does intelligent design account for obvious remnants of our pre-human past such as the coccyx or the appendix? or the development of the human eye (all of which evolution does account and explain)?
i would like to hear it w/out a single reference or something of that nature to "god just made it that way."
Sorry Mike. I think you are missing my point. I am in no way attempting to say that ID is science. I am not defending ID. I'm simply questioning Evolution.
I happen to think that evolution is the best available theory on how things came about. The issue I take with it is the certainty with which it is spoken about. As though there can be no doubt. There can be no other way. The theory of evolution has moved from theory to fact in modern science with a surprising lack of evidence.
I also think you misuderstood my sentence. I'm not looking for a turtle that turned into an alligator (though I can provide you with documentation of the land creature to whale hypothesis). I'm asking for a common ancestor. Where are the fossil remains for the being that could have become either a turtle or an alligator? Where are the remains of the ancestor of the ancestor of the ancestor? If it's a tree that splits, each split had to have a common ancestor with some other branch.
I'm not explaining my question well.
Let me try using specifics: Let's say we've got a fossil of a common ancestor of ape and man (A). What creature (B) evolved into that creature (A)? Based on what I'm reading, B must have also evolved into something else (C) like the ancestor of the bear, or koala. B must have evolved from something else that also evolved into a number of different species.
My question is where is B? Where is B's ancestor? For as long as we've been trying to prove this portion of evolution we've not been able to assemble a line of evidence of ancestors of ancestors. We can connect theoretical dots all we like, but we need the stepping stones of fossils to prove it.
...........Man
........../
.......--A
....../...\
...../.....Ape
----B
.....\.....Bear
......\.../
.......--C
..........\
...........Koala
Or
............Turtle
.........../
........--1
......./...\
....../.....Alligator
.....2
......\.....Lizard
.......\.../
........--3
...........\
............Frog
Granted, I don't know which animals are assumed to have common ancestors so these are theoretical based on the similarities of the animals. But where is 2? We are finding 1's and 3's (or at least fossils that we assume are 1's or 3's) but we can't seem to make even the next step back. Let alone 4 or 5 steps.
If the change is so slow and we are the cross over species, where is the fossil record of the cross over from the animals that abound in the fossil record to what we have now?
(let's see how this works... *fingers crossed*)
wow. better than I ever expected!
marc, again i think you aren't grasping what evolution is. sorry if i haven't explained it clearly.
and if you are looking for a man-bear-pig you will be very disappointed. :)
here are a few modern and from the fossil record.
for example, and these are just off the top of my head...
Various gliding animals, such as the "flying squirrel", which may be on their way to becoming something closer to a bat-like animal. (although "bat-like" is misleading as we already have a biological place for bats and the flying squirrel would likely become something entirely different. but i doubt you or i would be around to see it.
The euglena, which is halfway to plant.
Aquatic snakes.
Reptiles with a "third eye" that only gets infrared. I shit you not. This is just cool.
Fish that can live out of water for long periods, use their fins as legs, and breathe air.
Various jaw bones of Probainognathus that were in the process of migrating toward the middle ear.
Various Eocene whales, which had hooved forelimbes and hindlimbs
and you still owe me an explanation of how ID explains anything without appeal to god.
i also forgot to mention that we have a very good record of the evolution of the horse.
and it should be noted that your "tree" analogy is mistaken.
modern evolutionary biology uses the cladogram that is more "bush" like and more accurate in that it doesn't imply and unbroken line but rather branches that went no where etc.
btw.
if you think "I happen to think that evolution is the best available theory on how things came about."
then why the f**** would you want ID taught along side it as science?
Ah ha! Finally we come to the crux of the issue!
"then why the f*** would you want ID taught along side it as science?"
I don't. I do not want ID taught along side of evolution as science. When it comes to what I see as the unprovable aspect of evolution, I want one of two things: I want that part out of science and on the sidelines with ID or I want it taught as the theory that it is, not as it is currently taught: as fact.
I don't know enough about ID to defend it. It does sound to me like "God did it."
"Various Eocene whales, which had hooved forelimbes and hindlimbs" have we found these? or are they theoretical?
"cladogram that is more "bush" like" any chance you know of a website with an example of this?
"The euglena, which is halfway to plant" Oh, yeah, if you don't mind taking the time to expound upon this some more (website reference or something)... I've recently been wondering where plants which are a form of life come from the primoridal soup, if you will. Did some living organism mutate to have roots?
Dispite our apparent miscommunications, I think this has been a very productive conversation. Thanks
marc,
what part of what i've written so far is not fact? could you point to the scientific journals (accepted ones not the BS ones from the creationists) in which all of the things i've pointed out are disproved? could you show me how they are not facts?
since i have taken the time to take you back to grade 11 and explain to you what you should have learned in highschool biology and you have yet to define ID and explain how it makes sense of the material world without using "god." instead you have changed your position (which i expected because that is what many people of faith do when you debate them) - since i have taken the time to do this you could surely do the courtesy of showing me a simple list of facts about evolution that have been disproved. it should be quite easy to find reputable scientific journals in which the majority of the facts that support evolution have been refuted.
and please, nothing from the creationist propaganda machine.
Wow. I extend an olive branch and you return it with barbed wire?
I did, in fact, NOT change my stance. My stance has been, and remains, that ID and evolution both require leaps of faith. We do not have conclusive evidence to say that all aspects of the theory of evolution are true and proven. If you attempt to tell me that all aspects of the theory are conclusively proven then I ask you to provide me with the documentation of the experiments that created life, that saw a single celled organism mutate into a multi-celled organism. Please provide me with images of the fossils of the creature that climbed out of the water and it's pre-evolutionary relative that is identical but did not have the ability to breath air.
Bottom line. Evolution is fact and theory (Stephen Jay Gould wrote "Evolution is a theory. It is also a fact." Look, scientists agree with me, too! here, too) That's all I'm asking. Teach it as fact and theory, not just as fact. It's a good idea how things came about, not a certainty.
I do not appreciate your hostility. I do not appreciate your patronizing tone. I have not attempted to refute anything you've written about that has been proven. You've only written on those things that have been proven. However, until Evolution in its entirety is conclusively proven, there needs to be room left for doubt. Or, at the very least, treat it as what it is: A theory that is being tested and changed and better understood.
When you ask me to defend ID, you are asking me to speak to something I do not think is science.
And regarding the aspects of evolution that have been "disproved." That's the beauty of a theory: When something doesn't fit, change the theory. Perhaps a less confrontational term would be "refinement." The theory of evolution has never been disproved because it is constantly being refined. I have no problem with this, but don't pretend it's prefect because it's never been disproven. You can't disprove something as malleable as the theory of evolution.
here's that link
http://www.actionbioscience.org/
evolution/lenski.html
marc, i apologize if you felt my tone was harsh. you should understand that since i rejected the faith (and subsequently am going to hell) i've had nothing but circular reasoning from christians and have very little tolerance left for christian apologetic that uses the line of reasoning that you were using.
i don't disagree that some aspects of evolution have not been proven. but that does not make it a leap of faith. we deduce from the facts.
a leap of faith is something else entirely.
your position now seems that we should teach the two together. however ID is not science so why would it be taught in a science classroom? there are no "facts" or proof for ID. ID looks at gaps in our understanding and ascribes them to god while science deduces from the facts to explain what we don't have the material proof for.
the one is blind conjecture based on religious doctrine while the other is basic scientific method.
so even if there are aspects of evolution we have yet to "prove" that does not put it in the same category as ID.
Mike, I agree with you that the aspects of Evloution not proven are deduced from the facts that we have.
That does not make them facts. I would argue that the deduction of them does not even make it science. I suppose because they are testable deductions I might have to revoke that last sentence...
(thinking out loud now...) I can use the facts (Wounds, video, photographs, and eye witness information) to logically deduce that JFK was assisinated by no fewer than three people. I can also deduce that it was likely that they were gov't people based on the likely location and tactics of the assasins. My deductions doesn't make my theory true. It is a testable theory, is it then science?
The way I see it, the unproven portions of Evolution and ID both are an attempt to explain what we do not know and have not proven. Because both have not been proven, regardless of how one feels about either, they have to be given the same wieght until one is proven.
I expect that you'll disagree based on, as I read it, your belief that there is not God (my appoligies if I've put a belief on you that you do not hold. Just going on "rejection of the faith") However, as my scientist friend Kerri put it in a much earlier comment: "Until an observation is able to [directly contradict a theory], ANY theory is "plausable" no matter how silly or outrageous. So in reality, if a scientist wanted to make the assertion that they are caused by an "evil green whippity-dippity", then they could, and that is their perogative until proven otherwise."
To reject a theory because you reject the philosophical assumption of the theory is not science. Testing and observation must be used. So until we can conclusively say that all aspects of the theory of evolution are true then those that believe in an evil Green whippity-dippity have the right to assert their theory.
"and have very little tolerance left for christian apologetic that uses the line of reasoning that you were using." I'm wondering what line of reasoning it is that you feel I was using for which you have little tolerance left?
I think I'll make this sentence my final sentence.
I am not suggesting that ID be taught in the classroom. I had been suggesting that ID and the unprovable parts of Evolution be considered similar. As I see it, they both are deductions based on the facts seen. If you are uncomfortable with that, then I'll simply ask that we agree that the theoretical parts of evolution should be taught as theoretical. When I was in Biology (which was actually in 10th grade) it was taught as absolute fact.
marc,
at this point i throw up my hands. apparently i have failed to explain the vast differences between the scientific theory of evolution and what constitutes the scientific method in such a way that you can see the difference between the theory of evolution that is both fact and theory and testable and ID which is not science but a cosmology and by definition untestable because you cannot test "god did it."
i know i must have failed, or you are not amenable to changing your mind - for example: "Testing and observation must be used. So until we can conclusively say that all aspects of the theory of evolution are true then those that believe in an evil Green whippity-dippity have the right to assert their theory."
exactly "testing and observation" but we don't need to conclusively say that all aspects of the theory are true if we have enough evidence to deduce that what we haven't observed or tested are true. you are mixing apples and oranges with your hyperbole regarding those that believe in "an evil Green whippity-dippity have the right to assert their theory." they have that right of free speech, but they can't call it science and it can't be taught in a science classroom unless as a theory it is testable and most importantly it is possible to DISPROVE that theory. if there are no methods by which a theory could possibly be disproved then it is not testable. it isn't "provability" but rather the possibility to create a test that if the theory were false it could be disproved.
this is of the kind of reasoning i am referring to. it is not the entirety but it is among the types of reasoning that i get from christians over and over.
it isn't that i don't believe there is a god. i don't worship any god, i don't see any reason to worship a god, and i think religion is a mixed bag of good and bad. i am not an atheist because that is not testable. you can't prove there is a god and you can't disprove it. but that is not the point. the existence of god or gods and their/his/her/its works in the material world are out side the scope of science as is the realm of scientific investigation outside the scope of religious theory. they approach the world with two distinct and disparate means. one is existential the other is evidential. one requires faith the other requires testability. and you are making a subtle connection between atheism and evolution which is false. i believed in evolution when i was a christian. my belief in evolution had very little to do with my rejection of the faith. james believes in evolution, yet he is the most faithful christian i know. is his acceptance of evolution a result of his philosophical beliefs? or is it because he understands the difference between science and religion?
i don't reject ID for philosophical reasons. which, btw is the reason people reject evolution. they follow the same ill informed logic that Expelled follows when it attempts to link acceptance of evolution with Nazism, communism, (btw, how is it that being a communist is as bad as killing 6 million jews?).
i reject ID as a SCIENTIFIC THEORY because it is not a scientific theory, it is a cosmology, it is a religious theory, but it is not science. i don't care if people believe in ID but i do care if it is taught to kids as being a reasonable scientific alternative to evolution.
but i digress. as with every other conversation i have had with christians i find i am running up against a confirmation bias and a myriad of presuppositions that i don't have the patience or time to untangle before we can even talk about the issue at hand.
Marc, i share Mike's frustration. I feel like you are talking on circles and changing your conclusions, which makes me think that you may be thinking out loud or something. You hinted at the fact that ID should be taught in the classrooms ("once these [unprovable evolutionary theories] are absent from science text books, class rooms, labs, and museums, I'll be ok with ID being ousted as well."
Then you say that you are "not defending ID" and that evolution is the "best available theory" for how things came about.
Then you say that ID shouldn't be taught in the classrooms, but that the unprovable aspects of evolution shouldn't be taught in the classrooms either.
My head is spinning dude . . . you're changing your positions
In addition, that's like saying that Galileo's heliocentric model shouldn't have been taught unless someone were able to prove it 100% at the time. Like get in a rocketship and fly into outer space and observe it in order for it to be true.
No love lost here of course, but I think i'm done here too. I thought we were making progress but as i mention above i'm lost in your logic.
Mike has done a spectacular job at walking us through what science is and through evolutionary theory is yet you're still making confusing comments like "Biology was taught as fact" in your high school. That's because biology is fact. It's completely observable and testable, even moreso that evolutionary science.
Anyway.... that's all i got.
Wow. I'm very sorry that I've frustrated you. Reading your comments, it seems I have been unclear (or perhaps my logic is faulty). I will try to be as clear as possible. I ask that you respond to this final comment where I try to spell out what I think.
I understand some of your confusion. Part of it stems from this: The following statement is only partially true: "I did, in fact, NOT change my stance. My stance has been, and remains, that ID and evolution both require leaps of faith." This has been my stance since the beginning. However. Upon further reflection, this concept is out of context. It is regarding provability rather than testability and has no bearing on, and no place in, this conversation. I'd ask that it be stricken from the record.
Primarily because, yes, I have changed my position in this conversation. Thanks, in large part, to James' pointing out that testability does not mean provability. Hence I now reject ID as science. This realization can be found on James' post of like subject.
I'm sorry, though, but I don't see how I'm suffering from confirmation bias. I don't believe I'm taking in new information in a way that confirms my preconceptions nor do I think I'm avoiding information and interpretations which contradict my prior beliefs. As I stated before, I have accepted the new information regarding ID and I'm rejecting it as science.
Yes, in a previous comment (prior to my "ID is not science conversion") I suggested that we remove both from the classroom. I do not feel that way anymore. I am not suggesting that we not teach what I think is "best available theory." To remove the double negative: Let's teach the best available theory.
Here is where we seem to disagree:
Let's teach the best available theory as theory. "This is our good idea that the evidence seems to point to." As opposed to what I experience where the best available theory was taught as absolute fact: "Here's what happened." We even do what I'm suggesting in math class. If there is a theory (unproven) that is not yet a theorem (proven) it's taught as such. My geometry teacher challenged us to prove various theories that we used throughout the year to make them theorems. Yes, they were taught. We used them. They were good ideas. But we were always taught that they hadn't been proven, and until they were they were only theory. I'd compare this to, say, the Pythagorean theorem (a squared + b squared = c squared) which is true because it has been proven.
Further confusion can be rectified in the accurate understanding of this sentence: "When I was in Biology (which was actually in 10th grade) it was taught as absolute fact." The "it" does not refer to Biology as a whole, rather specifically to the deduced, unproven aspects of Evolution. When I found they had not yet been proven, perhaps my pendulum of belief swung a bit to far to the other side. I felt lied to.
I would not support not teaching heliocentricity until fully proven. I would support teaching it as a theory awaiting full confirmation.
Here is the conclusion I've reached after the time and effort you've both put into this: ID is not science because it is not testable and should not be taught as science in science classrooms. Parts of evolution have been proven and should be taught as such. Parts of evolution are deduced from the proven aspects and should be taught as the theory, the good ideas, that they are, not as facts." Do we have any points of contention with the conclusion?
I think there are some minor discrepancies but overall i appreciate you're taking the time to clarify your position and for being flexible in your beliefs. Thank you for listening.
minor points: heliocentricity if held from being taught until fully proven, would have been hundreds of years later then the theory.
evolution was always taught in my classroom as the theory of evolution, not the fact of evolution.
peace man.
Post a Comment