ABOUT COSMIC LOG

Quantum fluctuations in space, science, exploration and other cosmic fields... served up regularly by MSNBC.com science editor Alan Boyle since 2002.

Alan Boyle covers the physical sciences, anthropology, technological innovation and space science and exploration for MSNBC.com. He is a winner of the AAAS Science Journalism Award, the NASW Science-in-Society Award and other honors; a contributor to "A Field Guide for Science Writers"; and a member of the board of the Council for the Advancement of Science Writing.

Check out Boyle's biography or send a message to Cosmic Log via cosmiclog@msnbc.com.



How science gets swiftboated

Posted: Tuesday, April 29, 2008 5:50 PM by Alan Boyle


Premise Media
Actor Ben Stein, right, sits with a student outside a principal's office in a
trailer publicizing the documentary "Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed."

Ben Stein has done good things and funny things during his more than three decades as an actor, economist and writer (going back to his days as a Nixon speechwriter). His latest work, "Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed," is not that good and not that funny. There's something creepy about the documentary, which blends a no-holds-barred assault on evolutionary theory with what sounds like a high-minded cry for academic freedom. It's a 90-minute campaign ad, aimed at swiftboating science.

Talk about negative campaigning: Stein and the "Expelled" filmmakers try to link Charles Darwin and "Big Science" to Nazism and Stalinism. Scenes of death camps, mad scientists, marching minions and the Berlin Wall are flashed on the screen when Darwinism is discussed.

Before I saw the movie, I wondered how wacky it might be. Now I don't think it's wacky. Instead, it's worrisome. The creepiest thing about "Expelled" is that the filmmakers' strategy of casting the scientific establishment as a big bad godless conspiracy just might work.

It won't work among those familiar with the current state of evolutionary science. And it certainly won't work among contemporary researchers who are showing where Darwin went wrong as well as where he went right.

"If you have a losing hand, you're going to use every amount of rhetoric you can to distract people from the fact that you don't have any facts," Sean B. Carroll, an evolutionary biologist at the University of Wisconsin at Madison, told me in his lab last week. "And that's what 'Expelled' is all about."

But "Expelled" is also about rallying people who are unfamiliar with the issues to take a stand against mainstream science. For many of the million or so people who have seen the film over the past couple of weeks, "Expelled" might be as close as they come to examining the arguments for and against current evolutionary theory.

All the sound and fury may well turn those filmgoers against not only evolutionary biology, but against supporting any kind of study that they're told runs counter to their world view - ranging from stem cell research to paleontology to particle physics. And then what? In the interest of equal time, would research money have to be reserved for divining the signature of the designer in nature, or even discerning which holy book reflects that design best? 

That's the bad news. The good news is that the controversy over "Expelled" could represent another teachable moment, analogous to 2005's federal court decision against intelligent design. Is it possible to turn a negative campaign into a positive win for science education?

Intelligent design and academic freedom
In the movie, Ben Stein takes on a quest to find out what's happening to teachers who promote the intelligent-design concept - that is, the idea that some complex things in nature, such as molecular machines or DNA code, are best explained by an intelligent cause.

"We are losing our freedom in one of the most important sectors of society: science," he tells listeners in a lecture hall at the start of the film.

Several cases are cited, starting with the case of Richard Sternberg, an evolutionary biologist who approved the publication of an intelligent-design paper during his stint as the editor of a scientific journal. Was he unjustly persecuted as a result? You can get Sternberg's perspective as well as the opposing view over the Web. The same goes for the other cases: the "Expelled" Web site goes into the claims of victimization, and the "Expelled Exposed" Web site (created in response to the film) presents the counterclaims.

Even at the time of 2005's Kitzmiller v. Dover court decision, it was clear that an argument based on academic freedom would be the next frontier for the intelligent-design debate. But the freedom to teach isn't absolute. It's subject to the usual checks and balances of academic institutions, plus the constitutional ban on state establishment of religion - and the idea that the content of a science class should be, well, based on science.

That doesn't mean science teachers can't have wacky ideas. Some of the wackiest ideas have been held by the world's greatest scientists - including Isaac Newton, a religious heretic who calculated that the world would end in the year 2060. To Newton's credit, he kept relatively quiet about the wackier claims and pushed ahead with better ideas like calculus, optics and universal gravitation.

Similarly, Carroll said teachers were free to hold onto unscientific ideas in their private life, but should stick to the science when teaching.  "Do you want your kids taught by people who are living in the 18th century? I don't think so," he said. "They have a right to think these things or believe these things, but they have an obligation to be technically competent."

The task has implications that go beyond the classroom, he said.

"The biology community will tell you that understanding genetics and evolution is fundamental to being a literate biologist, and you can say, to a literate citizen, too," he said. "But if we don't teach that stuff, and teach it properly, where are we going to be? This is an economic competitiveness issue, this is an innovation issue."

Good, evil and Darwin
If the movie were merely about academic policy, there wouldn't be much of a movie to "Expelled." The juicy stuff has to do with the Nazi concentration camps, Soviet crackdowns  and ranting atheists. Stein doesn't go so far as to say every evolutionary biologist is a Nazi, but the movie does say that Charles Darwin served as the inspiration for Adolf Hitler's Holocaust.

And in fact, a perverted view of Darwinism was one of the ingredients that produced the horrors of Nazism. But Hitler used plenty of other ingredients as well, including German victimhood, a perverted view of Christianity and plain old anti-Semitism. Books and movies could just as well be made (and in fact have been made) blaming Christianity for everything that ails the world.

"Expelled" portrays evolutionary theory as the first step down a road that leads to atheism, eugenics and Nazi-style human experimentation. That line of argument, borrowed from John West's book "Darwin Day in America," smacks of the same sort of distortion that has blamed Albert Einstein for promoting moral relativism along with relativity.

The movie also prods several interviewees who happen to be outspoken atheists - such as biologists Richard Dawkins and P.Z. Myers as well as philosopher Daniel Dennett - to indulge in some metaphysical speculation that goes beyond the biology (thus demonizing them for the movie's core audience). The perspective from respected scientists who happen to be religious (for example, Francis Collins and Ken Miller) is largely lacking, although physicist-turned-priest John Polkinghorne is a welcome exception to the rule.

The result is that the film casts the debate largely along the false battle lines of science vs. religion. That rhetorical approach ironically builds up the very wall Ben Stein says he wants to tear down.

What about the science?
Surprisingly for a movie focusing on science's role in society, "Expelled" breaks no new ground on the scientific front. Some of the arguments long advanced by intelligent design's proponents are hinted at - for example, the claim that no new genetic information can possibly be created, even though the insertion, duplication and beneficial revision of genetic code are well-established.

The most common theme is that the workings of biology are just so complex that it would be impossible for life to develop through "random and undirected" processes - even though genetics and computer simulations are telling a different story (and even though the workings of evolution are not always random or undirected).

"The doubters are writing the same stuff, as though not just evolutionary science has stood still, but as though genetics and geology have stood still," Carroll said. "I guess they have to pray that some level of uncertainty is still there, but the ballgame's over."

The branch of genetics that Carroll specializes in - evolutionary developmental biology, or evo-devo for short - has revolutionized the field over the past decade. Scientists are analyzing and comparing the genetic codes for hundreds of species, and the results are shedding new light on long-running posers such as the evolution of the eye or the cousinly relationship between elephants and manatees.

Despite what "Expelled" claims, modern-day biologists aren't afraid of pointing out where Darwin went wrong. As examples, Carroll cited the current understanding of genetic drift - a type of change over time that is not driven by natural selection - and the discovery that different species of bacteria are swapping genes all the time.

"The transference of genes between species is not Darwinian evolution," he said. "It's evolution. Not Darwinian evolution. ... Species aren't supposed to exchange genetic material, but bacteria do it."

Carroll said these new twists in evolutionary biology are not just matters of academic interest, but instead should be of concern even to the filmmakers behind "Expelled."

"In nature, viruses that infect bacteria are carting around cargoes full of genes and moving them around the whole microbial world," he said. "We better know about that - or we're gonna die. It's in our self-interest to understand this phenomenon. And that makes these people ... the kindest thing I could say is, it's irresponsible."

Carroll and many of his colleagues hope that the film will just fizzle out. "Do I think 'Expelled' matters? No, because it won't last," Carroll told me.

But like any other case of swiftboating, "Expelled" needs to be answered. Chris Mooney, the blogger who literally wrote the book on "The Republican War on Science," has been calling on readers to spread the word about "Flock of Dodos" as a DVD antidote. I'll put in a prescription for Carroll's latest book, "The Making of the Fittest," which serves as this month's selection for the Cosmic Log Used-Book Club. (Don't miss Chapter 9.)

There will likely be other antidotes available at bookstores and on TV next year, to mark the 200th anniversary of Darwin's birth as well as the 150th anniversary of the publication of "The Origin of Species."

In the meantime, please feel free to weigh in on "Expelled" and evolution in the comment section below. Intelligence is allowed, and even encouraged.

Corrections at 10:25 p.m. ET April 29: I originally attributed a quote used in the movie ("The battle over evolution is only one skirmish in a much larger war") to Ben Stein rather than to Richard Dawkins. Also, Daniel Dennett is a philosopher and a cognitive scientist (and an atheist), but not a biologist. I apologize for the errors, which have been fixed above, and thank my intelligent readers for pointing them out.

Update for 10:20 p.m. ET May 1: I've revised the definition of intelligent design to be more in tune with what intelligent design's proponents say (as noted waay down in the comment section). I've also corrected my transcription of Carroll's quotes to better reflect the flow of the conversation.

MAIN PAGE

Email this EMAIL THIS

Comments

I think that it is unfortunate that Ben Stein makes such a sensational portrayal of the issue. I started out totally against evolution, intellectually and spiritually, but the slow hammer of truth and evidence has helped me to reconcile myself as being one like ancient people who had to reconcile that the earth was not the center of the universe even though God created it.

If we can discover life on Mars or exoplanet, it will rock the paradigm of those discussing tis issue.
Goodness and honesty are all that is needed. Those qualities are in each of us. It should be we all celebrate life not a divisive religion. Imagine a world full of good people and no religion.....WOW!
Thanks for your thoughtful comments on the latest propaganda piece from the intelligent design creationists.

Has anybody else noticed that essentially all of the support for intelligent design creationism - and for "Expelled" - comes from the religious community?  Does that help that you realize this whole thing may be a religious issue rather than a scientific issue?
What did you think of High School Hi, Animal House, etc?
C'mon, Al...it's a typically foolish, 'disdainful youth' comedy movie...apparently they've trodden upon some personal sacred cow or something.
With all that's going on, you are concerned about the goofy eyewash guy in short pants...?
Time to regroup methinks, eh?
This battle of science v. religion is largely driven by the tendency of human beings to arrive at conclusions based on limited or incomplete information.  For me, the question of person's intellectual evolution (and hence their capacity to explore concepts of physical evolution) is just as fascinating as Darwinian Theory.  Check out the article below for more information:

http://www.strangelegacy.com/2008/04/28/the-nature-of-human-intelligence/
I just finished seeing the picture and I was thinking that really, no one is really an athiest, unless hewas born on april the first, aND JUST THINK ,IF THEY ARE WRONG, THEY WILL SPEND ETERNITY IN SHAME AND IN HELL, OR AS THE OLD PROVERB SAYS A SMART MAN CHANGES HIS MIND, BUT A FOOL NEVER DOES.  GOOD LUCK
I, personally, used to look up to Ben Stein on an intellectual level. I knew and still don't know much about his political leanings or his personal philosophy on just about anything. I simply saw him as a highly intelligent individual - someone who possessed a great wealth of knowledge.

Knowledge, it seems, is somewhat disconnected from intelligence and wisdom.
The rejection of ID by mainstream scientists is rooted in their conflation of science and philosophical naturalism. It is claimed that science is, by definition, naturalistic. But why should theism be considered out of bounds in science? If there is a God and if he has acted to intervene in the material world, then the results of his actions should be a legitimate object for scientific study. In that case one might expect to find phenomena that appear highly unlikely apart from the action of an intelligent agent. We routinely make judgments of the same sort in disciplines as diverse as criminal justice and archaeology. Why should not scientists be allowed to try to formalize such concepts and apply them to other fields? Let the evidence speak, instead of appealing to your philosophical precommitments to deny the legitimacy of the research.
I really don't understand why this is an issue. To me, it's quite simple:

Science belongs in science classes.

Religion belongs in social studies classes.

Both suffer if they start getting conflated. Any attempt to prove faith with reason is only evidence of weak faith.
This is how religion gets swiftboated
Wacky? Only if it wasn't so scary. I'd write more but I'm afraid it would be too laced with profanity to put on CosmicLog.
It's the increasingly hateful atheistic militancy of people like Richard Dawkins that I find disturbing. Those like Dawkins who are not swayed by the absolute statistical and mathematical improbability of an auto-designed, auto-generated, and auto-sustaining universe are welcome to make their own leaps of "faith", but they should neither fear nor suppress contrarian challenges from within the scientific community, unless somehow their own scientific "method" has taken a back seat to personal philosophy.
Is it possible that much of current evolutionary "theory" is actually "spontaneous generation" merely dressed up in genetic "code"? Some scientists obviously think so.
Lame article that missed the point of the movie.  Nobody is preaching that evolution should not be taught or studied, simply that all options should be available for study.  

There are altogether too many polarizing pundits on both sides that want to politicize everything, always.  Michael Moore is no more or less polarizing than Ben Stein.  Just on the other side of the isle.    

Someone really needs to study and explain how the normal bell curve of political ideology is completely inverse to the destructive noise made.  In other words, the the farther out of main stream you are, the more destructive noise you make.  Doesn't matter which side you are on for distructive noise to be made, just how far away from normal (in the bell curve sense) you are.
Basically, "Expelled" is the sad attempt by a hack Nixonite turned third-bit character actor turned right-wing shill to cash in on the neanderthal mentality of a chunk of this country that wants validation for failing science.  
While I do not agree with the tactics the are used in the movie "Expelled"  I find it funny that you and other Science promoters use the very same tactics to expel "Intelligent Design" as being a plausible option.  
This "academic freedom" nonsense that Expelled is peddling is simply the "teach the controversy" strategy used to mask the fact they have no real case. The only controversy about evolution is the one the creationist and "intelligent design" crowd has cooked up. The movie is thoroughly dishonest - they got people like Richard Dawkins to participate by telling them it was going to be a balanced look at both sides of the question, not a hit piece for anti-evolutionists. When you don't have any other case to make, what else can you do?

The creationist and ID crowd likes to talk about "Darwinism", as if evolutionary theory hasn't advanced one iota since The Origin of Species. As you correctly point out, evolution has gone way beyond Darwin - although Darwin certainly deserves credit for starting the ball rolling. Evolution does change with new discoveries, while the creationist/ID crowd can only come up with silliness like Expelled.

Evolution is not only the foundation of modern biology, but the creationist/ID crowd has had almost 150 years to try to refute it, and failed miserably. Hopefully the upcoming 200th anniversary of Darwin's birth will spur more and better antidotes to Expelled and all it represents.
Ooh, it's gonna' tank.
Bryan Wayne in Dallas, WAKE UP!  Evolution is no longer theory, it is demonstrable fact.  Sheesh!
I love the use of the term "Swiftboated" here because everything in the famous Kerry Swiftboat ads were actually true.  Being sunk by your own words is the problem with Science which can't tollerate lines of investigation which run counter to the currently accepted dogma.  If its false, let it be played out in journals and universities.  The point of Expelled is the visceral repression by the science establishment to any challenges of their religion, which is evolution.
HAHAHAH!  I just saw the tag line for this movie and it could not be more appropriate, although not for the reason Ben Stein had in mind:

NO INTELLIGENCE ALLOWED!

That's this movie in a nutshell.
How reason gets swiftboated by science.  This wouldn't be such a sensitive issue if the bulk of the scientific community did not state as fact what can not be proven.
I find it interesting that Bryan Wayne is opposed to the militancy of atheists.  I am one, and have become militant to defend myself from right wing wacko nut jobs who want to force their god on me.  I find it also interesting that they want to push the supposition of bronze age shepards without the capacity to remember more than a few generations back over sophisticated scientific evidence.  Also, as one who has read the bible (deliberately not capitalized because your book is no more special than any other) more than most so-called christians; I would never serve their got who would celebrate the genocide of entire peoples, visit plagues and murder of children on those who live in a land whose leader disagreed with him; destroy an entire city simply because the people of it happened to live where he promised 'his' people they should live; or who would demand blood sacrifice.  Patently any such god is evil and to be opposed even if one is not an atheist.
What happened to the idea that a theory is only a theory until it gets proven?  I believe I learned that in elementary science class.  I suppose it's okay as long as we believe in it.  
""Intelligent Design" as being a plausible option.  "

There is NO science to back it. That is why science in general doesn't take it seriously. If proponents of ID want it to be taken seriously they need to pony up the research and data that stands up to peer review and the test of time. To date they have failed to do so. Instead they resort to cheap tactics.

I LOL at the notion of "Big Science" as if research scientists make mad money toiling away in their labs. They do not.

The one case where a professor was denied tenure had nothing to do with his support of ID and everything with his complete failure to publish or bring in research grants, that's what gets you tenure.

Science loves nothing more than new data that proves old ideas to be mistaken. If researchers that support ID could do that it would be revolutionary, but they have failed to do so to-date and instead whine about a (non existent) conspiracy.

This film is yet another symptom of the current phase of anti-intellectualism sweeping the USA. It happens from time to time. It will end when China sends men to Mars or the Moon and the USA stops reveling in it's past like a washed up prize fighter.

I don't know about the video, but I can tell you about how science swiftboats Christianity in the classroom!

BTW, nothing in the anti-Kerry ads were true--the navy's own records prove it.
I think the two links given about the "proof" of insertion and beneficial revision are laughable at best.  The article on insertion if you note indicates that every recorded instance of insertion either leads to tumors, cancer, or stopping the cell from functioning.  Second even if an individual cell within a multicellular organism changed how would this create a new species.  Obviously you might respond with lots of changes over a long time, but this still doesn't answer some fundamental questions, for example times of biodiversity explosion when in relatively short geological periods whole new types of species gain dominance the globe over.  

The second article on beneficial revision first just says that traits within a species can be acquired very rapidly.  Again no intelligent designer denies this these facts are well known, the question is how does this study do anything to prove one species changing into another.  Also if you pay attention to the article it does not indicate that it was random mutation within the gene that created lactose tolerance merely that with the production of cattle the gene becomes dominant active very shortly, the article cannot prove nor doe sit have any evidence about the GENERATION of these genes.
Because the universe is complex does not mean that it is divinely conceived or directed.  It simply means that it is complex.  Nothing more or less.

In time, we will understand everything.  When we do, it will be the end of silly superstitions.  I suppose that is what has the major religions frightened.

If the religious conservatives had succeeded during the Dark Ages at suppressing scientific pursuits then children would still be suffering terribly with Polio, our houses would not be warm and well-lit, and telephones, television, computers, and airlplanes would never have been invented.  It would be a very different world indeed, but not one in which most of us would choose to live.

Today, the suppression of branches of knowledge perceived to be forbidden will not stop the pursuit of that knowledge elsewhere in the world.  The result will simply be that the United States falls behind in those technolgies.  The economic reprecussions of that should be clear.
I think the title says it all for the sort of people who support this "documentary" - "No intelligence allowed". The 2005 PA court case in which Creationism was exposed for the nonsense it is, should be required studying in all our schools. Maybe we should place stickers on all religious holy books. "The Bible is not fact, it is only myth".
"This wouldn't be such a sensitive issue if the bulk of the scientific community did not state as fact what can not be proven. "

You mean, like God?

A theory is not "proof." A theory attempts to explain, based on observed phenomena and data, WHY something is the way it is. The theory of evolution through natural selection is just that: it explains what has already been observed in nature. Evolution happens and there is well established theory, backed by a giant mountain of research that does a good job explaining why.

The ID crowd simply goes: "Gee, that's complicated. God did it." and walks home. If that is the path we want critical thinking to take in the nation we are doomed.

Hey kids? Find this too complicated? That's OK! God did it, so don't worry your little heads about it.  
Why do so many of you religious types think that you are sooooooo smart that you understand how God may have created the earth and life?  Do you claim to understand everything he did?  Seems pretty presumptuous to me.  If you believe God created everything then surely he created scientific principles, and if that is the case why would he not create the earth according to those principles?  Yet nooooo, you know it ALL.  Don't ask, just believe, is that it?  How insulting to God.  Believe what you want, don't try to foist it on everybody else.

AS an aside, why is it that the so called right to lifers who want to save a fetus that has developed into nothing yet are the first ones to clamor for sending full grown adults who have lives and families and survived the birthing process to war to kill and be killed?  That's real logic!  
Although I am an atheist I do like Ben Stein and I’m glad he made this film. Unlike many of my un-God-fearing kind, I don’t find religion a terrible thing. As the saying goes with guns, “guns don’t kill people, people kill people” also goes religion. People in the name of religion have committed terrible atrocities through time. Having been brought up Catholic, I have seen many good teachings on how people can better their lives and be good citizens. It’s the over zealous that interprets those teachings and find it their duty in life to be hateful and judgmental. Even if it is Ben has been taken over to the dark side by demonizing science for the sake of reaffirming his on beliefs, I think the debate it causes is good. As terrible as the current battle is between Western beliefs and Eastern beliefs, I think on some levels things could be much worse in the world with the lack of any type belief. Even as a non-believer, I would fear a world that lacked the hope of a better place or no longer feared that their terrible actions would at some point be judged. Unfortunately, we are not at a place in our evolution to not kill each other off without a grand scheme of why we should not. I shutter when I hear the words of John Lennon “Imagine there's no countries, It isn't hard to do Nothing to kill or die for And no religion too Imagine all the people Living life in peace... What I imagine is a world full of vice and death with no reason for some to feel live and there is no reason to be kind to your fellow humans. I wish he would make a movie as why those who speak against the global warming establishment are demonized when they don’t go along. Even though their is Science proving that we are heading toward global cooling.
It is a great disappointment that Stein would permit such nonsense to be presented under his name.    He cannot possibly be that personally ignorant nor locked into 500 BC rubbish.    I guess it just proves that money will destroy integrity.    

When the intelligent design people can create even a single piece of credible data (and 2500 epic poems do not represent credible data) that their theory is correct, then someone of intelligence will listen.   Until then, it's just food for fools.
I find it so very interesting that the discussion about Darwinism does not include that Darwin himself was a Christian and his observations are based on how he interpreted the evolution of life from the perception of their being a creator.
Exactly Eric. Scientists used to think the smallest object was the Atom and it didn't take long to prove that wrong. Exact Science is not exact. Science is important but knowledge has a way of changing the facts over time making the truth a moving target. The problem stems from the human desire to believe that we are in control of our own destiny and the refusal to acknowledge the possibility that we may actually be part of a universe that was intentionally created.
You can not prove your theory by disproving another theory. It's like saying "If it's not a 0, then it has to be 2"...while it could be any other number. So saying that things are too complex for evolution to explain them, doesn't PROVE that God did it, could be a billion of other things. Fails basic science theory check hence doesn't belong in science classroom. Case closed.
Kerry in Toledo,  Wake UP, theories involving rationalization, interpolation and estimation are not demonstrable fact!

Scienece, by definition, may be wrong. If the ID adhearants want to be taken as serious scientists, they must accept that there is a chance they could be wrong too.  

Ben Stein, a very nice (met him on a plane a few weeks ago), smart man and terrific actor should know better than to michael-moore scientists like he does in this film.
The film "EXPELLED" is the latest in a series of attempts by creationists to push supernatural explanations (and to reject pure empirical naturalism) into the scientific process. Obviously, such a silly notion has garnered no support among scientists or in academia. In addition, the concept of Intelligent Design was proven in the Kitzmiller v. Dover case to be nothing more than creationism. As such, Intelligent Design was ruled as a purely religious expression that could not be taught as science in the public classroom.
What we have in the film EXPELLED is an attempted "end-run" around the scientific establishment and the courts with a cynical distortion of the truth - intelligently designed" as pure propaganda. Despite the PR spin, evolutionary science is not a religion and the worldwide scientific community will always accommodate testable, peer reviewed research. However, to accept that  "god just did it" theology is required for academic fairness would be a science killer, transporting us back to the 13th century
I hate it when lazy minded people try to demonize the other side in an argument by trying to compare them to the Naizis. The Nazis were not motivated by Evolution Theory to kill "undesirables" as they called them.  The thinking behind the Holocaust was Eugenics.  Even here in the USA we had compulsory sterilization laws for the feeble minded, retarded and other "undesirables".  It was only after WWII that those ugly laws were struck down.
A scientific theory stands or falls on the reproduceable results from published experiments.  Since Intelligent Design cannot produce such results then it cannot be a scientific theory.  It's truth must be taken on faith.  Faith is in the realm of religion and not science.  Only reproduceable scientific facts should be taught in our schools.
You people are as closed minded as the liberal hate spewing Professors. The next time a Liberal Professor takes a whip to a Christian in "Philosophy" Class, why dont you show the intelligence you say you have and realize that they are doing an injustice to that student and all other students. DO YOUR OWN RESEARCH. DO NOT LET A PROFESSOR ANYWHERE DETERMINE WHAT YOU BELIEVE.
I think we should have a TV vote on the whole issue (which night would be best?)like on Idle American (w/o Simon or Paula, although I think she's hot). Callers could call in to one number for "Yes, I beleive in Evolution" or another number to say "No, I don't ..." No numbers or theories, or even facts. Just good old American Common Sense. That would be both fair and settle it forever. The vote would be binding and everyone would be forced to go along with the results. Then we could have real democratic science for the People and by the People; the way God intended science to be when he invented it. Science and stuff is too important to be left to scientists and people of learning. Just because science can send a satillite across the solar system, clone living animals and create nuclear weapons, we better not trust it on this one. Power to the People through TV
Kerry in Ohio; please cite your demonstrable facts. While you're at it, please also help us with reconciling the incongruencies of the evolutionary THEORY with the first and second laws of thermodynamics, which is SCIENCE.  
I find it interesting to rush to claim religion as an extremism.  The study of evolution caused me to understand there has to be a creator (intelligent designer), hence, believing such, I guess I can be called "Religious" I have read many papers from many evolutionists.  
By doing so, I have also read many unfounded statements treated as irrefutable fact.  Evolution is change. That there is change is definatly a provable fact. That things as complex as an atom, a cell, and life forms in their awesome forms are an indirect result of unthinking change is absurd.
Consider the eye, but try only to duplicate on live, reproducible blade of grass all of you great scientists. Take all of the time you need, take as many to assist as you need.  You still will fail.
As a graduate biochemistry student, I find myself frequently discussing this topic with my colleagues and our conclusions often worry me.  We have concluded that scientists are handicapped in this argument for two major reasons.  

First, scientists all too often too comfortable waving off Intelligent Design because of our inherent disbelief in the principles which guide such studies.  We simply cannot believe that anyone would be swayed by ideas which our years of study conflict.  But what we fail to perceive is just how many people are convinced.  More scientists need to press the attack and not simply dismiss it off-hand.

Second, it is the glorious nature of science itself to conclude something is only ever true until it can be disproven.  Scientists are comfortable in accepting that our understanding is fluid. Models may be overturned,  hypothesis proven incorrect, and some subjects currently too difficult to explain for all the intricacies involved.  Our opponents proclaim this as our greatest weakness--that we can't ever really conclude anything.  I say it is our greatest strength, because we never proclaim to know more than what physical experimentation has thus far demonstrated.  Intelligent Design simply proclaims all that meets their model as "evidence" of their model and all that does not as "wrong until right."  Data should not be made to fit a predetermined model; models should be made to fit collected data.
"In the interest of equal time, would research money have to be reserved for divining the signature of the designer in nature, or even discerning which holy book reflects that design best?"

Why not? If there IS a creator (whether it be a deity or some alien life form), then science cannot be properly or fully understood apart from understanding this source of life.
The argument that religion and science should be separated is founded upon the (unproven) premise that religion is false. If it is false, then science should in fact be sufficient to explain everything. But if it isn't false, then scientists need to be open to that possibility - that is, if their aim is genuinely to understand the workings of the natural world, and not simply to reinforce their own personal philosophical viewpoints.

The author of this article seems very concerned about the "worrisome" possibility of someone challenging mainstream science. But isn't that how many historical breakthroughs came to be? It isn't really scientific to defend the current scientific perspective simply because it is well-established.
Again, at the risk of rehashing something that's been said a million times - it was pretty well-established that the earth was flat and the sun orbited around it. Then, people were unwilling to accept an alternate explanation because it didn't mesh with their personal religious convictions. Now, I would venture to say the situation is the same. It's just the nature of the religious (or rather, non-religious) convictions that has changed.

Science is inextricably entwined with religion. Until we have a genuine openness to follow the evidence wherever it leads, we will have battles of ideology, not science, within the scientific community.
Did not Moses say that unto the Lord one day is as a thousand and a thousand as one. That which created all life as we know or see has been in existence for longer than we can comprehend. In that time all things imaginable may well have proceeded what we perceive as the norm. God is the ultimate chemist and has eternity to compose as he so chooses, of which we can only see a very small portion. One only has to look to the night sky and watch a comet. Compare this to the random insemination probabilty of human conception and we see the birth of all life. Organized religious dogma does not want us to believe any thing other than what they teach for it would remove the power they covet over us and allow man to talk to God one to one. Turn a rock, Split a piece of wood.
This has more science than Al Gore's "inconvenient truth".  I hate it when someone challenges my beliefs
and I have to maybe accept something that I know could not be true.
Fools look at what they don't understand and decide to fill in the blanks with "God".

Intelligent Design isn't a theory, it's just half-witted excuse for people who are scared to death of learning everything there is to know about their world and realizing they never found god in it.

The religious argument for the necessity of a scientific notion of Intelligent Design can be undone simply by expounding on the classic Christian tenet of faith and free will . . .

God refuses to provide "proof" of divine existence because PROOF DENIES FAITH.  If there were proof, then free-will would be a sham and faith would be unnecessary.  After all, knowing via hard evidence that an omnipotent, omnipresent being existed and was waiting to judge everyone, anyone would be a insane fool to deny such a being.  The god of Christianity willfully chose to make faith a matter of freewill by refusing to provide any technical -provable- evidence of the existence of god.

Therefore, A SCIENTIFICALLY RELEVANT NOTION OF GOD IS OUT OF THE BOUNDS OF CHRISTIANITY and INTELLIGENT DESIGN IS OUT OF THE BOUNDS OF SCIENCE.  It's fine if folks want to believe there was/is an intelligent designer, but good science AND GOOD CHRISTIANITY dictates that when we face an unknown, we try to understand it through the lens of our natural world, and not just fill in the blank with "god".  Because the Christian god already said you were going to find him there.

Lazy theosophers simply annoy me, but cowering, irresponsible, and dumb theosophers are truly dangerous to our community.
ID proponents would have us think that the earth was created all at once 6,000 years ago complete with fossils.  Radioactive dating shows that the earth is 4.6 billion years old.
Those who believe in ID explain that the enormous fossil record was put in place by God to "test our faith"...ie God is trying to trick us.
Ben Stein has lost his credibility with this movie.
Many of us believe in God and in evolution.
Obviously, Ben Stein went off the deep end with this film. However, I find your article seriously flawed - maybe there should have been a little more intelligent discussion of the issues and a little less attempt at discrediting the movie.
A few points:
1. Maybe it's religion that is being swiftboated?
2. Theories are not proven and such a government body should not distinguish between them. Are they going to be the ultimate authority on truth and fantasy?
3. The message he is sending is that on certain issues, supporters of conventional thought for that issue use fascist tactics to discredit and impugn scientists or anyone at all that opposes their opinions on the matter. Just look at the way global warming sceptics are treated by the media and the scientific community, even though there is no conclusive evidence that global warming is man-made. Furthermore, one only need analyze the disgracefully dishonest "science" and "statistics" used in Gore's global warming documentary. Also, see the way supporters of ID are mocked and ridiculed by the media and academic establishment.

I know the first thing you and many that read this will think is that the academic community in essence is self-governing and it has rejected ID. My response to that is again to look at the global warming debate and how the self-governance of the scientific community has been non-existent. Prominent meteorological scientists such as William Gray at CSU have been harassed and demeaned by those who manipulate science to preach global warming alarmism.


SEND A COMMENT

PLEASE READ: All comments must be approved before appearing in the thread; time and space constraints prevent all comments from appearing. We will only approve comments that are directly related to the blog, use appropriate language and are not attacking the comments of others.

Message (please, no HTML tags. Web addresses will be hyperlinked):

TRACKBACKS

Trackbacks are links to weblogs that reference this post. Like comments, trackbacks do not appear until approved by us. The trackback URL for this post is: http://cosmiclog.msnbc.msn.com/trackback.aspx?PostID=950658

Latest Tech & Science News

Syndicate This Site

Add Cosmic Log to your news reader:
live.com xml
myyahoo msn
bloglines newsgator
google