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 it is sad is that Christians use to be (maybe still are)a t the forefront of science yet these days we have gotten away with some small time critiques of some very nice science ... why are we so afraid of science ? If you want some Christian heavyweights' thoughts on evolution, check out C.S. Lewis "Mere Christianity" or more recently  Dr Francis Collins (head of the human genome project) on their thoughts about science, evolution. This has enlightened me to not be afraid of science and instead focus my attention on the hope and love of the one who created us.
Science and Religion CAN coexist and do.  Both are huge complex multifaceted systems.  However Science cannot be Religion and Religion cannot be science.  One relies on proof and one relies on faith, but both rely on evidence.  The connection they share is Philosophy, which can handle evidence speculatively without passing required tests of proof or faith.  

Intelligent Design is fine as religious philosophy that speculates using scientific evidence, but it cannot be proven.  Things like convergent evolution are nice philosophical evidence, but there is still no methodology for detecting God.  Perhaps in 10,000 years we'll have it figured out one way or the other.

On the other side, there is also no scientific test to disprove God, altho numerous religious doctrines have been disproven over time.  It's up to religious people to be rational in their spirituality and not stubbornly hold to the clearly false.  There is spiritual evidence for God, but it cannot be asked to pass a proof test.  

Sure would be nice if we could as a group figure this out and keep it figured out.


Ben Stein for President of the Flat Earth Society
The truth of the matter is that Hitler was a social darwinist advocating the idea of the strongest human species need for survival and living space. Hitler packaged it for the masses as "race theory."  The problem Hitler had with the Jews is that the Jews promulgated Christianity that advocates protecting the weak instead of eliminating them to cleanse the gene pool.
I love this movie!!!  I thought it was funny.
It shows how little we all know but are willing to stake our all on it.  Everyone pushes their agenda.  I am for freedom.  This movie shows how little freedom there is in the science community.  Name calling - firing people.  Wake up and lighten up!  We can't say God without it being in a negative context. WHY?  What's the big deal.  What nerve is it hitting?
I think Ben was very tactful in his attempt to ask for a plea of equal consideration for ideas that neither can prove. Even the blogs here indicate great prejeduce for "my" view only allowed. It's a human trait that includes "scientists".

The Nazi connection touches a nerve used by almost everyone for anything however the connection is so obvious that only a stubborn blind dolt cannot see it. Natural selection states clearly..the strong deserve to live and the weak deserve to die. Hitler=ditto. Columbine school attacker=ditto. Remember his shirt? It's scary stuff, be careful of the conclusions to what you beleive.
Bill from Texas,

A basic tenet of science is that you must be able to prove your postulate.  For example, you can't say dino's had brown eyes, because there is no way to prove it.  So, a postulate that says that some "thing" made a change to dna to make an eye, you would have to prove there is a "thing".  I'm sure other could explain this better, but it is the jist.  This is why ID is not science.  Science does not accept a theory that says: first A, then B, then Magic, then c.  

No Magic allowed.

Steve
Typical "liberals" at work.........!  If they can't control the truth they create it, label it and call it names....lmao.

They are like little children that can't stand the truth.........and the truth is:  Jesus Lives and Ben is correct.  Sadly the "Science" in the world right now is taught on Political Correctness.....and nothing more.

Must suck to finally hear the truth ;)
"What happened to the idea that a theory is only a theory until it gets proven?"
Until it gets proven, it's just a hypothesis.

Are such theories, as relativity, Newton mechanics, quantum theory, electromagnetism, unproven yet? And the interesting thing is that they transition to each other at different scales. Newton mechanics becomes relativity at near-light speeds; electromagnetism becomes quantum theory at very short wavelengths, etc.

I think evolution is a red herring - Christians have a problem with the idea that God did not create the universe. Naturalists or whatever you call it sometimes don't. How the Universe was created? We will probably never know. Stop conflating the teaching of evolution (which should be taught) with the teaching that God doesn't exist. When you get your religion out of the classroom I'll get mine out.

As a Christian, I just don't see why I should trust the random noise coming out of the mouth of someone who professes that all of existence is random chance. If the universe came from nothing, then who cares what you think? I just can't get past that. For those of you who can get past it, I still ask, so what? So we all die and we're worm food and that's it? So why do I care what you think?

Just for the record, I don't have a problem with life changing over millions of years - it seems like just the thing required for a relatively unstable biome such as Earth. But hiding in evolutionary theory in Biology is the idea that not just life came out of non-life but that existence itself came from non-existence - something I've heard many biology teachers preaching in public schools and later in college. I always found it odd that the Physics teachers were more willing to discuss religion, even when they disagreed with my own views. It left me feeling that biology was a bit of a soft science, clinging to idea that over time, everything is getting better, more complex. Nice idea if you are championing Intel. I'm not so sure anything else is improving.

Anyway, I'm rambling - I'm sure I'm not going to get my science education from Ben Stein, just like I'm sure I'm not going to get my philosophy or religious education from Richard Dawkins.  Vote Obama in 2008!
Neither evolution nor ID/Creation can be proven. Biologists and other natural scientists base much of their science on current understanding of genetics and evolution. If this understanding helps advance the science of biology, it's ok with me. (Although what constitutes an "advance" is arguable.) I don't happen to agree with them on the evolution issue, but I'm not an expert. One of the difficulties in understanding both sides of this issue is that most of the publicly accessible information from either side is aimed at explaining why the other side is wrong, not explaining that side's beliefs and their foundation. This movie and the comments on this page illustrate the one seeming truth in this matter: it is impossible to have rational discourse on the subject.
Biased article - completely unoriginal and thus totally expected - follows the usual script.  Anyone who uses the term "swiftboating" perjoratively gives away where his sympathies lie. Fortunately the movie IS sparking the necessary debate, and that is one credit in this article's favor.
Swiftboating means to bring out the TRUTH.

There is formal documentation and proof that the academic world has moved strongly to silence any view that doesn't support the theory of evolution.  When pinned down, every so-called scientist admits evolution is still a theory and not a proven fact.

These are the points the movie makes.

So why does the reviewer even has the balls to complain about this?  What is his unethical and immoral agenda to silence dissent?
""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."
I think the same statement could be made about evolutionary theory. I cannot imagine how a theory with so little supporting evidence as macroevolution could have survived this long unless the public is distracted by ad hominem attacks on critics, and authoritarian pronouncements that evolution is a fact.
Many of the commenters on this article either just don't get it or deliberately misconstrue what ID supporters are saying. Many ID supporters are not only not Christians, they are not even theists-they simply recognize that the "Goo to You" theory is bankrupt. ID does not claim to identify the designer, just that we can distinguish the difference between things that chance and natural law can make, and things that require some intelligence. Complex, specified information always requires intelligence. This why ardent atheists like Francis Crick, codiscoverer of the DNA helical structure and code, have been driven to proposing panspermia, the seeding of life by extraterrestrials. The manifest failure of chemical evolution, the fossil record's lack of transitional forms, the lack of a mechanism to generate new information, and the biochemical isolation that mirrors the discontinuity of present and past life all attest to the bankruptcy of evolutionary theory.
The movie is yet another attempt by creationists and ID people to interpret the world in terms of their failed world view, i.e., religion. He and people like him feel compelled to attack science as if it were an evil force that is oppressing them and suppressing their ideas. In reality, it is they who oppress themselves by not expending the energy to learn and think on their own.

They routinely demonstrate an inability to perform critical thinking and reveal that they have never read nor understood the most fundamental concepts about evolution. Logic and reason, which innate in science, is an anathema to them.

Science will certainly prevail in current and future discussions about correctness of evolution. It is obvious that Ben Stein is just another brittle voice in a long queue of similar uneducated  people bellowing the same tired mantra against science because they haven’t the ability to understand basic concepts. His voice will be forgotten soon, hopefully.
1. If there is a God, this debate is foolishness.
2. If there is no God, this debate is foolishness.
Evolutionary theory is no more provable than ID.  Only a fool runs headlong into an unprovable theory believing it to be fact.  There have been NO findings to make evolution without God, a fact, PERIOD!.  
As a very well educated christian and learned fellow in physics, astronomy and geology, I believe in God and the creation he put before us.  He did not do it in 6 or even 7 of man's days, but 6 or 7 of his days proclaimed by God when he said "a day is not unlike a thousand of man's years".  Adam's people could not have fathomed the concept of a billion years!  In fact, God's day is probably what we term eons of time.  He is smart and wise enough to set into play all that we behold and have found in our 250 - 500 million year old fossil records.  As we look back in time through space to nearly 14.5 billion years, we still can't come to grasp with the universe.  God Can.

Ben Stein has a wonderful film that makes the less than wise cadre of evolution purist I see posting here,  have to look back at his own footsteps fearing the truth.  Beware, you may just stumble.
Nebraska Scott, Jesus was not concerned about if we evolved from primates or not.  It has absolutely nothing to do with anything He said or did.  Our evolutionary origin in no way invalidates God's love.  God's love manifests in the abundance and diversity of life, and evolution can be seen as the struggle of Life to fully express its inner Godliness.

Isn't it wonderful to finally hear the Truth?  :-)
"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."

I think you may have mis-learned.  A theory, in science, is something that has been tested many, many times and found to be true.  In many cases, "facts" and "theory" are not two separate things.  

As much as I hate to quote Wikipedia:

"In science, a theory is a mathematical or logical explanation, or a testable model of the manner of interaction of a set of natural phenomena, capable of predicting future occurrences or observations of the same kind, and capable of being tested through experiment or otherwise verified through empirical observation. It follows from this that for scientists "theory" and "fact" do not necessarily stand in opposition."  

Evolution and gravity are two examples of theories.

-Armondo - I agree that the recent global warming fiasco is shameful.  But that does not have anything to do with evolution.  Nor does it suggest that the scientific community is somehow "unreliable" or something of that sort, as I believe you are suggesting.  The theory of evolution has been around the past 200 years, and it has been tested and seen to be true by many different scientists in many parts of the globe and at many different times.  The trouble is, evolution actually has enormous amounts of data to support it.  There is no alternative theory.  Evolution is an observable fact.  Whether you believe that we all have a common ancestor or whatnot is somewhat more debatable - but there is lots of evidence for that too.  The problem with intelligent design is that it absolutely has no place in academic debate.  We can't debate every single alternative hypothesis that comes along - simply because there are far too many out there, and very few of them have any substance.  Intelligent design has no substance at all.  The academics weren't being persecuted - they were being "expelled" for their lack of critical thought, for supporting an absolutely un-academic theory.  Intelligent design is not testable - unlike evolution which is tested and tested again - and thus is absolutely un-related to science.  Certain aspects of evolution are changed as we make new discoveries - but the basic tenets stay the same.  Evolution is a fact.  You can believe intelligent design, but it has nothing to do with science.  And those academics were rightly fired (though some weren't even fired) for their adherence to it.  It shows low academic standards, non-critical thinking, no matter how good their previous records may have been.  

"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."

Why don't you look?  Read some books.  Visit The Panda's Thumb.  Read some science journals.  I think you'll be astonished.  

Or you'll just deny that it exists.  Since random people responding to comments on blogs don't give you the information you want.  And that just proves that there's nothing to support it.  

-

The absolute greatest thing about all this is all those people that are convinced that there isn't any evidence for evolution.  That somehow it's a bunch of scientists sitting around making stuff up, assuming, etc.  Never mind the enormous amount of research and evidence - it doesn't really exist.  No matter what you say or show them, it still doesn't exist.  "Well, here are some resources."  "Nope, doesn't exist.  There is absolutely no evidence.  It's just a bunch of stuff Darwin made up."  "But there's this and this and this - enormous amounts of research, testing, have been done...  Have shown it to be true."  "Lalalala - liar!  Evil!  Persecuting us Christians for not buying your myths!  Go follow your religion of Darwin you atheists - you pretend that you don't have a religion but you really worship Darwin!  Ah ha!"  
Look, I just so happen to be an atheist (as well as historian) and this film offends me on many levels. On the other hand I will NOT try to sway your beliefs as a christian, as people have tried with my atheism. this sort of "you're an atheist, so you'll burn in hell" or "You're a christian, so you're an idiot" is wrong. This country was forged on the grounds of religious freedom. So lets not try to spit on others beliefs,eh? (And, yes, I'm also looking at you, Mr.Stein.)
"Me thinks thou protesteth too much!"  The length and intensity of your response indicates to me that Ben Stein just might be onto something.  Oh, by the way, do you really think the movie was an attack on science or evolutionary theory?  It wasn't.  It was an attack on suppressing academic freedom using, as empirical evidence, the dismissal of many, many respected scientists/professors who dabbled in ID.  Like evangelical Christians who boycott every movie that challenges orthodox Christianity, your response will help assure this movie's financial success instead of letting sleeping dogs lie.
Ross, I'm glad to give you a laugh ... which is more merriment than I got from "Expelled." The fact that DNA replication can lead to insertions (as well as deletions) of genetic material illustrates how "information" is created. Thanks to the mutation, the genetic computers in our cells have one more line of code to play with.

It's true that most mutations are deleterious rather than beneficial ... In fact, this post from Olivia Judson explains that there's one beneficial mutation for every 10,000 bad turns:

http://judson.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/02/26/

You'll also learn more about insertion/deletions, or "indels," in the genetic code.

The other link I provided, to the information about the mutation that led to the lactose-tolerance gene, illustrates how genetic mutation can lead to a dramatic improvement of an organism's situation, particularly under the pressure of natural selection. (Mmmm, ice cream...)

As for speciation, I do hold to the view that the distinction between micro- and macroevolution is simply a matter of degree. Microbiologists can see speciation on the microbial scale, and here's an example that involves a larger species, electric fish:

http://seedmagazine.com/news/2006/06/realtime_evolution.php

It's hard to see speciation in progress because the process takes a long, long time, based on an analysis of the fossil record and genetic change. Nevertheless, genetic analysis has come up with a pretty good picture of how mutations build up to give rise to new populations. Putting in another plug for Carroll's book, I'll recommend Chapter 4 of "The Making of the Fittest."
Here's a novel argument:
IF God is intervening in biological processes, He is doing so in an extremely subtle, concealed, one might even say sneaky way. After all, if He had wanted to simply create humanity amidst distinct, nonevolved species with no biological connection, He could have done so easily -- no need to go about changing the rate at which carbon 14 decays, for instance, to cover his tracks.

Therefore, the only conclusion is that God WANTS us to believe in evolution. Those who seek to prove his hidden hand at work are actually trying to thwart His almighty will, and are thus due for a smiting.
Religion has killed more people than cigarettes and alcohol combined.

The Bible should have warnings printed on it similar to cigarettes, and it should be withheld from minors.

Religious programming on television should contain warnings about mature content and age suitability.

Persons introducing minors to religion should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.

Religion should be controlled just like other dangerous items in our society, for example, driving.  After reaching an adult age you should be able to apply for a license to practice the dangerous belief.  That is, after you pass an exam.
Wow.....lets treat these two competing modes of thought as equals for a second....... I.E. ID and Reason.....

A biologist/scientist cannot have "all the facts" inserted into a religion class. Why?....because it's religion....Why should the religious crowd be able to do so in biology?

Like it or not.....Biology teachers are supposed to teach the the field of Biology......and 99% of biologists agree that evolution is fact. Even religious biologists.....

By teaching evolution no one expects the student to change their world view....just to know 'biology' and what biologists think......

My Social Studies teacher taught me about Hinduism and Buddhism in high school.... He wasn't a Buddhist or a Hindu....He wasn't trying to proselytize.....he was just exposing me to another mode of thought and people with different world views. That is the backbone of any quality education.

Religion & theology belong in social studies classes & bible study meetings respectively. Biology belongs in biology class. Like it or not the minute amount of religious dissenters within the field of biology do not change the overwhelming consensus within the field.

I was actually a religion major in college. My faith leads me to embrace differences. To accept those with whom I disagree. I think the attempts by the religious right to stifle scientific inquiry hurt us all.
I am a Genetics major and I'd like to chime in from someone who is a scientist and a believer in God (a Muslim to be exact). Basically, there's a lot of polarizing going on.  There is no doubt in my mind that this movie will make a fool of itself because it attempts to argue science without scientific evidence. Intelligent Design isn't a valid theory, according to the scientific evidence.  I think this movie took the wrong approach, we need a movie that says "look, you can be a believer in God and still be a scientist." Some things to note:
Firstly, it is true that evolution via natural selection IS a theory. While we can show new species evolving CURRENTLY, we can not go back in time and physically document everything we propose in evolution. Thats the nature of the theory -- it deals with the past. We use fossils, genetics research, math models, etc to formulate a theory.  It IS POSSIBLE scientists could be wrong. So some people need to be careful to not be overzealous when PROMOTING evolution as a "historical fact".  
Secondly, people who dismiss evolution need to objectively look at the evidence, without getting emotional.  As a Muslim, I believe in God and I believe in the Qur'an. I accept the theory of evolution as MAN'S best scientific explanation for our history, BUT I don't swallow the whole thing blindly because there could always be "what ifs" like any scientific theory. All it takes is one fossil to throw the whole theory upside down and we've only been promoting this theory for the past 100 or so years.  I'm not saying its a bad theory, its a good one. Is it perfect? No, but this is the nature of science. Even the basics you learned in chemistry in high school are sometimes debated about in extreme detail. But thats the nature of this world -- we can only observe what we can with our 5 sense. We have to take our best shot, HUMBLY ACCEPT that there are other possibilities and go on with life, continuing to actiely research.

So basically, people calm down! We have bigger things to worry about like world peace, global poverty and global health problems.
all religion is creative mythology.  Some is just more "emphatic" than others.  Some point to "happenings" that could NEVER have happened (ie - the sun moving backward in the sky at the point of death of a certain jesus of nazareth (if indeed he existed))  That contradicts PHYSICS and is UTTERLY IMPOSSIBLE, yet it is one of several cornerstones of the text of a certain religious mythological tract.  

Now, I don't choose to discard the IDEALS of various religions (except perhaps the cult of kali) but DOGMATIC ADHERENCE to the ideas that "religion is INFALLIBLE" is now just as wrong as it was when "the earth was the center of the universe and the sun and stars revolved around the EARTH" - or that "the earth is FLAT"

Religion DESERVES to be SWIFTBOATED
Last time I checked, Evolution was classified as a theory.  There is a vested interest in preserving Evolution "Follow the money".  There are papers and books to publish, degrees to earn and gov't money to apply for.  Have you ever counted how many times the term "millions of years" is used on every TV channel relating to science? (who profits?) Its interesting to see those who support science just slam the opposing ideas - showing bias rather than objectivity.  Sounds a little "pre-Galileo" to me. Jim
Kerry, Toledo, OH you need to clarify that.  Micro-evolution is fact,but macro-evolution has yet to be proven.  Macro-evolution is still theory.  The difference.  Micro = change in allele frequency.  Macro = humans and apes share a common ancestor.  

Look at the issue in this point of veiw:  If there is a creator, then wouldn't he make the world in such a way that everything works together.  And just as artists have signatures, so God has a signature and that is how every living thing uses the same building blocks.  Also, if life did not use the same building blocks, then the food chain would be messed up.  So, why is there such a big controversy over intelligent design. The same "proof" for macro evolution (life coming from a common ancestor, because they have similar genetic matterial) is proof for an intelligent maker (God's signature = all life has the same building blocks - DNA). They are both theories when it comes to operating in the scientific realm. They are only facts when it comes to personal belief.  Since science can't prove either one, they should both be taught as theories and the individuals can look at the evidence and decide for themselves what they choose to believe.

A few observations. First, it's interesting that Ben Stein and the makers of "Expelled" would try to link Darwinism and atheism to Nazism and Stalinism. Somehow, atheism and/or a warped idea of Darwinism was enough to motivate atrocious crimes against humanity. Seems to me that fanaticism and psychologically disturbed behavior were more likely at work with Stalin and Hitler. Anyway, Dinesh D'Souza, the great conservative writer and ideologue, pulls the same move to attempt to smear atheism and evolution in his book "What's So Great about Christianity?" (If you consider yourself religious and conservative, read this. It will reify and rationalize your world-view, and save you all kinds of troublesome thinking.)

Second, these comments seem like a case study in the irreconcilability of the two sides (what are they, by the way? liberal vs. conservative? science vs. religion? perhaps we shouldn't be thinking of this as a dichotomy...). It's difficult not to get impassioned on these issues. World-views and the "reasons" rationalizing them are delicate and rarely rationally chosen; our beliefs tend to align with our social and genetic background. This makes it difficult to get through the matter rationally. I personally hope that the current centuries-old historical trend (which might be somewhat imperfect) will continue and science and religion will continue to part ways. I was raised a Catholic, although I managed to "see the light" and realize that there were many more reasons for not believing in God than for belief. (Before someone takes me to town for this, look up the problem of evil. Then try to come up with a good counter-argument. Good luck.)

Anyway, perhaps a good start for thinking about this issue can be borrowed from the idea of public reasons and discourse (see John Rawls). Reasons drawn from some comprehensive moral doctrine/view (religious, like Catholicism or Judaism, or secular, like utilitarianism) are not used in public political discourse. That means "God exists" or "God did it" do not count as reasons for arguments relating to political and public debates (of which what to teach in public schools is one). Neither do secular views of the similar nature. They are ruled out for the simple reason that if we want any chance of reaching an agreement, then we must use reasons that everyone could conceivably agree to. Religious reasons are not of this nature, and have no place in public political discourse.
Dear OLR3: Yes, I did consider whether this was worth devoting so many words to ... but I did it for a couple of reasons: First, I got some grief because I referred to the movie and wondered how wacky it was before I saw it, so I felt duty-bound to see it and report back. Second, I refer in the item to the idea of using this as an opportunity for a "teachable moment" on the issue. Some folks do think we should let such sleeping ID dogs lie, but I'm of the opinion that we have to use this as an opportunity to get the truth out (even if we take a little heat in the process).

If you're inclined to believe the ID folks, you should check out talkorigins.org and see how the other side deals with the question. If you're inclined to believe evolutionary biologists, you should check out answersingenesis.org and see how the other side deals with the question. In either case, you'll get an education.
What did you expect, a fair and balanced review of the movie?

Liberals' God and Mecca are being attacked, junk science and Academia.  of course the movie will be reviewed poorly.


I guess we forget that Darwinism is still a theory that has many holes in it.  The adamants of evolutionists have led to a near complete suppression of other ideas.  Having been in the K12 system, I can vouch for how teachers are quickly excluded from assignments and employment by not accepting Evolution at face value.  What may be called evolution is being realized to have other tangible evidence presented that natural events causing extinction or manmade mutation are relevant to interjection on modern events for evolutionists.
There is room for both and can be a benefit to youth and mature audiences of how there is a distortion of facts from the evolutionary side.  How is it that using evolutionary theory did an agnostic statistician use the highest evolutionary models and came to a reality that Man evolved from a different strain?  On the other hand, why is that evolutionists, creationists, et al, use mathematics in an erroneous manner when anything past ten to the 5oth is meaningless?  Still the debates rage and Creationists, ID advocates, press in directions that do not complement their argument.
Still, being one that acknowledges an Intelligent Design concept does not rule out the straggling of concrete action on the evolutionists’ side to support their claims.  I have seen use of accepted evaluation from applied sciences used to reduce the argument of beginnings from Big Bang and primordial ooze theory collapse because of interjection of material that is of mass or created from a formula that cannot be otherwise declared existing without preexistence.  That is why both must be presented.
We must also not forget that the First President's personal physician stated that science and faith could exist together.  As we learn more from the scientific method, we learn that some unexplained elements that are constant and repeatable, without having a clear scientific measurement criteria have to be accepted on faith until science becomes available to unlock the measurement to which man can ascribe an accurate accounting of tangible existence.
I have not seen Mr. Stein's film but look to doing so.  When I do then a comparison can be made as to the applicability of whether "No Intelligence" is appropriate or other commentary has been "expelled" from the making.
Creationist must also do research that put proper context in line with known historical documents and what modern science is finding that supports disruption of evolution theory but can be melded with creationist beliefs and still be sound.
Science and faith can work together.  Why is it that over 80% of the major discoveries are by persons of faith?  Why are there so many Nobel Laureates that are of faith?
Science is allowed by God to be a service to others.  It is the many of the faithful that the secrets are revealed.  Look at Darwin's last days.  He was believer in God and even acknowledged his theory may be in God's disfavor.  Little is known of his last days but by the few accounts, it was dismal.
You went into the movie with a pre-conceived, biased idea. "Before I saw the movie, I wondered how wacky it might be." Academic freedom includes the right to study and espouse a theory that goes against "mainstream" science. That students and academians would be punished for pursuing a line of inquiry regarding an as-yet-unproven question (the origin of life) reeks of a totalitarian regime. YOU and this "mainstream" science are the ones who are closed-minded and ridiculous.
By the way, I'd like to ask Bill from Kansas City (posted message 8:27:41 p.m) to send me your contact info at cosmiclog@msnbc.com. Your message is the 25,000th comment posted to this iteration of the log (which is less than two years old) and I'd like to give you a prize. I believe I have your listed e-mail address already, and please refer to that in your message...
Getting back to the topic someone mentioned earlier regarding the "links" between Darwinism and nazism...I think the movie contained those images they way it did to highlight the fact that many people who's world view has grown out of the "humanist" tradition, often rely heavily on darwin's writings and ideas as they move forth to make their arguments. In the same manner, people who's world views grew forth from the "Judeo-Christian" tradition often rely on the writings and philosphies of Thomas Aquinas and Blaise Pascal.

Philosophical concepts and arguments for such things as "the master race" in addition to other ethnic or "human centered" ideologies, are often made by individuals who reference Darwin. This, I believe does darwin a dis-service because was not actively participating in those movements. On the other hand, Thomas Aquinas was what is often refered to as a "father of the church", and Blaise Pascal was also someone who was associated with the church during his life time.

The conflict that is defined in this movie is not a conflict between science and religion. It part of a larger conflict between two diometrically opposing world views. One group believes devoutly that there is no god, and tries to spread that ideology to make the world a better place. The 2nd group believes there is a God or God(s)/supernatural creator, and tries to spread that idology to make the world a better place.

Keep to the science...there is simply no evidence for Macro-evolution (one species evolving to another). This is not a religous issue, but one of science. Critical thinking (science) will lead to one conclusion...Darwin's Evolutionary Theory will never be "law" because there is NO EVIDENCE. Take the challenge, and look for the evidence yourself. Despite how you explain existence, departing from Evolution is the first hurdle you must take to critically thinking about this subject.
What Ben Stein is confronting here is an important message for Western Academia to hear.  The modern "scientific method", as it is taught in schools across America, begins with hypothesis, and it is at this very beginning stage that the science of the effort is compromised.  A true scientist must be an observer, and must never treat as absolute fact that which he/she cannot prove most absolutely.  Further, in investigating natural phenomena, a true scientist must be devoid of expectations, as he may find himself ignoring information to the contrary of his initial belief, and reach a false conclusion in support of it.  Modern scientists too often try to assert theory (which by definition is unproven) as fact, an attitude which at its core is unscientific, and intolerant of dissent.  Even worse, politics, and the mad-dash for research dollars which come with political strings attached further skew the objectivity of academic research.

Even intellectual heavyweights like Einstein and Bohr had fundamental disagreements over theory, and their theories, both of which are fundamental to science today, contradict each other directly.  Few, if any, in science today, will even entertain the notion that Einstein could have erred or oversimplified, in the face of overwhelming empirical evidence which have proven Bohr right over and over again (partially because his theories are easier to test).  Scientists are supposed to have an open mind, and be ready to argue their point based on reason and real evidence.  They are also supposed to realize the limits of their own knowledge, and be willing to entertain their own, and their collective scientific community's, fallability, past present and future.  Ben Stein is laying bare the fact that modern academics fail these prerequisites on all points.

As Hegel pointed out, the object of Science, Religion, and Philosophy (or at least so their adherents would claim) is the pursuit of truth.  It is the nature of their subject (the tangible, the spiritual, and thought, respectively) which divides them most instrinsically.  It is therefore not impossible, nor should it ever be treated as such, to be an adherent of each, while being heretical to none.  In the Dark Ages, organized religion attempted to deny the adherence of science to the faithful.  In modern academia, organized science now attempts to deny faith to the scientist.  Both are equivalent wrongs, and I applaud Ben Stein for having the courage to confront it.
Religion -"The body of persons adhering to a particular set of beliefs and practices", By definition  would scientists not fall under this heading? What is it that unbelievers are so afraid of? (I speak of those not believing in God.) They work so hard at keeping intelligent design out of schools...why the fear of something you claim not to believe in? I,ve never seen a dinosaur yet science books are full of them and supposed dinosaur skeletons are available for viewing in some museums. How do I know they ever existed? We were all taught this in school...how do we know its true? Also isn't the goal of education having the freedom of learning all one can and having an open mind? I've listened to scientists, why can't you and yours consider intelligence design?  
Even Ben Stein showed the different definitions of evolution in the movie.  No one here is discrediting Darwin's evolution within a species.  It can be proven again and again and predicted.  What Stein wants examined is the origin of the species which cannot be proven or examined, only predicted.  He simply wants an intelligent designer allowed into the debate of origin.  He does not push this God or that God, just simply to be an allowable variable in the debate of Beginnings of life.  He is ridiculed for believing in God, then given the "real science" alternatives of mud or possibly aliens.
A theory can be proved or disproved. Evolution is a theory which is supported by the results of repeated observation and experimentation in laboratory, and has never been disproved. This is the nature of science.

Intelligent Design, by definition, can be neither proved nor disproved. No experiment or observation can be devised for the laboratory either to support or nullify it. It is not a theory, it is a belief. This is the nature of mysticism.

Both have their place in education; but not at the same time, by the same teacher, in the same classroom.
"Expelled" is silly and will have ZERO impact.  It will confirm the science denial of those who were already predisposed to do so.  It will infuriate (briefly) millions of knowledgeable people.  Then it disappears.  

How can I be sure?  Because there is no actual science even being attempted in the name of "Intelligent Design".  It's basically a bunch of religious folks who look at everything that has yet to be fully explained and then declare that it must have come from the "designer".  Usually this turns the focus of science on to the issue that is unresolved (this is REAL science, folks).  Science explains the formerly little understood process.  ID proponents ignore the science and continue to say it is "irreducibly complex" OR simply change their target to some OTHER unexplained aspect of evolution - all the while, doing absolutely no science, breaking no new ground, explaining absolutely nothing by virtue of "Intelligent Design".  

Intelligent Design is a hallow concept and "Expelled" is equally meaningless.  Don't sweat it.  The truth can't be twisted in the long run.  Ask the church and others who disputed Copernicus, Galileo, Pasteur, Einstein.  

You don't even quote Ben Stein right. He did not say that the battle over evolution was one skirmish in a larger war. Evolutionist Richard Dawkins did.

[Alan adds: Thanks, this has been fixed and the correction is noted above.]

Speaking of the Bible vs. science...

- Job 26:7 (written 3500 years ago) "He stretches out the north over the empy place, and hangds the earth upon nothing". Science then thought otherwise.

- Hebrew 11:3(written 2000 years ago) talks about things made from invisible material. Science finally confirmed universe is made from invisible elements "atoms".

- Levitic 17:11 (written 3000 years ago). "For the life of the flesh is in the blood." Up until 120 ago, sick people were bled by medical science.

- Levitic 15:13...dealing with disease, hands should be washed. Up till 100 years ago, doctors washed hands in still water. Science finally caught up.

- Job 38:35 (written 3500 years ago) "Can you send lightings, that they may go and say, Here we are"?
In 1864 James Clerk Maxwell suggested that electricity and light waves were two forms of same thing. Science finnaly discovered the radio!

-Isaiah 4:22 (written 2800 years go) - earth is round.

- Why did dinosaurs dissapear? Science is still guessing...while Job 40:15-24 has the answer.

- Psalm 8:8 talks about paths of the sea, when Matthew Maury, father of oceanography, bedridden reading the Bible, took notice and when searching, confirming this in 1850s.

- Universe is expanding, streched, written 2800 years ago (Isa 40:22).

- Female has a seed of life? Up till recently, science thought that male possesed the seed of life and woman nothing more than glorified incubator. (Gen 3:15)

- On eight day, God said a boy should be circumcised. Only recently science discovered, on the eighth day, only day in the life of the newborn, blood clotting element prothrombin is about 100%.

Unless the current science dogma changes, science will get many things wrong. But truth is out there in the world and in the Bible. Eventually, evolution, the fairy tale for grown ups, will come to it's conclusion.
I am reminded of the story of intelligent design portrayed on "The Family Guy", and I feel if "I.D' is true, this portrayal seems sociologically accurate.  For those who don't know, a elderly man as god, is playing cards with his roommate, and passes gas doing so.  The next passage (no intentional biblical adjective used here is not on purpose) of gas is quickly lit by god's flick of his bic, and out comes the universe and all affiliated out his bum.  I'd rather read, if I have to, arguments if a higher being is a killer?  Did the U.S. gov create HIV, like Obama's soon-to-be former pastor has metioned?  Or god?  Certainly a complicated virus had to have been created by a supreme being.  Cancer?  War?  Starvation?  Poverty?  For such a highly complicated, sophisticated organism such as Earth, this creator has no problem watching simple mortals destroy it
Those who "swiftboated" Sen. John F. Kerry had the truth on their side...maybe you should use a different pejorative.
As soon as saw that Rush Limbaugh had called it a terrific film I knew it must be mindless spoon fed propaganda of one form or another.

Scientific theories are developed by observing facts and trying to come up with the best way to explain them.  The facts come first, the explanation comes second.  

Creationism (Intelligent design, whatever) starts with the explanation (God created everything) and then cherry picks facts to support it.  Ask any proponent if there could ever be a discovery that proves the theory wrong and the answer will always be "no" because they will never allow God to be taken out of the picture.

It's a rehashed version of the old "God of the gaps" arguement for the existence of God.  Gaps in our knowledge and understanding of the universe are used to rationalize that the only explanation must be existence of a divine being. Ultimately, it limits the power of God with each new gaps that's closed.

People branded heretics for teaching the earth was not the center of the universe?  Why? Because it threatened the credibility of the church, and therefore its power and ultimately its ability to control large masses of people.  Hmmmmm......
I have to say that any attempt to have intelligent design taught in schools should be stopped.  Has it ever predicted a possible change over the course of time?  He is a social conservative and this is what they push.  It is if he is taking some far fetched idea and stretching it to the fatherest possible reach that makes no sense if you consider it completely.
There is an attitude among religious True Believers that, if scientific "facts" have changed over time, that somehow "proves" that science must be wrong, because GOD'S principles are eternal and unchanging (unless you belong to a different sect who interprets holy writ differently, because only WE religious believers are right and THEY are heretics). Someone upthread pointed out that at one point science thought that atoms were the smallest elemental units, but - horrors! we now know that's not true. So they were WRONG! No, their knowledge was incomplete, and was based on the only information available THEN. We know more NOW. That's the process of science - to learn, to correct error, to expand understanding. Religion has NOTHING at all to do with "proof," it's about BELIEF. There may or may not be a Supreme Being; I have seen no evidence, have only experienced FEELINGS. The application of beliefs in nor replicable: whether a person is "healed" by prayer seems to be nothing more than a roll of the dice. Scientific applications ARE or ARE NOT replicable; if they are, they can be considered FACTS; if not, they need to be discarded, or at least revised. When was the last time a religious belief was revised?
ID has some interesting logical challenges to the theory of evolution represented in Irreducible Complexity, Fine-Tuning and coded language at the DNA level that are just not answered well. Science is an observational inductive science that should applaud these discoveries even if they don't fit into the evolutionary mold.  Dawkins himself found the idea of ID "intriguing" as long as it was aliens that seeded the planet and not God - I found that comment both interesting and revealing of his main objection.

The movie and this Blog seem to reveal more of an objection to a Designer than Intelligent Design. Michael Behe and William Dembski have done some great research on the subject and yes, they even have peer-reviewed publications.  It's worth a read.


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