Expelled
I just came from seeing the Ben Stein movie “Expelled.” Some friends treated me to dinner and a movie by way of thanking me for helping with some video editing on a personal project. I was completely blind-sided having paid no attention to what's at the movie theater for some time. I had heard nothing whatsoever of this film. Basically it is an expose of the blinding fear of most of western science with regard to honest inquiry about evolution and intelligent design. It presents indisputable facts about the experiences of several highly qualified scientists who were summarily fired from prestigious positions for writing about, mentioning, or simply giving a nod to the possibility of intelligent design. The totalitarian thought police are without doubt on patrol in American academia and they are carrying big clubs of power, money, and influence. But it is amazing how some very simple questions that any high school student might ask so revealed Emperor Evolution to be parading about the hallowed halls of elite science with no clothes. And the denuding made it all the more evident that his head is indeed stuck well up his... Oh, was that my out loud voice? Sorry. I should stop. It's just so embarrassing for them. But no less than atheism poster boy Richard Dawkins, seemingly brilliant just by way of his dashing good looks, charm, erudition, and delightful accent, nevertheless paints himself right into a corner on camera in front of God and everybody, er, okay... in front of everybody, then concedes the possibility that the origin of the first living cells on earth might have been injection by some outside alien force. WHAT??!! Talk about laughing out loud! I was so tickled I could hardly contain myself. Very entertaining stuff! That one moment is worth the price of admission. And there are others. There are explanations so full of faith that it's mind boggling that supposedly intelligent people do not recognize it as such.
Well, wherever you come down on the debate between pure evolution and intelligent design there is little doubt that science as we have come to know it is not about unbiased inquiry in search of truth. Ben's film goes a long way toward shedding light on this state of affairs. The whole thing begs the question, “What are you so afraid of?” If big science were a character in a novel or a movie, one would instinctively know that the shiftiness and vindictiveness indicates there is something to hide.
It's just preciously ironic that none other than Al Gore has made famous the phrase, “An Inconvenient Truth.” I came away thinking that truth is pretty much always quite inconvenient. That is, if it is actually true. Truth, if it proves my preconceived theories, prejudices, predilections, values, and lifestyle to be in error, demands that I make a change. The change is not always in the way of glorious freedom of soul. Enlightenment may mean an awakening of conscience, a call to responsibility or sacrifice, and general denial of one's selfish ways. Confronting truth without then choosing to lie to one's self is the ultimate in inconvenience. But I'll stop far short of hoping our scientists will risk tenure, grant money, prestige, and reputation to the light of truth. I would just like to see a little honest holding to the actual scientific method instead of blithering subservience to the wishy washy tenets of the great prophet Darwin. And maybe the balls, er, guts to follow the evidence where it actually leads instead of where one hopes it to go.
Ha! I'm sounding an awful lot like the rhetoric of some of our scientists who rail at creationists, don't I? My evolutionist friend, you may not have been to church lately, but you are by any rational definition a member of a religion. So how about lets all forget about religion and go after truth. And by truth I don't mean what you tell me is true or what I tell you is true. I mean what is actually true. You may need to refer to a dictionary.
Ben Stein's film ought to make our culture wake up and demand some reform to a scientific community under the tyrannical control of religious zealots who claim their faith isn't religion but rather facts no longer under debate. (The Flat Earth Society would be proud.) But unfortunately we are by and large not a culture of thinkers. We take the word of professorial looking guys in natty suits who tell us what is undeniable fact as long as their accent sounds like they're really smart. So I fear that “Expelled” probably won't have much impact on the big picture. But at least there's a voice crying in the wilderness. For those who have ears to hear, let them hear.
posted by wingman at 11:46 PM
19 Comments:
"Indisputable facts"?
Um, no....none of those scientists were actually fired.
The National Center for Science Education gives you the full story on the ID "martyrs" featured in Expelled at http://www.expelledexposed.com.
I think it's also unfair to conflate evolution with atheism, even though that's part and parcel of the film's propaganda. When the associate producer of the film was asked by Scientific American why he didn't interview evolutionary biologists like Ken Miller - who is a devout Christian - he responded that it would confuse the film unnecessarily.
I notice the film has left you with the impression that ID actually has some scientific merit. Did it expound on the evidence for this?
I have my opinions and thoughts on the merits of ID that I have expressed elsewhere on this blog. But the point of argument at hand is the grossly biased squashing of intellectual pursuit in our scientific community. The film brings that to attention and it deserves looking into in my humble opinion.
As for whether the film is propaganda, I submit it can be argued that every film is. Perhaps we should look to Michael Moore as the paragon of even handed handling of an argument?
btw, point well taken about the "firings." I think you will agree that they lost their jobs. Please forgive my enthusiasm for the film. I like to see the other side get a lick in for a change and I did enjoy it.
Yep, I think you are correct; it is all about sides. I wonder if there is/will be anyone who has seen the film and read the criticisms of it and consequently changed their mind on this issue?
The same can be said of the Tibet/China clash or any other contentious topic. Kristof in the New York Times has an interesting column on how two people with opposing views can both see the same evidence and each come away with their original opinion reinforced http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/17/opinion/17kristof.html.
j a higginbotham
jah
jah points us in the direction of the nature of debate. I don't think we have a clue in our culture about the possibility of friendly discourse on a subject about which we may disagree without it degenerating into a name calling/shouting/spitting/pissing (take your pick) match. If we all want to know what the truth is, then we all have the same goal. If we only care about our opinion, then we do disservice to the truth - we don't really care what it is. So honest seekers of truth should be friends even if they happen to disagree at their respective positions in the process.
np, I have to point out that the first thing on the site you sent me to is this:
"Welcome to Expelled Exposed, a detailed look at the Ben Stein movie Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed. We'll show you why this movie is not a documentary at all, but anti-science propaganda aimed at creating the appearance of controversy where there is none."
That was a direct, cut and pasted quote. "...controversy where there is none." This sounds just like the coincidentally first line of Al Gore's movie, "The debate is over about global warming." (not necessarily a direct quote - from my memory this time) If the debate is over, what are we going to call what is going on here at this very moment on my humble little blog? Claiming any debate to be over without proof of the unprovable is the most ignorant notion imaginable. I am embarrassed for these folks who say this as their opening salvo. They discredit themselves right out the gate before we hear their first argument. It would be funny if it wasn't so pathetic. So, that's the end of it. I can't argue with you because there is no argument! My mind just flashed to the Monty Python argument window skit. This makes precisely the same amount of sense.
Another quote as accurate as my memory will allow:
"An opinion is the location where one decides to stop thinking."
I just realized I did not answer np's question (which I assume to be rhetorical but I will answer anyway) about whether the film gave any evidence so support I.D. No, I don't believe it did. The film is really not about I.D. It is about freedom of thought and whether we as a society are going to allow science to be science or let it be hi-jacked by an agenda - ANY agenda. We cannot even start to debate theories and their supporting evidence when one side refuses to acknowledge there is a debate to be had.
That said, I think evolution is a fascinating theory. It makes for great movie plots. And it might be very convenient if it were proven to be true. But the scientific method of observability and repeatability is very awkward in this particular pursuit. What is observable and repeatable is that one species has never turned into another one. "Missing links" might be in the fossil record but who is to say they were not just another species that happened to become extinct, extinction being a process we actually have been able to observe. I have personally observed that entropy occurs in any system unless acted on by an outside force. Left to themselves things deteriorate, they don't get better. The evidence in support of that is overwhelming in everything in every aspect of our lives. To assume that one course in nature runs in the opposite direction of everything else based on nothing that is observable or repeatable is really a jump I find it difficult to take. I don't have that much faith.
And let's not confuse the survival of the fittest within a species with life somehow erupting from elemental chemicals and turning into critters. Unless I missed something, I don't recall that the theory of evolution even has a viable model for the origin of the first life. Help me remember, please. It obviously didn't make much of an impression on me. As for the origin of the universe - Big bang? Takes matter and energy. Where did that come from? The rabbit hole has no bottom. And we're off into the realm of philosophy.
It's your blog, but let's have some comments from others :-)
General points:
A) In order to best attempt to determine the truth, it is important to look at arguments from both sides.
B) When people have vastly different views, it is necessary to go back to some common ground. If discussing the age of the earth, it is pointless to ask why short-lived radioisotopes are not found, unless presently generated, if both sides do have some common understanding of physics.
I'll address a couple of issues in the post and comments.
1) "That was a direct, cut and pasted quote. "...controversy where there is none." "
That was certainly poorly worded at best. What is your definition of "controversy"? Presumably the writers meant that there is no controversy within the scientific community. I'm not actually sure what they were referring to - the public controversy over ID? whether the people mentioned were expelled and silenced as claimed? If the former, it is a valid statement. As you have mentioned the Flat Earth Society, would you say there is any controversy in either the scientific community or the public about whether the earth is flat? There are definitely people who think the earth is flat. How many dissenters are necessary for a controversy?
But this first statement kept you from examining anything else at the website?
2)"The whole thing begs the question, “What are you so afraid of?” If big science were a character in a novel or a movie, one would instinctively know that the shiftiness and vindictiveness indicates there is something to hide.
But I'll stop far short of hoping our scientists will risk tenure, grant money, prestige, and reputation to the light of truth."
How do you imagine this process works? Scientists sit around in a smoke filled room and agree to pass off some silly fictional story even a high school student can see the holes in? I am around research scientists - they are typically quite ambitious and competitive. Most could be making more money in industry but they prefer to put in long hours because they enjoy what they do. What would be their motivation to collude as you have suggested (recall that some are Christians)?
It's certainly true that scientists tend to dismiss ideas that sound silly and are inconsistent with their perceived understanding. They paid no attention to Barry Marshall (and Robin Warren) when these doctors suggested bacteria caused stomach ulcers. Did these two give up or produce a documentary? No, they went into the lab and did some research. Were they then punished with expulsion from the scientific community? No, they got Nobel prizes.
3) "I have personally observed that entropy occurs in any system unless acted on by an outside force. Left to themselves things deteriorate, they don't get better. The evidence in support of that is overwhelming in everything in every aspect of our lives."
What does this mean in terms of the word "entropy" as defined by physical scientists? [I am assuming that you feel entropy somehow prohibits evolution.] What happens to an iron bolt in a damp environment? What is the entropy change when it rusts? This is an example of a spontaneous process in which the entropy actually decreases. In fact entropy is a measurable physical quantity and has units; and the change in entropy for this oxidation can be measured. What was the point of bringing up entropy?
jah
Thank you for your responses, wingman. I hope you don't mind the length of my reply, but I would like to address most of the points you have raised:
But the point of argument at hand is the grossly biased squashing of intellectual pursuit in our scientific community. The film brings that to attention and it deserves looking into in my humble opinion.
My contention is that what is grossly biased is the film's portrayal of this supposed suppression of contrarian lines of thought. In fact, if you look at virtually any scientific discipline there is always some ongoing debate. There are many hypotheses in the past that have been ignored or scoffed at - including those by people such as Lynn Margulis, Barbara McClintock, etc -but over time as evidence for these hypotheses accumulated they gained acceptance. I think there's a fine but significant line between rejection and suppression. Rejecting a hypothesis that has little or no falsifiable evidence is well within the rights and freedoms of scientists and institutions.
As for whether the film is propaganda, I submit it can be argued that every film is. Perhaps we should look to Michael Moore as the paragon of even handed handling of an argument?
Perhaps, but not all films propagandize to the same extent. I'm not advocating for anything by Michael Moore.
btw, point well taken about the "firings." I think you will agree that they lost their jobs.
Caroline Crocker lost her job because her contract as a part-time lecturer was not renewed.
Sternberg didn't lose his job. Even after the controversy over the paper he sneaked into the journal, he still held a position as a research collaborator with the Smithsonian.
I'm not certain about Gonzalez, but he didn't lose his job either. He just wasn't given one for life.
Please forgive my enthusiasm for the film. I like to see the other side get a lick in for a change and I did enjoy it.
It's not my place nor intention to tell you what you should enjoy. I'm merely disagreeing with some of your statements.
Hey, I sometimes like seeing the underdog win as well. But I don't think all those impersonators of David out there deserve my sympathy.
np, I have to point out that the first thing on the site you sent me to is this:
"Welcome to Expelled Exposed, a detailed look at the Ben Stein movie Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed. We'll show you why this movie is not a documentary at all, but anti-science propaganda aimed at creating the appearance of controversy where there is none."
What they mean by it is that there is no actual controversy amongst scientists that evolution (i.e. common descent) is true beyond any reasonable doubt. In fact, many ID advocates will agree with many of the aspects of mainstream evolutionary biology, but simply try to shoehorn their Intelligent Designer into it. There are a handful of scientists, but a few dissidents hardly makes it a controversy.
Of course, in the public sphere there is a lot of controversy - but that is largely because of religious reasons and misunderstandings of evolution - and it gets popularized in the media and documentaries such as Expelled.
The Expelled Exposed doesn't go to great lengths to defend the validity of evolution itself, but rather to debunk some of the claims made in the film about the alleged persecution of ID advocates and the links between evolution and Nazism.
Even if you look at the current scientific literature, you won't find find papers that are trying to show that evolution has occured. They mostly focus on the evolution of specific lineages, the mechanisms of evolution, etc.
It is about freedom of thought and whether we as a society are going to allow science to be science or let it be hi-jacked by an agenda - ANY agenda.
What is the agenda that is hijacking science, in your opinion? None of the scientists cast in the film can speak for all scientists, because scientists who accept evolution come from all kinds of political and religious backgrounds. While it may appear that some scientists have an anti-religion agenda, there are others like Ken Miller and Francisco Ayala who are devout Christians and accept evolution.
In fact, shouldn't the converse be asked of the ID advocates? I won't presume that they all have the same agenda, but I'm sure you are aware of the notorious Wedge Document, which makes it rather clear that at least some of the prominent advocates of the movement do have certain ideological agendas.
We cannot even start to debate theories and their supporting evidence when one side refuses to acknowledge there is a debate to be had.
A debate is there to be had if ID can bring some scientific evidence (just philosophical or theological arguments - interesting as they may be) to the table - which is why I asked if the film presents any scientific evidence for an intelligent designer. There was no debate on Newtonian mechanics until Einstein brought the relevant evidence to the table. This is not to say that skepticism is not allowed, but that it should be backed up by evidence.
But the scientific method of observability and repeatability is very awkward in this particular pursuit.
Not really. Science does not require that events themselves should be repeatable. One can study plate tectonics despite not having the luxury of going back in time. Repeatability is fulfilled when more than one scientist can independently date the same fossil strata, or independently infer a phylogenetic tree from the genomic sequences of related species.
Likewise, observability is also the case. Darwin formulated his theory based on observations during his voyage. Today, scientists have studied populations in the wild and observed evolution e.g. with Darwin's finches and cichlid fishes. Evolution of pathogens e.g. HIV has been studied in human populaitons. Resistance to antibiotics, pesticides, etc can be observed. Nonetheless, observations do not need to be in real-time (after all, much of what is done in astronomy is not based on real-time observation). One can observe the fossil record, or study the genomes of organisms to see ample evidence of common descent.
What is observable and repeatable is that one species has never turned into another one.
This is untrue. There are a number of documented cases of speciation that have been observed.
The following links list some examples:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/speciation.html
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/evo101/VC1fEvidenceSpeciation.shtml
"Missing links" might be in the fossil record but who is to say they were not just another species that happened to become extinct, extinction being a process we actually have been able to observe.
Scientists don't deny that these species have become extinct. But what we observe in the fossil record is that not all species are present in the oldest fossil layers, and as you go up the geological column, new species emerge. Evolution is the most parsimonious explanation for this observation.
I have personally observed that entropy occurs in any system unless acted on by an outside force.
The objection that evolution violates the second law of thermodynamics is a popular misconception:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-misconceptions.html
It is like arguing that birds and airplanes violate the law of gravity, and therefore could not exist.
Again, it is not an assumption that evolution occurs, but rather an observation.
And let's not confuse the survival of the fittest within a species with life somehow erupting from elemental chemicals and turning into critters. Unless I missed something, I don't recall that the theory of evolution even has a viable model for the origin of the first life. Help me remember, please. It obviously didn't make much of an impression on me. As for the origin of the universe - Big bang? Takes matter and energy. Where did that come from? The rabbit hole has no bottom. And we're off into the realm of philosophy.
Well, I agree with you here. But the point is that evolutionary biologists don't ever claim to have an answer to how life originated. Darwin didn't propose a theory to explain the origin of life, but rather to explain how biological diversity arises. This is what the Theory of Evolution is about. It has nothing to do with how matter or energy arose either.
So many comments to make and so little time. But, I will make one, most simple comment about "...arguing that birds and airplanes violate the law of gravity and, therefore, could not exist..." Birds and airplanes do not defy the law of gravity, sorry! They exert enough energy to RESIST the force, but they are still subject to the law - they will "fall" when they can no longer exert the energy to overcome the force.
The law is the law, otherwise it ceases to be a law, and bird and airplanes do not make it the "theory" or "general principle" of gravity. Isn't science fun?!
anonymous:
So many comments to make and so little time. But, I will make one, most simple comment about "...arguing that birds and airplanes violate the law of gravity and, therefore, could not exist..." Birds and airplanes do not defy the law of gravity, sorry! They exert enough energy to RESIST the force, but they are still subject to the law - they will "fall" when they can no longer exert the energy to overcome the force.
The law is the law, otherwise it ceases to be a law, and bird and airplanes do not make it the "theory" or "general principle" of gravity. Isn't science fun?!
I never claimed that they do. In fact that's why I said it is like arguing that evolution violates the second law of thermodynamics. It seems you've missed the point entirely.
You are right; I missed your point entirely. The two sides of the simile were so disparate that I could not make the connection. In reading the rest of your comments, it is obvious you would not believe birds and planes violate the law of gravity... However, despite the extra effort to help me understand what you were saying, I still fail to see how Wingman's stating his observance of entropy is anything like arguing a physical law does not exist due to a couple of examples of apparent contradictions to the law. Wingman observes a (thermodynamic) law in action due to a preponderance of evidence; the simile indicates an argument against the (gravitational) law's validity due to an inane exception. I now understand your point; I just do not see how your simile in any way supports the similarity of argument. It may have been sufficient to say, "The objection that evolution violates the second law of thermodynamics is a popular misconception" - actually, it would have been more accruate to preface it with "Some scientists have argued that the objection..."
As to the fun of science - I find it fascinating that "scientific fact" can, and will be argued (as the example of Newton and Einstein to which you previously referred) until the end of time, and venues for discussion, such as this comment page, could go on for quite some time. And, no matter how smart or clever the position statements there are equally clever and smart opposing evidences and thought.
By the way, the statement "... evolutionary biologists don't ever claim to have an answer to how life originated..." is quite interesting and, perhaps, revealing. If true, there must be a reason for their silence… Thanks for sharing that.
anonymous,
Wingman appears to argue that evolution cannot occur because he thinks it violates the second law of thermodynamics, not that the second law of thermodynamics does not exist. Virtually all scientists would raise an objection to his statement.
I agree that science will continue to be challenged, and that is how it progresses. However, the key point is that it is not nearly enough to simply challenge the prevailing theory. You need evidence for it as well. The problems with epicycles under the paradigm of geocentrism were known for a long time; however, heliocentrism only became accepted after Copernicus, Tycho, Brahe, Kepler and Galileo were able to bring evidence to the table. This is one of the problems with the ID movement. They want a paradigm shift without first providing the substantial evidence for it.
Evolutionary biologists don't have an answer to how life originated because that is not what they study. They study how biological diversity originates. Scientists know that diversity arises through evolution - and there's a whole mountain of evidence to support that.
Origin-of-life researchers tend to be physical chemists, biochemists, astrophysicists, etc. Their field of study is prebiotic evolution or abiogenesis, which is different from The Theory of Evolution, which studies how living things change over time. There's no shame in saying that we don't know exactly how life originated on Earth. That's just one of countless questions that scientists have today; it's what drives them on.
Wingman says "I have personally observed that entropy occurs in any system unless acted on by an outside force." However, I suspect that he does not understand what entropy is. Could either he or you give an example of entropy occurring? Please estimate entropy change, using units of calories/kelvin.
It is certainly true that scientists have little idea as to how life originated. There are lots of things scientists don't know; that's why so many of them have jobs, trying to answer these questions.
I don't believe that there is any law of equal and opposite viewpoints and evidences; however on almost any issue there will be some people who don't agree with the majority opinion. Nature seems to abhor unanimity more than she abhors a vacuum.
jah
I wish an analogous documentary film was made concerning the DINOGLYFS or dinolits:
http://www.helsinki.fi/~pjojala/dinosaur.htm
It seems that the ancient man not only saw but also documented the last megafauna (gigafauna, I should say).
Bruce Alberts it was who first accepted from his post as the president of the National Academy of Sciences USA that the biological machinery can be called as such, machinery, without asserting to metaphora. He gave the students that license in 1998. Other animations on the tiny cellular machineries apart from the Expelled movie can be seen in here:
http://www.helsinki.fi/~pjojala/Videos_animations_flagella_evidence_existence_creation_contra_evolution.htm
It is thrilling that it is the People of the Book who once more are the initiative spectators who have the balls to question the ambient amen and go against the loudy majority. Not the first time. Here's some statistics and charts regarding the success of the Jews in science and technological innovations when the others were too stubborn to change their minds:
http://www.helsinki.fi/~pjojala/Indicator.html
This conference poster of mine shows how profoundly the continental, Haeckelian type of vulgar evolutionism drived not only the 'Politics-is-applied-biology' Nazi takeover but also the nationalistic collapse of the World War I. It was Charles Darwin himself, who raised the monstrous Haeckel in the spotlight as the greatest authority in the field of human evolution, even in the preface to his Descent of man in 1871:
http://www.helsinki.fi/~pjojala/Haeckelian_legacy.pdf
pauli.ojala@gmail.com
Biochemist, drop-out (Master of Sciing)
http://www.helsinki.fi/~pjojala/Expelled-ID.htm
My silence in the last week does not indicate lack of interest or having been scared off by the discussion. Rather my work demands have been heavy and my access to this blog limited of late. I have some travel coming up that will keep me away even more so and I will likely have to bow out of this exchange after this submission. At least for some time.
Before starting in here I want to express my appreciation for the exchange and for the diligence of those who compiled and posted the information in the links suggested. And some of my original callous and dismissive comments notwithstanding, I do appreciate the hard work, sacrifices, and honest seeking of answers by the scientific community regardless of my agreement or disagreement with some of the premises held.
I have looked at the links offered:
“There are a number of documented cases of speciation that have been observed.
The following links list some examples:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/speciation.html
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/evo101/VC1fEvidenceSpeciation.shtml”
and come away less than convinced. Please note that all items quoted here are from the suggested links pointed out to me. The student who attempted to collect evidences of speciation had this to say:
“This review cited only four examples of speciation events. Why is there such a seeming lack of interest in reporting observations of speciation events?
In my humble opinion, four things account for this lack of interest. First, it appears that the biological community considers this a settled question. Many researchers feel that there are already ample reports in the literature. Few of these folks have actually looked closely. To test this idea, I asked about two dozen graduate students and faculty members in the department where I'm a student whether there were examples where speciation had been observed in the literature. Everyone said that they were sure that there were. Next I asked them for citings or descriptions. Only eight of the people I talked to could give an example, only three could give more than one. But everyone was sure that there were papers in the literature.”
Time and again I read about the “overwhelming evidence” but when one tries to find it, it just seems underwhelming. It seems there is an awful lot of assumption going on. Just my impression so far.
I appreciate the effort to limit debate to a specific topic for clarity. I understand at this point that the point of argument for evolution is based on speciation as stated here:
“Recall that under the BSC species are defined as being reproductively isolated from other species. Demonstrating that a population is reproductively isolated (in a nontrivial way) from populations that it was formerly able to interbreed with shows that speciation has occurred.”
I read of the examples of one kind of primrose turning into another kind of primrose. And of one kind of fruit fly turning into another kind of fruit fly per the above definition. So that is your argument? Okay, I will concede: the emperor has some underwear. I submit that some underpants does not a fashion show make.
“Biologists define evolution as a change in the gene pool of a population over time. One example is insects developing a resistance to pesticides over the period of a few years. Even most Creationists recognize that evolution at this level is a fact. What they don't appreciate is that this rate of evolution is all that is required to produce the diversity of all living things from a common ancestor.”
It is? Ah, that is what I believe is called “a stretch.” I know there are Christians who can resolve evolution into the rest of their world view. It's certainly a logical possibility that an intelligent designer established evolution as the mechanism for a created system to develop more or less on autopilot. I for one am not closed to the possibility. I just don't see much evidence for it. One plant or critter developing into another form of the same thing is a far cry from apes turning into people or even further from protoplasm developing into an ape before that. The extrapolation is a huge jump and calls for a lot of faith from where I stand at the moment. I submit it to be a religious amount of faith..
“Even without these direct observations, it would be wrong to say that evolution hasn't been observed. Evidence isn't limited to seeing something happen before your eyes. Evolution makes predictions about what we would expect to see in the fossil record, comparative anatomy, genetic sequences, geographical distribution of species, etc., and these predictions have been verified many times over. The number of observations supporting evolution is overwhelming.”
And I ask how these exact same observations preclude an intelligent design? It is as what was mentioned about two people looking at the same thing with different preconceived notions and coming away with those notions having been verified.
The fossil record, all seem to agree, is spotty. I would add that it can also be confounding. There are things as mentioned above that point to an evolutionary model. There are other things that point away from it. I understand that human footprints were found within dinosaur footprints along the Biloxi River in Texas. For a number of years an uncle of mine gave me a subscription to National Geographic every Christmas which I enjoyed immensely. The evolutionary bias of the editorial content of that wonderful magazine was blatant. I therefore found it quite humorous when once in a while an observation was reported, usually in the “Geographica” section at the front of the magazine of late breaking information, for which the intelligent design or creationist model made more common sense but evolution was stretched very thin to cover. An example was the discovery of some beds of rock in Australia that were determined to be the oldest ever identified on the planet. The problem was that they contained fossils of complex life where there shouldn't have been any. The last line stated that “this sets back the evolutionary clock billions of years.” Wouldn't the evidence point more toward the possibility that complex life was around from very early on? Another item in the same section in another issue told of the measuring of the amounts of various gases trapped in bubbles in amber made possible by very sensitive new technology. The oxygen content was said to be six times greater (if I recall correctly) than at present and much higher than had ever been thought possible. In fact it was believed that an atmosphere so oxygen rich would be cause for much spontaneous combustion. I came away wondering how many of our assumptions are based on a steady state of affairs through the millennia which was not the case. Maybe a young earth isn't such a crazy notion after all.
“What hasn't been observed is one animal abruptly changing into a radically different one, such as a frog changing into a cow. This is not a problem for evolution because evolution doesn't propose occurrences even remotely like that. In fact, if we ever observed a frog turn into a cow, it would be very strong evidence against evolution.”
So pray tell me why most jr. high and high school biology textbooks ask me to buy into a series of drawings of apes turning into a man? What am I missing here? They didn't try to sell me on drawings of primrose and fruit flys.
“ "Evolution violates the 2nd law of thermodynamics."
“However, they neglect the fact that life is not a closed system. The sun provides more than enough energy to drive things. If a mature tomato plant can have more usable energy than the seed it grew from, why should anyone expect that the next generation of tomatoes can't have more usable energy still? Creationists sometimes try to get around this by claiming that the information carried by living things lets them create order. However, not only is life irrelevant to the 2nd law, but order from disorder is common in nonliving systems, too. Snowflakes, sand dunes, tornadoes, stalactites, graded river beds, and lightning are just a few examples of order coming from disorder in nature; none require an intelligent program to achieve that order. In any nontrivial system with lots of energy flowing through it, you are almost certain to find order arising somewhere in the system. If order from disorder is supposed to violate the 2nd law of thermodynamics, why is it ubiquitous in nature?”
This is a very good point. But when one includes the outside source of energy (the sun in the example given about tomatoes) in the system (the universe vs. the earth) then the eventual prospect of all this energy being depleted is out there in the future some finite amount of time however great. Will the order observed after the tornadoes and rivers and lightning be greater than what existed before them? Things are different after a storm but I think it could be argued that the result is more disorder than before. Then again a stalactite is more compelling than water and calcium so the point is taken if not necessarily well taken.
That said, many if not most creationists if not I.D. proponents as well might say that things like lightning and tornadoes have an ongoing influence on their propagation from a divine hand. I can hear the moans, of course, but the model does easily cover.
“The misconception about the lack of transitional fossils is perpetuated in part by a common way of thinking about categories. When people think about a category like "dog" or "ant," they often subconsciously believe that there is a well-defined boundary around the category, or that there is some eternal ideal form (for philosophers, the Platonic idea) which defines the category. This kind of thinking leads people to declare that Archaeopteryx is "100% bird," when it is clearly a mix of bird and reptile features (with more reptile than bird features, in fact). In truth, categories are man-made and artificial. Nature is not constrained to follow them, and it doesn't.”
And neither is an intelligent designer constrained to follow them. In fact, most designers and artists blend elements of one work into another. In fact, it is often these mixed characteristics that are used to identify the creator of a work. Creators of intellectual property often have an identifiable style. The fact that an ape has characteristics that are eerily similar to humans doesn't require that one came from the other. A common designer is also a compelling possibility. The fact that Archaeopteryx existed does not require that it was a stepping stone between reptiles and birds or vice versa. The fact that the same entity might have designed all of them is at least a logical possibility.
“"Evolution is only a theory; it hasn't been proved."
“Calling the theory of evolution "only a theory" is, strictly speaking, true, but the idea it tries to convey is completely wrong. The argument rests on a confusion between what "theory" means in informal usage and in a scientific context. A theory, in the scientific sense, is "a coherent group of general propositions used as principles of explanation for a class of phenomena" [Random House American College Dictionary]. The term does not imply tentativeness or lack of certainty. Generally speaking, scientific theories differ from scientific laws only in that laws can be expressed more tersely. Being a theory implies self-consistency, agreement with observations, and usefulness. (Creationism fails to be a theory mainly because of the last point; it makes few or no specific claims about what we would expect to find, so it can't be used for anything. When it does make falsifiable predictions, they prove to be false.)”
I would ask, “such as?”, but none are offered by this source. This source goes on to say:
“Lack of proof isn't a weakness, either.”
Oh really? Is that not one of the stones thrown at I.D.? How is lack of proof possibly not a weakness?
(continuing) “On the contrary, claiming infallibility for one's conclusions is a sign of hubris.”
But there is no debate. There is no controversy.
(continuing) “Nothing in the real world has ever been rigorously proved, or ever will be. Proof, in the mathematical sense, is possible only if you have the luxury of defining the universe you're operating in.”
You just can't ignore philosophy, can you?
(continuing) “In the real world, we must deal with levels of certainty based on observed evidence. The more and better evidence we have for something, the more certainty we assign to it; when there is enough evidence, we label the something a fact, even though it still isn't 100% certain.
What evolution has is what any good scientific claim has--evidence, and lots of it. Evolution is supported by a wide range of observations throughout the fields of genetics, anatomy, ecology, animal behavior, paleontology, and others. If you wish to challenge the theory of evolution, you must address that evidence. You must show that the evidence is either wrong or irrelevant or that it fits another theory better. Of course, to do this, you must know both the theory and the evidence.”
Well, all I can say is that I'm trying to do so. On both sides. I see evidence that says “evolution” because the viewer wants to see that. I've yet to see anything compelling that stands on it's own and says that in a way that fits that model better than an I.D. model. If it's there, I'd love to see it.
And some further thoughts raised from the comments given here:
“As you have mentioned the Flat Earth Society, would you say there is any controversy in either the scientific community or the public about whether the earth is flat? There are definitely people who think the earth is flat. How many dissenters are necessary for a controversy?”
My point is that making up one's mind in advance doesn't serve the cause of discovering truth very well. That could be used against I.D. adherents, and often is, but I submit it is also true of evolution proponents. There was a time when most assumed the earth to be flat. There was no debate. Except for a very few who risked all to sail to the edge. But then, a few do not make for a controversy as stated in your view.
quoting me: “2)"The whole thing begs the question, "What are you so afraid of?" If big science were a character in a novel or a movie, one would instinctively know that the shiftiness and vindictiveness indicates there is something to hide.
But I'll stop far short of hoping our scientists will risk tenure, grant money, prestige, and reputation to the light of truth."
“How do you imagine this process works? Scientists sit around in a smoke filled room and agree to pass off some silly fictional story even a high school student can see the holes in? I am around research scientists - they are typically quite ambitious and competitive. Most could be making more money in industry but they prefer to put in long hours because they enjoy what they do. What would be their motivation to collude as you have suggested (recall that some are Christians)?
It's certainly true that scientists tend to dismiss ideas that sound silly and are inconsistent with their perceived understanding. They paid no attention to Barry Marshall (and Robin Warren) when these doctors suggested bacteria caused stomach ulcers. Did these two give up or produce a documentary? No, they went into the lab and did some research. Were they then punished with expulsion from the scientific community? No, they got Nobel prizes.”
I tip my hat to scientists who take the noble path of their research at the sacrifice of higher paying opportunities. I am grateful for their efforts. I don't think secret collusion in smoky rooms is necessary for overwhelming bias to take place. I believe there is a huge motivator to push the evolution agenda and that exists inside every person. If one can rest in the assurance that all has just happened by chance and that no moral imperative exists in the universe besides the survival of the fittest, then I am basically free to live as I see fit. Sure there are the laws of society I must follow and in exchange hopefully receive a relatively safe and orderly environment. But if there is an Intelligent Designer it has huge implications as to my personal place in the world and universe and the question of who this Designer is and what is the nature of my relationship to him has the potential of great weight. If this Designer happens to be the God of the Bible, there are those pesky commandments and all kinds of other stuff that I may be compelled to have to reckon with. My specific behavior and overall lifestyle may require significant overhaul. The avoidance of all that is reason enough for the bias in my estimation. Nobody likes to be told what to do. If there is an Intelligent Designer big and powerful enough to make all we see around us in our universe, then of course he would have the power and the right to tell me what to do. I could rebel against that, but it would be futile and counter-productive to do so in the long run. And if this Designer proved to be a benevolent being, it would make sense to go along with the program. So I have to wonder, how much of the drive to prove evolution is based on honest seeking of the truth and how much is out of desire to avoid the possibility of the existence of God? If God exists, that is an extremely inconvenient state of affairs for a great many people. At least at first glance. If one goes down the road of theology one may find God's existence to be a very good thing, but we are trying to limit the debate so I'll leave that alone.
“[I am assuming that you feel entropy somehow prohibits evolution.]”
Of course I am
“What happens to an iron bolt in a damp environment? What is the entropy change when it rusts? This is an example of a spontaneous process in which the entropy actually decreases. In fact entropy is a measurable physical quantity and has units; and the change in entropy for this oxidation can be measured. What was the point of bringing up entropy?”
The point is that the iron bolt, now rusty, is quite useless. The heat and/or chemical energy seeks equilibrium. Maybe you value a rusty bolt more than a shiny new one so this is a positive change by your measure. If I leave my motorcycle out in the rain, all the bolts and everything else will degenerate into a useless, rusty pile in fairly short order. A while back I had the whole thing apart rebuilding the motor. No matter how long anybody would want to wait, the parts all over the garage floor never would have assembled themselves into a motorcycle without somebody putting them back together. We can pick at the definition of entropy all you want, but all of my experience tells me things don't get better on their own, they fall apart. That's just my common sense observation. If you want to talk about “overwhelming evidence,” you don't have to go far.
“What is the agenda that is hijacking science, in your opinion?”
As stated above, if I can prove that God does not exist, or that he is a liar, then I don't have to deal with him.
“Scientists don't deny that these species have become extinct. But what we observe in the fossil record is that not all species are present in the oldest fossil layers, and as you go up the geological column, new species emerge. Evolution is the most parsimonious explanation for this observation.”
As I mentioned earlier, we have human footprints with dinosaurs. We have complex life inconveniently fossilized in the oldest rocks on the planet. I don't deny that the evolutionarily expected layering has been observed. But unexpected layering has also been observed. I submit that the jury should still be out.
quoting me: And let's not confuse the survival of the fittest within a species with life somehow erupting from elemental chemicals and turning into critters. Unless I missed something, I don't recall that the theory of evolution even has a viable model for the origin of the first life. Help me remember, please. It obviously didn't make much of an impression on me. As for the origin of the universe - Big bang? Takes matter and energy. Where did that come from? The rabbit hole has no bottom. And we're off into the realm of philosophy.
“Well, I agree with you here. But the point is that evolutionary biologists don't ever claim to have an answer to how life originated. Darwin didn't propose a theory to explain the origin of life, but rather to explain how biological diversity arises. This is what the Theory of Evolution is about. It has nothing to do with how matter or energy arose either.”
As I stated at the top, I appreciate the effort to focus the debate. But when considering origins, the source of original life is closely related to the development of all life as we know it. At some point to ignore the question is to ignore the elephant in the living room. And if, as I suggest, the true underpinnings of the evolution debate get down to the ramifications on my personal life if God actually exists or not, then at the end of the day, the source of original life calls even more urgently for an answer. “The breath of God” takes four words. I wonder how many words an alternative explanation might take? Perhaps none?
“[I am assuming that you feel entropy somehow prohibits evolution.]”
Of course I am
We can pick at the definition of entropy all you want, but all of my experience tells me things don't get better on their own, they fall apart. That's just my common sense observation.
--
You can do one of two things.
1) Claim evolution violates the second law of thermodynamics.
2) Claim that the idea of evolution violates your common sense.
These two statements are not the same thing.
It's not quibbling about the definition of entropy. Entropy is a specific property of a substance just as mass is. If your motorcycle weighs 350 pounds, that's what it weighs. [Skip the weight/mass distinction.] I can redefine what "pound" means but it won't affect how much effort is needed to move your motorcycle.
Entropy (of a subsystem) can either increase or decrease in a reaction which occurs spontaneously.
Entropy is not macroscopic disorder or usefulness. You can not compare a tidy room with a disorganized messy room or a functional motorcycle with a rusted wreck and say anything about the relative entropy content based on appearance or functionality.
Evolution may or may not be true, but the usage of entropy and thermodynamics in the argument presented here is definitely incorrect.
Here's one example
Burning carbon monoxide to produce carbon dioxide, all as gases:
2 CO + O2 ---> 2 CO2 delta S = -173 joules/K
How does the scientific (basis of the second law of thermodynamics) entropy (here a spontaneous decrease of 173 eu) fit in with your usage of the term?
Wingman wrote:" human footprints were found within dinosaur footprints along the Biloxi River in Texas."
Paluxy River near Glen Rose. Claimed human footprints. The evidence is not very convincing and has been rejected even by a number of Creationists.
jah
Another side note observation on the rusting of bolts.
Such oxidation is not an example of the general decay of everything; it is specific to this earth where there is free oxygen. Oxygen is a very reactive compound and would not exist in its free gaseous state if it were not continually produced. In the past, the atmosphere did not contain free oxygen. Certainly the environment in which many minerals formed did not contain free oxygen. Fool's gold, or pyrite, FeS2, contains iron in a relatively unoxidized state. This compound would not form in the presence of oxygen. Free iron, in its metallic state, is found on the earth only (as far as I know) in meteorites.
jah
Post a Comment
<< Home