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.



The expelled evolutionist

Posted: Tuesday, June 03, 2008 7:01 PM by Alan Boyle


Courtesy P.Z. Myers
P.Z. Myers is a blogger as well as
a biologist at the University of
Minnesota at Morris.

P.Z. Myers is the evolutionist creationists love to hate: They hate him so much that he was expelled from an advance screening of "Expelled," even though the anti-evolution movie includes an interview with him.

During a visit to Seattle, the biology professor, blogger and "godless liberal" recounted the tale with relish - and then predicted that old-time creationism will be making a comeback.

Not that he's looking forward to that: Myers bases that prediction on his view that efforts to undermine evolutionary theory without referring to religion, using a concept known as intelligent design, have fallen short. Back in 2005, a federal judge ruled that intelligent design was basically a religious concept, and thus should not be taught in public-school science classes.

He said the secular version of intelligent design was no longer "a big factor in the wars here."

"This," he said, pointing to an classroom-friendly illustration from Answers in Genesis comparing Noah's Ark with a Boeing 747 jet, "is a much bigger factor. People want to believe in biblical creationism, not that secular intelligent-design stuff."

The proponents of intelligent design might take issue with that view. The folks at the Seattle-based Discovery Institute keep track of all the twists and turns in the evolution debate, including my wacky ramblings in Cosmic Log. The intelligent-design concept - that is, the idea that some complex things in nature are best explained by an intelligent cause - figures quite a bit on their side of the debate.

Even at the Discovery Institute, however, the debate is increasingly being cast on different grounds, as an argument for academic freedom rather than for an intelligent designer per se. Teachers should have the right to teach what they believe is right, even if it runs counter to the scientific mainstream. It's hard to take issue with that in the abstract, and not even Myers would assert that Charles Darwin's 150-year-old views should be accepted as gospel.

"Often we put too much emphasis on Charles Darwin," he said.

The problem comes when folks want to teach in science class that the entire edifice of evolutionary biology should be torn down because some chinks are still unfilled or out of place. Usually the reason for doing that is not out of a sense of scientific integrity, but because the edifice seems to stand in the way of the dissenters' moral or religious views.

Myers believes that the religious underpinnings beneath the intelligent-design argument will become more visible as the secular strategy falls short. "They're not going to be hiding the fact that they've got a religious motivation behind their goals," he predicted.

A fair number of public high-school science teachers might be sympathetic to that motivation, based on findings published last month by the open-access journal PLoS Biology. A survey of 939 teachers, conducted by mail and online between March and May, showed that 16 percent believe that "God created human beings pretty much in their present form at one time within the last 10,000 years or so."

That doesn't mean all those teachers want to bring Genesis (or the Koran) into the classroom. In fact, there need not be any linkage between a teacher's personal beliefs and what's taught in public school. Nevertheless, it's a statistic that worries Myers.

"One out of six of our high-school science teachers are young-earth creationists," he observed.

You'll never find Myers, a biology professor at the University of Minnesota at Morris, in league with that 16 percent. He's as well-known for his atheism as he is for his work in evolutionary biology - and he didn't mince words during his Monday night talk at Seattle's Pacific Science Center.

"I personally feel that religion itself is a lie and a danger," he said. In his view, even those who hold to religious faith at the same time that they hold to evolutionary theory are being "wishy-washy" in one way or another.

One questioner asked Myers whether that meant Brown University biologist Ken Miller, who has often said his passionate defense of evolution doesn't conflict with his religious beliefs, was being a wishy-washy scientist?

"No," Myers answered wryly, "I think Ken Miller is a wishy-washy Catholic."

Myers acknowledged that scientists sometimes have a hard time getting their perspective across forcefully, and so he provided a five-point prescription for wishy-washiness:

  • Show passion and personality.
  • Be a patient instructor.
  • Be an advocate, and shun caution.
  • Be positive.
  • Argue, argue, argue.

That last piece of advice is something close to Myers' heart. He recalled one time recently when he argued with a creationist for two hours straight. "He was so mad at me," Myers said.

Expelled from 'Expelled'
Which brings us to the "Expelled" episode: Last year, he agreed to be interviewed for a project called "Crossroads," which was portrayed as a documentary about the intersection of religion and science - going so far as to sign a release and accept payment for his time and trouble. Weeks later, he was worried to learn that the project was actually a diatribe against Darwin.

"I got fooled," he admitted.

In advance of the film's opening, Myers and a colleague of his showed up at the theater where a free preview was playing, hoping to find out how he was portrayed in the finished film. Unfortunately, he was recognized by a film producer and was told to leave the premises.

Or was that actually fortunate?

The way Myers tells it, the incident was a plus: He could capitalize on the publicity of being expelled from "Expelled" - while his colleague, the equally atheistic British biologist Richard Dawkins, had to sit through a movie that ended up making him hopping mad.

"I never imagined that they would do the perfect thing," Myers said, "which was to just throw me out, so I didn't have to go see the crappy movie, but Richard Dawkins had to go see it."

More resources
In between the anecdotes, predictions and the hate-mail readings (taken from Myers' in-box), the biologist provided a long reading list of books and blogs. Here's a sampling that could keep you busy for months:

Myers urged scientists who felt they had something worth saying to start up their own blogs. The software makes it easy to write a blog entry, he said: "Any idiot can do it."

What are your favorite science blogs? Feel free to contribute your own recommendations (or, for that matter, point us to your own not-so-idiotic blog) as a comment below.

Update for 2 p.m. ET June 4: Michael Bradbury has posted the full podcast of Myers' talk at Real Science. The talk was presented by the Northwest Science Writers Association and the Forum on Science Ethics and Policy.

MAIN PAGE

Email this EMAIL THIS

Comments

Alan...to the left, beneath your pic, you list the categories covered by CosmicLog.
Is this Anthropology?
I'm confused.
The import of this issue should not be underestimated. Stay informed at talkorigins.org and pandasthumb.org  
In the beginning God
Yes, I believe that.
Then you must ask yourself the questions, like any good journalist trying to get the whole story, who, what, where, when, why, and how, about God.

Okay let’s get started.  Almost thirty years ago I was talking to my friend Rev. Bill Vaughn about religion and science.  And Bill, who was very well read and a very thoughtful person said, “Someday the church may find itself on the outside watching the scientists discover the mysteries of God. The scientists seem to be getting closer and closer to how it all started.”
In 2008 at CERN they will start the Large Hadron Collider (LHC) in search of the so-called, God particle.  It seems that all the small subatomic particles have no mass and it is only in combination with the God particle that they do have mass.
Science has string theory that they didn’t have thirty years ago.  These strings existed everywhere in the universe even in the, so-called, emptiness of space.  At the speed of light these strings collide and start forming all the subatomic particles and the atoms of which all matter is made.  Also antimatter is formed but it combines instantly with matter giving off huge amount of energy, know as The Big Bang.  What is left after that is the know universe.  The Large Hadron Collider will have enough energy to produce these God particles, along with very small amounts of matter and antimatter, and very small Big Bangs.

What is the nature of God?
How can God be in all places at once?
Omnipresent
God must be some kind of energy.
A spirit
A spirit, energy that is intelligent and knows everything
What’s the word?  
Omniscient
God must be intelligent energy.
How can that be?  
The theory of relativity and string theory now includes eleven dimensions and parallel universes.  
Yes, you are right it does!  
Everything is made of strings and having different forms depending upon the frequency they vibrate.  
Yes!   Depending upon the frequency the strings vibrate God along with the universe exist in all eleven dimensions at once.  We are just not aware of it.  We can’t see it, but it’s there, like the wind, we can see its’ effects.  The gravitational effects of dark matter in the universe are measurable and tell scientists that dark matter exists; something we can’t see, comprises about eighty percent of the universe.
Where is this eighty percent we can’t see?
Right here with us slightly out of phase with strings vibrating a slightly different frequency.  In fact we too probably exist in all eleven dimensions at once with it.    
Everything in the universe is composed of strings even so called emptiness of space is filled with strings.  There is a cosmic speed limit for light, 186,000 miles per second, because strings are the medium through which light travels in space.
   Strings store the intelligent energy of the universe, which is God.


God is omnipresent
What do you think it means?
What I think it means, God is everywhere at once, universal.  If God can be here and at the edge of the universe at the same time, and if being everywhere at once at the same time is possible, then it would mean that God is already part of everything everywhere in the universe, that would include all eleven dimensions and also any parallel universes, and that God does not have to travel to get anywhere because God is already there.  If God does not have to take time to travel to get anywhere because God is already there, then time is irrelevant to God.  Time is a human problem.  
Time is relative?
We human beings take time to travel from one place to another.
But we learned as children that God is everywhere at once.
Omnipresent
Yes and God can be here and at the edge of the universe at once.
God does not have to travel because God is already there.
Therefore time does not pass for God.
God lives in the eternal moment that is forever.  
Simple logic.  
I follow your logic,
It’s intense
Time is a human problem.  God that lives in the eternal moment would have a tough time explaining seven days of creation because time is relative.  

God is Omniscient.
I was taught that, as a child in Sunday school God knows everything.  I still believe that by faith.
We were also taught God created everything in seven days.
Ah, where are you going with this?
Well if God is omniscient and created everything in the universe.  It means God created and knows all the science that goes along with it.  Doesn’t it?
Yeah I suppose so.  
We were also taught that God created human beings in his image.
Yes we were.  Again where are you going with this?
God created very curious human beings to find out how God did things, all the science of Gods creation.
Oh, I see where you are going.
This would mean when we human beings discover the science of something all we are doing is discovering how God did it.
Exactly, it means when we discover something all we were doing is discovering how God did and/or does it.  Would mean that evolution is not a contradiction of Gods work but the scientific discovery of how God did it.
Interesting


Have you heard of Pokeman?
The card game kids play.
It’s also a cartoon.
The grandsons like them. They have energy cards in them.
Yes I’ve heard of Pokeman but don't know anything about it.
Energy cards?
Interesting
Energy cards that give kids the power to do things.
I don’t really understand it. Never played it. But I've listened to them a little.
And saw the cards
Some people say they are Satan's work. Several preachers are against them
Say it’s teaching the kids magic.
Okay, maybe we need to figure out how to tap into this magic, Gods' intelligent energy.
Yeah.  The only way I know how to do that is to pray for God’s will to be done in our lives.

Oh, here’s another idea
There is only one God right?
Yes
Do you think it is possible that all the various religions are just a different ways viewing of the same God?
I think so.
People interpret things differently.
They can all see the something but describe the same thing or
experience differently.
Like the blind men that feel the elephant
One blind man feels a hose, it's trunk
Another a tree, it's leg
Another a wall, its’ side
Another it's tail, a whip
But they are all feeling the same animal an elephant.
Yeah
So no one religion has the big picture just different parts of it
But it's all the same one God.
No one fully understands everything either
I don’t think we as humans see the whole picture
Right
When I was a kid I went to different churches
Christian, Methodist and Presbyterian.
So I’ve seen different religious people
There are some that are very learned in the Bible... they have studied it for years
Yes
And others that seem to be led by the spirit. And seem to be closer to God.
Yes
I think to understand the Bible best. It has to be revealed to you
I agree.
God spoke to the prophets through revelation.   Is that how we human beings tap into Gods' intelligent energy?
I think so, that and praying for God’s will to be done in our lives.


If a religion tells you that the earth is fixed with the sun traveling around it, you, as a sane and rational person, would reject that religion as false.  Creationism and so-called 'intelligent design' are as invalid as the notion of an earth-centered universe, and one ought to reject out-of-hand the theology of anyone who advocates such nonsense.  Evolution is as solid as any engineering fact--if world religion wants to be taken seriously by intellectually honest people, it had better come to grips with that.  See www.talkorigins.org for more!
While not a blog, I'll make a few quick observations, followed by a reading recommendation.

Science assumes Propositional Logic; formally, this may be based on Wolfram's Axiom alone, but I find a NOR-based modification of the Robbin's Axiom (with definitions of NOT and OR relative to NOR, and Commutivity and Associativity for OR) more comprehensible.

Science assumes Mathematics, based these days on the self-consistency that the Zermelo-Frankel axioms.

Science assumes Reality relates to Evidence; this translates to the Strong Church-Turing Universe Thesis via mathematical equivalence of Recursively Enumerable Grammars with Turing Computable Formulae.

From these underlying philosophical assumptions, one may prove that of comprehensive descriptions of the evidence, the "simplest" is the one most likely to be true; for formal expression and proof, see paper by Paul M. B. Vitányi and Ming Li: "Minimum Description Length Induction, Bayesianism and Kolmogorov Complexity", available on-line in postscript form with a little searching. WARNING: written at post-collegiate level.
I guess the fact that the creationist you argued with "for two hours straight" got "so mad" at you proves that they are indeed wrong in their understanding of how we came to be, and it makes you correct.  It amazes me how truth is truth without fact backing it up in regards to the Evolutionists "theory".  And yet, every time a person seeks to disprove the Bible account of creation they end up failing and yet somehow find a way to believe they were successful.  I like the argument that one person makes how evolutionists believe what they believe not because it is provable, but because to think otherwise (believe in supernatural creation) would be unthinkable.  For your sake, I hope you are correct in your belief...  But, as for me and my house, we choose to serve the Lord.
Mr. Meyer’s views are as arrogant as the creationist he so gleefully teases. I will take it one step further and put him in the shoes of the one who disregards science, respected theories, and mathematics/physics itself. String/M theory, along with advances in quantum physics have advocated other possible existence/dimensions within Einstein’s 4 dimensions. Although these theories are extremely difficult to prove within a controlled experiment, right now, and understandably so, they are still highly regarded and have the same positive mathematical conclusions as Einstein’s theory of relativity.

It’s not out of possibility the existence of spiritual realms being one or more of these dimensions.

Crazy?
Radical?

Ironically, history may eventually find people like Mr. Meyer as rigid in his thoughts as the Catholic Church’s persecution of Galileo.

Now, this is not to defend religion’s twisting of evolution. That is an insult to ones intelligence - on many levels. Their audience is for the ignorant, and in Mr. Meyer’s defense it’s correct to bring this to light.

My point is not to condemn the possibility of a spiritual/dimension that is as real as the photons rolling across our physical world.

Only a few centuries ago the world was suppose to be flat….
The debate over Scientology vs. Evolution is not a debate, it is a political argument.  One is based on evidence and methodology and the other on emotion and opinion.  
in response to the string theory relationship to god by howard flint. strings are vibrating pieces of matter. twelve strings theoretically that took trillions of years to develop via the perpetual reformation of the universe. how can these strings be god if they were not around for infinity? these twelve strings developed over time. their likely less of these vibrating pieces of matter going back billions of years ago. at least according to string theory.  many permutations of the universe generated the current strings to be in existance. somewhat similar to an evolutionary process, but not exactly. therefore you need to look somewhere else for god. or god just does not exist, which is the more likely explanation.
I am an evolutionary biologist and I teach in a public school. I find these debates interesting, and I respond mentally just as I tell my students, "Belief has nothing to do with the natural laws of the universe. In other words, if you like apples rather than oranges, then I say great, but your belief does not make that apple any more or less than what it is, an apple." I include evolution within those conversations with my students, and as I say to them, we may debate the validity of our reasoning, but our reasoning does not make evolution any more or any less than what it is, a natural law (now people can argue semantics).
"If a religion tells you that the earth is fixed with the sun traveling around it, you, as a sane and rational person, would reject that religion as false.  Creationism and so-called 'intelligent design' are as invalid as the notion of an earth-centered universe, and one ought to reject out-of-hand the theology of anyone who advocates such nonsense."

Funny, not too many centuries ago science told us the very same thing and people were expected to believe it without question.  Seems like the same argument to me only the other way around.  Look at some of the articles here at MSNBC and you find that scientists discovered that the Milky Way Galaxy has two arms instead of four like originally thought.  WAIT! scientists can't be wrong!  They are, after all, scientists.

And what about scientists in the 70's who said that the earth was facing another Ice Age.  Here we are 30 years later scientists say "Wait, no my mistake.  Just kidding!!  We are really facing Global Warming and the Ice is not really forming, it's melting and we will face worldwide flooding in a few decades."  Bull Crap!!!  Science is good but is limited by man's feeble wisdom.  Although it boggles atheist and liberal scientists minds there are some things we were not meant to understand.  Sorry guys.
Well, on one hand I think we all hope there is a God. Mankind is a sordid lot especially in the most religious societies on this planet. It is comforting to know however that we may eventually  get even with those that sin and have a good time while we are at home watching the non-premium channels.

As individuals a belief in God can give us a “hope”, almost like a lottery ticket that never expires. The proof of the existence of God however will be up to God, not man.

Sometimes I'm amazed that people fly in airplanes and gas their vehicles with "oil and gas" and otherwise take advantage of all the benefits of science but don't believe what geologist, anthropologist, astrophysicists and other scientist say about the age of the earth. That hypocrisy dooms us and our children to perpetual decline.

As a whole, mankind should be also be worried about other concerns.

Broadcasting our location to the universe is like the wounded sheep on the hillside crying for it’s mother. Eventually someone will hear us. As I think Woody Allen once said, ”It’s one big restaurant out there”.

Do I believe in God, Sure I do. I also believe he punishes those that choose to be ignorant.

villagearchitect  
Simple point that is missed by ALL creationistist's.
Hypothothis (whay they call a therory), an idea which may explain part or all of a question, but lacking evidence.  Therory: an idea which is mostly proven by experimental evidance, but still leaves room for modification as new evidence shows need to adjust the factors.  Why the point?  A therory is not just "a therory" (texas), it is a well reasoned opinion which has stood the test of time is is a good means of explaining what is going on with room to grow (eg gravity which went from law to therory after it was shown to break down at the ultra nano levels(99.9999 percent correct, just can not explain both worlds of physics)).  The antis' use the word therory interchageablely with hypothisisus (sp), which shows a lack of understanding and a deliberate attempt to muddy the waters
Rik, get a grip and do a little reading in the sciences.  When it comes to the universe, religious dogma must take a back seat to science.  While science hasn't answered all questions, and doesn't pretend to answer moral questions, it is the best method that we have for understanding the world/universe that we live in.  You can still serve your god without believing that the world was created in six 24 hours days.  The biblical account of creation really isn't very detailed, and open to a lot of interpretation.  The wonderful thing about science is that it is self correcting, the data doesn't lie, and someone's pet hypothesis can be overthrown by well conducted experiments.  Think plate tectonics.

Eric, my question to you is how do you know that the "spiritual realms" that you refer to will be the one that you envision?
That's *Dr.* M[no "e"]yers to you, bucko! ;^)
Why is it that only humans evolved into intelligent species? Other species have been arround for much longer time. If evolution brings intelligence then atleast some of the other species should be more intelligent and creative than humans.
Wise: To know. Wissenschaftlicher: scientist. Wissen: to know.
Those lights in the night sky are not holes as religion would teach for millennia.
The earth is not the middle of all space as superstition would tell.
We are related to all living beings on this planet the scientists tell us.
Before us there was an us. Humans do adapt to the environment just like the rest of us.
We are not separate from each other in spite of our beliefs, stature, education, or wealth.
Religionists are purveyors of darkness.
These are the ignorant and emotional mental minions who can not stand the light of truth. They argue the weight of shadows while promoting death in this life and in the next.
Binding codices 1,500 or so pages of copies of ancient folklore and calling them "sacred" will never make it so.  Alexandria burnt does not erase the truth.
Killing because it makes you superior is final proof that all of your beliefs are superstition.
It is evident that Religions are simply fairy tales told with zeal.
Your Passionate pleas do not justify your beliefs or your black hearts.
And yet Science justifies its self with every breath.
Observation, measurement, and notation are THE True Religion.
And Education is the lamp in the darkness.
There is so much darkness and so few lamps.
Every new day reveals a Holy Grail.
Except for those who memorize faded memories of half forgotten tales.

Dinosaurs are real Religion is Swamp gas
God and Science are really the same thing.  They are the reflections of the egos of humans that can not accept the reality that there are things they will and can not ever understand.  One of the biggest of these is Death and the other is the creation of the universe and our place in it.  Religion uses mystisim and fantasy to explain the unknown while science uses its own man made laws and equations to make sense of the unknown.  Those who live their daily lives within the boundries of the reality of this world; the ones living, eating, breathing, loving, hunting, observing and overall respecting the natural beauty and wonderfulness of the whole universe, are the most wise and spiritual people of our world.  They are the humble people who are the true observers of our place within the fabric of life.  They know the "truth".  Do they have vast material wealth-no. Do they want for more technology - not usually unless it is "forced" upon them.  Do they wish for more and bigger churches and universities - no - they live in the best ones already -  the desert, the jungle, ect.  The Kogi Indians of south america train their new spiritual leader from birth (Called a Mama). He is taught the complete history of his people, all the animals, and lives in "darkness" of the realities of the world around him.  He is only told, and learns to beleive, that the world is perfect in all its splendor.  That spiritual wisdom is the ultimate thing to behold.  After 18 years of eating bland food, not seeing a young and beautiful woman, and not seeing the sun rise or set over the beautiful jungle, he is allowed all this and more.  When the old Mama asks him, "Is the world as beautiful and full of wonder as I told you"  The young Mama always says, "It is that and much more."

The world is our Eden, we don't need define it with our limited laws, intuition, eyesight, or intellect.  We just need to see it as it is - beautiful, wonderful and full of wisdom.  God did not hide the Tree of life from us.  We have just forgotton how to look for it.  It is there in front of us - not in a church but in a cloud; not on a computer screen but in a lovers letter of poetry.   We don't need a dogma or a machine to make "Contact" with the ONE - we live and breath it each day - it is called life!  We just need to really start living it.  
we all no theres no such thing as religion.... and schools are used for brainwash anyway so whats the big deal?
There are two types of people with whom it is impossible to constructively argue without making a fool of one's self: Bigots, and lunatics.  Not all Creationists are bigots or lunatics - it is indeed possible to become deluded by one's social environment - but those terms cover easily the bulk of their activist constituency.  The bigots are the ones willing to simply lie on behalf of their agenda - like spiders weaving webs, they just make things up and post them on cheap websites to delude and deceive naive people who've never had the benefit of a real biology education.  As for the loons, they are the ones who don't have to lie because they can believe essentially anything, and none of it is connected with any form of logic or even intuitive reasoning: "How do you know that God isn't simply testing you by tricking you with all these fossils?"  I feel a sort of amused paternal kindness to people who can believe anything - they're basically adult children - but for the liars I have nothing but contempt.  Unfortunately, Creationism  and all its flimsy disguises (especially I.D.) are pushed primarily by the latter - people with a political agenda motivated by fanaticism and mendacity.  Rather than arguing in perpetuity with these liars and giving them a perpetual platform to spread disinformation, the best thing is simply to properly educate people in the first place about biology.  These maniacs don't have anywhere near the standing in other developed nations that they do here, because science is taught properly elsewhere.  
Who's the bigger fool? The fool spouting gibberish nonsense, or the person arguing with the fool?

Like a horse with blinders on, many of us only see a small portion of all that is. A simple change in perception can reveal a world previously unseen. All you have to do is look around and all is revealed.
Didn't "GOD" set up the principles of science give all living things free will and just step back?
Try this on for size:

The universe is a closed system of E=MC2.  A closed system cannot create itself.  Therefore something created it.  Whatever created it is the creator - what we refer to as God.

That says nothing about the characteristics of God.

Another point:

Religion has nothing to do with God.  It's just a human invention to control humans.  Sometimes its used to justify actions that would otherwise not be condoned - like tearing the heart out of a virgin, burning people at the stake, stoning people to death, hanging people thought to be witches.

Another point:

You could expect a God law to be physically impossible for a human to circumvent.  Hold a pencil in the air and let it go.  It drops.  You have just demonstrated a God law.
I do believe that Eric is right and both sides are rigid almost to the same degree. Personally I'd like more care given to learning and to the research and less to the un ending war between evolutionist and creationist .
The one thing that some posters here miss, like Rik Rambo, is that the evidence supports Dr. Meyers point of view. Pretty much all of the religious/creationist/ID arguments are false. No account of revelation has ever been dependable. The scientific method is used because it works.

Claims that ID/Creationism is science are bogus and easily exposed. They are repeated because too many people are too lazy to actually check up on what the evidence supports.
And a few thousand years it was round before it was flat.

So much knowledge was lost in the name of one philosophy, religion or political view being more important or rightous than another.

In the end, all possibilities should be discussed openly. It's for the individual to make a choice.

It's so strange looking from the outside in, that America is advanced in so many ways, yet held back in so many others.

Maybe it's the contradiction which breeds progression.
I don't think Creationism is an explanation of how the universe began. It always is an intermediate. It always starts out with a god who is already here. We scientists want to know the beginning---not a middle step. So these stupid religious nuts should admit they have no theory on the beginnig. They claim the universe (their God) has no beginning. Certainly genesis is wrong since it has two versions which conflict (and so can't be right). But again, Genesis assumes that God floated in the dark for all infinity and then one day (with his eyes open I guess0 he decided to make light and dark---wait   there already was always dark. Anyway, then he made the Earth and the Sun and then after that the stars. Not that the sun and stars had any bearing on light and dark. Remember, those "little" stars are all going to fall to Earth someday when we beging the end of times. How could a beachball fall onto a BB? That would maybe be the equivalent. Oh well. God does such amazing things. I guess before he kills everyone (again) he will make the stars smaller and get rid of their heat and gravity before they fall on the Earth.....
I have asked the same question everytime I confront creationism & I have NEVER received a coherent answer. If the universe is so complex that it required an "intelligent designer" what created the MORE complex "intelligent designer"? The only types of answers I ever get are "We're not meant to know", "That's the mystery" or "We'll only know that when our time on Earth is over". Intelligent design is strictly a religious belief & should be left in Sunday school. If intelligent designers/creationist want their religion taught in public schools (and & am NOT promoting that idea in any way) then they should allow evolution to be taught as an equally valid alternate to creation in their churches, schools & during their services. That'll be the day!! I had 12 years of Catholic education and I never received an adequate answer to my question. I don't believe there is an intellectually honest answer to be found. No matter how fervent their belief they can't answer the question & they don't try to find the answer. What are they afraid of? That all they will find is a little man pulling levers behind the curtain? I honestly feel sorry for those who can't see the truth for all the smoke & mirrors that they have come to believe in.
I find it sad that such a fine mind as Dr. Meyers seems to grasp the intricacies of biology and many other sciences alone. He appears to hold the details of the natural world as some 'Holy Grail",to be discovered, catalogued and understood. Such veneration and "worship" is common to those who are truly blind, for they see well creation and fail to adequately desire an understanding of the Creator,an understanding which can only be gained through a personal relationship with Him. How can one ask "What?", "Where?", "When?", and "Why?" and not want to know "Who?"?
The religious should remember that Zeus and Diana and Odin and Thor and that crowd were revered quite as long as Jehovah and Jesus.. with equal fervor and devotion.  The religious impluse seems to be old and hard-wired in the brain, but not essentially valid just because of that.
this article is so biased, it is easy to see the author is not an "anti-evolutionist" as he/she would say.  Please learn how to write a fair article, or take a class on journalism.  
Essentially I agree with Dr. Meyers. For too long the views of religionists,particularly Judeo-Christian, have been accepted without question and given prestige which is not deserved.The time is long past when irrelevant unsubstantiated superstition, perpetuated by centuries of systyematic propaganda is allowed to influence our investigation and understanding of our relationship with the cosmos in all it's vastness.
Science and evolution certainly does not possess all the answers, but the framework in which science operates is not rigid, it is flexible and open to further investigation, integration of new information and has proven it's capacity to increase our understanding of life and the universe. If you need a spiritual dimension in your life, the concept of a creator god is is relevant and obsolete. Simply look into the vastness of the cosmos or in the eyes of every creature and the depths of your own mind to discover it.
It seems to me that the battle is fought, in the press at least, between the two extremes:  Atheistic evolutionist and religious "Young Earth Creationists".  There are others in the battle.

I'm an "Old Earth Creationist".  I do not believe that humans appeared ~6,000 years ago, shortly after the Universe popped into being.  Evidence seems to suggest an older age for humanity, possibly 75,000 - 100,000 years, but not 6,000.  Nor do I believe that the Universe is also only 6,000 years ago.

First, I believe that the nature of the Universe, it's structure, composition, and laws, cry out for a Design and, hence, a Designer.  To me, that is Jehovah, the God of the Bible.

Second, as a degreed engineer from a very reputable school, I find that the "evidence" within science to be compelling that Creation is quite old, and quite complex.  What theologians call "General Revelation", what we learn about God from His Creation, indicates that He has been at His work for billions of years.  Basic cosmology and geology indicate that, plus archeology has found evidence of human cultures from before 4,000BC.  So, I'm an Old Earth Creationist.

Third, for those with a truly open mind (in both directions) faith and science do not conflict.  I would recommend the works of Dr. Hugh Ross and his associates at reasonstobelieve.com as a good step to seeing how the Bible and Science harmonize.  Neither is fully understood, but they do not conflict.

Scientists are not all atheists, just as all atheists are not scientists.  However, scientists can have passion, drive, and agendas.  Their atheism and it's subsequent belief systems can look a lot like a form of faith.

Not to be insulting . . .
This is an endless debate.  Those who follow the "word of God" will never back down because their cause is devine and just and right.  Those who put stock in evolution will "stick to the proven facts" and dismiss the possibility of an all-knowing, all-seeing, all-involved higher power.  Those who make concessions and acknowledge the possibility of a higher being while simultaneously holding to the belief that man has evolved and was not created are branded as "wishy-washy."

The only major difference here is that those in the "religious" camp will continue to expand the scope and reach of God in order to undermine evolution (i.e. "intelligent design"), whereas evolutionists seek to find concrete explanations for why the world is as it is.
Remember - too many people forget this. We are given FREE WILL. We can take our underutilized brain and actually use it. We find many interesting things in the world around us. However, as is common with man, give an inch and he'll take a mile! When you begin thinking to "have the answers" - you really don't have a clue. The first fundamental flaw in any argument is denying the yes has a no - a stop a go. It's all relative. But, once essential function is abundantly clear - we have free will....this is evidenced by the article....let's just not get ahead of ourselves - o.k.?
One other point - SCIENTISTS ARE NOT ADVOCATES for ANYTHING. SCIENTISTS are SEARCHERS...When you become an advocate for ANYTHING - you pervert and distort the other equally objectionable side. That's the first thing ANY scientist should know....every stop has a go. Every yes - a no. Simple, really.
RationalWiki.com is dedicated to combating the anti-science movement.
Isn’t it quite ironic that the instinct for organized religion most likely developed from evolutionary forces arising from the reproductive advantage of existing in stable societies?  It seams that evolution has created its own doubters!
Honestly people, if instead of "God created the world in seven days (as human perception times them)" it was "God took billions of years to get things just right for man to walk the earth" how would it really make a difference in things like "Thou shall not lie," or "Love thy neighbor," or any of the teachings of Christ?  When did the EXACT timing in proportion of human perception of how things got rolling in the physical universe matter more than anything else?  Why can't we have science AND religion?
Oh my, the theists are at the whipping post once again so the atheists can feel smug and assure themselves that they're right in their own little way. Frankly, they seem to be two sides that are so afraid that the other might be right that they need to fight tooth and nail to prove the other wrong.

Not to say I don't have an opinion but I'm pretty open minded about future evidence. Instead what I'm getting from both sides is the same re-hashed, illogical squabble.

Maybe if you were as right as you think you are you'd find it pointless to debate with others? Have a blast guys. I have better things to do.
To this day no one can prove that god ever or does exist. Yet sceince can prove evolution. Sometimes the truth is harder to believe than fiction.
Living here in the bible-belt, the issue of teaching evolution vs. intelligent design is a pretty frequent topic. My take on it is that most industrialized countries teach evolution, so if we're not teaching it in primary schools, when they go off college, out into the working world etc., we'd be handicapping them at the start. Come on folks, we need all the smart people we can get. It's a big scary world out there, whose most pressing problems require scientists, not preachers. I'm sure some will disagree, I realize proselytizing is church doctrine. What I find for the most part here, the same people who can quote you any passage from the bible, can't tell you who is running for their state senate seat for example, or what the top environmental issue of the day is etc. Many seem never to look past their church pulpits. Many great civilizations have fallen when they cling so tightly to religion, that they refuse to acknowledge the obvious right in front of their noses. Maybe we'd be an Aztec dominated world now, had they not perceived the Conquestadors as God's manifested.
Science does not disprove the supernatural.  Science does not address the supernatural at all.  If the supernatural is interfering with the natural world (changing water to wine, or levitating elephants), the scientist cannot discern it.  Why?  Because she cannot distinguish "it's a miracle" from "we just don't know the answer yet."  Anyone who says, "Well, we don't know and therefore God must have done it" is not behaving as a good scientist - and probably not a very good theologian (although I am admittedly not a very capable judge of the latter).  

Because atheists like Meyers and Dawkins (and myself) are usually also evolutionists, people - particularly creationists - often conflate the two things.  Evolution is a fact (with an brilliant collection of explanatory theory) regardless of whether god(s) exist.

This is important.  Science matters.  Comparing creationists to Galileo is ridiculous.  Nobody laughed at Galileo.  Galileo demonstrated a thorough understanding of the theory he supplanted.  The same cannot be said of creationists.
The reason there is so much controversey is that neither side knows for sure. Neither side can prove their position. There are unknowable elements. One side dismisses the unknown with faith in a creator and the other side with the belief that man's intellect will eventually uncover the missing links in evolution that are expalined by faith that given enough time all things are possible in some accidental way.

Some people reject faith in creation and rely only on what their five sense can reveal and their mind comprehend; they call that science which is their god based on for faith in man's understanding of nature. Yet if God is out there, his power and intellect makes man's seem puny; will we ever discover his secrets with what we have to work with?  

Is what we call evolution the answerer to all questions of our origins or is it just evidence of God's work in process.  Is what we call evolution really just mutations within species or do new species really appear form old species as an accident of adaption and huge amounts of time? Or did God create a progression of species which developed variations within its species?

To me, it is all about understanding infinity. I can get my mind around the idea of something that is never ending once it gets started. What I can't comprehend is how something can always be there without a starting point. Both sides of the argument ponder how it started "in the beginning".  What was there before the beginning?  Nothing? If God created the beginning, where did God come from? If there is no God and we came form some colassal amount of mass & energy that came together and exploded, where did that mass and energy come from- did it just appear at some point on its own? The answer both sides give is - "it was always there". And that is where my mind shuts down. I can not conceive of something that was always there without a beginning. I wonder how that can be.

So argue away; but there is no way to know for sure with what we know.

The truly religious can never accept that the facts about their religion (contradictions in scripture, a history of murder in the name of God, for example)have any bearing on the truth of their religion. The disconnect between facts and truth make discussions with religious people pointless.
I LOVE how creationists come up with ideas that THEY KNOW can't be proven by science then thumb their nose at evolutionists and tell them they're wrong.  C'mon people ... back your arguements up with FACTS.  ID or crationism have NO FACTS to fall back on.  FSM or Pastafarianism, however, has plenty!  Look it up.  R-Amen!
this article makes me laugh....
I take offense to the "wishy-washy" comment. Evolution doesn't disprove the existence of God, it only contradicts certain religious texts. Isn't it quite possible that the bible is wholly, or in part, incorrect, and that evolution was God's plan for creating life? Evolution merely explains the process -- it cannot prove or disprove whether a supreme being was behind it all. Essentially, I believe evolution IS the intelligent design.
I really am at odds with the term "evolutionist" vs. "creationist".  The guy is a SCIENTIST.  The other guy is NOT! The term implies that anyone who is confident with evolution must be apart of some dogmatic belief system or philiosophy. Evolution is science and to be opposed to it is simply being anti-science.

It's ok to be anti-religion however.
In the Beganing  God was created in the image of man

that after we stop making god in the image of animals, the sun , the moon, mountains and rivers and clouds and birds.
some one along the way decide to start combining humanoid features with the imagery.
So to all you regiliuos folks  lets  began again

IN the beganing   God was created in the image of any thing  we humans beleive or perceived as all powerfull,
then later we bagan to revise the concept and made  God in the image of man.

Want proof?

okay  lets take alook at  Jesus  Christ , ah  he white, and buddha  ah he chinese , and all those million and one gods in hinduism , then  sub -continent of India,  Indians, Oh by the way some of them are blue, and in Ancient African Believe 9 egyptians and all the others in that continent  black skin

ANY objections ?  
[...] Everyone with an education in the 15th century knew the earth was round - the argument was over how large the sphere was.

Smarter commenters please, these "flat-earthers' are laughable.


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=1101860

Latest Tech & Science News

Syndicate This Site

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