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

One thing that the I-D crowd never deal with is the possibility that the Designing Intelligence need not be the God of the Bible.  There are all the other creation legends from every culture and religion on Earth. It isn't just a choice between bible-God and evolution. Do these proponents of I-D realize they are opening up the possibility that all life on our planet is the result of  genetic engineering experiments by advanced beings from other planets? Somehow i doubt they would want that theory taught in science class as an alternative to evolution.
Creationists just need to realize that if their arguments had any basis in fact, science would embrace their testable theories and hypotheses wholeheartedly - but metaphysics and associated beliefs cannot by definition be tested under empirical conditions with known (or even unknown) variables.  

As examples of this situation as it pertains to science and cosmology, even Brian Greene admits that we're not likely to prove string theory or brane theory any time in the foreseeable future because experimental conditions for testing can't be met.  In the same fashion, David Bohm's idea of the Implicate order and the 'hidden or unknown variables' that cause the physical universe to manifest in the Explicate Order cannot be tested....and this theorem arises out of hard physics, just as string theory does.  And of course, the Big Bang itself is untestable as a theory, although the discovery of background radiation seems to prove out the basic ideas - with inflation theory filling in most of the details.  

Creationism and intelligent design are so far off the scale of reasonableness, common sense, and contemporary rational thought that it's disturbing to see one out of six highschool science teachers actually embracing this concept - demonstrating for the millionth time that an emotional investment in the beliefs of the religious realm far supercedes the clear logic and rational thought processes found in the scientific secular realm.  

While there's nothing wrong with teaching reigious cosmology in Comparative Religion classes, there will never be a place for it side by side with the cosmology based on scientific research.  This bright dividing line should never be breached in a formal educational environment, and particularly if the environment in question is the public realm of primary and secondary education.  
From the article: "No," Myers answered wryly, "I think Ken Miller is a wishy-washy Catholic."

My reply: Dr. Myers is ignorant of Catholic teaching. Catholicism accepts evolution as a possible explanation for the development of life, just that one cannot claim that the soul evolved as well. One can easily hold a view of evolution, and hold religious belief. Dr. Myers gets so much flak, and deservedly so, because he constantly raises these false dichotomies. When will he learned? Probably never.

I've argued against his wrongheaded beliefs on my own blog (http://bioenergyrus.blogspot.com).
The time spent arguing over these still fledgling worlds of science and religion (in the grand scheme of things sidereal) is an enormous waste of time while innocents go hungry and die, healthcare is not available for all, and simple acts of human kindness are forgotten in the rush to be right. Please! Give it a rest and do something loving, human, caring, and kind.
You mention that PZ Myers is a well known evolutionary biologist. This is incorrect. In fact, Myers has not published any peer-reviewed work in over 10 years. He teaches at the very small branch campus of the University of Minnesota-Morris, which offers no graduate degrees in biology.

However, Myers is well known for his constant ravings against religion. This is what his so-called science blog "Pharyngula" is mostly about. While I share Myers' views about science and religion, I have nothing but contempt for his ruthless self-promotion and the vulgarity of some of his comments (and even more so, those of his storm troopers).

Let us not forget that Myers was paid to appear in "Excell." In my view, Myers is not an active scientist and he does not represent science in any way shape or form.
Evolutionists believe in intelligent design.  If they would "listen" to what they say.  Just one generic example:

"This" developed over time because the being "needed this" to counteract "that".  

Something intelligent had to know this was needed long-term or why would it develop it?  How would it "know" a change was needed?

In the Bible Genesis says God created our natural world by speaking.  "God said" is repeated over and over.  One of the smallest particles known to exist is basically a sound wave.

And think of this.  The sun, that mega hot ball in the sky is perfectly aligned to warm us during the day but at night we are cool and not scalding due the exact placement of sun from earth.  And this exact placement wasn't "intelligent"?

And why aren't we seeing evolution take place in the last 100 years?  Real evolution where a permanent change is made to an organism?  Why do monkeys still exist if they are our ancestors?  They should all be evolved to us by now.

And evil, we know evil has existed since man existed.  Peaceloving tribes extinguished.  Where was evolution in all this?  Are we evolving to where we are suppose to be evil?  Then if so, let's celebrate 9/11 and Hitler and throw a big party that we are evolving to a higher state because the smarter stronger clever folks are eliminating the weaker, meeker ones.  Why have laws?  It's evolution baby!

The Bible says God made us in His Image with free wills.  He made us stewards over His Creation.  And He will hold us accountable for the responsibility He gave us.  Evolution is just a 'cop out' to think we won't be held accountable because if we think our Creator doesn't exist, we have no one that can smack our butts for screwing up.  


I could not agree more with Myers.  Keep up the good fight.  There is a concern in Texas that the school boards are trying to do just what he said with the science curriculum.  We must not let religious ignorance prevail.  More on this in my blog at www.thescientifichumanist.blogspot.com.
       The emergence of life from prebiotic nature is an exciting and relatively new area of scientific research. No scientist has been able to synthesize a nucleotide (components of RNA and DNA) from inanimate nature.  Astrobiology is a new field that is just getting underway, and I fully endorse these efforts. Intelligent design theory is not in opposition to the scientific study of the emergence of life or of origin of species. The more we learn from scientific exploration, the better. To be sure, there is a distinction between (A) the emergence of life and (B) the origin of species. It is logically possible that Darwinian theory might work for A and B, or A only or B only, or neither. The argument is advanced that, because scientists cannot synthesize a nucleotide, does not mean that Darwinian theory of origin of species is wrong. But the problem remains the same for the Darwinists: they have made as much progress at speciation as they have at emerging life from inanimate nature. Unless Darwinists can evolve a chihuahua from gray wolves or another species from a common ancestor (say a polar bear from black bears), their theory remains completely unsubstantiated as a theory of origin of species or emergence of life.  Something else is going on to explain this planet’s biodiversity other than chance mutations and natural selection. Common descent and biological evolution are givens, and are proved by the convergence of the sciences. The real debate is over the causative mechanism for biological evolution.   What we need is more and better science to answer these questions.  

       Exciting tests of conflicting theories of origins will be conducted by Mars robotic explorers. The Phoenix Mars Lander landed a telerobot in the polar region of Mars on May 25, 2008. This mission will look for a 'habitable zone' in the martian soil where microbial life could exist, and also will study the geological history of water on Mars. All life contains proteins made up from chains of amino acids. The Mars Science Laboratory (MSL), planned for launch by NASA in late 2009, is set to collect martian soil samples and rock cores and analyze them for organic compounds and environmental conditions that could have supported microbial life. The European Space Agency is planning the launch of the ExoMars rover set for launch in 2013. The rover is to grind Martian soil to a powder and test it in a suite of instruments including the Urey Organic Oxidant Detector. (Dr. Urey is known for the famous 1953 experiment with Dr. Stanley Miller in which an electrical discharge in a test tube containing methane, hydrogen, ammonia and water was shown to produce amino acids.) Amino acids are found in inanimate nature including on meteorites. Non-biological processes create a 50/50 mix of left- and right-handed versions of the molecules. Living things, however, use left-handed amino acids (almost) exclusively. The Urey Detector will therefore be looking for the ratio between left- and right-handed amino acid molecules in the search for life on Mars. This is to be followed by NASA’s Mars Astrobiology Field Laboratory planned for 2016, that will also search for life. We know from the Spirit and Opportunity Rovers and other spacecraft orbiting Mars that liquid water covered large portions of the martian surface billions of years ago. Is there or was there once life on Mars? My theory predicts that we will discover a non-biological amino acid mix of left-and right-handed amino acids on Mars -- meaning that there is no life and never has been life on that planet. I predict the same results for the other planets and moons (e.g., Europa, Titan, etc.) in our solar system. The emergence of life takes more than water.   But, as I argue in my book, Creation: Towards a Theory of All Things (amazon.com),  the Universe is teeming with life and with intelligent life. Legal Times has called me "a leading proponent of intelligent design," but in fact I am both an adherent of biological evolution (theory of common descent) and intelligent design or creationism.  
The statement that because the Creationist got mad proved the Evolutionists right could also be viewed as the Evolutionists was too bull headed to listen to a different prospective.

Another thought. It is commonly held that the "universe" was started witht he Big Bang 13.2 billion years ago. In order to have a Big Bang, there had to be some form of matter with which to fuel it. Where did it come from, and how long did it exist prior to the Big Bang?

Both arguments are based on guesses, abit educated, but still guesses. There is not enough emperical evidence on ether side to prove or disprove the points.

Lastly, when we look at these to theories, Creation vs. Evolution, and the Big Bang, are we not being a little short sighted to think that a God who created everything, could not have designed these processes to work exactly as we are discovering?
Think about it..
Actually, evolutionists like PZ Myers are feeling far more stress and worries in 2008 than they did back at the 2005 Dover trial.  

Critics of evolution have recently opened a new museum that has drawn hundreds of thousands of visitors and tons of media attention.  
The new movie "Expelled", (which drove evolutionist blood pressures so high that NASA space satellites began tracking them), has been viewed by perhaps a million people by now across the country.

And to top it off, an "Academic Freedom" bill continues its slow advance through the Louisiana legislature, calling attention to the right of science teachers to present ALL sides of the scientific story, including both strengths AND weaknesses of evolution.

Major problems plague evolutionary claims such as prebiotic evolution and human evolution.  Despite potential reprisals, some scientists are at least voicing public doubts about Darwinism.

Most of all, evolution's RELIGIOUS underpinnings and presuppositions are being exposed, (the religion being atheism/materialism of course.)  

It's an exciting time for pro-science people, and a scary time for professional atheists like Richard Dawkins and P.Z. Myers.

O.k. A couple of things:
1) Howard J. Flint P. E. - No one is going to read that whole thing. This is the worst place for diatribes.
2) Rik Rambo - You are belittling others for using assumptions to prove themselves right but you begin your argument with an ASSUMPTION. How about you simply understand that this particular person truly believes what he says and will not give up regardless of how much he is belittled. The act of arguing with someone doesn't make you right.

I'd like to simply thank this man for proving that you can stand up to the enormous preasure of religion in the U.S.  It scares me to raise my children in such a closed minded society where religion is so pervasive. Now, don't misunderstand. I'm not the one that wants "In God We Trust" taken off our money. But it needs to be recognised that religion is so pervasive it's even on our money.

There's a simple solution when you meet someone who's beliefs make you cringe - walk away and have a Coke and a smile. Stop forcing others to do what you want them to do.
It's not just scientists that should blog on this topic.  We all should!  Right now legislatures in several states are being fed the Discovery Institute's 'Academic Freedom' pap because of the failure of their other tactics.  Too many states might pass laws giving free rein to all sorts of non-scientific ideas, not just Intelligent Design.  A leading candidate to be John McCain's running mate is a Louisiana senator doing exactly that.

Let your senators' know what you stand for and let them know that Creationism and it's little brother Intelligent Design, do not belong in the science classroom.

tedhohio@gmail.com
http://sciencestandards.blogspot.com
It seems like more creationists and "believers" are reading this column than evolutionists.  They are very defensive about their beliefs, as well one should be when arguing a clearly indefensible position.
My stepson who is home schooled due to his biological mother's religious beliefs saw this movie.  We happened to be standing in line at the movie theatre this past week to see Harrison Ford's new film and I commented on the new Ice Age movie which shows Dinosaurs with animals from the ice ages and remarked that the writers had made a serious error.  Oops, my bad.  My stepson then launched into a diatribe of Expeled and how his Biology book (which I would like to point out is not peer reviewed nor cites any references) says Macro Evolution is not true and that Dinosaurs did live along side man a few 1000 years ago and there was scientific evidence.  Furthermore that scientist don't believe in Macroevolution.

Needless to say, I managed not to strangle my stepson.  I politely smiled at him, since we've been down this road many times before, and told him once we goes to college and uses a real biology book we'll discuss it.  You see the bit of fiction his mother is using for biology misrepresents evolution.  It states that we, as in us proponents that actually teach science for a living, say that an eagle will evolve from a sparrow or cows, sheep and pigs will evolve from a dog.  I don't ever remember seeing that anywhere when I took my graduate level evolution class.  Except perhaps in the common misconceptions pages.  The problem is, the creationists, ID people don't understand evolution or if they do, they only take snippets and work it to their advantage through half truths.

Do I believe in God?  Yes.  I teach Sunday school too.  But I don't believe in the creation myth.  Its nice, but this is an ancient oral tradition that finally was written down and let me add this, go read the original text.  I spoke with a Rabbi and he interpretted the original Genesis text for me.  There is no 6 days, there is no time specified anywhere.  So, lets stop living the lie.
those whw want to believe that some guy who lives in the sky created all that is can do so.  Just don't try to foist that idea on me.  In short, believe what you want in your own head.  I choose to believe that science and technology is correct because every day when I turn on the lights it proves itself. As for evolution it is no longer a theory but rather a fact. I challenge anyone out there to devise an experiment that is repeatable that proves the guy in the sky exists.....
So, according to Mr. Myers you CAN'T accept evolution and believe in GOD at the same time.  If you do, you're wishy-washy.  This makes the creationists case for them, and THAT is the real problem.  If your choice is to either accept evolution OR believe in your religion, then evolution will LOSE!
Fred in Wisconsin - What religion today teaches that the earth is the center of the universe? Seems like the Catholic Church was into that about 500 years ago. I don't know any, any Christian, creationist or other, who would try to say the earth revolves around the sun.

Is there a Bible verse that you know of that references the sun revolving around the earth? Perhaps you are thinking of when the "sun stood still" in the book of Joshua? That verse simply references a perspective. If the earth's revolution were slowed, wouldn't our perspective say the sun is standing still? After all we still point "up" to the sun, which is "in the sky" even though it really isn't "up" or "in the sky" at all. Just from our perspective. Should I point out everyone's ignorance every time they point "up" at the sun to their children? That would be silly.

This argument is as outdated as claiming that creationists/christians believe in a flat earth - another untruth. NO ONE believes in a flat earth except perhaps a few cult crazies. Yes the bible references the "four corners" of the earth, but don't we refer to North, South, East and West which are CONCEPTS relative to our position in  comparison to the magnetic poles. Just because someone like me believes in a literal interpretation of the Bible, doesn't mean we don't understand that people literally write and speak in metaphors and similes. What if I accused you of being a flat earth-er because you utilized a compass? The four corners of the earth as mentioned in the Bible are just that - concepts of the North South East and West regions of the earth in the perspective of the writer.

As for the idea that the earth could be at the center of the universe, some (BIG-BANG-BELIEVING) astrophysicists have theorized that in a "bounded" model of the universe, the earth could actually be very near to the center (location, not center of orientation) of the known universe. Imagine that! Will you detract them as imbecilic because their interpretation of the visible facts do not meet up with your own "knowledge" of how things work?
Genesis 1:14-19

This passage is where God created the difference between night and day which was the 4th day, so if it was not completed until the 4th day, then what were the "3 days" before that period of time?

I am not "wishy-washy" by any means at all. I know in my heart that God created this universe and everything within it, but I feel that this creation -the science behind it and the word we use as humans is EVOLUTION.

Whether it was God's preverbial waving of a wand or the clapping of His hands that started the Big Bang, I feel that the science behind the creation is evolution and that creation is of His intelligent design.    
It should all be about truth. Evolutionist are scared to death to have competing ideas in the classroom. So what if truth involves religion. The concept that thou shall not lie is religious based. Should we exclude that from the classroom too? Its all pretty basic for me. In Romans is states that all men know there is a God as the very world around us reveals God's work. Mr Myers is no exception to this he will one day face truth. Craig
I'm not quite sure,what all of the fuss, is about.
You can worship in any religion, in our country today(well, unless, you're an FLDS member) and no one will chastise you for it.
You can worship on the street corners, with your soap box and people will wlk around you.
You can rent large halls, put your religion on tevision, the only thing you have to worry about, is paying for it.
So, why is organized religion, so focused on religion in schools?
And of course, whe those same folks talk about they mean Christianity, not Mormonism, the Jewish or Bhuddist faith.
It seems only logical, that if prayer is allowed in schools, that
teachers should also be christians.
Then it follows, that the administrators, should be, also.
Then, it would seem to be apt, that our politicians, also be christians.
No, I don't think, so.
There has been one period in our country when the Chrisian faith has had absolute authority, their practices were probably, the second leading reason for the article in our constitution, regarding the separation of church and state.
The wriers of the Constitution were know to be horrified, by the practice, of putting people in open air stocks, for  the crime, of swearing or not attending church
1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.

The easiest way to understand the Bible is to understand that it is ALL true.  I suppose even a great scientist would have to agree that you can't pick and choose which scientific "theory" to believe any more than a person can pick and choose which of the ten commandments should apply.  Jesus said you are either with me or against me.
The part I don't understand about all of the people that try and try to disprove the Bible have never been able to do so, and yet they go to great lengths to come up with answers about the creation of man.  Science will explain that chaos will not become organization, yet organization will become chaos.  I don't argue with people like that.  The answers are very simple.  Go to Genesis all the way to Revelation and read it and understand it.  Your answers are in there somewhere. I choose to believe EVERY word of the Bible.
One day in the future, we will be able show step by step how life evolved on earth.  One day we will have a telescope powerful enought to peer back in time to see when the universe formed.  Currently, we have seen back as far back as 13 billion years, only another 1 billion or so left to go.  No matter  how good the data, people will choose to believe what they want because their religon makes them feel safe and they feel threatened that scientists, like me, want to take away their "comfort blanket."  That is not the case.  Many, many scientist believe in God, but many christians seem to think that unless everyone has their exact beliefs you are not worthy.  It's all about social grouping and how those that are most similar want to fight against those that are different due feeling that their cohesion is threatened.
Just like Howard J. Flint, I am conviced that the whole discussion of evolution Vs. creationism is pointless. Evolution is God's way of creating. It is a Simphony-ever-continuing of creation, the way that God "plays the strings" of the Universe (and paralell ones also).

I also believe that creation is never over. It is always EVOLVING. There is no sense in arguing if everything was created in 7 days or 7 eons, if we have been here for 10,000 years or millions of years. We are here now and everithing around us is here now and creation is being done now and will always continue.

I believe in God and also believe in evolution and don't consider myself wishy-washy for one nanosecond. On the contrary, if evolution is thought of as God's way of creating living organisms, then there is no contradiction.

I wish everyone who gets mad or even "hopping mad" about one or another view would give these (our) ideas a bit of thought. We are the Evolutive Creationists or Creative Evolutionists however you might prefer.

THERE IS NO CONTRADICTION. GOD EXISTS AND EVOLUTION IS HIS DOING.
Creationists and evolutionists are unlikely to change each other's minds. There re many religions out there, and it's up to individual households to teach their children the parent's belief.

We have a concept called seperation of church and state in this country. No state-sponsered religion. Keep religion and "intelligent design" out of government sponsered schools.
I love this guy already. Hang in there, P.Z. Eventually the rest of the country will evolve.
Ok, Creationists, let's try this ONE MORE TIME...
Evolutionists aren't saying there is no God. That's not something that can be deduced from any of the sciences any more than an appreciation for Mozart can be deduced from geology. They are separate, unrelated fields of study.
What evolutionists ARE saying is that there is NO SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE to support the idea of biblical creationism. There is a HUGE amount of evidence to support the Theory of Evolution.
Intelligent Design, Creationism, whatever you may call it is based upon nothing but a HUNCH that there must be a God & that, of all the religious writings that have ever existed, the Bible JUST HAPPENS to be the correct writing.
Biology, chemistry, physics, geology, & all the other hard sciences are based upon principles of deduction, cause & effect, & reproduceable research. Religion is based upon internal personal revelation. You might FEEL & BELIEVE that your spiritual revelation is true, but that doesn't let you out of the fact that you have NO WAY TO PROVE IT.
This is not atheistic arrogance, it's simple fact. THERE . IS . NO . SCIENTIFIC . PROOF . FOR . CREATIONISM.
Go on believing in Genesis if it makes you happy, but those unproveable beliefs have no place in a science classroom. I'm sorry if you feel threatened by the idea that maybe you're wrong & there's no God after all, but science is about facing FACTS, no matter how unpleasant you personally may find them.
There are so-called "religious underpinnings" on both sides of the debate - the fervent claim of atheism by Myers, Dawkins, et. al. ought to demonstrate that.  

It should also be noted that both sides struggle with the problem of reductionism - the more each side seeks to deny any sort of truth (or at least the asking of good questions) in the other position, the more we ought to be suspect of their projects.
It frustrates me that so many seemingly reasonable and intelligent people feel that science and religion must be mutually exclusive.  That is why I subscribe to intelligent design.  Regardless of a secular or religious basis for that theory it makes a lot of sense in unifying scientific fact (i.e. God didn't create the world in seven days) and religous teachings (hey maybe the Bible didnt mean literally 7 days).  Being that evolution is still only a theory and there are gaps in the evolutionary chain is it not possible that God had a hand in guiding humaity/nature down its path from the Big Bang (or however the univers began) to its present state? I am not arrogant enough to suppose I have it figured out, and state that intelligent design is realilty, but as religion has shortcomings, so does science and evolution.  It bothers me greatly to see scientists like Myers profess that religion is a lie and speak out against people who try to reconcile religion with science.  It seems in their rejection of faith/religion, these evolutionist assume all people who follow God take the Bible (or other texts) literally at face value.  I.e. "these zealots think God created the world in 7 days and I can prove that to be false so they are fools and their faith is founded in lies".  Of course since I don't walk around killing homosexuals, or abortion doctors, as one would be prompted to by reading the Old Testament, I probably don't follow a literal interpretation of the Bible.  And perhaps I apply that discretion to other areas too, and view things as metaphor, or simplifications of reality in order to render the stories more accessible to millions of regular folks.  
All I will say is that it still amazes me that so many advanced degree scientists decide "I'm going to disprove the existance of a personal God once and for all" and, in the process end up becoming Chriatians themselves.
"Vanity. Definitely my favorite sin."

I love how behind the guise of defending God and religion, man continues to commit the most unforgivable sin.  Vanity in one's self and in one's assumptions about life and creation.

Everyone is so caught up in the question of if we evolved or were spontaneously created, that they forget the most important aspects and lessons of any religion, that still adheres to the "Temple stories and myths" in a lame attempt to somehow increase their individual self worth.  That lesson should be what Jesus taught and lived or Buddha or even for heaven's sake the original Osama Bin Laden or any other "god" and his messenger.  Religion has mostly been about lifting up and answering those questions that could not be answered and explained.  Science is answering things that should be outside the realm of any religion.  Is the world still flat?  Is the Earth the center of the solar system?  Are other peoples less than each other?

Religion and science have been used to propagate hate and lack of intelligence, but religion takes the dubious honor of the most blood on its hands.  Yet, the excuse of "they were not following the right religion or that is not what the bible really means"  do not absolve Christianity or any other religion for the acts committed in its name or those who still bare the cross in that manner.  Wrong is still wrong, no matter if you dress it up in the vestiages of myths and legends.  

We have all lived in hell already in this life.  War, disease, starvation, anger, hate, racism, stupidity, selfishness.  Yet, we continue to wage these things against each other in the name of "God" and "Science".  How stupid and childish.

"When man thinks, God laughs."  Sums up the whole "argument" in terms of creation vs evolution.  Which is more like two old men fighting with noodles, than an actual discussion about anything that matters.  Since, everyone still can not seem to get out of the first book of any religious text to the real meat of the matter, because apparently if you don't believe in "literalism"  you apparently are already doomed to hell.  I laugh at that statement every day.  You funny Calvinists you.

Secular science, at least those who keep above the fray, understand that their are many issues and questions of "faith" and of "the unexplainable" that its friend "religion" needs to answer.  Yet, people have giving a "Gold Calf" status to intelligent design and creation theory.  Vanity.  I think one of these was destroyed down by a fella named Moses.  If you believe such things.  Either way, I think God made his points, but we continue to cast "Gold Calfs" to this day.  

But, at the same time, those who advance an idea that the human experience is not touched by a collective consciousness or have wholly accepted as rigid a framework, as the new "Pharisees", are as sadly diluted as their counterparts and they should just all drink the magic cool-aid together.

So, remember,  somethings can not be explained by science or Genesis.  If you have taken your pet or your child to the doctor lately for a vaccination, then their is evolution for you.

If you take any modern medicines or have life saving surgery, their is scientific method for you.  If you eat beef, chicken or any vegetable, their is modern chemistry and science, which all have help and basis from evolutionary theory.  You could not kill bugs in your garden or your home or body, without principles of evolution and scientific method.

Last time I checked those answers were not in Genesis.  

Yet, "Why are we here?" and "Why should we be good and just?" are not in a science book or in a laboratory, either.  Or if you have ever had the feeling that you are really not alone at any time, then that is not an answer for science.  Or if you feel loved and protected, when you should not be, then that is something that only the head and heart can explain.

We have different methods and reasoning for answering all difficult questions.  But, surrendering to fear and an assumption that your beliefs and faith are being destroyed, should not push one to challenge progress or an attempt to understand our world and universe.  You will lose the essence of your faith and sight of the real goal, which is improving all of our lives and experience, by whatever means we can.  Yet, we have lost sight of that.

Because, as much as progress hurts and sucks, it always wins for good or ill.  So, if you think your faith is being destroyed by science, then maybe you should reevaluate your faith, because science and religion will be here long after the Pastor and Scientist are gone.  So, why not just agree to disagree?

"Vanity.   Yep, Definitely my favorite sin."
Science has NOTHING to do with BELIEF.  While science may not always find the COMPLETE answer, which sometimes requires a "leap of faith", it is more of a calculated risk then a testament to faith.  Science finds repeatable patterns that determine what is considered fact.  BELIEF stands before fact and dismisses anything that runs contrary to it.

Creationism et al is fundamentally based on FAITH and not on SCIENCE and having a different BELIEF does not change the SCIENCE.  SCIENCE class should NOT be about teaching what one BELIEVES it should be about teaching what one KNOWS according to the scientific method that provides information that allows us to predict the outcomes of experiments and engineering so we can land robots on planets millions of miles away.  

I cannot simply jump into space because I don't BELIEVE the THEORY of gravity is complete and correct.  If a teacher wants to teach what they BELIEVE as opposed to what they KNOW then they should teach comparitive religion or philosophy, but definitely NOT SCIENCE.
I have a Ph.D. in biophysical sciences (theoretical biology), and I have been following the creationist challenge to evolution since I retired several years ago. I recommend several books on the subject: "Evolution and the Myth of Creationism: A Basic Guide to the Facts in the Evolution Debate" by Tim Berra; "The Blind Watchmaker: Why the Evidence of Evolution Reveals a Universe Without Design" by Richard Dawkins; "Creationism's Trojan Horse: The Wedge of Intelligent Design" by Forrest & Gross; Science on Trial: The Case for Evolution" by Douglas Futuyma; "Abusing Science: The Case Against Creationism" by Philip Kitcher; " Unintelligent Design" by Mark Perakh; Evolution vs. Creationism: An Introduction" by Eugenie Scott; "God, the Devil, and Darwin: A Critique of Intelligent Design Theory" by Niall Shanks; "Science and Earth History - The Evolution/Creation Controversy" by Arthur Strahler; and "Why Intelligent Design Fails: A Scientific Critique of the New Creationism."
so here's the problem myers. you're talking science. they're all talking metaphysics. this is the illustration of what happens when the two of you talk. hold out your hands and point the fingers at eachother. now, ram your hands at eachother so that you risk jamming your fingers on the other hand's fingers, tip for tip. you know that person who answers all your questions and thoughts with something about themself? that is what both of you are because you are talking about two completely different things. no, it is not the same ballpark. it is not even the same sport. they don't translate. problem is, all your logic has a foundation of faith. faith in a general sense. so you lose that edge. that puts the two of you on equal footing. so, on equal footing, with equally inequitable ideas, i can only assume that he has a low argue tolerence, or that you have some glaring communication defect. or maybe he does. point is you might as well argue about your personal perception of the color green for all the truth or right that may be unearthed.
No wonder why so many Americans are so low educated...
The debate of evolution should be centered around the fact that religion and science come from two different types of thinking.  I am a teacher of science at a catholic high school, and have forever been a devout christian believer in God, and fervent supporter of evolution through natural selection.  For me there is no conflict, because the empirical evidence supporting Darwin's hypothesis has become overwhelming and through scientific reasoning, the best explanation for what we observe in nature and the lab.  However, that doesn't preclude the existence of God in our universe.  This isn't being wishy-washy as Mr. Meyer describes it.  It is thinking about natural phenomena through two differnt philosophical mindsets.  For the extremes (both creationists and evolutionists), you are as President Bush said, (though for a different reason than evolution) "either with us or against us."  This position is ridiculous, and comes from individuals with closed minds who are unwilling to study the differences between religion and science.  I highly doubt that anyone who adheres to creationist views has truly studied biological science, and certainly doesn't understand the advances made in agriculture, biology, and medicine using evolutionary principles.  This also appears to be true of evolutionists, who feel that you can't support evolution and go to church as well.  Ridiculous!  The two are NOT mutually exclusive.  
Two websites that destroy the fairy tale idea that we are evolved monkeys -
www.icr.org
www.answersingenesis.org
Read the Truth!
"Only a few centuries ago the world was suppose to be flat"
Uh ... not really ... the Ancient Greeks knew the world was round.  There was plenty of observational evidence to that effect.  What they didn't know, except for a few dissenters, was that the solar system was heliocentric and not geocentric.
"Evolution is as solid as any engineering fact" - Fred from La Crosse...
The theory of evolution rests on the idea that every mutation in any species happened for the overall betterment of that species. However, when considering the "relationship" between dinosaurs and birds it seems rather strange that a perfectly good limb should begin to change and mutate into a wing. It seems that it would be a very, very poor limb and wing long before it would be able to perform adequately for it's true purpose. In addition to this, these mutations supposedly happen to fufill the species ultimate survival. If we take the evolutionist's view point and say that these thousands of small mutations happened over a period of thousands of years, it seems very odd to me that we have a single bird still alive today. In general, if an animal is born with a malformed or malfunctioning limb it will not last long enough to bare any offspring. Why should we think any differently about the supposed "missing links?"

Mutations that one can call "micro-evolution" can still be seen today, but these mutations happen within a single species and are generally for the betterment of that species. This, in my opinion, is what Darwin observed on his voyage to the Galapagos.

To say, with any conviction, that one species EVOLVED from another, in my summation, takes just as much faith as it does for me to say that I was created by an intelligent designer. Even atheists need a God to say they don't believe in.
There really doesn't have to be a controversy.  Religious folks just have to try to stop telling God what He can or can't do.  If He's really omnipotent and wants to invent evolution, He should be able to do so.  Then religious folks can believe in Him and still do science, and the not-religious folks can go along without Him as they're wont to do.

The problem of course is that some  (maybe most)  religious folks LIKE telling God what He can or can't do, because then they (as His chosen messengers and vehicles for His Word) get to tell other people what He says they can or can't do.  That's why creationism or intelligent design or any other stalking horse the religious folks use is just a political tool -- neither good science nor good religion.
Creation vs evolution should not really be a religious argument.  This is really scientific argument.  Science is the measuring and understanding of our environment and reality.
However, like Darwin, Mr. Myers has made this a religious debate.  He is arguing from the side of "NO GOD" against the side of "GOD".  Charles Darwin was a minister who just lost his wife.  He goes on a trip upset with God and of the mind frame to prove there is no God.  Mr. Myers is trying to show the world how smart he is because he is so much more intelligent than the "GOD" people for he alone protects the "NO GOD" bastion that is evolution.
Is evolution correct?  On the micro side--yes.  On the macro side--no.  Be a scientist not a priest.  Priests show no proof and asks for faith.  Scientists are supposed to show proof; faith never enters into the equation.
Mr. Myers, please quit being a wishy-washy priest and be a strong scientist.  Address these: "chinks are still unfilled or out of place".  Don't attack the teachers and others of your profession because they don't hold the same "religious" beliefs you do.
As a scientist, you should be a searcher, not a soldier.
It was once a scientific fact that the earth was the center of the universe, it was once a scientific fact that the earth was flat.  Seems to me that science can be wrong sometimes once you have had enough time to examin it.  My high school science teacher once said' "It only takes one example for a theory to be proved wrong, and you can never prove one correct." We have only had 50 years to test Darwin's theories, lets give it some more time.
I would like to clarify for both Alan Boyle, P.Z. Myers, and the readers of this article that Myers' statement that that Ken Miller is a "wishy-washy catholic" is either a playful jab at a fellow evolutionist or an uninformed jab at a person of religion.  

It is still the official stance of the Roman Catholic Church that evolution and Catholic faith do not come into conflict and that "Truth cannot contradict Truth".  This isn't prosetylizing and I'm not debating whether or not the codes of Catholic faith are true or false, simply that the Church of Rome officially recognizes evolution as a valid and true aspect of science.

I don't mind atheists and religious people debating with each other, but we should try to avoid spreading inaccuracies on either side.

This article also makes me sad because it reminds me that until this "documentary" was released I still thought of Ben Stein as a smart guy.  Now... not so much.
Belief is a wise wager. Granted that faith cannot be proved, what harm will come to you if you gamble on its truth and it proves false? If you gain, you gain all; if you lose, you lose nothing. Wager, then, without hesitation, that He exists.
-Blaise Pascal
Rik Rambo... you actually have it backwards.  Evolution theory actually has observable, testable evidence backing it up.  Which, you creationists, attempt to disprove constantly, to no avail.  At no point in time have the creationists ever provided any "evidence" other than the Bible.  Can you observe and test any of the "evidence" in the Bible?  No, you can't, they're just stories.  However, you can observe and test fossil evidence.

Scientists don't attempt to disprove the Bible.  They attempt to prove an alternate theory.  The only way science can disprove something (you cannot prove a negative), is to prove an alternate theory.  That is what science is trying to accomplish.

You have it absolutely bass ackwards Rik.
so will somebody in this room please explain intelligence
If every human being suddenly disappeared from Earth, so would God.

In other words, God (and, for that matter, "gods") is merely a creation of humans as an attempt to answer life's questions and the questions of children ("Where do we come from?  God made us.", "Why is the sky blue?  God made it blue.").  

Religion is merely a creation of humans giving a specific group an organized set of rituals and rules by which to live.

Humans have evolved (YES, EVOLVED!) to a point where it is no longer necessary to believe in a created god.  Most humans no longer need religion.  Science, concsience and man-made laws are neither, but replace both.
Science, by it's very nature, is constrained by a body of observable phenomenon and relationships to even begin to hypothesize anything, if experimentation or continued obsevation don't produce consistent results then the hypothesis is proven wrong. Religion/intelligent design are not bound by these constraints, if a religous text says something then apparently that's all the proof that a believer needs. This makes no more sense than absolutely believing something because you saw it on TV or read it in a newspaper! To consider a biblical account of anything as being sufficient evidence for inclusion in any true science curriculum would be akin to including the "science" of bigfoot, aliens, Loch Ness monster, etc.  I still find myself confounded that this topic has even reached this level of discussion.
As a child I was expected to go to Catholic school and be a believer. But that child had something religion avoids. A brain. The rationality was never there. Thank God Carl Sagan explained it all.<G> Now I rejoice every moment in the FREEDOM of logical thought and Atheism. Joy!
I really could care less if Mr. P.Z. Myers believes in God or not, or that he designed & created life, and if God is the "Intelligent Designer."

There is plenty of evidence that "Jesus Christ" did live, was crucified, and was raised from the dead whether mr. P.Z. Myers believes that or not either too.

The Bible say God Created the Universe. There were many scientists like Mr. P.Z. Myers who did believe that either, and thought the Universe was always here in a "Steady State" until Scientific Observation has confirmed the BIG BANG.

Going back in time there was something that set the BIG BANG off, and science can't answer that. Hmmmmmmmm? Sounds a little like the Bible from nothing God Created the Universe?

God is real, believe. He designed life and put it in motion. Whether evolution is his way of a species adapting to their environment and in that sense evolving, I will accept. But evolving into a New Species, I don't buy.

The one thing that Mr. P.Z. Myers and those like him never seem to speak much about is "Just how did the first life start from non-life?" They assume that Under the right conditions it just happened.

Really? PROVE IT... They can not. They have FAITH that is supposedly happened, but no proof of. That sounds very much like a religion to me.

I would rather believe in a Superior God, that has put order in this universe, and designed and created it, and everything in it, thank you :) I suppose next time I go to look at a Rolex, it happened by shaking parts in a can and a Rolex came out?

Think people, think...

Art Carter

Long time reader of Pharyngula - came for the science, stayed for the science, and enjoy the heck out of everything else on the blog (especially the squid).  What do I enjoy so much?  Rational thought, mostly.  Even in his rants (which I often find laugh-out-loud funny), what comes across blazingly clear is that this is a man who can certainly *think*.  And in this day and age, I appreciate that very much.


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