How science gets swiftboated

www.actionforspace.com — Tue, 29 Apr 2008 22:26:05 GMT

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

If we can discover life on Mars or exoplanet, it will rock the paradigm of those discussing tis issue.

How science gets swiftboated

Bruce Boyne- Danville, Ca — Tue, 29 Apr 2008 22:39:59 GMT

Goodness and honesty are all that is needed. Those qualities are in each of us. It should be we all celebrate life not a divisive religion. Imagine a world full of good people and no religion.....WOW!

How science gets swiftboated

Paul Burnett, Alameda, CA — Tue, 29 Apr 2008 22:45:17 GMT

Thanks for your thoughtful comments on the latest propaganda piece from the intelligent design creationists.

Has anybody else noticed that essentially all of the support for intelligent design creationism - and for "Expelled" - comes from the religious community? Does that help that you realize this whole thing may be a religious issue rather than a scientific issue?

How science gets swiftboated

steve smyth — Tue, 29 Apr 2008 22:48:22 GMT

What did you think of High School Hi, Animal House, etc?
C'mon, Al...it's a typically foolish, 'disdainful youth' comedy movie...apparently they've trodden upon some personal sacred cow or something.
With all that's going on, you are concerned about the goofy eyewash guy in short pants...?
Time to regroup methinks, eh?

How science gets swiftboated

Sovereign77x — Tue, 29 Apr 2008 22:48:48 GMT

This battle of science v. religion is largely driven by the tendency of human beings to arrive at conclusions based on limited or incomplete information. For me, the question of person's intellectual evolution (and hence their capacity to explore concepts of physical evolution) is just as fascinating as Darwinian Theory. Check out the article below for more information:

http://www.strangelegacy.com/2008/04/28/the-nature-of-human-intelligence/

How science gets swiftboated

JERRY, MOORE, OKLAHOMA — Tue, 29 Apr 2008 22:54:44 GMT

I just finished seeing the picture and I was thinking that really, no one is really an athiest, unless hewas born on april the first, aND JUST THINK ,IF THEY ARE WRONG, THEY WILL SPEND ETERNITY IN SHAME AND IN HELL, OR AS THE OLD PROVERB SAYS A SMART MAN CHANGES HIS MIND, BUT A FOOL NEVER DOES. GOOD LUCK

How science gets swiftboated

Nick, Seattle — Tue, 29 Apr 2008 23:01:32 GMT

I, personally, used to look up to Ben Stein on an intellectual level. I knew and still don't know much about his political leanings or his personal philosophy on just about anything. I simply saw him as a highly intelligent individual - someone who possessed a great wealth of knowledge.

Knowledge, it seems, is somewhat disconnected from intelligence and wisdom.

How science gets swiftboated

Bill Hensley, Houston, TX — Tue, 29 Apr 2008 23:05:31 GMT

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

How science gets swiftboated

Tal — Tue, 29 Apr 2008 23:10:27 GMT

I really don't understand why this is an issue. To me, it's quite simple:

Science belongs in science classes.

Religion belongs in social studies classes.

Both suffer if they start getting conflated. Any attempt to prove faith with reason is only evidence of weak faith.

How science gets swiftboated

John Doe, Seattle, Wash — Tue, 29 Apr 2008 23:10:33 GMT

This is how religion gets swiftboated

How science gets swiftboated

JC, Fairbanks, AK — Tue, 29 Apr 2008 23:17:27 GMT

Wacky? Only if it wasn't so scary. I'd write more but I'm afraid it would be too laced with profanity to put on CosmicLog.

How science gets swiftboated

Bryan Wayne, Dallas, Texas — Tue, 29 Apr 2008 23:17:56 GMT

It's the increasingly hateful atheistic militancy of people like Richard Dawkins that I find disturbing. Those like Dawkins who are not swayed by the absolute statistical and mathematical improbability of an auto-designed, auto-generated, and auto-sustaining universe are welcome to make their own leaps of "faith", but they should neither fear nor suppress contrarian challenges from within the scientific community, unless somehow their own scientific "method" has taken a back seat to personal philosophy.
Is it possible that much of current evolutionary "theory" is actually "spontaneous generation" merely dressed up in genetic "code"? Some scientists obviously think so.

How science gets swiftboated

Doug, Portland — Tue, 29 Apr 2008 23:18:37 GMT

Lame article that missed the point of the movie. Nobody is preaching that evolution should not be taught or studied, simply that all options should be available for study.

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

Someone really needs to study and explain how the normal bell curve of political ideology is completely inverse to the destructive noise made. In other words, the the farther out of main stream you are, the more destructive noise you make. Doesn't matter which side you are on for distructive noise to be made, just how far away from normal (in the bell curve sense) you are.

How science gets swiftboated

twostepcub — Tue, 29 Apr 2008 23:28:35 GMT

Basically, "Expelled" is the sad attempt by a hack Nixonite turned third-bit character actor turned right-wing shill to cash in on the neanderthal mentality of a chunk of this country that wants validation for failing science.

How science gets swiftboated

Gary Pedretty — Tue, 29 Apr 2008 23:30:14 GMT

While I do not agree with the tactics the are used in the movie "Expelled" I find it funny that you and other Science promoters use the very same tactics to expel "Intelligent Design" as being a plausible option.

How science gets swiftboated

Steve, Westminster, CO — Tue, 29 Apr 2008 23:36:04 GMT

This "academic freedom" nonsense that Expelled is peddling is simply the "teach the controversy" strategy used to mask the fact they have no real case. The only controversy about evolution is the one the creationist and "intelligent design" crowd has cooked up. The movie is thoroughly dishonest - they got people like Richard Dawkins to participate by telling them it was going to be a balanced look at both sides of the question, not a hit piece for anti-evolutionists. When you don't have any other case to make, what else can you do?

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

Evolution is not only the foundation of modern biology, but the creationist/ID crowd has had almost 150 years to try to refute it, and failed miserably. Hopefully the upcoming 200th anniversary of Darwin's birth will spur more and better antidotes to Expelled and all it represents.

How science gets swiftboated

Kerry, Toledo, OH — Tue, 29 Apr 2008 23:37:26 GMT

Ooh, it's gonna' tank.

How science gets swiftboated

Kerry, Toledo, OH — Tue, 29 Apr 2008 23:38:42 GMT

Bryan Wayne in Dallas, WAKE UP! Evolution is no longer theory, it is demonstrable fact. Sheesh!

How science gets swiftboated

Scott, Seattle, WA — Tue, 29 Apr 2008 23:38:47 GMT

I love the use of the term "Swiftboated" here because everything in the famous Kerry Swiftboat ads were actually true. Being sunk by your own words is the problem with Science which can't tollerate lines of investigation which run counter to the currently accepted dogma. If its false, let it be played out in journals and universities. The point of Expelled is the visceral repression by the science establishment to any challenges of their religion, which is evolution.

How science gets swiftboated

Kerry, Toledo, OH — Tue, 29 Apr 2008 23:41:09 GMT

HAHAHAH! I just saw the tag line for this movie and it could not be more appropriate, although not for the reason Ben Stein had in mind:

NO INTELLIGENCE ALLOWED!

That's this movie in a nutshell.

How science gets swiftboated

Eric, Cleveland, TN — Tue, 29 Apr 2008 23:42:25 GMT

How reason gets swiftboated by science. This wouldn't be such a sensitive issue if the bulk of the scientific community did not state as fact what can not be proven.

How science gets swiftboated

Dale Wethered, Mission, Kansas — Tue, 29 Apr 2008 23:51:21 GMT

I find it interesting that Bryan Wayne is opposed to the militancy of atheists. I am one, and have become militant to defend myself from right wing wacko nut jobs who want to force their god on me. I find it also interesting that they want to push the supposition of bronze age shepards without the capacity to remember more than a few generations back over sophisticated scientific evidence. Also, as one who has read the bible (deliberately not capitalized because your book is no more special than any other) more than most so-called christians; I would never serve their got who would celebrate the genocide of entire peoples, visit plagues and murder of children on those who live in a land whose leader disagreed with him; destroy an entire city simply because the people of it happened to live where he promised 'his' people they should live; or who would demand blood sacrifice. Patently any such god is evil and to be opposed even if one is not an atheist.

How science gets swiftboated

K Every, Charlotte, NC — Tue, 29 Apr 2008 23:53:04 GMT

What happened to the idea that a theory is only a theory until it gets proven? I believe I learned that in elementary science class. I suppose it's okay as long as we believe in it.

How science gets swiftboated

Ian, Seattle — Tue, 29 Apr 2008 23:53:27 GMT

""Intelligent Design" as being a plausible option. "

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

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

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

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

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

How science gets swiftboated

David Conklin, St. Paul, MN — Tue, 29 Apr 2008 23:55:46 GMT

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

BTW, nothing in the anti-Kerry ads were true--the navy's own records prove it.

How science gets swiftboated

Ross Lynchburg, VA — Tue, 29 Apr 2008 23:55:53 GMT

I think the two links given about the "proof" of insertion and beneficial revision are laughable at best. The article on insertion if you note indicates that every recorded instance of insertion either leads to tumors, cancer, or stopping the cell from functioning. Second even if an individual cell within a multicellular organism changed how would this create a new species. Obviously you might respond with lots of changes over a long time, but this still doesn't answer some fundamental questions, for example times of biodiversity explosion when in relatively short geological periods whole new types of species gain dominance the globe over.

The second article on beneficial revision first just says that traits within a species can be acquired very rapidly. Again no intelligent designer denies this these facts are well known, the question is how does this study do anything to prove one species changing into another. Also if you pay attention to the article it does not indicate that it was random mutation within the gene that created lactose tolerance merely that with the production of cattle the gene becomes dominant active very shortly, the article cannot prove nor doe sit have any evidence about the GENERATION of these genes.

How science gets swiftboated

Jeff, Edmonton — Tue, 29 Apr 2008 23:56:09 GMT

Because the universe is complex does not mean that it is divinely conceived or directed. It simply means that it is complex. Nothing more or less.

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

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

Today, the suppression of branches of knowledge perceived to be forbidden will not stop the pursuit of that knowledge elsewhere in the world. The result will simply be that the United States falls behind in those technolgies. The economic reprecussions of that should be clear.

How science gets swiftboated

Mark Farrell, Merced, California — Tue, 29 Apr 2008 23:56:39 GMT

I think the title says it all for the sort of people who support this "documentary" - "No intelligence allowed". The 2005 PA court case in which Creationism was exposed for the nonsense it is, should be required studying in all our schools. Maybe we should place stickers on all religious holy books. "The Bible is not fact, it is only myth".

How science gets swiftboated

Ian, Seattle — Wed, 30 Apr 2008 00:00:19 GMT

"This wouldn't be such a sensitive issue if the bulk of the scientific community did not state as fact what can not be proven. "

You mean, like God?

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

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

Hey kids? Find this too complicated? That's OK! God did it, so don't worry your little heads about it.

How science gets swiftboated

Paul Houston — Wed, 30 Apr 2008 00:00:40 GMT

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

AS an aside, why is it that the so called right to lifers who want to save a fetus that has developed into nothing yet are the first ones to clamor for sending full grown adults who have lives and families and survived the birthing process to war to kill and be killed? That's real logic!

How science gets swiftboated

Chris, Por Orchard, WA — Wed, 30 Apr 2008 00:02:41 GMT

Although I am an atheist I do like Ben Stein and I’m glad he made this film. Unlike many of my un-God-fearing kind, I don’t find religion a terrible thing. As the saying goes with guns, “guns don’t kill people, people kill people” also goes religion. People in the name of religion have committed terrible atrocities through time. Having been brought up Catholic, I have seen many good teachings on how people can better their lives and be good citizens. It’s the over zealous that interprets those teachings and find it their duty in life to be hateful and judgmental. Even if it is Ben has been taken over to the dark side by demonizing science for the sake of reaffirming his on beliefs, I think the debate it causes is good. As terrible as the current battle is between Western beliefs and Eastern beliefs, I think on some levels things could be much worse in the world with the lack of any type belief. Even as a non-believer, I would fear a world that lacked the hope of a better place or no longer feared that their terrible actions would at some point be judged. Unfortunately, we are not at a place in our evolution to not kill each other off without a grand scheme of why we should not. I shutter when I hear the words of John Lennon “Imagine there's no countries, It isn't hard to do Nothing to kill or die for And no religion too Imagine all the people Living life in peace... What I imagine is a world full of vice and death with no reason for some to feel live and there is no reason to be kind to your fellow humans. I wish he would make a movie as why those who speak against the global warming establishment are demonized when they don’t go along. Even though their is Science proving that we are heading toward global cooling.

How science gets swiftboated

Ken, Cincinnati, Ohio — Wed, 30 Apr 2008 00:05:05 GMT

It is a great disappointment that Stein would permit such nonsense to be presented under his name. He cannot possibly be that personally ignorant nor locked into 500 BC rubbish. I guess it just proves that money will destroy integrity.

When the intelligent design people can create even a single piece of credible data (and 2500 epic poems do not represent credible data) that their theory is correct, then someone of intelligence will listen. Until then, it's just food for fools.

How science gets swiftboated

Just Some Guy — Wed, 30 Apr 2008 00:11:10 GMT

I find it so very interesting that the discussion about Darwinism does not include that Darwin himself was a Christian and his observations are based on how he interpreted the evolution of life from the perception of their being a creator.

How science gets swiftboated

Richard, Dayton, OH — Wed, 30 Apr 2008 00:11:46 GMT

Exactly Eric. Scientists used to think the smallest object was the Atom and it didn't take long to prove that wrong. Exact Science is not exact. Science is important but knowledge has a way of changing the facts over time making the truth a moving target. The problem stems from the human desire to believe that we are in control of our own destiny and the refusal to acknowledge the possibility that we may actually be part of a universe that was intentionally created.

How science gets swiftboated

Bob, Atlanta — Wed, 30 Apr 2008 00:12:42 GMT

You can not prove your theory by disproving another theory. It's like saying "If it's not a 0, then it has to be 2"...while it could be any other number. So saying that things are too complex for evolution to explain them, doesn't PROVE that God did it, could be a billion of other things. Fails basic science theory check hence doesn't belong in science classroom. Case closed.

How science gets swiftboated

Gary, Fairbanks, Alaska — Wed, 30 Apr 2008 00:13:29 GMT

Kerry in Toledo, Wake UP, theories involving rationalization, interpolation and estimation are not demonstrable fact!

How science gets swiftboated

Steve M — Wed, 30 Apr 2008 00:14:07 GMT

The film "EXPELLED" is the latest in a series of attempts by creationists to push supernatural explanations (and to reject pure empirical naturalism) into the scientific process. Obviously, such a silly notion has garnered no support among scientists or in academia. In addition, the concept of Intelligent Design was proven in the Kitzmiller v. Dover case to be nothing more than creationism. As such, Intelligent Design was ruled as a purely religious expression that could not be taught as science in the public classroom.
What we have in the film EXPELLED is an attempted "end-run" around the scientific establishment and the courts with a cynical distortion of the truth - intelligently designed" as pure propaganda. Despite the PR spin, evolutionary science is not a religion and the worldwide scientific community will always accommodate testable, peer reviewed research. However, to accept that "god just did it" theology is required for academic fairness would be a science killer, transporting us back to the 13th century

How science gets swiftboated

John — Wed, 30 Apr 2008 00:14:07 GMT

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

Ben Stein, a very nice (met him on a plane a few weeks ago), smart man and terrific actor should know better than to michael-moore scientists like he does in this film.

How science gets swiftboated

Henry Zellman — Wed, 30 Apr 2008 00:14:47 GMT

I hate it when lazy minded people try to demonize the other side in an argument by trying to compare them to the Naizis. The Nazis were not motivated by Evolution Theory to kill "undesirables" as they called them. The thinking behind the Holocaust was Eugenics. Even here in the USA we had compulsory sterilization laws for the feeble minded, retarded and other "undesirables". It was only after WWII that those ugly laws were struck down.
A scientific theory stands or falls on the reproduceable results from published experiments. Since Intelligent Design cannot produce such results then it cannot be a scientific theory. It's truth must be taken on faith. Faith is in the realm of religion and not science. Only reproduceable scientific facts should be taught in our schools.

How science gets swiftboated

Cathe, Sherman,Texas — Wed, 30 Apr 2008 00:16:39 GMT

You people are as closed minded as the liberal hate spewing Professors. The next time a Liberal Professor takes a whip to a Christian in "Philosophy" Class, why dont you show the intelligence you say you have and realize that they are doing an injustice to that student and all other students. DO YOUR OWN RESEARCH. DO NOT LET A PROFESSOR ANYWHERE DETERMINE WHAT YOU BELIEVE.

How science gets swiftboated

Bill, Washington — Wed, 30 Apr 2008 00:16:52 GMT

I think we should have a TV vote on the whole issue (which night would be best?)like on Idle American (w/o Simon or Paula, although I think she's hot). Callers could call in to one number for "Yes, I beleive in Evolution" or another number to say "No, I don't ..." No numbers or theories, or even facts. Just good old American Common Sense. That would be both fair and settle it forever. The vote would be binding and everyone would be forced to go along with the results. Then we could have real democratic science for the People and by the People; the way God intended science to be when he invented it. Science and stuff is too important to be left to scientists and people of learning. Just because science can send a satillite across the solar system, clone living animals and create nuclear weapons, we better not trust it on this one. Power to the People through TV

How science gets swiftboated

D. Nolan, Curran, Mi. — Wed, 30 Apr 2008 00:19:33 GMT

Kerry in Ohio; please cite your demonstrable facts. While you're at it, please also help us with reconciling the incongruencies of the evolutionary THEORY with the first and second laws of thermodynamics, which is SCIENCE.

How science gets swiftboated

Ray Krueger Colton, Oregon — Wed, 30 Apr 2008 00:19:38 GMT

I find it interesting to rush to claim religion as an extremism. The study of evolution caused me to understand there has to be a creator (intelligent designer), hence, believing such, I guess I can be called "Religious" I have read many papers from many evolutionists.
By doing so, I have also read many unfounded statements treated as irrefutable fact. Evolution is change. That there is change is definatly a provable fact. That things as complex as an atom, a cell, and life forms in their awesome forms are an indirect result of unthinking change is absurd.
Consider the eye, but try only to duplicate on live, reproducible blade of grass all of you great scientists. Take all of the time you need, take as many to assist as you need. You still will fail.

How science gets swiftboated

Taylor W., TX — Wed, 30 Apr 2008 00:21:03 GMT

As a graduate biochemistry student, I find myself frequently discussing this topic with my colleagues and our conclusions often worry me. We have concluded that scientists are handicapped in this argument for two major reasons.

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

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

How science gets swiftboated

Megan M, Arlington, Washington — Wed, 30 Apr 2008 00:24:10 GMT

"In the interest of equal time, would research money have to be reserved for divining the signature of the designer in nature, or even discerning which holy book reflects that design best?"

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

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

Science is inextricably entwined with religion. Until we have a genuine openness to follow the evidence wherever it leads, we will have battles of ideology, not science, within the scientific community.

How science gets swiftboated

pete warm springs AR — Wed, 30 Apr 2008 00:24:23 GMT

Did not Moses say that unto the Lord one day is as a thousand and a thousand as one. That which created all life as we know or see has been in existence for longer than we can comprehend. In that time all things imaginable may well have proceeded what we perceive as the norm. God is the ultimate chemist and has eternity to compose as he so chooses, of which we can only see a very small portion. One only has to look to the night sky and watch a comet. Compare this to the random insemination probabilty of human conception and we see the birth of all life. Organized religious dogma does not want us to believe any thing other than what they teach for it would remove the power they covet over us and allow man to talk to God one to one. Turn a rock, Split a piece of wood.

How science gets swiftboated

tom branham, San Jose, Costa Rica — Wed, 30 Apr 2008 00:25:10 GMT

This has more science than Al Gore's "inconvenient truth". I hate it when someone challenges my beliefs
and I have to maybe accept something that I know could not be true.

How science gets swiftboated

Scott, Seattle, WA (the intelligent one) — Wed, 30 Apr 2008 00:25:23 GMT

Fools look at what they don't understand and decide to fill in the blanks with "God".

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

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

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

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

Lazy theosophers simply annoy me, but cowering, irresponsible, and dumb theosophers are truly dangerous to our community.

How science gets swiftboated

Don, Poughkeepsie, NY — Wed, 30 Apr 2008 00:26:24 GMT

ID proponents would have us think that the earth was created all at once 6,000 years ago complete with fossils. Radioactive dating shows that the earth is 4.6 billion years old.
Those who believe in ID explain that the enormous fossil record was put in place by God to "test our faith"...ie God is trying to trick us.
Ben Stein has lost his credibility with this movie.
Many of us believe in God and in evolution.

How science gets swiftboated

Armando, Miami, FL — Wed, 30 Apr 2008 00:27:25 GMT

Obviously, Ben Stein went off the deep end with this film. However, I find your article seriously flawed - maybe there should have been a little more intelligent discussion of the issues and a little less attempt at discrediting the movie.
A few points:
1. Maybe it's religion that is being swiftboated?
2. Theories are not proven and such a government body should not distinguish between them. Are they going to be the ultimate authority on truth and fantasy?
3. The message he is sending is that on certain issues, supporters of conventional thought for that issue use fascist tactics to discredit and impugn scientists or anyone at all that opposes their opinions on the matter. Just look at the way global warming sceptics are treated by the media and the scientific community, even though there is no conclusive evidence that global warming is man-made. Furthermore, one only need analyze the disgracefully dishonest "science" and "statistics" used in Gore's global warming documentary. Also, see the way supporters of ID are mocked and ridiculed by the media and academic establishment.

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

How science gets swiftboated

Bill Kansas City — Wed, 30 Apr 2008 00:27:41 GMT

I think it is sad is that Christians use to be (maybe still are)a t the forefront of science yet these days we have gotten away with some small time critiques of some very nice science ... why are we so afraid of science ? If you want some Christian heavyweights' thoughts on evolution, check out C.S. Lewis "Mere Christianity" or more recently Dr Francis Collins (head of the human genome project) on their thoughts about science, evolution. This has enlightened me to not be afraid of science and instead focus my attention on the hope and love of the one who created us.

How science gets swiftboated

Kyle Hussein McAllister, Phx AZ — Wed, 30 Apr 2008 00:30:51 GMT

Science and Religion CAN coexist and do. Both are huge complex multifaceted systems. However Science cannot be Religion and Religion cannot be science. One relies on proof and one relies on faith, but both rely on evidence. The connection they share is Philosophy, which can handle evidence speculatively without passing required tests of proof or faith.

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

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

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

How science gets swiftboated

John Dillinger — Wed, 30 Apr 2008 00:32:08 GMT

Ben Stein for President of the Flat Earth Society

How science gets swiftboated

Dima, Los Angeles — Wed, 30 Apr 2008 00:38:19 GMT

The truth of the matter is that Hitler was a social darwinist advocating the idea of the strongest human species need for survival and living space. Hitler packaged it for the masses as "race theory." The problem Hitler had with the Jews is that the Jews promulgated Christianity that advocates protecting the weak instead of eliminating them to cleanse the gene pool.

How science gets swiftboated

Alice Strong, Seattle, Wash — Wed, 30 Apr 2008 00:39:12 GMT

I love this movie!!! I thought it was funny.
It shows how little we all know but are willing to stake our all on it. Everyone pushes their agenda. I am for freedom. This movie shows how little freedom there is in the science community. Name calling - firing people. Wake up and lighten up! We can't say God without it being in a negative context. WHY? What's the big deal. What nerve is it hitting?

How science gets swiftboated

Leon, Huntsville, AL — Wed, 30 Apr 2008 00:39:47 GMT

I think Ben was very tactful in his attempt to ask for a plea of equal consideration for ideas that neither can prove. Even the blogs here indicate great prejeduce for "my" view only allowed. It's a human trait that includes "scientists".

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

How science gets swiftboated

Steven, Tacoma — Wed, 30 Apr 2008 00:40:10 GMT

Bill from Texas,

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

No Magic allowed.

Steve

How science gets swiftboated

Scott, Nebraska — Wed, 30 Apr 2008 00:42:52 GMT

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

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

Must suck to finally hear the truth ;)

How science gets swiftboated

AlexG, CA — Wed, 30 Apr 2008 00:44:29 GMT

"What happened to the idea that a theory is only a theory until it gets proven?"
Until it gets proven, it's just a hypothesis.

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

How science gets swiftboated

JB, Portland, Oregon — Wed, 30 Apr 2008 00:45:40 GMT

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

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

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

Anyway, I'm rambling - I'm sure I'm not going to get my science education from Ben Stein, just like I'm sure I'm not going to get my philosophy or religious education from Richard Dawkins. Vote Obama in 2008!

How science gets swiftboated

Doug Peck — Wed, 30 Apr 2008 00:51:35 GMT

Neither evolution nor ID/Creation can be proven. Biologists and other natural scientists base much of their science on current understanding of genetics and evolution. If this understanding helps advance the science of biology, it's ok with me. (Although what constitutes an "advance" is arguable.) I don't happen to agree with them on the evolution issue, but I'm not an expert. One of the difficulties in understanding both sides of this issue is that most of the publicly accessible information from either side is aimed at explaining why the other side is wrong, not explaining that side's beliefs and their foundation. This movie and the comments on this page illustrate the one seeming truth in this matter: it is impossible to have rational discourse on the subject.

How science gets swiftboated

Pablo — Wed, 30 Apr 2008 00:55:22 GMT

Biased article - completely unoriginal and thus totally expected - follows the usual script. Anyone who uses the term "swiftboating" perjoratively gives away where his sympathies lie. Fortunately the movie IS sparking the necessary debate, and that is one credit in this article's favor.

How science gets swiftboated

Jon Fonda — Wed, 30 Apr 2008 00:57:58 GMT

Swiftboating means to bring out the TRUTH.

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

These are the points the movie makes.

So why does the reviewer even has the balls to complain about this? What is his unethical and immoral agenda to silence dissent?

How science gets swiftboated

Norm Althausen, Hudson, Ohio — Wed, 30 Apr 2008 01:00:53 GMT

""If you have a losing hand, you're going to use every amount of rhetoric you can to distract people from the fact that you don't have any facts," Sean B. Carroll, an evolutionary biologist at the University of Wisconsin at Madison, told me in his lab last week."
I think the same statement could be made about evolutionary theory. I cannot imagine how a theory with so little supporting evidence as macroevolution could have survived this long unless the public is distracted by ad hominem attacks on critics, and authoritarian pronouncements that evolution is a fact.
Many of the commenters on this article either just don't get it or deliberately misconstrue what ID supporters are saying. Many ID supporters are not only not Christians, they are not even theists-they simply recognize that the "Goo to You" theory is bankrupt. ID does not claim to identify the designer, just that we can distinguish the difference between things that chance and natural law can make, and things that require some intelligence. Complex, specified information always requires intelligence. This why ardent atheists like Francis Crick, codiscoverer of the DNA helical structure and code, have been driven to proposing panspermia, the seeding of life by extraterrestrials. The manifest failure of chemical evolution, the fossil record's lack of transitional forms, the lack of a mechanism to generate new information, and the biochemical isolation that mirrors the discontinuity of present and past life all attest to the bankruptcy of evolutionary theory.

How science gets swiftboated

Bill Hayes — Wed, 30 Apr 2008 01:00:59 GMT

The movie is yet another attempt by creationists and ID people to interpret the world in terms of their failed world view, i.e., religion. He and people like him feel compelled to attack science as if it were an evil force that is oppressing them and suppressing their ideas. In reality, it is they who oppress themselves by not expending the energy to learn and think on their own.

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

Science will certainly prevail in current and future discussions about correctness of evolution. It is obvious that Ben Stein is just another brittle voice in a long queue of similar uneducated people bellowing the same tired mantra against science because they haven’t the ability to understand basic concepts. His voice will be forgotten soon, hopefully.

How science gets swiftboated

Jeff, Anthem, AZ — Wed, 30 Apr 2008 01:02:07 GMT

1. If there is a God, this debate is foolishness.
2. If there is no God, this debate is foolishness.

How science gets swiftboated

Bill, Tampa, FL — Wed, 30 Apr 2008 01:02:16 GMT

Evolutionary theory is no more provable than ID. Only a fool runs headlong into an unprovable theory believing it to be fact. There have been NO findings to make evolution without God, a fact, PERIOD!.
As a very well educated christian and learned fellow in physics, astronomy and geology, I believe in God and the creation he put before us. He did not do it in 6 or even 7 of man's days, but 6 or 7 of his days proclaimed by God when he said "a day is not unlike a thousand of man's years". Adam's people could not have fathomed the concept of a billion years! In fact, God's day is probably what we term eons of time. He is smart and wise enough to set into play all that we behold and have found in our 250 - 500 million year old fossil records. As we look back in time through space to nearly 14.5 billion years, we still can't come to grasp with the universe. God Can.

Ben Stein has a wonderful film that makes the less than wise cadre of evolution purist I see posting here, have to look back at his own footsteps fearing the truth. Beware, you may just stumble.

How science gets swiftboated

Kyle Hussein McAllister, Phx AZ — Wed, 30 Apr 2008 01:03:03 GMT

Nebraska Scott, Jesus was not concerned about if we evolved from primates or not. It has absolutely nothing to do with anything He said or did. Our evolutionary origin in no way invalidates God's love. God's love manifests in the abundance and diversity of life, and evolution can be seen as the struggle of Life to fully express its inner Godliness.

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

How science gets swiftboated

Thomas, Alpine, UT — Wed, 30 Apr 2008 01:05:02 GMT

"What happened to the idea that a theory is only a theory until it gets proven? I believe I learned that in elementary science class. I suppose it's okay as long as we believe in it."

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

As much as I hate to quote Wikipedia:

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

Evolution and gravity are two examples of theories.

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

"Kerry in Ohio; please cite your demonstrable facts. While you're at it, please also help us with reconciling the incongruencies of the evolutionary THEORY with the first and second laws of thermodynamics, which is SCIENCE."

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

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

-

The absolute greatest thing about all this is all those people that are convinced that there isn't any evidence for evolution. That somehow it's a bunch of scientists sitting around making stuff up, assuming, etc. Never mind the enormous amount of research and evidence - it doesn't really exist. No matter what you say or show them, it still doesn't exist. "Well, here are some resources." "Nope, doesn't exist. There is absolutely no evidence. It's just a bunch of stuff Darwin made up." "But there's this and this and this - enormous amounts of research, testing, have been done... Have shown it to be true." "Lalalala - liar! Evil! Persecuting us Christians for not buying your myths! Go follow your religion of Darwin you atheists - you pretend that you don't have a religion but you really worship Darwin! Ah ha!"

How science gets swiftboated

Shane, Buckeye, Arizona — Wed, 30 Apr 2008 01:13:40 GMT

Look, I just so happen to be an atheist (as well as historian) and this film offends me on many levels. On the other hand I will NOT try to sway your beliefs as a christian, as people have tried with my atheism. this sort of "you're an atheist, so you'll burn in hell" or "You're a christian, so you're an idiot" is wrong. This country was forged on the grounds of religious freedom. So lets not try to spit on others beliefs,eh? (And, yes, I'm also looking at you, Mr.Stein.)

How science gets swiftboated

OLR3 — Wed, 30 Apr 2008 01:15:00 GMT

"Me thinks thou protesteth too much!" The length and intensity of your response indicates to me that Ben Stein just might be onto something. Oh, by the way, do you really think the movie was an attack on science or evolutionary theory? It wasn't. It was an attack on suppressing academic freedom using, as empirical evidence, the dismissal of many, many respected scientists/professors who dabbled in ID. Like evangelical Christians who boycott every movie that challenges orthodox Christianity, your response will help assure this movie's financial success instead of letting sleeping dogs lie.

How science gets swiftboated

Alan Boyle — Wed, 30 Apr 2008 01:17:25 GMT

Ross, I'm glad to give you a laugh ... which is more merriment than I got from "Expelled." The fact that DNA replication can lead to insertions (as well as deletions) of genetic material illustrates how "information" is created. Thanks to the mutation, the genetic computers in our cells have one more line of code to play with.

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

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

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

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

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

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

It's hard to see speciation in progress because the process takes a long, long time, based on an analysis of the fossil record and genetic change. Nevertheless, genetic analysis has come up with a pretty good picture of how mutations build up to give rise to new populations. Putting in another plug for Carroll's book, I'll recommend Chapter 4 of "The Making of the Fittest."

How science gets swiftboated

Bruce Gee, Charlottesville, VA — Wed, 30 Apr 2008 01:17:46 GMT

Here's a novel argument:
IF God is intervening in biological processes, He is doing so in an extremely subtle, concealed, one might even say sneaky way. After all, if He had wanted to simply create humanity amidst distinct, nonevolved species with no biological connection, He could have done so easily -- no need to go about changing the rate at which carbon 14 decays, for instance, to cover his tracks.

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

How science gets swiftboated

Just some guy — Wed, 30 Apr 2008 01:19:16 GMT

Religion has killed more people than cigarettes and alcohol combined.

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

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

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

Religion should be controlled just like other dangerous items in our society, for example, driving. After reaching an adult age you should be able to apply for a license to practice the dangerous belief. That is, after you pass an exam.

How science gets swiftboated

Fred — Wed, 30 Apr 2008 01:23:02 GMT

Wow.....lets treat these two competing modes of thought as equals for a second....... I.E. ID and Reason.....

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

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

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

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

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

I was actually a religion major in college. My faith leads me to embrace differences. To accept those with whom I disagree. I think the attempts by the religious right to stifle scientific inquiry hurt us all.

How science gets swiftboated

Muhammad, AK — Wed, 30 Apr 2008 01:23:49 GMT

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

So basically, people calm down! We have bigger things to worry about like world peace, global poverty and global health problems.

How science gets swiftboated

not stupid, Seattle area — Wed, 30 Apr 2008 01:26:56 GMT

all religion is creative mythology. Some is just more "emphatic" than others. Some point to "happenings" that could NEVER have happened (ie - the sun moving backward in the sky at the point of death of a certain jesus of nazareth (if indeed he existed)) That contradicts PHYSICS and is UTTERLY IMPOSSIBLE, yet it is one of several cornerstones of the text of a certain religious mythological tract.

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

Religion DESERVES to be SWIFTBOATED

How science gets swiftboated

Jim Mayfield, St Louis, Mo. — Wed, 30 Apr 2008 01:27:15 GMT

Last time I checked, Evolution was classified as a theory. There is a vested interest in preserving Evolution "Follow the money". There are papers and books to publish, degrees to earn and gov't money to apply for. Have you ever counted how many times the term "millions of years" is used on every TV channel relating to science? (who profits?) Its interesting to see those who support science just slam the opposing ideas - showing bias rather than objectivity. Sounds a little "pre-Galileo" to me. Jim

How science gets swiftboated

Diana, Rantoul, IL — Wed, 30 Apr 2008 01:27:20 GMT

Kerry, Toledo, OH you need to clarify that. Micro-evolution is fact,but macro-evolution has yet to be proven. Macro-evolution is still theory. The difference. Micro = change in allele frequency. Macro = humans and apes share a common ancestor.

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

How science gets swiftboated

Alasdair, Boston, MA — Wed, 30 Apr 2008 01:27:33 GMT

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

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

Anyway, perhaps a good start for thinking about this issue can be borrowed from the idea of public reasons and discourse (see John Rawls). Reasons drawn from some comprehensive moral doctrine/view (religious, like Catholicism or Judaism, or secular, like utilitarianism) are not used in public political discourse. That means "God exists" or "God did it" do not count as reasons for arguments relating to political and public debates (of which what to teach in public schools is one). Neither do secular views of the similar nature. They are ruled out for the simple reason that if we want any chance of reaching an agreement, then we must use reasons that everyone could conceivably agree to. Religious reasons are not of this nature, and have no place in public political discourse.

How science gets swiftboated

Alan Boyle — Wed, 30 Apr 2008 01:28:10 GMT

Dear OLR3: Yes, I did consider whether this was worth devoting so many words to ... but I did it for a couple of reasons: First, I got some grief because I referred to the movie and wondered how wacky it was before I saw it, so I felt duty-bound to see it and report back. Second, I refer in the item to the idea of using this as an opportunity for a "teachable moment" on the issue. Some folks do think we should let such sleeping ID dogs lie, but I'm of the opinion that we have to use this as an opportunity to get the truth out (even if we take a little heat in the process).

If you're inclined to believe the ID folks, you should check out talkorigins.org and see how the other side deals with the question. If you're inclined to believe evolutionary biologists, you should check out answersingenesis.org and see how the other side deals with the question. In either case, you'll get an education.

How science gets swiftboated

180IQ 2smart4u — Wed, 30 Apr 2008 01:28:24 GMT

What did you expect, a fair and balanced review of the movie?

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

How science gets swiftboated

Darrel Keesee, Mesa, AZ — Wed, 30 Apr 2008 01:28:41 GMT

I guess we forget that Darwinism is still a theory that has many holes in it. The adamants of evolutionists have led to a near complete suppression of other ideas. Having been in the K12 system, I can vouch for how teachers are quickly excluded from assignments and employment by not accepting Evolution at face value. What may be called evolution is being realized to have other tangible evidence presented that natural events causing extinction or manmade mutation are relevant to interjection on modern events for evolutionists.
There is room for both and can be a benefit to youth and mature audiences of how there is a distortion of facts from the evolutionary side. How is it that using evolutionary theory did an agnostic statistician use the highest evolutionary models and came to a reality that Man evolved from a different strain? On the other hand, why is that evolutionists, creationists, et al, use mathematics in an erroneous manner when anything past ten to the 5oth is meaningless? Still the debates rage and Creationists, ID advocates, press in directions that do not complement their argument.
Still, being one that acknowledges an Intelligent Design concept does not rule out the straggling of concrete action on the evolutionists’ side to support their claims. I have seen use of accepted evaluation from applied sciences used to reduce the argument of beginnings from Big Bang and primordial ooze theory collapse because of interjection of material that is of mass or created from a formula that cannot be otherwise declared existing without preexistence. That is why both must be presented.
We must also not forget that the First President's personal physician stated that science and faith could exist together. As we learn more from the scientific method, we learn that some unexplained elements that are constant and repeatable, without having a clear scientific measurement criteria have to be accepted on faith until science becomes available to unlock the measurement to which man can ascribe an accurate accounting of tangible existence.
I have not seen Mr. Stein's film but look to doing so. When I do then a comparison can be made as to the applicability of whether "No Intelligence" is appropriate or other commentary has been "expelled" from the making.
Creationist must also do research that put proper context in line with known historical documents and what modern science is finding that supports disruption of evolution theory but can be melded with creationist beliefs and still be sound.
Science and faith can work together. Why is it that over 80% of the major discoveries are by persons of faith? Why are there so many Nobel Laureates that are of faith?
Science is allowed by God to be a service to others. It is the many of the faithful that the secrets are revealed. Look at Darwin's last days. He was believer in God and even acknowledged his theory may be in God's disfavor. Little is known of his last days but by the few accounts, it was dismal.

How science gets swiftboated

Robyn, Los Angeles, CA — Wed, 30 Apr 2008 01:29:20 GMT

You went into the movie with a pre-conceived, biased idea. "Before I saw the movie, I wondered how wacky it might be." Academic freedom includes the right to study and espouse a theory that goes against "mainstream" science. That students and academians would be punished for pursuing a line of inquiry regarding an as-yet-unproven question (the origin of life) reeks of a totalitarian regime. YOU and this "mainstream" science are the ones who are closed-minded and ridiculous.

How science gets swiftboated

Alan Boyle — Wed, 30 Apr 2008 01:31:26 GMT

By the way, I'd like to ask Bill from Kansas City (posted message 8:27:41 p.m) to send me your contact info at cosmiclog@msnbc.com. Your message is the 25,000th comment posted to this iteration of the log (which is less than two years old) and I'd like to give you a prize. I believe I have your listed e-mail address already, and please refer to that in your message...

How science gets swiftboated

J. A., PA — Wed, 30 Apr 2008 01:31:50 GMT

Getting back to the topic someone mentioned earlier regarding the "links" between Darwinism and nazism...I think the movie contained those images they way it did to highlight the fact that many people who's world view has grown out of the "humanist" tradition, often rely heavily on darwin's writings and ideas as they move forth to make their arguments. In the same manner, people who's world views grew forth from the "Judeo-Christian" tradition often rely on the writings and philosphies of Thomas Aquinas and Blaise Pascal.

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

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

How science gets swiftboated

John, Atlanta, GA — Wed, 30 Apr 2008 01:34:59 GMT

Keep to the science...there is simply no evidence for Macro-evolution (one species evolving to another). This is not a religous issue, but one of science. Critical thinking (science) will lead to one conclusion...Darwin's Evolutionary Theory will never be "law" because there is NO EVIDENCE. Take the challenge, and look for the evidence yourself. Despite how you explain existence, departing from Evolution is the first hurdle you must take to critically thinking about this subject.

How science gets swiftboated

Dan, Westerly, RI — Wed, 30 Apr 2008 01:36:03 GMT

What Ben Stein is confronting here is an important message for Western Academia to hear. The modern "scientific method", as it is taught in schools across America, begins with hypothesis, and it is at this very beginning stage that the science of the effort is compromised. A true scientist must be an observer, and must never treat as absolute fact that which he/she cannot prove most absolutely. Further, in investigating natural phenomena, a true scientist must be devoid of expectations, as he may find himself ignoring information to the contrary of his initial belief, and reach a false conclusion in support of it. Modern scientists too often try to assert theory (which by definition is unproven) as fact, an attitude which at its core is unscientific, and intolerant of dissent. Even worse, politics, and the mad-dash for research dollars which come with political strings attached further skew the objectivity of academic research.

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

As Hegel pointed out, the object of Science, Religion, and Philosophy (or at least so their adherents would claim) is the pursuit of truth. It is the nature of their subject (the tangible, the spiritual, and thought, respectively) which divides them most instrinsically. It is therefore not impossible, nor should it ever be treated as such, to be an adherent of each, while being heretical to none. In the Dark Ages, organized religion attempted to deny the adherence of science to the faithful. In modern academia, organized science now attempts to deny faith to the scientist. Both are equivalent wrongs, and I applaud Ben Stein for having the courage to confront it.

How science gets swiftboated

Bobby, Arkansas — Wed, 30 Apr 2008 01:40:11 GMT

Religion -"The body of persons adhering to a particular set of beliefs and practices", By definition would scientists not fall under this heading? What is it that unbelievers are so afraid of? (I speak of those not believing in God.) They work so hard at keeping intelligent design out of schools...why the fear of something you claim not to believe in? I,ve never seen a dinosaur yet science books are full of them and supposed dinosaur skeletons are available for viewing in some museums. How do I know they ever existed? We were all taught this in school...how do we know its true? Also isn't the goal of education having the freedom of learning all one can and having an open mind? I've listened to scientists, why can't you and yours consider intelligence design?

How science gets swiftboated

Jeff, Anthem, AZ — Wed, 30 Apr 2008 01:46:49 GMT

Even Ben Stein showed the different definitions of evolution in the movie. No one here is discrediting Darwin's evolution within a species. It can be proven again and again and predicted. What Stein wants examined is the origin of the species which cannot be proven or examined, only predicted. He simply wants an intelligent designer allowed into the debate of origin. He does not push this God or that God, just simply to be an allowable variable in the debate of Beginnings of life. He is ridiculed for believing in God, then given the "real science" alternatives of mud or possibly aliens.

How science gets swiftboated

Eddie, Tulsa, OK — Wed, 30 Apr 2008 01:47:57 GMT

A theory can be proved or disproved. Evolution is a theory which is supported by the results of repeated observation and experimentation in laboratory, and has never been disproved. This is the nature of science.

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

Both have their place in education; but not at the same time, by the same teacher, in the same classroom.

How science gets swiftboated

John Blackman, Los Angeles, CA — Wed, 30 Apr 2008 01:49:04 GMT

"Expelled" is silly and will have ZERO impact. It will confirm the science denial of those who were already predisposed to do so. It will infuriate (briefly) millions of knowledgeable people. Then it disappears.

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

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

How science gets swiftboated

Rick — Wed, 30 Apr 2008 01:51:05 GMT

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

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

How science gets swiftboated

Enso~ — Wed, 30 Apr 2008 01:51:12 GMT

Speaking of the Bible vs. science...

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Unless the current science dogma changes, science will get many things wrong. But truth is out there in the world and in the Bible. Eventually, evolution, the fairy tale for grown ups, will come to it's conclusion.

How science gets swiftboated

Nick C. PHX., AZ. — Wed, 30 Apr 2008 01:54:55 GMT

I am reminded of the story of intelligent design portrayed on "The Family Guy", and I feel if "I.D' is true, this portrayal seems sociologically accurate. For those who don't know, a elderly man as god, is playing cards with his roommate, and passes gas doing so. The next passage (no intentional biblical adjective used here is not on purpose) of gas is quickly lit by god's flick of his bic, and out comes the universe and all affiliated out his bum. I'd rather read, if I have to, arguments if a higher being is a killer? Did the U.S. gov create HIV, like Obama's soon-to-be former pastor has metioned? Or god? Certainly a complicated virus had to have been created by a supreme being. Cancer? War? Starvation? Poverty? For such a highly complicated, sophisticated organism such as Earth, this creator has no problem watching simple mortals destroy it

How science gets swiftboated

Mark Meiser — Wed, 30 Apr 2008 01:55:07 GMT

Those who "swiftboated" Sen. John F. Kerry had the truth on their side...maybe you should use a different pejorative.

How science gets swiftboated

Spunky — Wed, 30 Apr 2008 01:57:25 GMT

As soon as saw that Rush Limbaugh had called it a terrific film I knew it must be mindless spoon fed propaganda of one form or another.

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

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

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

People branded heretics for teaching the earth was not the center of the universe? Why? Because it threatened the credibility of the church, and therefore its power and ultimately its ability to control large masses of people. Hmmmmm......

How science gets swiftboated

S.B. Stein E.B. NJ — Wed, 30 Apr 2008 01:57:34 GMT

I have to say that any attempt to have intelligent design taught in schools should be stopped. Has it ever predicted a possible change over the course of time? He is a social conservative and this is what they push. It is if he is taking some far fetched idea and stretching it to the fatherest possible reach that makes no sense if you consider it completely.

How science gets swiftboated

Marcus, New Paltz, N.Y. — Wed, 30 Apr 2008 01:58:01 GMT

There is an attitude among religious True Believers that, if scientific "facts" have changed over time, that somehow "proves" that science must be wrong, because GOD'S principles are eternal and unchanging (unless you belong to a different sect who interprets holy writ differently, because only WE religious believers are right and THEY are heretics). Someone upthread pointed out that at one point science thought that atoms were the smallest elemental units, but - horrors! we now know that's not true. So they were WRONG! No, their knowledge was incomplete, and was based on the only information available THEN. We know more NOW. That's the process of science - to learn, to correct error, to expand understanding. Religion has NOTHING at all to do with "proof," it's about BELIEF. There may or may not be a Supreme Being; I have seen no evidence, have only experienced FEELINGS. The application of beliefs in nor replicable: whether a person is "healed" by prayer seems to be nothing more than a roll of the dice. Scientific applications ARE or ARE NOT replicable; if they are, they can be considered FACTS; if not, they need to be discarded, or at least revised. When was the last time a religious belief was revised?

How science gets swiftboated

Chris McIntire, Chicago, IL — Wed, 30 Apr 2008 02:00:48 GMT

ID has some interesting logical challenges to the theory of evolution represented in Irreducible Complexity, Fine-Tuning and coded language at the DNA level that are just not answered well. Science is an observational inductive science that should applaud these discoveries even if they don't fit into the evolutionary mold. Dawkins himself found the idea of ID "intriguing" as long as it was aliens that seeded the planet and not God - I found that comment both interesting and revealing of his main objection.

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

How science gets swiftboated

RJ Evans, Norman, OK — Wed, 30 Apr 2008 02:00:49 GMT

Knowledge, reason and logic are the enemy of religion. The more you know, th less you need a skydaddy.

How science gets swiftboated

Billy Bob, Seattle Washington — Wed, 30 Apr 2008 02:01:42 GMT

> Maybe it's religion that is being swiftboated?

Nope. That would be another movie.

> 2. Theories are not proven

Wrong use of the word "theory." Do your homework.

> The message he is sending is that on certain issues, supporters of conventional thought for that issue use fascist tactics to discredit and impugn scientists or anyone at all that opposes their opinions on the matter.

No. If it can be replicated and predictive, it counts. The ID people have done none of that. They cannot and have not.

> Just look at the way global warming sceptics are treated by the media and the scientific community

They are treated like rock stars. There are so few qualified climatologists that are skeptical, they are treated about 1,000 times better than the typical climate scientist who knows global warming is real.

> Even though there is no conclusive evidence that global warming is man-made.

Only more than 90%. Keep holding on to your sliver of hope. Keep praying that those thousands of scientists are reading the data wrong.

> Furthermore, one only need analyze the disgracefully dishonest "science" and "statistics" used in Gore's global warming documentary.

Funny that. Lots of people have analyzed his cited science in the peer-reviewed science (a.k.a. "reality based" world). The same can't be said of Ben Stein's lies in the religious world. It's just eaten up whole by a bunch of desperate people afraid they lose God when they lose their myth.

> Also, see the way supporters of ID are mocked and ridiculed by the media and academic establishment.

That part is true. I would argue it's their mockery and ridicule of science and the hard work that goes into it, but I suppose there is a lot of ridicule for people who ignore empiricism for tall tales.

> I know the first thing you and many that read this will think is that the academic community in essence is self-governing and it has rejected ID.

Yup.

> My response to that is again to look at the global warming debate and how the self-governance of the scientific community has been non-existent. Prominent meteorological scientists such as William Gray at CSU have been harassed and demeaned by those who manipulate science to preach global warming.

Has he been fired? Nope. He still gets paid well, and is a household name for the fossil fuel industry and religious types. Hardly a pogrom. Climb down off your cross.

How science gets swiftboated

Jim in Pittsburgh — Wed, 30 Apr 2008 02:03:50 GMT

Alan Boyle is a WITCH! Buuuurrrnnn him!!!! Oh, sorry. That was just my inner Republican talking.

How science gets swiftboated

NP, Montreal, QC — Wed, 30 Apr 2008 02:05:16 GMT

The worst part is that the filmmakers didn't even bother to properly research evolution before making a film attacking it. Ben Stein has no idea what "Darwinism" is - especially if he implies the theory is worthless if it doesn't explain where the laws of physics come from. Likewise, the associate producer Mark Mathis continually makes the standard creationist claims e.g. no observed speciation, no new information, etc. These "challenges" are easily met with a simple Google search - there's no excuse for them to be so ignorant. The more important question is whether they are being willfully ignorant.

How science gets swiftboated

Dave in Perris, CA — Wed, 30 Apr 2008 02:08:35 GMT

Why is it so difficult to accept that science has the creators' hand all over it? If you don’t want to believe that, ok. That's it. Ok. But for those of us that believe that it is the work of God, our opinion is just as valid as anyone else's opinion. Why does one have to exclude the other? Neither one can be proven beyond a doubt to the other side, so both sides have to have a form of "faith" in order for each of our beliefs to make sense. I have a personal relationship with Christ that can't be explained to an atheist in a way that would also convince him that my mind is not simply taking a bunch of extreme Coincidences and attributing them to my imaginary friend. Just as an atheistic scientist can not explain to me that his big bang theory started with an infinitesimally small, yet dense piece of matter that contained all of the matter in the Universe that somehow on its' own expanded into the infinite Universes we have around us, in a way that would make me change my opinion. Just a little comment. Thanks for reading.

How science gets swiftboated

Matt — Wed, 30 Apr 2008 02:08:37 GMT

For those who have actually seen the movie, it is clearly more a movie about worldview and power than a movie that deals with the specifics of the science. It exposes the foundationalist philosophy of "some" in the scientific establishment and how they would wield their influence. If you keep that in mind, the movie makes some decent points. Things happen in the scientific community, as in every community, that are more about politics and preferences than science.

How science gets swiftboated

Pete, Madison, Wisc. — Wed, 30 Apr 2008 02:10:10 GMT

The blog post mistakenly identifies Daniel Dennett as a biologist. He is not a biologist--he is a philosopher.

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

How science gets swiftboated

Tom, Clarkston, MI — Wed, 30 Apr 2008 02:13:32 GMT

Your opinion is exactly the point the doc is trying to make (thanks for amplifying it): That the idea of intelligent design is "negative campaigning", "it won't work", "no-holds barred assault on science", "turn [it] into a win for science", and "must be answered." Just let science be science. Can't it stand on its own? Of course.

Do you think science is somehow taking offense by the belief that life was created rather than (fill in the blank when there's an answer)? Do you honestly believe that those who believe in intelligent design or creationism are somehow less likely to believe in proven science as a whole? This whole idea is, unfortunately, outlandish but too often implied.

I agree that religion (creationism does not necessarily equate to religious belief) shouldn't be forced on anyone, but, just as well, should anti-religious beliefs, such as life by chance from nothing, be forced on the religious who believe deeply in a creator? What's the point? It's really simply the matter of a few (ideally optional) questions on a highschool exam.

Nobody is "taking a stand against [all of] mainstream science". That's the kind of thinking that is dangerous.

How science gets swiftboated

Jim in Pittsburgh — Wed, 30 Apr 2008 02:14:43 GMT

I agree that there is no such thing as evolution or natural selection. And therefore, there is no such thing as animal husbandry, since that implies farmers and breeders can change the genetic makeup of a species or breed by selecting which individuals can reproduce. No... as a good ID proponent I believe that all animals today existed in their current form at the time when the earth was created. I can almost imagine the packs of wild French Poodles bounding across the Africa Savannah. I can just picture a Roman emperor feeding his Labradoodle. And more than anything, I can pretend there is no such thing as antibiotic resistance. Because for that to occur would require a situation of artificial selection.

OK, end of sarcasm. Evolution, gravity, and the roundness of the Earth cannot be disputed. Anyone who seeks to do so only looks like a fool.

How science gets swiftboated

Thomas Garrison, Pohang, Korea — Wed, 30 Apr 2008 02:15:13 GMT

Hmm... When I have moments of doubt, I just go www.whywontgodhealamputees.com to restore my "faith."

How science gets swiftboated

Larry S, Clyde, Texas — Wed, 30 Apr 2008 02:15:55 GMT

I'm all for a religious view and a scientific view. I believe there is more out there than meets the eye. Science has progressed at a rate that is almost scarey and I think there is more to spirituality than what the bible puts forth. I don't see why we can't have high science and a higher purpose at the same time. But I don't think it is right for a non-spiritual person to insult and belittle a person of faith just because they believe in a God. I'd rather believe my soul is going somewhere else than the thought that I am just worm food. If that was the case, I'd be a depressed person indeed.

How science gets swiftboated

I AM, Heaven — Wed, 30 Apr 2008 02:16:17 GMT

I love it when people use the old "Radioactive dating" theory to prove that the Earth is millions of years old. The "Radioactive dating" is based on men's idea's of when they think something existed. I don't know how old the Earth is, but please don't use men's "theories" to explain away ID.

Remember, these same scientists once told us that the sun revolved around the Earth. Oh, and don't forget they also told people the Earth was flat.

As for this lame article:
"...even though genetics and computer simulations are telling a different story"
Again, we're using a computer generated program based on man's theory. We can make all kinds of theories to prove our great idea.
I remember the day when they wouldn't teach theories, but actually scientific fact. So I can see why Christians want ID taught in classes. Because if we can teach theories as "Gospel Truth", then why not teach the "Gospel"?

How science gets swiftboated

Scott Snell, Joplin, Missouri — Wed, 30 Apr 2008 02:16:42 GMT

It's laughable that so many of you pro-ID posters perceive the scientific community as such an active threat, malicious little people in white coats hell-bent on nothing else but victimizing god-fearing, love-spreading christians.

The truth is the scientific community DOES NOT GIVE A CRAP about your silly ideas. They don't care one way or another!! The lab rats of academia are UNMOVED by the question of god. They are performing experiments and recording results. Period. Sure the scientific community wants to learn as much as they can, but not to disprove god. Only to LEARN what they can.

America would benefit greatly if you religious types would indulge in a little spiritual self-evaluation, seeking the answer to the questions, "Why does science SCARE me so much?"; and "Why do I feel like I am being attacked?". If you are honest, you will discover that the source of your discontent is not what some scientific journal prints, but rather the fear deep inside you that you yourself might let scientific progress cause you to lose your faith.

Now, I know, I hear you already: "But the scientific community IS attacking us!!! They won't give us equal time in the science classrooms!!! They say ID is nonsense!!! They call us stupid!!!"

So they do. So they do. Unfortunatley for you, they have a right to (not to call you stupid, but the other stuff). Not because ID is nonsense, but because it is not science. That's all. Science teachers are NOT at war with you. Science Academia is not at war with christians and their god. The lab rats and public school science teachers are merely saying, "You (ID) are not science. You don't belong here with us. Now leave and kindly let us return to our work."

Remember christians, just because we won't let you TOTALLY take over America does not mean you are be oppressed!!!

How science gets swiftboated

thefalliblefiend, lorton, va — Wed, 30 Apr 2008 02:18:33 GMT

Science took off when it realized that certain kinds of questions lead nowhere. Astronomers cast off the chains of astrology, physicists realized the waste of ESP, chemists withdrew from alchemy. Questions about God are unanswerable - because you can explain anything with god, god truly explains nothing. It's a vacuous idea; perhaps useful to philosophers and theologians, but useless to science.

But theologians have never given up the hope that they could justify their irrational convictions with a veneer of science.

How science gets swiftboated

Boyd, Thornton CO — Wed, 30 Apr 2008 02:23:00 GMT

Evolution is not just a "theory." It extrapolates conclusions from data, not empirically but forensically. But as a forensic science, evolution cannot provide the same level of certainly that chemistry or physics can under lab conditions. That doesn't mean its bad science just like it doesn't for ID. ID uses the same framework but it is not nearly as mature (we haven't had 150 yrs like another posted, this is new) which is why I don't support its teaching in the classroom - yet. ID is also not the same as literal creationism. We don't all believe in a literal 6 day creation and many do accept the age of the universe and earth. (reasons.org) The pressure against ID is largely more out of a concern for the slippery slope to literal creationism than the rationale behind it. What frustrates me is the dishonesty of the "rationale scientists" who criticize ID as a "god of the gaps" approach. As just one example, evolution has no working model for first life without human interference in the lab (which implies a designer).Science is comfortable telling us to wait, it will come as we know more. These ideas should compete in the market place of ideas without the vicious attacks on both sides. I believe in ID but I also think we should have a level playing field to make our position. I don't think we do today.

How science gets swiftboated

thefalliblefiend, lorton, va — Wed, 30 Apr 2008 02:23:42 GMT

Science is not about what you can prove. It's about what you can disprove. If evolution is wrong, it can be disproved. Therefore, it is science. It makes very specific predictions. If any of those predictions were proven false, evolution would be refuted. None of them has proven false. Evolution explains and is supported by the vast preponderance of available data. ID advocates and other creationists equate their idea to real science, because they know that most of their followers have a comic book understanding of science.

How science gets swiftboated

thefalliblefiend, lorton, va — Wed, 30 Apr 2008 02:27:14 GMT

Radiodating is very reliable and correlates well with other methods of dating (tree rings and varves, for example). However, religious fanatics have spread rumors about errors, in most cases exaggeration, and in some outright fabrication. They know that the faithful will pass around this anti-knowledge like a virus - and thus is born an urban legend. It works because they know that most creationists are too lazy to do an honest day's homework on the subject.

How science gets swiftboated

Jeff, Waunakee, WI — Wed, 30 Apr 2008 02:27:16 GMT

I went into this movie skeptical of its message but hoping at least to be entertained or to be presented with some sort of logic to make me think. They could have done so much more with this movie, but it was, sadly, just a bad movie. A real yawner. Not worth the money, wait for it to be on cable.

Has anyone checked out the expelled exposed website? Does it seem biased?

How science gets swiftboated

Houston — Wed, 30 Apr 2008 02:28:01 GMT

The claim that global warming skeptics are persecuted is ridiculous. The exact opposite is true. The Bush regime tried to silence NASA's Dr. Jame Hansen and other government scientists from speaking out about the impending dangers of global warming. If scientists wanted to go with the political flow, they'd all be global warming "skeptics."

How science gets swiftboated

Tom, Clarkston, MI — Wed, 30 Apr 2008 02:31:01 GMT

@scott snell

"The truth is the scientific community DOES NOT GIVE A CRAP about your silly ideas." Why are you here then? LOL.

"Remember christians, just because we won't let you TOTALLY take over America does not mean you are be oppressed!!!" LOL again! Oh, it makes sense now. I'd be careful who you're calling

It's also laughable that you, along with others such as the author here, believe ID or creationism is solely a Christian idea (or even necessarily a religious idea) and that somehow it equates to some kind of general hatred or distrust of science. It's simply not true.

What might irk someone (a little) about some science or scientists is when a theory such as that of parallel universes is invented simply to counter the scientifically proven (and mystifying) fact that our known universe is perfect for life. Is this is the science books yet?

How science gets swiftboated

Bill, Wethersfield, CT — Wed, 30 Apr 2008 02:33:44 GMT

It is quite obvious that many critics of "Expelled" and ID have not bothered to learn the difference between ID and Creationism. It is not a "God of the gaps" theory. Moreover, it also appears evident that most critics have not read the substantial literature supporting ID. Complex, specified information of the type found in living things, especially DNA, does not occur randomly, but instead suggests an intelligent cause. As to the assertion that this is religion in disguise, how does one account for the many scientists who support ID who are atheists or agnostics? Many Darwinists remind me of Hamlet, whose mother, upon encountering a painful truth, protests the obvious, prompting Hamlet to utter "the lady doth protest too much, methinks". Sounds like a lot of Darwinian scientific insecurity to me.
Why not follow the evidence and see where it leads, rather than demonizing and denigrating those who disagree? Incidentally, Darwin was not a Christian, but his wife was.

How science gets swiftboated

Jonas, Colo Springs — Wed, 30 Apr 2008 02:34:09 GMT

I cant see it now...

"Ok class, today we are going to look at the human brain. It's really REALLY complex and we 'scientists' havent quite got it nailed down yet, SO, we are just gonna go with God made it. Ok?"

"Questions?"

[Billy speaks up timidly]

"Teacher, if god made life, then who made god?"

[Teacher looks confused, then replies obviously annoyed]

"Billy, this is a SCIENCE class, please keep those questions for Dr. Marginal in the philosophy dept."

[teacher addresses the entire class]

"Thats it for today, there will be a quiz on the brain this monday people, so read your Bibles this weekend and study up..."

How science gets swiftboated

Rollin, College-Station, TX — Wed, 30 Apr 2008 02:37:44 GMT

Two statements can explain why the idea of I.D. will not die soon.
1) Life is difficult, and faith in an all-powerful god is comforting.
2) Science and mathematics are very time-consuming to understand.
It would be nice if people who support I.D. as valid and see evolution as “spontaneous” spend as much time reading scientific articles as they do smugly musing over how everyone else is going to Hell. Maybe before concluding, those people could consider the mountain of those pesky facts and evidence that science has accrued and weigh it against the evidence for I.D., which consists of...nothing.
Alas, this is a pipe dream. We Americans spend more time reading Cosmo and US than National Geographic. This debate may not die until the Earth is 10,000 years older. Twice its current age, right?

How science gets swiftboated

Mike, Ontario, Canada — Wed, 30 Apr 2008 02:44:12 GMT

Movies that try to disprove the other side of the coin will always be around, whether disproving there is a God, or whether disproving evolution. I'm Roman Catholic, and my beliefs make up what is my "faith". I have friends who don't believe in a higher power and believe in evolution, stating that all religions (Catholic, Jewish, Muslim, etc) are just cults. Neither side will ever fully agree with each other, and its always best to leave it at that. With either side, I'd think we'd all agree that someone should never use their beliefs (be them in a higher power or evolutionary science) to supress, or worse off, kill those who oppose them. Either way, when we eventually die, one side or the other will say, "Crap! The aetheists/religious folks were right", as we'll either find there is some one on the other side, or it'll just be lights out forever. End result - live your life as best ya can, as no one has come back from the dead (well, ok one did, but ain't going there) and told us if there's anything there; Houdini said he was going to come back, and I haven't seen that magician yet. :)

How science gets swiftboated

thefalliblefiend, lorton, va — Wed, 30 Apr 2008 02:44:53 GMT

Bill, ID is a form of creationism. Complex Specified Information is not a scientific concept. It's a made up idea that the vast majority of scientists recognize as a sham. The "Wedge Document" written by the founder of the ID movement shows exactly what the purpose of the ID movement is - a wedge to bring god back into the classroom.

Creationists know that blatant religion will not win in the courts in any educated republic and so they attempt to mask their intent. ID is not science and is inherently religious.

How science gets swiftboated

James, Cedar Park, Texas — Wed, 30 Apr 2008 02:45:05 GMT

Swiftboating is used by people too partisan to take seriously. Dawkins fits the mold.

How science gets swiftboated

Jean, SF, CA — Wed, 30 Apr 2008 02:45:41 GMT

Whats most frustrating about this is that people take the time to post detailed and factual statements to educate the uneducated and we STILL get his with comment's like "evolution is only a theory" (learn what "scientific theory" means you fool), "Jesus and/or God Rules" (ID, buy it's very definition, does not point to the Christian God. That's why it's called ID not Creation), and, my personal favorite, "you are reacting so strongly you MUST be scard of something!" and "why can't you talk about God?"...geeze people. No wonder this movie was made. I'd like to make another one so I can get rich off the rubes in this country.

How science gets swiftboated

Dwayne, West Richland, Washington — Wed, 30 Apr 2008 02:46:00 GMT

I've never read the Holy Bible, only parts of it. Of interest is the first page of Genesis, which, in my eyes, discusses the process of evolution, not of just life on Earth, but of the universe itself.

Science and religion are not natural adversaries. Science, in its purest form, is just a study of God’s perfect creation. The situation only becomes heated when personal arrogance intrudes, and science is used to stuff one’s personal atheistic belief on believers or believers try to mock science in order to prove that which by nature should be believed and not proved.

I have no problem with religion or science. Why is it that so many others do? After all, Einstein wasn’t an atheist, was he?

How science gets swiftboated

Jennifer, Las Vegas, NV — Wed, 30 Apr 2008 02:46:17 GMT

Remember, gravity is still considered a theory. Do you believe in it? The Bible, ID, creationism should be taught in your private religion classes, not in public schools, except as literature.

This is indeed the dumbing down of America.

How science gets swiftboated

JC, Fairbanks, AK — Wed, 30 Apr 2008 02:46:36 GMT

One thing I'm thankful for these days is that any school system that proposes to teach creationism as just as valid a theory as evolution can count on the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster insisting on having its' (entirely as valid as creationism) theory taught there too....

How science gets swiftboated

GTJOHNS — Wed, 30 Apr 2008 02:49:37 GMT

Anyone that thinks that ID has any scientific basis, go watch Flock of Dodos for the truth. ID proponents never provide evidence for their case but rather try to find non-existent holes in evolutionary theory.

How science gets swiftboated

Dave Jelliff, Massapequa, New York — Wed, 30 Apr 2008 02:50:14 GMT

Those who promote evolution do so not by faith but by ignoring the facts. If you want to believe and promote a fairy tale like evolution--that's fine. But let others have the same opportunity who happen not to be evolutionary. This is not a matter of religion but freedom to express what one believes--just like Darwinians. You know that Darwinians are in trouble when they have to silence the opposition. Many scientists who sincerely believe in ID are bushwhacked and ostracized. How sad that freedom of speech is limited to a certain group.

How science gets swiftboated

Bob, Missoula, MT — Wed, 30 Apr 2008 02:56:19 GMT

Just Some Guy claims that Darwin was a Christian. I feel compelled to correct that false impression. While he started out that way, he changed his mind by the time he was 40, and became "a complete disbeliever in Christianity." A quote from Darwin:
"There seems to me too much misery in the world. I cannot persuade myself that a beneficent and omnipotent God would have designedly created the ichneumonidae with the express intention of their feeding within the living bodies of caterpillars, or that a cat should play with a mouse."
To say that Darwin was a Christian is simply not true.

How science gets swiftboated

Boyd, Thornton CO — Wed, 30 Apr 2008 02:58:57 GMT

Jonas - Unfortunately you use a fundamental misunderstanding of the Christian position to build a straw man. Science, yes science, firmly supports the Big Bang and as a Christian so do I. Given any first event like the Big Bang requires a cause, it must have a cause that is outside of time, space, material and it must be personal. Impersonal events don't cause events from literally nothing. There is no materialistic force that can make the initial decision or action b/c there is NO materialistic force there - none. God does not have a beginning so He needed no cause and he has always existed. Science was very comfortable excepting this logic when it believe in a self-existent universe. Now it no longer likes the idea b/c it implies a personal God. You may not accept this but, but Einstein (uncomfortable deist at best) did. He knew the implication of his General Relativity theory when we first published it. That is why he inserted his cosmological constant (fudge factor) which he later described as the biggest scientific mistake of this life. Please stop using slogans to criticize a position you do not understand.

How science gets swiftboated

Rebecca Golden, Olympia, WA — Wed, 30 Apr 2008 03:03:34 GMT

Hello,

From the looks of things most of the people on this blog are very close minded to religion. And I agree to the fact that a documentary shouldn't be a dissing match. However, that doesn't mean that the only way to understand the world is through science, or through religion. I believe that God created the world, and He did so using science! He created atoms, chemicals, cells, particles, everything! God knows how the world He created works and He wants us get to know Him, and one way to do that is by studying the world he created. He wants us to use reason, He wants us to put things to the test instead of believing every wind of doctrine that comes our way.

In the end there is not real battle between science and religion.

How science gets swiftboated

Mark Brown, San Angelo, Texas — Wed, 30 Apr 2008 03:03:48 GMT

"God refuses to provide "proof" of divine existence because PROOF DENIES FAITH."

1. I have to disagree. I've seen a lot of physical proof. God provides proof all the time - but among people who have a relationship with Him and ask for proof. One is not likely to see God grant miracles among atheists who have not asked for miracles and who have no relationship with Him. There are plenty of examples of physical miracles, including miraculous healing, in our day and time.

2. Like people, and quarks, God is no automaton. God's behavior is not a predictable chemical reaction. To attempt to describe the universe without taking into account His presence and interaction is intentionally putting on blinders - self-sabotage.

How science gets swiftboated

Ernest Smith, Leesburg, GA — Wed, 30 Apr 2008 03:05:41 GMT

None of the Christians I know deny the fact that there are changes WITHIN species over time. However, we are aware that no "specie jumps" have ever been documented, which leads to questions about evolution theory.
The vitrol directed toward those who would raise such questions reminds me of the same reaction toward those who said that the earth revolves around the sun and that it was round.
True science can withstand questioning.

How science gets swiftboated

B. Smokey Rock, IA. — Wed, 30 Apr 2008 03:06:10 GMT

It is sad that Sean B. Carroll has said that there are no facts to support creationist claims. But on the other hand you can not tell me that the very first Proton, Neutron, or matter itself came out of nothing. You cannot infinately regress.

How science gets swiftboated

AJ, Phoenix — Wed, 30 Apr 2008 03:08:51 GMT

The Bible has rules. It is the word of God is right and even if there are contradictions or things that don't make sense, it is the failure and obligation of man to understand the writings of God.

Science also has rules. The acceptance of ideas in science comes from cumulative research. Research can either prove or disprove. Whether proving or disproving, evidence that can be examined by other scientists must be submitted.

I have no problem with accepting religious ideas into science as long as I see verifiable proof.

How science gets swiftboated

ScottN, Seattle, Wash — Wed, 30 Apr 2008 03:10:08 GMT

K Every: "What happened to the idea that a theory is only a theory until it gets proven? I believe I learned that in elementary science class. I suppose it's okay as long as we believe in it."

Ummm, no. If that's what you learned in elementary science class, then either you weren't paying attention or your teachers were incompetent.

Nothing in science is ever "proven". All knowledge is provisional and subject to modification when new evidence arises that can't be explained by current theory.

I've seen creationists (both of the ID and "classic" variety) claim the changes that have occurred over the years in evolutionary theory as somehow being a weakness. It's not. The fact that theories do change over time as we learn more is what has made science the most successful way of knowing that we have.

Expelled gets it all wrong. It's not the scientists who are holding back "Intelligent Design." It's the ID movement itself; they do no experiments, make no predictions, test no hypotheses and don't even bother to publish in their own journals. This isn't surprising, really. ID is a vacuous concept, so there's really no point.

ID creationists would like to return us to a pre-Enlightenment time. No thank you.

How science gets swiftboated

L Rivera — Wed, 30 Apr 2008 03:15:23 GMT

Evolution can't explain the variety of life we have here. Heck, it can't even explain how an eye came to be! Much less thousands of really complex creatures... There are species that can fly, dive, even freeze and unfreeze! The evolution theory can't explain that. A true scientific mind would not close itself to the intelligent design theory when the facts are just there for all to see. Could it be that we should not believe in a Maker unless we can put him in a lab? Then we should not believe in evolution either, because it has never been reproduced in a lab, and the fossil evidence simply does not support it. Or could it be that being accountable to a God is too much to bear???

How science gets swiftboated

Thomas Ashby, Calgary — Wed, 30 Apr 2008 03:18:32 GMT

Watch this video

http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/view/id/113

How science gets swiftboated

Jon b, vegas baby — Wed, 30 Apr 2008 03:20:16 GMT

ponder you this as difference between practice of SCIENCE and ID:
if what you're doing produces the same results time after time and you want the results to change but you don't change the procedure but repeatedly do the same thing with the same results, you're making metaphysical posturings, then it's FAITH/ID/RELIGION:
if what you're doing produces the same results several times and you want a different result, then you must change something to see if a different result is produced, like trial and error, so it's called the scientific method; thus it's cause-effect in action, and action in the material world is based on FACT/EMPIRICAL/SCIENCE. so, therefore, wishes and prayers can't be absolutely tested and modified (i prayed wrong, that's why it didn't work); but science can be repeated to test it and repeat it to prove constancy. Faith can't be tested, even tho its adherents say they are being tested; science can be tested.

How science gets swiftboated

Terrin, Arkansas — Wed, 30 Apr 2008 03:20:18 GMT

True Science will always agree with True Religion. Unfortunately, there is no way to "prove" anything to another unless they agree with your methods, data, and conclusion. This is true with both religion and science.

Side note to Jeff, Edmonton: It is unlikely that man will at any time will understand "everything" in an absolute sense. We simply know too little of all there is to know. It's true that misapplied religion has hindered science and harmed man, but think where this world would be now if man (as a whole) correctly applied certain Bible principals. Avoiding premarital and extramarital sex would virtually eliminate VD in a generation. Having true love for all (including ones enemies, according to the Bible) would eliminate war, murder, torture, kidnapping, etc. The prohibition against drunkenness would end alcoholism (and by extention drug abuse). Being honest in all things would eliminate fraud, corruption, theft, and price gouging. Jesus' simple command to "do unto others as you would have them do unto you," if followed by all, would fundamentally change the world in ways hard to imagine.

Just a thought - but isn't bad science (atom bombs, napalm, cluster bombs, germ warfare, etc) just as scary as bad religion? But of the two, finding True Religion is what will improve a person. Science, while is has value, isn't in and of itself moral.

How science gets swiftboated

GTJOHNS, Raliegh, NC — Wed, 30 Apr 2008 03:21:53 GMT

Science does not reject religious or "design-based" explanations because of dogmatic atheism.
Expelled frequently repeats that design-based explanations (not to mention religious ones) are "forbidden" by "big science." It never explains why, however. Evolution and the rest of "big science" are just described as having an atheistic preference.

Actually, science avoids design explanations for natural phenomena out of logical necessity. The scientific method involves rigorously observing and experimenting on the material world. It accepts as evidence only what can be measured or otherwise empirically validated (a requirement called methodological naturalism). That requirement prevents scientific theories from becoming untestable and overcomplicated.

By those standards, design-based explanations rapidly lose their rigor without independent scientific proof that validates and defines the nature of the designer. Without it, design-based explanations rapidly become unhelpful and tautological: "This looks like it was designed, so there must be a designer; we know there is a designer because this looks designed."

A major scientific problem with proposed ID explanations for life is that their proponents cannot suggest any good way to disprove them. ID "theories" are so vague that even if specific explanations are disproved, believers can simply search for new signs of design. Consequently, investigators do not generally consider ID to be a productive or useful approach to science.

How science gets swiftboated

TheFallibleFiend, Lorton, VA — Wed, 30 Apr 2008 03:22:13 GMT

The only way to believe that evolution is a fairy tale is to be utterly ignorant of science and evolution. Creationists refuse to do an honest day's homework and so they pass on the urban legends they got from pseudoscience websites and movies like "expelled."

How science gets swiftboated

Bob Becker, Dixon, Mo — Wed, 30 Apr 2008 03:24:33 GMT

I would rather live my life as if there is a God, and die to find out there isn't; than live my life as if there isn't a God to find out there is!

How science gets swiftboated

Rob Burke — Wed, 30 Apr 2008 03:29:45 GMT

Want to drive an ID-believer into a screaming rage? Just suggest that the "intelligent designer" was a race of aliens doing genetic engineering experiments on our planet. Not an unreasonable explanation, considering there is not much solid proof for either God or visits by space aliens. The ID program is a squeeze play meant to force a choice between the science of evolution and the creator God of the Bible. Pointing out that there are other possibilities spoils their strategy, and can result in amazing displays of exploding tempers.

How science gets swiftboated

GTJOHNS — Wed, 30 Apr 2008 03:33:07 GMT

Here's the problem with those who support the teaching of ID in schools. If a student asks a teacher where's the proof for this theory, the teacher can only say well this or that looks like someone designed it. Evolution has centuries worth of data with new studies being published every day. I challenge any other bloggers to provide one shred of testable proof and I will provide you five examples proving evolution.

How science gets swiftboated

John, Indianapolis, IN — Wed, 30 Apr 2008 03:45:27 GMT

At the risk of offending my southern brothers, if you read through this blog you will find that generally, those defending this movie (and ID) are from the south. Add heavy religious indoctrination and a traditionally poor educational system and you get those who cannot think cogently. The result is sheep just waiting to be warped by idiots like Ben Stein, Hague, Benny Hinn, etc.
On the bright side, with the south's new affluence, the school are improving. When a persons education improves, religious dogma is the first thing to go!

How science gets swiftboated

PhantomAce, Las Vegas, NV — Wed, 30 Apr 2008 03:49:06 GMT

For all those of you screaming for "Intelligent Design" to be accepted, "evolution" to be rejected, I pose the following question:

If God "created" the world, and all life as we know it, cannot "evolution" have been his chosen method?

There is absolutely NOTHING in the Bible that states categorically what "method" the Creator chose, only that he performed the task. To assume that you know God's mind and will is to place yourself on the same pedestal as He, which would be entirely AGAINST, the Bible, at least the way I was taught it. (Raised Catholic, attended parochial schools, grad with honors, BTW).

Now, to also say that there is "No Way" that things could have evolved in the manner they have is also to assume the will and knowledge of God (see statement above, blasphemists!).

Small example here for you:
What are the odds of shuffling a standard deck of 52 playing cards, and coming up with 4 Ace's on top? A million to one? A Billion to one? 100 Billion to one? (Come on, mathematicians, help me out here...).
Fact is it has been proven that there are Hundreds of BILLIONS of stars in the universe (we have pictures, or are they lies also?), and it is known that there are TRILLIONS more beyond our current photographic reach. Is it impossible to believe that we were the one "shuffle" that created life, and that God nurtured it to the fruition that he desires?

To deny evolution just because you take the words in a book, written by MAN as infallible, is to deny the very method that God may have chosen. Shouldn't such blasphemy condemn all who question that possibility to Hell?
I know the "Church" believed so when it was proposed that the Earth was round and orbited a sun, rather than was the center of the universe, a few hundred years ago. People were burned at the stake for such blasphemy, was it so untrue?

The universe is an immense playground, POSSIBLY set in motion by a greater being, your very faith should forbid you from denying the possibility that God DESIGNED it in this manner on purpose...

Or, are you simply so stubborn that YOUR preferred method is the only correct one, and damn every other opinion, proven or not?

How science gets swiftboated

Lori Robertson, Temecula, California — Wed, 30 Apr 2008 03:57:35 GMT

I am amazed at the way people pass the THEORY of evolution off as science. Last time I checked, scientific theories are developed from the scientific process which involves the steps of research, problem hypothesis, experimentation, results. In addition, the process must be completed many times to ensure like results. Call me crazy, but I do not think this is possible to try evolution again. Therefore, evolution is nothing more than the examining of evidence and a GUESS as to what happened. Both creation and evolution are theories of how the universe and life began.

Just for the sake of discussion, put aside the issue of God creating the universe, and just look at what evolution asks you to believe. First of all, one of the laws of science states that “no living matter can be created from non living matter”. Yet this is always ignored when it comes to evolution which is so often referred to as “science”. Evolution is based on the fact that living matter came from non living matter. Evolution also wants you to believe that a perfectly organized and delicately balanced universe came from an explosion. For those who gamble, most mutations are NOT beneficial to a species, but are in fact harmful or deadly. The odds of beneficial mutations occurring to the extent that one species would evolve into another is practically statistically impossible.

I frequently hear Carbon 14 dating referred to as “evidence” of evolution, however; you do not often hear about how this process can lead to different age dating conclusions varying in millions of years for the SAME animal. Furthermore, no one disputes that there are changes and similarities within a species, however; there are no fossils that shows an animal changing from one species to another.

The fact is that both evolution and intelligent design are theories that one can choose to believe or disbelieve. In addition, there IS extensive scientific data to back intelligent design. I get very annoyed when evolution is presented as science, when it is no more science that creation. Both are theories, and you must choose which one you believe. Why are some people so afraid to have both side presented to students. After all, isn’t part of education to teach students how to examine information and draw conclusions? I always wonder why so many people would fight so hard to keep intelligent design from even being presented even as an alternate theory to evolution. If it is such a crazy theory, why are so many so afraid of even mentioning it?

How science gets swiftboated

Kevin Shaw, Oakhurst, CA — Wed, 30 Apr 2008 05:32:46 GMT

Both camps are missing the big picture. Evolution and creation is not a scientific issue as it is a historical one. The beginning of life/time is not proven by science but by historical record. If I wanted to prove to you that the Revolutionary War occurred, then I would not try to prove it by science, but instead by, gathering interviews, personal testimonies, and written correspondences, etc. Also, the battle for truth should fall on the test of truth each side uses. Creationists use the Bible. So on their side are the writings of Moses, Jesus, Matthew, Luke, Paul, etc. Have, at anytime, anything they've said ever been false or not come to be ? On the side of the evolutionists, you have people like Darwin, Gould, Asimov, etc. Have at anytime anything they've said ever been false or not come to be ? The debate should rest on who, not necessarily what, will you believe !

How science gets swiftboated

Dan P. Scott City, KS — Wed, 30 Apr 2008 05:33:30 GMT

Scott, Nebraska (Sent Tuesday, April 29, 2008 8:42 PM)

Jesus Lives and Ben is correct?

Ben is Jewish. He doesn't believe Jesus lives. How, then, can he be correct about anything? I mean, if he's wrong about that, how can you trust anything he says?

You don't make any sense, neighbor

Dan, Kansas

How science gets swiftboated

Bio — Wed, 30 Apr 2008 05:34:22 GMT

I didn't go to college to teach religion-influenced views in my biology classroom-I went to school to teach biology in a biology classroom. Unless there is evidence that is the result of research which can demonstrate ID-I am not comfortable teaching that idea. When I teach evolution, I have numerous examples that I can use to demonstrate the concept- ex. the hip bones in whales, fossils, etc. I don't mind if my students do not have the same beliefs as I do but it is important that they know and understand what evolution really is in a scientific sense. Science teachers are not here to influence the way students' think-they are there to teach about their chosen discipline.

How science gets swiftboated

Fred, La Crosse, WI — Wed, 30 Apr 2008 05:35:19 GMT

What Stein misses is that it was anti-scientific anti-rationalism that led to Nazism and Stalinism...Stein unwittingly aids the forces of darkness via his foolish revolt against scientific reason. For example, Stalin's Lysenko and Hitler's Rosenberg used pseudo-scientific arguments to buttress their errant philosophies; these men followed an unscientific path, not a scientific one. Stein's creationist views are as pseudo-scientific as Lysenko's or Rosenberg's--it is Stein himself who follows in the footsteps of Stalin and Hitler through this Faustian bargain with the dark forces of creationist unreason.

How science gets swiftboated

Joe, Michigan — Wed, 30 Apr 2008 05:39:54 GMT

For too long elitists have swiftboarded anyone who dare challenge Darwin. Wouldn't if be fair if MSNBC offered a counter point to this opinion? That's really the thesis of the movie, that who dares question Darwin gets excommunicated. Where is the reason of thought in that? Where's the intelligence is silencing other opinions and name calling. Why are they so threatened?

"For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities - his eternal power and divine nature - have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse." Romans: 1:20

How science gets swiftboated

Tom Leonard, Raleigh NC — Wed, 30 Apr 2008 05:45:10 GMT

You will notice that evolutionary scientists catalyze all the events in their theories using elements from an already established system of order and the designed elements it contains. These scientists, in all their knowledge, willingly and blindly use this to prove their ideas yet they fail to mention or explain, at the beginning of their theories, that even those “basic elements” (Hydrogen, Helium, Oxygen, etc) are themselves fully and perfectly designed. Each with their own set of rules and boundaries that remain within the same confines of the design-work we see today. If these scientists are to fully explain themselves here, then they must start by explaining the existence of the designed law and order of those basic elements. How did they come about? Did they evolve from nothing, and just happen to fall into a PERFECT system of order. If everything evolved from something else then why do scientist use the properties of base elements to calculate events and reactions that supposedly occurred billions of years ago? Why would hydrogen not evolve too? By that logic, the elements they use to support their theories would themselves have changed to be vastly different today than they would have been billions of years ago. Science cannot explain how their theories would happen without riding on God’s evident design, all so they can try to prove God does not exist. They can’t say everything changed chaotically and then base all their theories on God’s constants. Take a look at what NASA digs up in their spectral images. If they are able to detect these same base elements, with the exact same properties as what we have around us here, coming from a distant-space object millions of light years away doesn't that clue anyone in that our basic elements have remained unchanged since the beginning... you know... When God created the heavens and the Earth.

How science gets swiftboated

Jeff, Boulder, CO — Wed, 30 Apr 2008 05:49:48 GMT

D. Nolan said that evolution contradicts thermodynamics. That is the classically-repeated garbage spewed out by people who don't understand science in the first place. Do you care to elaborate, Mr./Ms. Nolan?

Here's the thing.... a living body is not a closed system. It has a constant energy input needed to hold all of the parts together. If that energy input stops, it dies and disintegrates, as thermodynamics says it should. The laws of thermodynamics that you cite only work for closed systems. It's the same reason that a closed perpetual motion machine can't exist, but your car engine certainly does keep going (with an input of very expensive gasoline).

Why don't you look things up before you repeat them?

How science gets swiftboated

Jeff, Boulder, CO — Wed, 30 Apr 2008 05:55:51 GMT

Lori, please tell me which "law of science" (the fact that you can't provide more information about it than that tells me a bit about where you're coming from) states that living matter can't come from non-living matter.

Is it the thermodynamics argument that you're seeking? Argh, when will people give that a rest? My guess is that you don't understand why you assert such a thing to be true, but somebody told you and you're merely repeating it without checking.

How science gets swiftboated

BR Jennings, Lafayette, IN — Wed, 30 Apr 2008 05:59:57 GMT

I do not believe that whether or not a supreme being had a hand in creation or not has any real significance to scientific study. What matters is what is done by the particular person who believes one way or the other after their belief is determined. If you believe in a supreme entity, then continue to attempt to advance science through trial and error and the scientific method then your belief has no bearing. If you do not believe in a supreme entity and do likewise, then that also has no bearing. The only time that belief enters the equation is if your belief dictates improper actions. Many things have been discovered by athiests, but many things have also been discovered by believers of one supreme being or another. The belief or non belief didn't stop the discovery. To dictitate belief is NOT the governments nor the scientific communties place. To indicate that a supreme being does not exist is beyond the capability of science just as much as proving the existence of a supreme being is beyond the ability of believers. So, why make this an issue at all. It is pointless. The ultimate question is personal and each person has to decide on their own what they believe and why they believe it. Any thing else is ludicrous and ulitmately dangerous to civil liberty. What I believe is my perogative. What I think is also mine. Same goes for everyone else. And on top of all that, saying that parts of evolutionary theory is correct and proven doesn't indicate that ALL of it is. It may well be true but, if history is any indication, it probly isn't completely accurate. That's the crux of science. Build off of what has already been discovered to prove more. Sometimes we go off on tangets that aren't correct or aren't totally correct. To dogmatically declare that anything is 100% what happened is drawing a lot of conclusions from pretty limited evidence. As for sayin that a supreme being made everything, well... ok.. so what? From a scientific standpoint saying that God started things off doesn't really mean much. It's what came after that that matters. If you go back far enough in any theory that has a beginning of the universe you get to a point where ok.. where did that come from.. like in the big bang.. the infinite singularity that contained all matter.. ok.. where did that come from. From a scientific stand point what difference does it make. You could theorize it's starting point, but that too would come to a point where you have to shrug your shoulders and say it was just there. This doesn't prove a supreme being put it there, but it also doesn't prove he didn't. You get the point? This is all so circular in reasoning that it's a waste of time.
In short, we cannot prove the existence of a supreme being, and we cannot disprove the existence of a supreme being. So, why do these arguments keep popping up all the time. Until someone comes up with a way to prove the existence, this is a moot point whether such a being exists or not (from a scientific view point). And to those who do not believe in a supreme being that's ok too. Just realize, that logically, you can not prove a negative. it's logically impossible to do so. Best that proven with a negative is that there is no proof that such exists. Lack of proof does not prove something doesn't exist. Lack of proof only proves that NO proof was found. That's it, end of what it proves. You can guess after that, but you haven't proven anything beyond that.
Now, Folks, can we just get on with whatever and let this issue die a wholesome death and quit trying to control the BELIEFS of others and worry about things that we actually should be trying to do something about.

How science gets swiftboated

Dr. Kevin McKeighen — Wed, 30 Apr 2008 06:02:04 GMT

How is it that atoms came to create such complex living systems by random chance? I guess it makes just as much sense that the iPhone just evolved by random collision of electrons, protons and the like without design, thought or purpose.
Dr. McKeighen

How science gets swiftboated

Tadd Bartley Henderson, NV — Wed, 30 Apr 2008 06:08:08 GMT

I often think of Religion as a way of selling morality and ethics - things that we as humans need and want - but it wraps these things in a "supernatural" package. If we can just grow up, drop all of the supernatural stuff, keep our wonder, humility, compassion, ethics, etc., then we might be better off. Is it possible?

How science gets swiftboated

Gene — Wed, 30 Apr 2008 06:24:25 GMT

I gotta hundred bucks says Alan Boyle is an atheist...only someone with an axe to grind against religion, notice I didn't say FAITH, could come away from this movie with such a slanted point of view...as has been said earlier, the point of Mr. Stein is that our children and the people who teach them are not allowed to consider some evidence of some theories...only Darwinian/Naturalist models, which even their side of the aisle, and many in the film, admit is flawed as we gain more knowledge of our physical world (ie. the cell as "simple")...any 3rd grade science student knows that you can't find answers if your not allowed to look at all the facts...and evolution is not fact, or proved, by any measure...this ongoing debate among some of the smartest men & women to crack a book is proof enough of that...it's just that one side of them wants to quiet the other...what science book is that in?

How science gets swiftboated

Curt, Atlanta, GA — Wed, 30 Apr 2008 06:26:00 GMT

Interesting article. Boyle apparently doesn’t understand the concept of worldview and how it affects science and religion. What he does is "swiftboat" religion. People don’t want to separate science and religion, they want a coherent system that they can live by. Some of the comments are good but they also, generally, try to separate science and religion as if they are not both part of someone’s life and worldview. What no one seems to bring up is the existential problem evolution has with trying to deal with the things people really want answers to- like origin, meaning, purpose, love, justice, ultimate destiny, etc. That is because science has no answers for these. Everyone has a "religion" because everyone believes something. What they believe determines how they interact with the world and other people. That is why Stein brings up the issue of the Holocaust. He is not a wild-eyed nutcase. Evolutionists by definition believe that we are the result of time, matter and chance. (chance of course can't actually cause anything since it is just a mathematical concept- but that's another problem). The really thorny problem is how we decide between good, evil, morality, immorality, truth, etc. without God. If there is no moral law giver, all you really have in societies and cultures are preferences. As one professor put it "in some cultures we love our neighbors and in some we eat them, Do you have a preference?"

If there is no design for anything, there is no way you can call Hitler's Germany bad or evil. All you can do is express a preference for not having regimes that slaughter millions of people- but you can't make an absolute moral judgment about them. What Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot and many other atheistic leaders show is that when you believe there is no absolute moral law, you are free to do anything you choose because in the end people are simply the highest evolutionary organism; and thus only of worth if they serve your purpose. You cannot ascribe any meaningful dignity to human life from an evolutionist perspective- we are simply cosmic accidents- no design, no purpose. Most people cannot live with the implications of that and so they seek a coherence in life that includes both science and religion. Many of the greatest scientists, men like Pascal, held this worldview. Yet I doubt if he could get tenure or research grants in today's academic climate. He saw the role of science as that of discovering the truth and beauty of God's creation. Quite a stark contrast to what is taught today.

For an excellent treatment of this, I recommend "Beyond Opinion" by Dr. Ravi Zacharias where he deals forthrightly with issues like how a loving God can allow so much pain and suffering. That is way beyond the scope of this comment, though!

How science gets swiftboated

Jeff Lowell, NY, NY — Wed, 30 Apr 2008 06:39:59 GMT

Hello...this I God. I decided to speak hear to tell all of you non-believers in my non-existence that I DO NOT EXIST and am just a figment of some of your imaginations. I also wanted to say that I AM NOT PERFECT. For if I were, you wouldn't believe in such silly superstitions and try to force others to beleive in them as well.

How science gets swiftboated

Dan, Missoula, Montana — Wed, 30 Apr 2008 06:42:07 GMT

After reviewing the comments I believe some clarification on the theory of irreducible complexity is needed. The many comments that refer to ID proponants as stating oh its too complex God must have done it show a lack of examination of the theory of irreducible complexity. The theory simply states that evolution cannot explain an irreducibly complex system. The simple example would be a mouse trap. It is made up of seperate parts that all work together to perform a function. You can't take a piece of wood and add a spring to it in order to have a more functional mouse trap, all you have is a piece of wood with a spring. All parts of the trap are needed in order to function. This is the theory of iriducible complexity, and a mouse trap is nothing compared to the biological world. Take for instance the flagella on bacteria. A common evolutionary argument is that bacteria developed flagella and gained the ability to move about in search of food. What they don't tell you is that the motor of the flagella (the protien that makes it spin) is made up of 40 different protiens each one absolutely necissary in order for the flagella to spin. Therby iriducebly complex. For more examples read Darwin's black box by Micheal Behe. I hope this sheds some light on iriducibly complexity. Evolution is far from being "proven" and us wacko's are not idiots. We are highly educated individuals who are not afraid to question the statis quo. A persons faith be it in god or philosophical naturalism guides their perspective and dictates their worldview, this is why religion and science will never be seperate, like it or not you have to have faith in something.

How science gets swiftboated

sidroski Jackson MS — Wed, 30 Apr 2008 06:42:11 GMT

Man was made in God's image and as for me, I have a wicked since of humor.
Anybody who thinks they can predict the weather 50 years from now when they can't predict the weather for the weekend may not be a fool but is surely foolish.
I am taking money orders for my carbon footprint account just in case if you wish to donate.

How science gets swiftboated

Mark, Tempe, AZ — Wed, 30 Apr 2008 06:49:22 GMT

I believe some in this forum don't recognize that the term theory means a scientific idea that has withstood the test of time and scientific questioning. It does not mean educated guess. A theory should also allow for predictions to be made. This is a major difference between evolution and intelligent design and why the two should not be taught in the same classroom.
Additionally, laws are mathematical constructs and are not a different level of science from theory. A law can be formulated from a theory. A theory is the highest form of scientific argument.

How science gets swiftboated

Mary, Tyler, TX — Wed, 30 Apr 2008 06:56:35 GMT

My god is loving and kind but in no way has anything to do with I.D..If he did, there would be no death, pain and suffering. With the help of scientists, vaccinations are available!! I wonder if any of these nuts that believe in I.D. have been vaccinated? WHO gets the credit for that?

How science gets swiftboated

Paul Goode — Wed, 30 Apr 2008 06:57:48 GMT

IF God exists, then Christian religious belief must be a legitimate part of scientific study? What kind of argument is that? Does this mean that in Muslim countries, Islam should be part of science class? Shia or Sunni? Where does Judaism fit in? What about Catholicism, which has long held that accepting evolution is not incompatible with Catholic teaching? Where does it leave the Buddhists, who understand existence through philosophy, not religious dogma? This argument subjects faith to a scientific proof, which runs contrary to the whole point of faith. Jesus had a pretty good piece of advice that pertains exactly to this discussion: “Render unto Caesar the things which are Caesar’s, and unto God the things that are God’s."

How science gets swiftboated

Des Emery, St. Thomas, ON, Canada — Wed, 30 Apr 2008 06:57:51 GMT

There is a well-known theory (ask any child) that toys are made by elves in Santa's workshop at the North Pole. And you can't deny that they are indeed made by Intelligent Design. After all, marbles are round so they can be rolled and blocks are square so they can be stacked. Undeniable.

The thing is, what is going to happen to Santa's workshop when Global Warming melts all the ice up there at the North Pole? I guess Evolution will determine what change of habit will have to happen to allow life to adjust to that change as it has adjusted so many times in the past billions of years.

And though round will always roll and square will always stack, Life will find a way to change what is changeable because that is what Life has always done from the very beginning, abiding by the rules of the game.

How science gets swiftboated

Stephen Courton, Dallas, TX — Wed, 30 Apr 2008 06:59:14 GMT

The main problem with I.D. is it has no scientific evidence and therefore can't be science. Its main argument is life is too complex to develop without a designer. But its impossible to calculate this. We would need a total understanding of everything and know all events that ever happened on earth. This can never happen. They invalidly use calculations on "random" chances but evolution is not a random process. Any calculations are totally wild guesses and not scientific. This is an age old argument that anything unexplained must be due to a god. I wonder what these religionists will use as an argument if we ever find current or former life on mars or one of jupiter's or saturn's moons?

How science gets swiftboated

Matt, Boise, ID — Wed, 30 Apr 2008 07:00:48 GMT

Uh, folks????

Dawkins admitted design implications in DNA and said it was aliens who put it there???? hellooooo???

What scientific evidence does he have of that? None. So, it is a belief without evidence. Hmmmm

Yet, when Stein points it out, people cry foul.

We have to ask if science has become a religious movement with priests (scientists), doctrine (naturalism), and adherents (blind sheep believing whatever the priests tell them).

How science gets swiftboated

Mogul X — Wed, 30 Apr 2008 07:18:30 GMT

D. Nolan: "Kerry in Ohio; please cite your demonstrable facts. While you're at it, please also help us with reconciling the incongruencies of the evolutionary THEORY with the first and second laws of thermodynamics, which is SCIENCE."

I'll handle this one... It's one of my favorite arguments that the anti-evolutionists trot out every so often. It goes, "Evolution can't be real, because it violates the laws of thermodynamics."

Okay, D. Nolan, do you even know what the laws of thermodynamics are? The first states that the amount of energy in the universe remains constant. Evolutionary theory does not violate this law in any way, shape or form, as evolution does not add any new energy to the universe.

The second law states "The entropy of an isolated system not in equilibrium will tend to increase over time, approaching a maximum value at equilibrium."

To say that evolution violates the second law of thermodynamics simply shows how ignorant the speaker is, and how little he actually knows about good science.

First, the earth is NOT an isolated system. Energy is constantly added to the earth's ecosystem in the form of sunlight. Also, the earth is presently IN equilibrium, in the sense that the energy added is equal to the energy produced. Neither of the conditions required for entropy to increase exist in the earth as it currently stands.

I don't expect most of you religious types to fully understand what I just said, so don't worry about it. Just go back to lapping up the pablum that Ben Stein and his right-wing friends are serving up, and continue sending your money to Reverend Billy-Bob so he can carry on the fight against us godless lib'ruls...

How science gets swiftboated

Steven Pugh, Louisville, Kentucky — Wed, 30 Apr 2008 07:33:57 GMT

Funny how most of you fail to mention one very important fact, 1. There is no proof of evolution, and that Darwin said women and minorities were less than human, anyone that doesn't believe me, google Darwins decent of man book and read parts of it about women and African-Americans, once you do read it you may ask that Darwins theroys be thrown out for the rascist comments they are. Once again, there is No proof, Nada, None that darwin was right on anything.

How science gets swiftboated

Jim, San Diego — Wed, 30 Apr 2008 07:46:46 GMT

Having this discussion with the religious is a waste of time. They are the same lemmings that are so morally depraved that they have to be threatened into acting like decent people (or they believe that they will be punished by god) unlike athiest who are decent of their own accord because they believe that it is the right thing to do.

Since all the religous nuts claim that you should worship a god, just in case there is a god and you don't want to go to hell (I would think that a supposedly omnipotent god would see through this farse, but what ever) I've chosen to worship the sun (what? You ego centric idiots thought that your god was the only one?). At least it can make a somewhat valid claim that it is the reason why life exists on earth. I wonder if my use of sun screen insults my new god?

How science gets swiftboated

Bruce, Palo Alto — Wed, 30 Apr 2008 07:55:35 GMT

Boy, lack of knowledge about scientific theory is not that astonishing considering the number of uneducated folks in the US that populate the internet.

Why do we learn Newton's law of gravity in school when it is superseded by the general theory of relativity?

Seriously, why?

Because the math is simpler and applies to Earth.

Most of the cutting edge science being researched at universities are considered theories. These theories are usually cogent enough to be taught in school. No one is saying these are "facts", but they are all premised on data. Intelligent design has no data or research behind it. That's not swift boating, it's the statistical method behind the life sciences. What's the null hypothesis for intelligent design and how do you prove or disprove it? If you can't even formulate an alternative, there's no test or scientific theory.

Get the argument right. All that being said, if 1,000 engineers tell you an airplane isn't safe, and an airline rep says it isn't, who are you going to believe?

I guess the religious nuts would say they'd jump on the plane because they like the snake oil.

How science gets swiftboated

Openminded, LA, CA — Wed, 30 Apr 2008 07:58:10 GMT

Now to be fair we should also teach the Christian scientific theory that the earth is flat. This will save the planet from global warming since by reducing travel distances. That will reduce our dependence on fossil fuels. Oops I forgot the Christian scientific theory that there are no such things as fossils...

How science gets swiftboated

Jay, Fort Lauderdale, FL — Wed, 30 Apr 2008 08:04:02 GMT

Let me start by saying that I'm religous, a Catholic, and a budding academic, who agrees with JP2 that the Bible is there not to "teach how heaven was made but how one goes to heaven." The job of religion is not to answer the "How?", that was for the Dark Ages, but to help us answer the "Why?". Answering the "How?" properly requires the scientific method, and ID and the scietific method don't go hand in hand. That doesn't make ID 'wrong', I personally believe that something bigger WAS behind all of this, albeit waaaaaaaaay behind. But I can never support my belief with any fairly conclusive evidence/explanations for that belief to qualify as a 'theory', therefore making it a belief, not science.
p.s. There is something horribly 13th-century-ish about saying 'this is too complicated, let's stop trying to figure it out'. Trying to figure things out, even if you ultimately fail, is how this computer I'm using right now came about...
p.p.s. All those of you who state that evolution and global warming are 'just theories' not proven conclusively, you're missing the point of science. Science is not there to give us the absolute truth, it's there to come up with the (currently) best possible/most plausible answer, so that we can keep moving forward. While global warming may not be proven 'beyond reasonable doubt', or, in scientific lingo, within some customary (let's say 95%) confidence interval, being only 65% sure that we're slowly destroying the planet is good enough for me to start recycling...

How science gets swiftboated

Gavin — Wed, 30 Apr 2008 08:05:03 GMT

If he gets to make a movie about intelligent design, then why can't there be a movie about the Flying Spaghetti Monster and Pastafarianism?

How science gets swiftboated

Steve K, Honolulu, HI — Wed, 30 Apr 2008 08:24:48 GMT

I have always found Ben Stein to be an exceptional intellect. Unfortunately, this movie proves that appearances can be deceiving. Though science can be wrong from time to time (i.e. Global Warming or is it Cooling now?), I do believe in science and believe that science, NOT RELIGION, is the source of true enlightenment. Unfortunately, there are those who stand to benefit financially by manifesting bad science into perceived "good science" (again, Global "warming"). Before I forget... the bible that many of you read and believe in was put together by none other than Emperor Constantine of the former Roman Empire. Think about it before proclaiming its greatness and superiority over that of Darwinism and the Big Bang. Put on a thinking cap people!

How science gets swiftboated

Openminded, LA, CA — Wed, 30 Apr 2008 08:32:53 GMT

Does anyone else find it odd that the religious people keep trying to pretend their religion is science? But you never hear scientists trying to pretend their science is religion...

How science gets swiftboated

Jim Hughes, Stafford, VA — Wed, 30 Apr 2008 08:41:58 GMT

I will never understand how a “scientist” forgets the basic principle that we were taught in elementary school science, a theory is NOT a fact. I personally believe the theory of evolution is correct, however that should not stop me from looking at other theories to determine the facts. Often enough, police have a theory, they use science to help prove the theory, they take that theory to court, get a conviction, and years later newer science proves the individual innocent. Science disproved a theory that science originally believed it proved. All theories should be researched until and continuously researched. If we do not teach the children of today that there are competing theories, how do we have the scientist tomorrow explore theories? Obviously the author has closed his mind to the exploration of opposing theories. He is right, all others wrong. I hope to not ever reach that point in my life.

How science gets swiftboated

Bill — Wed, 30 Apr 2008 09:16:25 GMT

The movie has absolutely nothing to do with religion. Lot of awefully touchy people out there. lol.

How science gets swiftboated

Dan, Seattle — Wed, 30 Apr 2008 09:47:42 GMT

How long has this argument been going on now? Over three years? And STILL there are people using the 'its only a theory' excuse, as though it were some sort of counter-point. I remember learning the scientific definitions of hypothesis and Theory in grade school. Assuming they are still taught, how can so many people ignorantly confuse a Theory with the vernacular theory? I hate to admit it but I believe this country has lost its edge in scientific preeminence. And we are never going to get it back. Instead, our kids are wasting class time learning how god - excuse me, the Intelligent Designer - neatly created everything. So what if the science is toilet paper thin; the kids need to have ALL the facts!

But there already is a class, where ID and creationism are freely taught (as an ABSOLUTE fact, by golly). Its on Sunday. You want your kids to believe that ID is science and evolution is some grand, satanic conspiracy? Send them to Sunday school. But please, leave your 'good, old-time religion OUT of public schools.

How science gets swiftboated

Jas, Orl. , FL. — Wed, 30 Apr 2008 10:20:50 GMT

We are all doomed to fail in seeing the truth when we try to divide and seperate things, like science and belief. We are not as smart as we think we are. God put laws into motion, laws that are far more complex than we can understand. As long as you try to keep God out of the equation the "theory" of evolution will alway evolve and change BUT never become LAW.

How science gets swiftboated

Aaron Johnson, Eugene, Oregon — Wed, 30 Apr 2008 11:15:05 GMT

I can read into your comments on the Movie that you are a closed minded, obtuse Libb and that you have a distaste of what you believe to be a Republican view. You hold your beliefs high as you mock anothers as most of your kind does. Science is a ever evolving study. You can't tell me that you know for a fact that this, all this hasn't been a sort of science fair project. Science has told me that "everything" came from a singlearity that was smaller than a single atom. So if that is possible anything is possible. Your close minded mind idea about Intelligent design is a reflection of your views on a creator and how it should be disreguarded as wierd & wacky. So I believe both you and Ben are wrong because you both have closed minds and don't allow for the other one to be right. I'm staying on the sideline so I might see the truth when it is found and not sitting in a sand box with blinders on.

How science gets swiftboated

Ashok Shah, Monroeville, NJ — Wed, 30 Apr 2008 11:20:48 GMT

Really lame article. The movie is not about ID or evolution. It is about freedom. It has addressed the issues extremely well. Well done to Ben Stein and the Premise producers.

The movie has achieved its objective. It has the Darwinists on the run. They are, as they always do, using slander, and name calling and dirty methods, to discredit the movie as they have done to anyone who challenges them. Instead of using true science to refute the arguments, they ostrasize people, and they do exactly what the movie shows they do. Now they cannot have the truth being seen by the public. So now they are giving bad reviews to the movie, and they are using Yoko Ono to try and shut down the truth from being heard. Well, I guess if you believe evolution to be true, then there is no morality anywhere and therefore these methods would be fine to you. Stealing, lying, cheating, murder, etc are acceptable to you folks so what is wrong with using any means that are available to you, however dirty, so that your theory of evolution can survive.

The theory is based on lies, and coined up stories, and now they are using terminology that the common man cannot understand, and thus they are impressed and think there is more then there actually is. This is another one of your dirty tricks.

In the end, there is TRUTH and it will PREVAIL. Just like the notion of flat earth had to be succeeded by TRUTH, so will the theory of evolution be ousted by truth.

To the staunch evolutionist.... Can you be a little honest, and examine your theory closely, if you need help, then a really well educated evolutionist who saw the truth wrote a book. His name is Michael Denton. Google his name, find his book, read it, and then decide. There are many other books written by scientists like Johnathan wells "Icons of evolution", "Darwin strikes back" etc. Read a little and think, think think... It is healthy to think.

How science gets swiftboated

jacob freeman — Wed, 30 Apr 2008 11:23:29 GMT

We have had to put up with movie after movie from you bunch of spoiled self obsessed baby boomers seeking to destroy every social, moral and cultural tradition that built this great country. Now someone has dared question your rantings and predictably you throw your little intellectual tantrum.

How science gets swiftboated

Ashok, Monroeville, NJ — Wed, 30 Apr 2008 11:28:53 GMT

Scott, Seattle, WA (the intelligent one)
wrote:

"
Fools look at what they don't understand and decide to fill in the blanks with "God".
"

Hello Scott ... the intelligent one.

You were recognised as a fool some 3000 years ago when the book of proverbs was written. To paraphrase what was written:

A fool says in his heart that there is no God.

Another proverb that comes to mind is

Empty vessels make the loudest noise. (oh intelligent one).

A Darwinist looks at what he cannot understand and makes magic out of millions of years. Your God is "millions of years".

It is more likely that a tornado can assemble a 747 then for a single DNA strand to come about by chance in millions of years.

How science gets swiftboated

John Singer, Jax Fla. — Wed, 30 Apr 2008 11:30:18 GMT

Interesting repartee!!

My stance has been, and still is:

Produce the refutation to Pastuer.
Do Abiogenesis.
Thirty times.
Peer reviewed, and reproduced by others, especially the skeptics.

After that, I'll gladly recant my Belief in the Father, Jesus, and the Ghost.

Proof, not suppositions. That's all I ask.

Evolution is BASED on Rocks becoming Humans, Life from Non Life.

Just Refute Pastuer. It should be simple, No??
I'm willing to recant!! Persuade me!

JS

How science gets swiftboated

Dr Benway, NH — Wed, 30 Apr 2008 11:44:31 GMT

Intelligent design theory never met the admission requirements for science, so it can't be *Expelled*:
1. ID proponents have offered no corroborative evidence that stands up to review.
2. ID proponents have not formulated their ideas in a manner that can be subjected to falsification or testing.

Saying "God created the world" isn't science. That doesn't mean people can't say this or think about this.

How science gets swiftboated

K Every, Charlotte, NC — Wed, 30 Apr 2008 12:00:40 GMT

Isn't it interesting that all who wrote blogs in here that agree that we need the freedom to express our opinion are labeled as fundamentalists, liberals, etc.? Perhaps instead of assuming that people are ignorant sheep, maybe people could allow the same tolerance they demand from others. All these things you discuss are beliefs. They are not facts. Science can be proven unlike someone stated. Your article and comments show exactly what one of the movie's points are: we no longer have the freedom to disagree or even discuss this issue unless you are of the same opinion as the ones who believe in evolution. What a sad state of affairs.

How science gets swiftboated

Mark R. Whittington, Houston, Texas — Wed, 30 Apr 2008 12:03:53 GMT

A well reasoned analysis, somewhat marred by the use of the term "swiftboat" as a verb meaning "unfair attack." The term has its origins in the entirely dead on charges against one John Kerry made by his fellow swiftboat veterans.

How science gets swiftboated

Dr Benway — Wed, 30 Apr 2008 12:06:59 GMT

If your car won't start, you'll try to figure out why. Maybe it's the battery. Will the lights go on? Maybe it's the starter. Maybe there's no gas.

You'll stick to explanations you can test. You won't bother with supernatural explanations.

Just because you don't bring God into the problem, that doesn't mean you are an atheist!

Natural selection has been well established as a basic principle of biology. Just because the concept doesn't include God doesn't mean it's somehow evil.

Religious people are being manipulated by this propaganda. That hurts our country.

How science gets swiftboated

George, Vienna, VA — Wed, 30 Apr 2008 12:19:36 GMT

This editorial has no business being linked directly off the science page. If I want to read someone's opinion I'll turn to the lifestyle section.

How science gets swiftboated

Paul, Cincinnati — Wed, 30 Apr 2008 12:28:51 GMT

In engineering we have a motto, "Complicated is easy, simple is hard." I've done a lot of product design, and believe me, it's true. The complexity of life proves not that it was the product of intelligent design, but that it developed through a long, stumbling, trial-and-error process.

How science gets swiftboated

Information Junkie — Wed, 30 Apr 2008 12:29:35 GMT

"What are the odds of shuffling a standard deck of 52 playing cards, and coming up with 4 Ace's on top? A million to one? A Billion to one? 100 Billion to one? (Come on, mathematicians, help me out here...)."

The odds aren't that long: (4/52)*(3/51)*(2/50)*(1/49)=(1/13)*(1/17)*(1/25)*(1/49)=(1*1*1*1)/(13*17*25*49)=1/270,725.

This puts in mind a quote from a book: "Nature can afford to be excessive; there are always plenty more where they came from." Trying to explain irreducible complexity with statistical improbability reveals how little the explainer understands statistics. Given the vast number of galaxies, stars, planets, etc. in the universe and the incredible amount of time involved, the fact that life exists on a specific planet with such diversity is not inherently a sign of intelligent design; it may just be that it is an instance of a low probability series of events.

Even if the vast majority of mutations are detrimental or neutral, the few that are advantageous tend to be passed on through natural selection (those life forms with an advantage tend to live longer and have more offspring). Live forms tend to be well suited for their environments; not necessarily because they were "designed" that way, but because over successive generations those best suited are the ones most likely to survive and reproduce.

How science gets swiftboated

M. Vannette, Ames, IA — Wed, 30 Apr 2008 12:34:03 GMT

D. Nolan in MI, you wrote "please also help us with reconciling the incongruencies of the evolutionary THEORY with the first and second laws of thermodynamics, which is SCIENCE." There is no disconnect here. The common argument, which I assume you are invoking as you do not clarify, goes that evolution leads to more 'order' (whatever that is supposed to mean) while thermodynamics states that 'disorder' must increase over time. (2nd Law of Thermodynamics: Entropy always increases in a closed system.) This is true provided you have a closed system. That is, a system that no energy or matter can flow into or out of. The problem with this particular anti-evolution argument is that the Earth is not a closed system. When you consider the fact that the Sun is dumping a tremendous amount of energy onto the Earth every day you can see that 'order' can increase on Earth. Locally we have an increase in 'order' (organisms evolve into more complex organisms) while in the grand scheme 'order' decreases because the Sun must be included in the calculation.

The biggest problem I have with ID is it posits an unscientific idea. There is no way to test for the existence of God. If you cannot test for it, it is not scientific. That is not to say that it is bad or even that it is worse than science. It's just different. Religion is a deeply personal experience and by its very nature requires acceptance without evidence. Science is impersonal and requires evidence before acceptance. Both reveal truth about the world around us, but there are different aspects of truth.

How science gets swiftboated

Shane, Clarksburg, West Va. — Wed, 30 Apr 2008 12:34:40 GMT

It is asserted that intelligent design must be true because the odds of "all of this" just being coinsidence is too great to ignore. Although I do agree that the odds are astounding, I feel that those who do not see that in an infinite universe, all things are possible, are missing the point and do not fully understand the meaning of infinity. Even if there is a GOD, I think he must be laughing at how simple-minded you people are. Our country is moving backwards on the educational front and this arguement is such a waste of time. To say that Darwin caused the Holocaust is insane and I shame Ben Stein because he knows that if this movie is played enough times, some idiots will start to actually believe that nonsense. Christians have caused more death and pain throughout history than all other religions and athiests combined. Your arguement that we did not evolve from apes is starting to convince me...you did not evolve, but the rest of us have.

How science gets swiftboated

Christgrinder, Indianapolis — Wed, 30 Apr 2008 12:35:38 GMT

Science belongs in the classrooms and laboratories.

Religion belongs in church, or better still, in the TRASH.

How science gets swiftboated

Gerald, London — Wed, 30 Apr 2008 12:37:48 GMT

Intelligent Design is not science. It is merely an attempt by the religious community to give itself some semblance of legitimacy. They are losing the fight and that is why their objections are becoming more hysterical and strident.

Greater and greater numbers of people are becoming luke-warm believers as they are confronted with the inaccuracies and contradictions of their own faith. They'll probably never completely give up their faith as it is a security mechanism against the worries of this world. This I can understand completely. But as the years march on so will the core of religion die away as each successive generation is able to step a little bit further away while slowly becoming able to reconcile themselves that "Dad" is not watching over them. Remember medieval Catholic Europe was as fanatical as today's extremists are today - but we moved on.

Throughout history religion has tried to suppress new ideas because it disturbs their comfortable theories - theories for which they have no proof - which is what scares them the most.

Science and free-thought have repeatedly revolutionized society and forced religion to adapt or become redundant. Compare todays Christianity to 300 years ago - it's barely recognizable. If they have had to chance so many of their dogmatic teaching you have to ask yourself "what else have they got wrong?". My bet is almost everything and the bits that prove to be right were borrowed from folk knowledge (tried and tested methods to stabilize a community).

The very fact that the great majority of new converts to any faith is from within its existing community indicates that it has lost its appeal. Initially Christianity spread very quickly throughout Europe, but have you ever thought why?
Those pagans were firstly, not innured to the idea of many gods and were happy to accept another one. Secondly, many pagan religions were quite barbaric and in general were based on the rule "the strong shall rule the weak". Obvious Christianity was popular - the strong are in the minority! Now that the idea that "we are all equal" is becoming more widespread religion is losing its usefulness. The evolution of religion is merely a part of the evolution of the human race. Eventually religion will fade away like the methologies of Ancient Greece. That is unless the crazies destroy us in their biblical Armageddon. How can anyone believe in that and think their religion is peaceful?

Not one aspect of Intelligent Design can be proven as it still hinges on this idea of "God". I am personally not adverse to the idea of God, but I am confident our belief or disbelief is of complete irrelevance.

You can throw away all rules and live by only one "do unto others as you would have done unto you" and the world will be just fine - one of those folk sayings I bet. And there are similar proverbs in nearly every culture on earth - why is that I wonder?

How science gets swiftboated

Alan Boyle — Wed, 30 Apr 2008 12:39:26 GMT

Gene, you just lost that $100 bet. Please make your check out to Catholic Relief Services. Or you can donate online via http://crs.org/ ... Please let me know when you've made your donation by writing an e-mail to cosmiclog@msnbc.com ... and thank you for contributing. :-)

How science gets swiftboated

Manson, Munich, Germany — Wed, 30 Apr 2008 12:40:07 GMT

This isn't that hard folks...

First question... is evolution happening. Ah... about as much question on this one as gravity "happening."

Second question... how is it happening?

Science takes you seriously when you present a theory that is predictive, logical, and testable. It also helps to have a BUNCH of evidence.

Scientific Theory of Evolution => overwhelming on all fronts.

ID => Beuller... Beuller... Beuller...

Yep, zero... nada... nichts... NOTHING. The basic claim of ID is:

"The problem is too hard for us to figure out... so, therefore some GOD-like thing musta done it."

Math problem too hard to solve... God musta done it.

Don't know who took the cookie... God musta done it.

Not sure who the father is... God musta done it.

Sorry, not only is this not science... it's not even intelligent.

Life is complex... but lucky for us not "irreducibly." So, feel free to come to the grown-up table when you are willing to do the work to figure it. Otherwise, confine yourself to the FICTION section of the children's bookstore where everyone lives happily ever after.

How science gets swiftboated

Alex Hernandez — Wed, 30 Apr 2008 12:41:58 GMT

I can certainly understand why someone who's uneducated would buy into ID, but what boggles the mind is how scientists and other relatively well educated people can fall for this?

How science gets swiftboated

Jim, Wilmington, Delaware — Wed, 30 Apr 2008 12:46:34 GMT

The ID folks point at "theory" and say it's just a guess - not proven fact. Well lets get something straight about scientific theories. Theories use existing observations to explain something and also suggest experimentation to add to that understanding. Some theories have much to go in explaining things, such as the theory of dark matter. Others like the theory of gravity (remember it's just a theory, so hang on to something or you might fly off the earth!) are on very firm ground and have only the very fine details to fill in (not always easy). THe theory of evolution is a lot closer to the theory of gravity than dark matter. It's like a 5000 piece jig saw puzzle with 100 or so pieces missing and 100 or so pieces in the wrong place. Looking at it you see that it's a picture of an elephant, but the ID fanatics point to the missing and missplaced pieces and say "It's not complete, so it might be a picture of a tiger".

Religion is by it's nature unprovable and based on faith so the ID folks should stop trying to turn faith into fact just by saying it's so.

How science gets swiftboated

Karen, Md — Wed, 30 Apr 2008 12:52:17 GMT

ID is a plausible idea. But it's scientifically useless. To look at the unknowns of the world and decide that god musta done it gets you nowhere. It isn't provable, it isn't disprovable. What's a scientist to do - sit with their thumb in their [butt] and wherever there's a question worth exploring insert god instead of developing a theory useful for further research? Would we fund them for this? I'm thankful for all the scientists who have advanced our understanding of the universe by not stopping at God.

How science gets swiftboated

Henry Gibson — Wed, 30 Apr 2008 12:56:37 GMT

Many scientists and engineers have discovered and created pieces of almost pure silicon that allow computers and DVD players to have billions of transisitors, all working together, so that scientists can be portrayed as fools and talked about as fools on the Internet. Chlorine added to water according to the advise of medical scientists, including doctors, lenghtened the lives of more people than any other act including using antibiotics. Millions of children on this planet died in the past year, because of the lack of knowledge on their parents part that water everywhere is likely contaminated with deadly organisms. Most of these organisms can be removed by filtering through a simple but carefully designed bed of sand. Many of these children who do fall ill could be saved from death with a drink composed of a lot of water some sugar and even less salt...HG...

How science gets swiftboated

Todd, Bilerica, MA — Wed, 30 Apr 2008 12:57:40 GMT

Evolution can exist in the same world that God exists. I believe in both, so I believe evolution has taken place through the billions of years Earth has existed, and that God has helped the evolutionary process along.

How science gets swiftboated

gnomic — Wed, 30 Apr 2008 13:00:29 GMT

It amuses me that some people's faith is so weak that they need to manipulate science to support thier faith. A number of IDiots have tried convincing me of thier point of view; one actually said "If evolution is science than I have no use for science!" Faith is believing whatever you believe no matter what. Evolution does not invalidate the existance of god any more than me making fun of your imaginary friend does.

OH - on a related note - a number of scientists are demanding that the Heartland Institute remove thier names from a list of global warming deniers.

Science v. Religion, with torture in the background. Welcome to the new middle ages.

How science gets swiftboated

Ron St. Marie, Clearwater, Florida — Wed, 30 Apr 2008 13:01:04 GMT

When left-wing ideologues like Michael Moore and Al Gore play fast and loose with the facts to put out what are essentially propaganda films, the news radical left in the news media and Hollywood honor them and either overlook or make excuses for the untruths and exaggerations. That doesn't justify the fact that Ben Stein uses some of the same tactics but it should open the eyes of good people who want honest intellectual discussion of issues without the partisan lies and hyperbole that have become so commonplace, especially among the progressive-atheist crowd.

How science gets swiftboated

Mark Andersen,Perth,Western Australia — Wed, 30 Apr 2008 13:03:27 GMT

There's no reason to dilute scientific facts with religious Propaganda.
Fact is One Species isn't the answer its merely a reference point and shouldn`t be portrayed as the answer, like any scientific theory it's subject to on going scrutiny yet ID well don't see any scrutiny happening on that front correct me if I`am wrong..

How science gets swiftboated

Murdock — Wed, 30 Apr 2008 13:03:31 GMT

If you want your children to learn about religion....send them to church.

How science gets swiftboated

TheFallibleFiend, LORTON, VA — Wed, 30 Apr 2008 13:04:58 GMT

Evolution does not violate any known laws, including the laws of thermodynamics. Anyone who says otherwise has a comic-book understanding of thermodynamics:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lABiuUt-OT4

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=93pbJXJOmCU
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vcQedFSUIMA

Also, there are people who think that theories are
necessarily less certain than laws. That's just wrong.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XTaiP04UlxE

How science gets swiftboated

trob441, Harrisburg, PA — Wed, 30 Apr 2008 13:10:51 GMT

Oh let's glorify science- Those that brought to the world the woes of cyclamates, alar, mercury amalgams, radon, and the scare of DDT. Oh, and let's not forget the chicken littles and global warming. The wonders of concensus science never cease to amaze.

How science gets swiftboated

Paul Goode — Wed, 30 Apr 2008 13:12:12 GMT

"At the risk of offending my southern brothers, if you read through this blog you will find that generally, those defending this movie (and ID) are from the south."

John, I'm embarrassed to say that Seattle and Washington state appear to be well represented.

The ignorance of the scientific method and the misconception of theory shown here is appalling, more so because they come from intelligent people.

How science gets swiftboated

TheFallibleFiend LORTON, VA — Wed, 30 Apr 2008 13:13:20 GMT

[...] The logical support for Biological Evolution does not depend on evidence for abiogenesis any more than the logical support for protons depends on evidence for quarks. You establish an artificial standard for acceptance that is outrageously higher than that for any other branch of science. This is because you have a comic book understanding of science. You, like all of the evolution-deniers, have made up your mind, before you understand the least little thing about the theory. All you know is that disagrees with your Bible.

How science gets swiftboated

George, Greenville, SC — Wed, 30 Apr 2008 13:24:46 GMT

There should be a rule that any article that discusses evolution should first of all define what the word "evolution" means to them. Is it change over time, a principle of self organization, transference of genes between species, genetic drift, molecules to man? All of the above? Casting the debate as between science and religion is not particularly helpful either since those labels are not usually defined either.

How science gets swiftboated

Paul Goode — Wed, 30 Apr 2008 13:29:24 GMT

"Last time I checked, scientific theories are developed from the scientific process which involves the steps of research, problem hypothesis, experimentation, results."

You must not have checked in a while. A theory offers a unified explanation of an array of individual facts. Darwin based his Theory of Natural Selection on years of field observation but little actual lab work. The scientists who followed him did what good scientists do: They tested his theory in the lab. Their findings have refined Darwin's theory and filled in gaps, but have not disproved it. 160 years of research has strengthened the theory to the point that it has become accepted as scientific fact.

In everyday speech, the words "theory" and "opinion" are often used interchangeably. They are not interchangeable in research, where theories that have withstood generations of testing have great prestige, none more so than Darwin's Theory of Natural Selection.

How science gets swiftboated

Wrenn, Bear, DE — Wed, 30 Apr 2008 13:29:36 GMT

People
I just want to say one thing.
the word. THEORY. Its MEANING.

In English Class it means: A guess or conjecture.

In SCIENCE it has a *specific* meaning: A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena.

Conflating the two is what the ID proponents do to muddle the issue, again and again.

Before you throw around, yet again the "It's only a THEORY" realize what you are meaning, in a science setting. All you are doing is showing your lack of understanding of what the word means, and your lack of understanding of science.

How science gets swiftboated

Kenyon Curtis, Mesa, AZ — Wed, 30 Apr 2008 13:34:36 GMT

God has a place in Science. He has to since he created this perfect world for us. Everything he did was according to the laws of science. If science would embrace God today as it had in the past it would make far more progress than ever imagined. By denying God science is limiting itself.

O the vainness, and the frailties, and the foolishness of men! When they are learned they think they are wise, and they hearken not unto the counsel of God, for they set it aside, supposing they know of themselves, wherefore, their wisdom is foolishness and it profiteth them not. And they shall perish.

How science gets swiftboated

Carlton Lane, Kamuela, Hawaii — Wed, 30 Apr 2008 13:34:58 GMT

RATIONALITY
Does our universe have RATIONALITY or not? If not, then science, all other worthwhile human endeavors, and all contributions to this discussion are useless or a waste of time (although "waste" loses its usual meaning along with "time") and out of touch with this universe, our universe.
Any takers for that religion of ultimate dispair?
Scientists are dedicated to and science is about uncovering some of the rationality of our universe and could be classified as insane if their fundamental belief (religion) was that rationality does not exist. Our universe is seen, in Special and General Relativity, for example, as providing hard evidence that
it is not perverted or without ratioality and even prevents ultimate perversion, for example, by making reaching the maximum speed of light IMPOSSIBLE for anything with rest mass (has weight when at rest on, say, Earth).
Total randomness leaves no room for rationality. Valid Darwinian evolutionists, therefore, if not perverted themselves, do not say that there is no rationality, that it all happens by chance. Denying rationality, with "it's all by chance" becomes self-contradictory in that "it's all by chance" needs and wants to be rational, therefore, needing to be that which it says can't be.
If "intelligent design" means or is trying to point out or show that there is rationality in our universe, then its supporters would be well advised to choose a new title like "rationality exists". However, there will, most likely, still be some who will claim that such a title is "creationism" in a new disguise. One can always say that others are just playing word games.
Those who say that it's all pointless or without purpose have failed to see that such a claim flies in the face of any evidence of rationality. "Proving" purposlessness requires proving no rationality by the acceptabe definitions involved, but such definitions, themselves, rest on there being rationality. Indeed, it seems that our universe, when seen accurately, counters such perversions as claims of no rationality. Of course, one can play the ostrich by "putting one's head (intelligence) in the sand, thereby, refusing to see any rationality (charging lion?), but intelligent people are not ostrichs and refuse to be so blinded.

How science gets swiftboated

Sono — Wed, 30 Apr 2008 13:42:37 GMT

Faith in a holy cause is to a considerable extent a substitute for the lost faith in ourselves.

Religion was created by man in order to foster a social code of conduct for the masses. I don't really see how people can blindly follow the words of men from so long ago given the innumerable inconsistencies laced throughout historical accounts. Does it not strike anyone as unusual that all of the 'miracles' & Jesus 'magic' suddenly stopped occurring about the time better record keeping began to evolve?

How science gets swiftboated

Some guy — Wed, 30 Apr 2008 13:51:26 GMT

The problem that religion has with science is not that the scientific community is intelligent, but that they insist on proof for *everything*. While this is a necessary discipline in thier field, it does not apply to everything in life. Proof is not the be-all end-all of answers. They are stuck in a state where they cannot accept any proposition without facts to back it up. It is very sad. I pray for those people that they are able to get beyond their dependence on proof.

Also, science does not claim that they have all the answers, or even the right ones. But they do claim that all the answers can be found, and that in the end they will prove that there is no God - everything is explainable without relying on the "God" argument. This is the primary problem religion has with science - their ability to accept any hyposthesis as long as it rejects the idea of God (or an unknown).

How science gets swiftboated

God and Science — Wed, 30 Apr 2008 13:55:51 GMT

Rants against "auto-designed universe" have a big problem. Who designed the designer?

The problem is not with science, it's with the popular concept of God, which concept was manufactured by people a few thousand years ago before writing was invented.

If,as most people do, you begin by assuming the existence of God, it's incumbent on you to define God. Depending solely on where you were raised, you have a different defintion.

Some react by denying God. Some overreact by reaffirming the stories they were told as children. You should react by assuming that any human work may have flaws and seek a better definition of God than the Sunday-school tales you were told.

It's not easy. It should be worth the effort. Find out, "What is God?"

How science gets swiftboated

John Doe, Seattle, Wash. — Wed, 30 Apr 2008 14:03:32 GMT

Is your god so weak that he couldn't do what humans do? People manipulated reproduction to create new breeds of dogs, cattle, corn and any number of other species. Do you really think your god isn't smart enough to do that with people? Why do christians deny evolution when it is all around them? Why do they deny their god the right to run the world as he sees fit? So many deny the evidence he put in front of them and trust a fairy tale written a few thousand years ago by someone who couldn't have known any better. Finally, why gamble your entire religion in an argument you can't win? If your god is the creator and ruler of the universe and the salvation of men's souls, how does evolution threaten that? Are you going to give up being a christian if someone convinces you that evolution is real and ongoing? Is your god that weak or is your faith that weak?

How science gets swiftboated

Alex, Kansas City — Wed, 30 Apr 2008 14:08:03 GMT

I am so sick and tired of hearing the lame excuses and weak arguments that ID and relgious zealots keep putting out there in an attempt to brainwash people. Here it is in a nutshell....there is no such thing as god...get over it....move on and let's try to make this a better world. If we put as much effort into real science as we did into childish things like religion, just imagine where we would be...we might finally have our jet packs.

How science gets swiftboated

c, Durham, NC — Wed, 30 Apr 2008 14:16:51 GMT

A car in front of me this morning was driving quite slowly and I was in a hurry to get to work. The rear of this vehicle was peppered with bumper stickers about Darwin and Evolution.

At this point, I had a strong desire to run the car off the road because it was in my way. A smirk crossed my face as I imagined confessing to the driver that s/he was indeed right. I was the faster, stronger driver today. Too bad.

However, though, I did not run the car off the road. If indeed the scientists are correct, then I hope they can figure out which genes in my DNA are responsible for both my desire to run that car off the road and which ones made sure that I didn't!

How science gets swiftboated

Nate, Sycamore, IL — Wed, 30 Apr 2008 14:21:05 GMT

In Academia we are all too often guilty of professing tolerance for new ideas and points of view and then rejecting them as irrelevant and worthless. Evolutionary biologists must be secure enough in their own theories to accept the possibility that they may not have discovered "absolute truth" and that there still may be other answers to yet unsolved questions. Science is the pursuit of knowledge, and putting up walls and rejecting new ideas is in direct opposition to that goal.

In regard to the authors criticism of Stein showing connections between Darwinism and Nazism, you really need to do your homework before writing a story on this topic. Eugenics was a widely accepted "scientific" theory which had its philosophical origins in Darwin's work. It was in essence a theory of human evolution. Hitler and his party latched on to the ideas of Eugenics as part of their search for the "master race". Hence the connection drawn by Stein is quite appropriate as well as accurate. We also see in this example the dangers of holding so tightly to a single theory that we are blinded to its shortcomings as well as alternative explanations.

How science gets swiftboated

sean — Wed, 30 Apr 2008 14:30:10 GMT

I am agnostic and don't believe one way or the other and see thru the propaganda of religon. With that said.. does anyone including the people on this board seen thru the propaganda of atheists and scientist. Global warming is one such political proganda as is the big bang theory.

Don't believe me, why does one set of mathematics work to prove regular physics, but apply those mathematics to big bang it doesn't work. Then come up with a whole different set of mathematics and it proves big bang, but apply those new equations to regular physics and it does not translate.. it should seem that if one proves big bang, then the same set should fit into regular physics but it doesn't and they wont tell ya that.. propaganda!

I dont know if there is a so-called designer out there, but there may be a possibility. I am of one camp though.. with religon getting pushed out by the atheist and scientist.. despite the percenatge of bad things religon has done, society is going downhill and so are basic values.. and by that I mean respecting and caring about one-another.

I will be a logical person though....if religon can be blamed for the inquisition, pedephilia, and homosexual bashing.

why cannot atheism and science be blamed for naziism... whose archetects believed in sceintific eugenics and superior race thru science and holocost? Yes Hitler believed in a higher power, but a higher power of some other mystical race from rradings given by a psychic, not christian God.

How science gets swiftboated

Brian, Georgia — Wed, 30 Apr 2008 14:40:34 GMT

From Ashok:

"To the staunch evolutionist.... Can you be a little honest, and examine your theory closely, if you need help, then a really well educated evolutionist who saw the truth wrote a book. His name is Michael Denton. Google his name, find his book, read it, and then decide. There are many other books written by scientists like Johnathan wells "Icons of evolution", "Darwin strikes back" etc. Read a little and think, think think... It is healthy to think"

From Douglas Theobold, PhD (regarding Denton's Book):
Evolution: A Theory
in Crisis. This book is ridden with errors, false "facts," illogic, and uninformed dialectics. As one of a myriad of examples, immediately preceding the paragraph quoted by Camp above, Denton writes:
"There is another stringent condition which must be satisfied if a hierarchic pattern is to result as the end product of an evolutionary process: no ancestral or transitional forms can be permitted to survive." (Denton 1986, p. 136, emphasis in the original).
This is false and nicely illustrates the wanton ignorance concerning basic evolutionary concepts displayed in this book.

Wells' Book:
"Icons contains numerous instances of unfair distortions of scientific opinion, generated by the pseudoscientific tactics of selective citation of scientists and evidence, quote-mining, and "argumentative sleight-of-hand," the last meaning Wells's tactic of padding his topical discussions with incessant, biased editorializing. Wells mixes these ingredients in with a few accurate (but always incomplete) bits of science and proceeds to string together, often in a logically arbitrary fashion, a narrative that is carefully crafted to make the semblance of an honest case for Wells's central defamatory accusation: that mainstream biologists are "dogmatic Darwinists that misrepresent the truth to keep themselves in power" (pp. 242-243)."

All these authors' books have been shown as incorrect on evolution...

How science gets swiftboated

Mark C, Atlanta GA — Wed, 30 Apr 2008 14:41:47 GMT

*** Those who "swiftboated" Sen. John F. Kerry had the truth on their side... ***

And the brainwashing continues.

How science gets swiftboated

Jeff, Troy, NY — Wed, 30 Apr 2008 14:48:28 GMT

One of the major stumbling blocks of this arguement is the nature of science itself. It makes one take note of a conclusion, and causes you to reverse engineer the equation to give you the ingredients to provide the answer.

The pursuit of faith is inherently opposite. We then draw our "why" conclusion based on the information we have in hand. Since science is an ego-centric pursuit, we assume we have all the knowledge necessary (also called arrogance/ignorance) to make the pieces fit until something else comes along and fits better, like the flat earth believers back in the day.

Scientists just can't stand the thought of not being able to come up with a "reasonable" explanation for the complexities of our world. Just think of it as a test where all the answers have been given, all you have to do is justify the means to make the end look plausible. If that is how faith worked, evryone would be doing it.

My only problem is how theories get portrayed as fact to children who then become indoctrinated into the religion of science. Religion is by defintion...

1. a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, esp. when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.
2. a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects.
3. the body of persons adhering to a particular set of beliefs and practices.
4. the life or state of a monk, nun, etc.
5. the practice of religious beliefs; ritual observance of faith.
6. something one believes in and follows devotedly; a point or matter of ethics or conscience.

While I am all for research and understanding, I do not appreciate having the religion of science shoved down the throats of the public - done with their own tax dollars by the way - anymore than the the naysayers who don't want any other supernatural being shoved down theirs.

Remember - science is a state sponsored religion.

So while no one here has ever witnessed a star being formed, been able to explain precisely how the convention of angular momentum works when we have moons, planets and galaxies that rotate counter to each other, or how the fossil record shows the gaps it does with huge leaps in evolution, I will take my book of eyewitness accounts to various events in history that are currently being archeologically validated and go home.

Peace be with you.

How science gets swiftboated

jb - usa — Wed, 30 Apr 2008 14:48:32 GMT

"Why should theism be considered out of bounds in science"

Mr. Hensley, perhaps it should not. The first step you may want to take is proving scientifically that God exists.

How science gets swiftboated

Mark C, Atlanta HA — Wed, 30 Apr 2008 14:53:03 GMT

*** Oh let's glorify science- blah blah blah, (insert random b.s. establish the poster's profound scientific ignorance here. ****

Science, brainiac, is almost certainly the reason you exist (not to mention are able to post in this forum, the existence of which is dependent on thousands of scientific discoveries).

Without science either you or one of your ancestors would never have survived childhood, but died from childhood disease or starvation.

What a fool believes.

How science gets swiftboated

MTC — Wed, 30 Apr 2008 14:56:52 GMT

There are a handful of studies that attempt to see if God does exist and answers people's prayers. One studied had a group of people undergoing the same surgery. One group was a control- no praying and no telling the patient that people prayed for them. The second was where people prayed for the patient, but the patient was not told he was being prayed for. The third group was people who were not prayed for, but told they were being prayed for. The last group were those that were prayed for and were told that they were being prayed for. What they found was amazing: those that were told they were being prayed for and were being prayed for had a statistically significant INCREASE in mortality than all other groups. The other groups had no difference between them.

How science gets swiftboated

Mark C, Atlanta GA — Wed, 30 Apr 2008 14:59:17 GMT

Lets see, scientists in the early 20th century created quantum mechanics. I wonder if they would have done so had they known that it would eventually be used to create semiconductors, then the Internet, on which double-digit-IQ wastes if oxygen could sit in their parents' basement all day and post about how dumb scientists are?

How science gets swiftboated

Billy Bob, Seattle Washington — Wed, 30 Apr 2008 15:02:53 GMT

> However, we are aware that no "specie jumps" have ever been documented, which leads to questions about evolution theory.

Not true. Speciation has been scientifically documented in both plants and animals--in both the lab and in the field. Proven. With three-dimensional evidence and such.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html

Of course, this is a dishonest argument by the creationists, because the creationist faithful play doubting Thomas and demand ever-increasing measures. A popular sermon trick is to move the yardstick from speciation to getting a "cat from a dog" or for "lightning to bring mud to life." They don't want scientific evidence. They don't even want miracles. They want some deity to make their fears go away.

So much follows from this:

1. There is no such thing as a difference between "micro-evolution" and "macro-evolution." They are both technically true, because they are just one thing, evolution. However, scientists don't use these terms. These are pseudoscientific terms made up by religious folk to hedge their bets. This is sort of like telling a kid that the easter bunny must be in the closet because he never sees him show up in the living room.

2. Speciation is real and scientifically documented. You could even do it yourself if you liked.

What surprises me is how willing the faith community is to bet the farm on a pseudoscientific theory like ID. I mean, when it continues to predict nothing and evaporate, the religious community will have lost yet again. After all, much of the "science" that was proven wrong earlier was religious dogma. The Church fragmented and splintered. Meanwhile, science, with its built-in critiquing, carried on and grew.

How science gets swiftboated

Benjamin F. — Wed, 30 Apr 2008 15:05:52 GMT

trob441-

Lets indeed glorify science. Telescopes that can peer back to the beginnings of the universe, instantaneous world wide communication, space ships that can take man to the Moon, physics that can unleash the power of the atom (admittedly for good and bad), machines that have progressed agriculture so as to feed the world, to say nothing of the wonders of modern medicine.

Feel free to build yourself a nice little cabin in the woods, or live in a cave and try to revert back 400, 1,000, 2,000 years ago, or to whatever age it is you feel good about without all that nasty science. For me, I recognize that it is indeed the 21st century, and am gratefull for the comfortable life that science has helped provide for me.

How science gets swiftboated

Steven Sullivan, New York, NY — Wed, 30 Apr 2008 15:06:32 GMT

A lot of you here -- the ones who obviously don't understand what science is, what 'theory' means in science, what evolution is, what constitutes scientific evidence, how the laws of physics relate to biology -- need to educate yourselves before you spout off. You won't get that education by memorizing "Intelligent Design' literature handed out at your churches...or by watching cinematic lies like 'Expelled'

Instead, start here
http://www.talkorigins.org

in particular see the link to '5 Major Misconceptions about Evolution"

How science gets swiftboated

Joe Smith, Canada — Wed, 30 Apr 2008 15:07:43 GMT

ID fails a basic test in that it can't be tested, whereas evolution CAN and has (and is able to predict observations made in nature with astonishing accuracy). But anyway...

(1) ALL of the cases presented in Expelled of persecution against ID adherents in academia were revealed to be shams or misleading. You can Google for the truth behind these made-up stories.

(2) The company behind Expelled is facing legal action from a number of parties for using music and illustrations in the movie either without attribution (plagiarism) or without permission (theft).

(3) Social Darwinism was but a small part of the Nazi's inspiration. Most of their virulent anti-semitism came directly from the anti-Jewish legacy of Lutheran Christianity and the earlier history of violent German Jew-hatred that goes back to the Crusades. As for the Soviets, they were actually rabidly anti-evolution, a fact well-attested in Communist philosophy that Expelled just ignores.

How science gets swiftboated

John W., Raleigh, NC — Wed, 30 Apr 2008 15:08:33 GMT

ID folks have set out a hypothesis that says the universe is too complex to have developed randomly, therefore an intelligent designer (God) must have created it. The scientific method is to put forth a hypothesis and then either prove or disprove it. If the ID community wants to show that their hypothesis is science then they should use the scientific method to prove it.

How science gets swiftboated

Gneiss Guy — Wed, 30 Apr 2008 15:14:47 GMT

I grew up in the church and it still plays a large role in my life to day; however, I am also a scientist by education and trade. Those two aspects of my life do not conflict with one anouther. My belief in God does not change my understanding of how our little corner of the universe works. Personaly I believe that if there is a God and he is powerful enough to have created this entire universe that operates according to the laws of science, why would he not have created it using those same laws instead of by something approaching "magic", ie the entire universe just springing into existance fully formed 8,000 years ago. That being said I guess I must admit to personnally beleiving in something akin to ID, but by no means do I think it should ever be taught as an alternative to science. It should be left to the individual to come to that conclusion based on their understanding of science and their understanding of religion.
When you get to the bottom line, what does it matter if everybody in the world believes that God is behind the scenes pushing some species or scientific developements forward in one way or the other? What do we gain from proving that, other than wasting finite research $$. The last time I checked God wasn't getting ready to come in and solve all of our problems that we are looking to science to solve, instead he made us capable of understanding and using science to save ourselves. The world would be a better place if all people would stop worrying about making their neighbors all beleive what they beleive, and instead spend that time and energy perfecting their own personal/spiritual relationships.

How science gets swiftboated

FormFactor, south florida — Wed, 30 Apr 2008 15:25:42 GMT

The pisser in this debate is the persistent, mantra like claim that "mainstream science" is objective.

Here's the reality: scientists are human beings. They're as prejudiced, defensive, weasily, overly sensitive and screwed up as everyone else. And they're as capable of rising above their faults as the rest of us which is to say, not very.

Dawkins, Myers, Dennett, Eugenie Scott and the hilariously chimp-eared Sam Harris are always eager to demonstrate this ugly fact. The ID crowd has its own examples, of course. On the whole, though, the pro darwin side has a near monopoly on slanted science due to obvious personal issues with the idea of a creator.

ID will continue to gain ground if only because there's only so long one can continue to deny the obvious.

How science gets swiftboated

Brad — Wed, 30 Apr 2008 15:25:56 GMT

What the ID supporters tend to assume is that science excludes God or a creator. It doesn't. What science is about is observation, forming a hypothesis and then trying to DISPROVE that hypothesis. All scientific theory accepts that an experiment could disprove it at any time, at which point a new hypothesis needs to be developed based on the new information. To date, evolution has held up pretty well, and has been modified based on new information. Much of Darwin's theory has in fact been discarded by modern science as new information has clarified how evolution really works.

As for Intelligent Design? Well, how do we test it? What experiment would we perform to determine it's validity? This is why ID falls outside the realm of science. It is based on faith and cannot by definition be tested. That doesn't mean it is true, nor does it mean it is not true. It means that science has nothing whatsoever to say about it.

Creationism's place is in religious institutions, where they teach matters of faith. Science classrooms are for scientific theory.

How science gets swiftboated

Mike Coville, Orlando, FL — Wed, 30 Apr 2008 15:38:17 GMT

After seeing this movie and reading your review I am convinced you have not seen this movie, come on - tell the truth - all you did was read other reviews by liberal Darwinists and then slept in.

"Let those that have ears hear and those with eyes see"

Your review should be labeled "How to build a strawman for the Expelled movie so we don't have to consider its truth". That is what you achieve with this article.

[Alan adds: Sheesh, now I have to prove I saw the movie? Should I scan in my ticket stub (which I'm saving to get reimbursed) and the 15 pages of notes I scribbled in the dark? (... including a couple of mix-ups I've since corrected.) I admit I do think of that quote from Mark 4 a lot myself: "He that hath ears to hear, let him hear ... Seeing they may see, and not perceive; and hearing they may hear, and not understand." That applies not only to the Word of God, but also to the evidence for the workings of the universe. ... Sorry for getting all biblical here...]

How science gets swiftboated

Jonas, Colo Springs, CO — Wed, 30 Apr 2008 15:41:25 GMT

[...] First of all Einstein NEVER accepted a personal God, in fact he openly refuted the notion. Look it up. Secondly, subscribing to the Big Bang theory in only indicative of a personal God if an observer is predisposed to believe such an entity exists. To scientists, what preceeded the Big Bang represents a new and exiting scientific frontier. Legitimate scientists accept the idea that not all things can be immediately explained and understood. So they log overtime hours at the University lab. When others cannot comprehend and cannot resign themselve to not having an answer, they open their Bibles and they have the answer. To say that a sovereign entity is the only explanation for the Big Bang and the origin of life if a cop out. And for you to indicate that it is somehow the only conclusion that analysts of the Big Bang have arrived at reflects your own extreme ignorace of current research. Science is not static, the Bible on the other hand is. Also, before you try and use Einstein to purport your misguided ideas, you should really take the time to understand who the man was and what he believe. He fudged [...] to make his incomplete theory complete. That was stupid of him no doubt. But the only thing that it is indicative of is that Einstein was a fallible man (as are we all) not that a personal God created the universe. Your argument, as articulate and seemingly well informed as it is, fails ultimately because it reverts to the finite answer 'God did it'.

Here is what the quiz would look like if you where ther teacher

1) the universe came into being because ________ made it so.

2) life came into being because ________ made it so.

answers: 1) God 2) God

How science gets swiftboated

Marc, Atlanta — Wed, 30 Apr 2008 15:45:06 GMT

I am an aetheist, and evolutionary biologist. A few points.
1) Neither I nor any other educator I know of ever uses evolution to "disprove" God. It is simply not possible nor is it appropriate.
2) 1) nothwistandng, there is simply no credibility to ID, in contrast to the 1000's of developmental, genetic, paleontological, geological studies that establish the principles of evolution. Every seeming contradiction in evolutionary theory can be (in some cases) easily resolved. There are quite a few good sources on this-I won't go into details.
3) Therefore, arguing for balance in teaching ID in a classroom is inappropriate. The existence of a designer cannot be be in anyway tested, and evolution is necessary and sufficient to explain biological processes.
4) Intellectual freedom therefore means one simply has to acknowledge that neither evolution nor belief in god is an argument against the other.
5) I don't like Dawknis either (see point 4)
6) Comments from several posters notwithstanding-if you do not accept the primacy of evolutionary "theory" (point 2)-you simply do not deserve a PhD in any area of biology. Further, any acceptance of ID seriously imperils your understanding of the scientific method or your capacity to separate your religions beliefes from a thought system that can deal w/explaining the material world. That is why ID should not be allowed in a science class.

How science gets swiftboated

Johnny Doe, Seattle, Wash. — Wed, 30 Apr 2008 15:45:43 GMT

Where did life on earth come from? Richard Dawkins states unequivocally that life could not be the product of some cosmic creator (God.) Rather, it is more likely that the world was visited by some higher alien intelligence. Go figure.

How science gets swiftboated

Billy Bob, Seattle Washington — Wed, 30 Apr 2008 15:46:51 GMT

As a side note, I find it sad that the fringe of the religious community that accepts creationism/ID (the great majority does not) abdicates their right to critique evolutionary practices like genetic engineering. Since evolution can't "exist," and since the resultant speciation "isn't happening," there is nothing to critique or intervene in. I, for one, would welcome their perspective on these matters. Heck, we need the religious community to get involved in things like gene patenting, the destruction of indigenous (read: conservative) biological practices, etc. Without acknowledging the root of these practices (evolutionary tinkering), these communities cannot create a coherent voice, much less a critique. Holding one's breath and hoping it isn't real does not count.

How science gets swiftboated

Matt Smith — Wed, 30 Apr 2008 15:47:33 GMT

Many of you should be ashamed. You have absolutely no understanding of Science. It is a discipline, following specific procedures to enable reproducibility in order that we can dispense with faith, replacing it with PROOF. Several of you don't understand specific scientific terminology. Words with specific definitions in a scientific context. This is not poetry, open to interpretation. It is communication designed to be unambiguous. Try "Theory" as in "Theory of Gravity" or "Theory of Evolution." "Theory" to scientists means a "Hypothesis" that has been severely tested and stands up under that mountain of evidence. Unless it has been broadly and well tested, it remains a hypothesis. A Theory is much stronger than a hypothesis because of all the reproducible evidence. If a hypothesis cannot be tested, it cannot become a Theory. Intelligent Design makes no predictions that can be tested, therefore it cannot be a Theory. ID has a proper place in Human studies: philosophy. It is not science because it does not employ the scientific method.
A few of you have brought up the argument that people once thought that the Earth was flat. Not everybody thought that, and long before Christianity pushed this idea on some of us, the ancient Greeks knew the world was round. They had evidence, the shadow of the Earth on the moon and the differing length of shadows of identically sized and shaped objects at different places on the Earth on the same date at the same time. Religion has done much to destroy the work of science in the name of political control. This is the basis for contention between religion and science. Science and religion are not mutually exclusive, as many intelligent people have pointed out. I suspect a few of you are confusing this contention with the seperation of Church and State, which is a law in the United States, written for good reason: to fight against one group intellectually controlling and stifling all of us. Science requests that we think for ourselves logically and critcally and put the claims of others to rigorous testing. Is this not sane?

How science gets swiftboated

AJ, Minneapolis, MN — Wed, 30 Apr 2008 15:54:25 GMT

IDers don't believe that the fossil record was put in place at the time of creation. They believe that the fossil record was created as a result of a cataclysmic global flood.

If you're going to critique your enemy, at least do so knowing your enemy's real position on the issues.

How science gets swiftboated

greg, pinecrest fl — Wed, 30 Apr 2008 16:01:24 GMT

lame article. your definition of intelligent design as -so complex that it can only be attributed to an intelligent designer- is not as I understand the theory. "irreducible complexity" was the theory on which this was based. this states that machines(biological or otherwise) require a MINIMUM of parts to still operate. you can only reduce the amount of parts to its essential components. if on of these is missing the machine wil no longer be able to operate. it deserves thought and analysis and should not be pooh-poohed by scientists.

I think this was Mr. Steins point.

How science gets swiftboated

Roger, Poland, ME — Wed, 30 Apr 2008 16:03:00 GMT

ID is the ultimate conceit. "If I can't understand it right here, right now, then it must be inherently beyond the scope of human knowledge... so it must be God's, or at one time, Gods', work." ID is also a form of innumeracy. All the justifications for ID that I've seen, fail in recognizing the scope of time and operators involved. The laws of thermodynamics apply only to a closed system. If you find life on the Sun, then the laws of thermodynamics might be legitimately used as evidence of divine design. Lastly, all the research presented in "An Inconvienient Truth" is from diverse sources, reproducible, has been subjected to peer review, and has a scope of 650,000 years. Besides, I'm morally certain that the universe was created by the Flying Spaghetti Monster, and this view should be represented in any reasonable science education.

How science gets swiftboated

Ken, Portland, Oregon — Wed, 30 Apr 2008 16:06:37 GMT

WOW! How sad.
I seem to be of a very small minority (perhaps I'm the only one) that believes both theories are correct. As in, one and the same. I am a Christian, I believe in evolution. Now, loads of people (from both sides) will tell me that my school of thought is impossible. That's your opinion - although I would prefer you kept it to yourself, you obviously can't, so blast away.
I once left a church when I found out that the members perceived me as a non-christian. When I told them that I was a Christian, their reply; "you only think you're a Christian". ????????????
I left an astronomy club because a small group of atheists couldn't keep to themselves about how stupid Christians were. I got tired of hearing and seeing it, so I left.
You guys fight all you want. I'm gonna start a new church, call it 'Evolutionary Christians' and when we're in church, we'll read the Bible (with a capital B).

How science gets swiftboated

Michael Wawra, Glendale, CA — Wed, 30 Apr 2008 16:11:16 GMT

Why is it so hard for the IDs to visualize science and religion as seperate things? Just chill people. It's really simple.

How science gets swiftboated

Tom, Orion MI — Wed, 30 Apr 2008 16:23:46 GMT

Obviously, both sides are passionate about the topic, as we're all human beings. Atheists (scientifically speaking, agnostics) are not science-loving robots of pure logic, and the religious (ie Christians to most here) are not perfectly righteous, humble, forgiving beings turning the other cheek.

As a Christian, I do believe that ID doesn't belong in the science classroom...and doesn't need to be. Christians shouldn't need it to be there to believe it's truth. On the flip side, the religious among us should be allowed to skip a few test questions relating to the big bang or evolution in keeping with our beliefs. There, no one pushes beliefs onto anyone else in the classroom.

Personally, I've been a science-lover my whole life and a Christian my whole life (though I skipped church for 10 years). I enjoy astronomy as a hobbie and reading articles and discussing topics on the subject of our beginnings. I've been a part of atheist usenet groups that, ironically, grew my faith during my 10 year hiatus from church.

I really don't believe there'd be an argument if someone were to truly disprove God or design or creation. But, there will always be the disconnect between scientific theories of origin and religious beliefs of origin primarily because science exists to observe the natural world and religion exists to keep us focused on the "supernatural" world.

On a personal level, I think it's unfair and incorrect:
1. to say IDers or creationists all believe in a 6000 year-old world
2. to say IDers don't like science
3. to equate ID with Christian creationism.

Anyway, after a short life of being a Christian and enjoying science, I'm left wondering:
1. if parallel universes is an invented scientific idea (bordering on faith-based) to counter the fact that our observable universe is perfect for life
2. why there are no reproducable scientific answers as to exactly how reproducing life began

That's all for now.

How science gets swiftboated

Branden Gemzer — Wed, 30 Apr 2008 16:27:17 GMT

My real problem with the I.D. crowd is the insistence that it is a scientific theory or has a place in science. It seems a matter of faith. Real and strong faith would not be threatened by advancements in structural knowledge. Its like the difference between art and how to make art. Science in a strong fashion is the understanding of the brush stroke, color mixtures and the like. But the purpose of art, what aristotle called the final cause, is more ambiguous with our current understanding. Suffice it to say, I believe fighting over such things is ridiculous. I dont know that a world without religion would be desireable, but a world without religious conflicts, including the none-of-the-above option of atheists, would definitely be great.

How science gets swiftboated

Eric Joseph, Middletown, NY — Wed, 30 Apr 2008 16:30:00 GMT

Bill from washington, sorry bro but this is about the dumbest thing I have ever read...

""" I think we should have a TV vote on the whole issue (which night would be best?)like on Idle American (w/o Simon or Paula, although I think she's hot). Callers could call in to one number for "Yes, I beleive in Evolution" or another number to say "No, I don't ..." No numbers or theories, or even facts. Just good old American Common Sense. That would be both fair and settle it forever. The vote would be binding and everyone would be forced to go along with the results. Then we could have real democratic science for the People and by the People; the way God intended science to be when he invented it. Science and stuff is too important to be left to scientists and people of learning. Just because science can send a satillite across the solar system, clone living animals and create nuclear weapons, we better not trust it on this one. Power to the People through TV"""

Bill, Washington (Sent Tuesday, April 29, 2008 8:16 PM)

Science shouldnt be left to scientists and people of learning lolol who should it be left to mcdonalds fry cooks and ignorant people?!?!? Its not as if its an exclusive club or noone has access to what the fundamentals of the scientific process are....you can and i do question alot of what comes from the current thinking or understanding in science. I think in a lot of cases the analysis of any given data is either narrow or flawed, it doesnt take a degree or an exclusive membership card to think and question.

The problem with Intelligent Design is that until you can come up with quantifiable/qualitative measures you cannot put it in the realm of science. Its really that simple. it does not mean there is no god or that the fundamental beliefs underlying religious belief systems are wrong, it just means it currently lies outside the realm of scientific inquiry.

I vehemently deny the existence of a god but I cannot provide any evidence one way or another using the scientific process. Whats more important i think is that as much as I do not believe I am capable of understanding that I might be wrong....about the existence of god and everything and anything else I might think or believe. Regardless of what your views and beliefs may be, can you say the same? To me its more important to be openminded and question all things around you including yourself than it is to be right or wrong. Everyone needs to stop trying to make everyone else think and believe what they believe and start trying to teach people, especially children to seek out knowledge and truth with an open inquisitive mind and let them come to there own conclusions.....

[Alan adds: For the record, it was clear to me that Bill's original comment was tongue-in-cheek]

How science gets swiftboated

Patrick, Woodland, WA — Wed, 30 Apr 2008 16:33:21 GMT

I really love how the media grabs onto the latest "flavor of the month" word like "swiftboated" I mean seriously, can't we come up with anything more original than some special interest groups moniker that kept us with Bush for four more horrid years?

Thanks for another reminder of why this country is so bad off right now.

How science gets swiftboated

Mark G, Winchester, KY — Wed, 30 Apr 2008 16:36:13 GMT

Please everyone stop all the posturing. Post one convincing proof of your side of the evolution debate.

Darwin concluded that the different species evolved, one into the next over a long period of time. He recognized that the fossil record unearthed in his day was very incomplete and lacking examples of the millions of transitional forms that would have been necessary for one species to be transformed into another. He expected that as more and more fossils were uncovered that his theory would be confirmed. However, 150 years later these millions of transitional forms are nowhere to be found among the vast catalog of fossils discovered and studied since then. Instead, the fossil record only contains an amazing variety of unique species. Occasionally, much is made of a 'missing link' in the accepted chain of evolutionary mutations. Someone will find what they describe as a half bird-half lizard or some such. (Sometimes these 'finds' are discredited later but we rarely hear of that in the press.) But why aren't we finding literally hundreds and thousands of transitional forms? It would take thousands of forms to get from a lizard to a bird, or vis-versa. :<) After 150 years of fossil digging, we can't find any more than a handful? Because of this and other logical problems (for which there is no time to list) I doubt the current evolutionary theory. I remain unconvinced.

Sadly, in the typical science classroom these logical problems are rarely talked about. The accepted dogma of current science is the only thing presented in texts and the data that doesn't support this idea is never exposed so that the student can wrestle with the real issues. All too often we produce a classroom of parrots instead of critical thinking individuals!

How science gets swiftboated

Robert — Wed, 30 Apr 2008 16:58:32 GMT

We have to draw a line somewhere in the classroom. If we decide to teach ID as an alternative to Evolution, then who can say we shouldn't teach Nazism as an alternative to Democracy? How about teaching Genocide as an alternative to tolerance of other races? Where do you want to go from here? Do you REALLY trust teachers in all classrooms enough to make the right decisions on how far to go when instructing on alternative choices to scientific or social subjects? Common sense says, as we have said thousands of times before, that religion is a very private choice that should remain outside of mainstream educational curriculums. Families and individuals, along with their religious leaders and churches should be handling this in private life. Our forefathers knew exactly what they were doing when they separated government and religion. Let's quit second-guessing this? It's so tiring to hear this argument brought up over and over and over. Go to school. Go to church. Try to get along? We have enormous challenges ahead of us for the entire world. It's too bad that religious groups cannot put down the boxing gloves and help out.

How science gets swiftboated

Robert Memphis,TN — Wed, 30 Apr 2008 17:11:35 GMT

Faith is the substance of things hoped for and the evidence of things not seen. I believe in a God that created the Heavens and the earth. The evidence of the Heavens and the earth is for all to see. The interpretation of that evidence is the only area that is brought into question. Some scientists and people alike may say that they interpret only according to facts and that faith plays no part in their assessment of those facts. I beg to differ with that opinion. By the very nature of knowledge it is based on the assertation and accumulation of what is true and what is untrue. Scientists use faith whether they believe so or not. As a matter of fact they better be right about there being no God, otherwise the whole entire scientific community will find out that their so called evidence was nothing more than a false faith.

How science gets swiftboated

Eric, Camarillo, CA — Wed, 30 Apr 2008 17:13:51 GMT

There certainly seems to be a disparity when there is a film made supporting science or religion. If you support science, as in this film it is viewed as being godless and immoral, on the other side you are viewed as being ill informed and ignorant for the sake of blind faith.

They are both important for the following reasons:
1. Science explains the world we live in and how we interact with it.
2. Religion (Faith) explains what science cannot.

We would not have one without the other, however one should be taught in science class and the other in philosphy.
There is a middle ground and science has told me that is where I should be, and my beliefs told I should stay there.

How science gets swiftboated

Radagast, NY, USA — Wed, 30 Apr 2008 17:25:03 GMT

There are obviously a lot of people commenting that still miss the point of the contreversy. Scientists are not blocking the study of intelligent design simply because it does not agree with some purported world view they hold. The people who have produced the few scant bits of data in an attempt to prove ID have simply not made their case on a scientific level. Their data has been shown to be faulty, or otherwise inconclusive in the support of their theory. They can study it all they want, but any new theory, especially one that goes against a century of evidence and powerful new techniques, has an uphill battle in science (whether we talk about evolution or what causes earthquakes).

No, the real controversy is that failing to gain support through scientific means these IDers have sought to create a religious controversy by lying, usurping the scientific method, the use of propaganda films, the courts and our school boards to try to force their unsubstantiated views on a generation of young people and those who are otherwise not schooled in science. This is not only disturbing to people of reason, but it is iresponsible, overtly aggressive, disingenuous, dishonest, and malicious.

That is why people of reason all over the country are up in arms. That is why they have begun to take a more hardline stance against ID. It is not science, it does not conduct itself like science. It conducts itself like a pseudo religious/political organization.

How science gets swiftboated

Chris, Jainesville, FL — Wed, 30 Apr 2008 17:26:56 GMT

"Expelled" argues against the censorship on any voice that questions Darwinian Science in the classroom.

Darwinian Evolution is racist. It states that women and black people somehow were lesser evolved.

How science gets swiftboated

Radagast, NY — Wed, 30 Apr 2008 17:33:23 GMT

trob441 - Science did not bring you radon. It is a natural gas given off by bedrock, that's why it's in your basement. Science did bring you the computer you type on and the vaccines that keep so many children alive through infancy. Science also brought us stronger buildings, the ability to fly, access to space, safer and better boats...should I go on? The few feeble things you have listed pale in comparison to the good that logic and understanding have brought to our world.

clue up guy.

How science gets swiftboated

Nathan, — Wed, 30 Apr 2008 17:38:19 GMT

[...] i am sad to hear such stupid people in my country speak.. when God handed out brains many did hear trains.. and so they asked for a slow one...

How science gets swiftboated

Philip — Wed, 30 Apr 2008 17:42:28 GMT

microevolution is observable fact, but in and of itself does not prove macroevolution. the fossil record, which darwin himself said would prove macroevolution, clearly does not prove anything of the sort. unless macroevolution were observable (i.e. through the fossil record) it cannot be proven a fact. microevolution does not prove macroevolution. microevolution is species adapting within predetermined genetic limits DESIGNED for survival of a species. what the scientific gestapo doesn't want to do is to distinguish between the two. they cling to the one as proof of the other, when observable EVIDENCE shows that the one does not prove the other, or even support it.

oh and by the way Darwin was not a Christian but an avowed atheist til his deathbed.

How science gets swiftboated

KVG, Golden Valley, MN — Wed, 30 Apr 2008 17:44:46 GMT

I really only have one question for Ben & his fellow IDers. Since the very fact that nature so complex is the argument in favor of ID shouldn't the very fact that an IDer would have to be even more advanced & complex to direct the development of life & nature mean that the IDer was so complex in itself that it had to be created by a SUPER IDer? Etc. Etc. Etc.
Only when religious orginizations start to teach the theory of evolution in the church side by side with creationism, without casting any dispersions on evolution & without promoting creationism as the "ONLY TRUTH", should we even consider mentioning ID in schools & it shouldn't even be mentioned then unless ID can be tested & measured in some way. And sorry to all you IDers out there but just because the Bible says so DOESN'T make it true.

How science gets swiftboated

Julia, Des Moines, IA — Wed, 30 Apr 2008 17:46:53 GMT

I find it amazing that all, without exception, of the people who are taking issue with ID and wanting to bannish it from public discourse have not brought up one single piece of evidence in your favor, nor any evidence that that seems to support evolution. Those who would disallow ID do not do so on the basis of finding facts, but on the reputation on other scientists who advocate evolution.

When there is an argument over origins, there can be no proof whatsoever, because there is no one alive that can testify to any facts. We can only look at evidence and make a conjecture, based on the knowledge we have. Some look at the amazing circumstances of our universe, galaxy, and solar system and are awed by how it is put together. To say that an intelligent being must have done it is not outside of logical thought; not at all.

My main point is, though, that we need to stop trash-talking each other, and actually discuss this rationally, looking at the evidence and not go off on unscientific tangents about who believes what, and what has been 'proven' and how "uneducated" the opposition is.

How science gets swiftboated

Robert, Baltimore, Maryland — Wed, 30 Apr 2008 17:54:53 GMT

The biggest problem with the Creation theory is that who created God? There is no tangible proof of the existence of a Creator, while there is plenty to support evolution.

How science gets swiftboated

Mark Brown, Portland OR — Wed, 30 Apr 2008 18:17:27 GMT

We could just ignore the ignorant people, but there are so many of them! Education separate from any religous teaching is necessary if we are to continue to advance and evolve as a species.

How science gets swiftboated

William, NJ — Wed, 30 Apr 2008 19:07:14 GMT

Why is that that ID supporters cant seem to grasp that the reason their ideas are rejected is because their ideas are unverifiable? The basic concept of science and of all discovery is that you must be able to provide supporting evidence and that someone else must be able to test your theory and evidence? I can say the world was created by the flying spaghetti monster and I can write a thesis that says he did it because I say so, but that doesn't mean anyone is obligated to give me the time of day.

If I can provide evidence that the FSM created the world, then the scientific community should hear me out. If I can not, then they aren't obligated to include my theory alongside theirs. Therein lies the achilles heel of ID. They say :it's so complicated, let's stop trying to figure it out, some more powerful being must've done it, and then that's it. No more research, you just stop asking, stop looking, stop researching. That's not science. That's giving up because it's too hard.

And there's no real reason why anyone should have to listen to someone who doesn't have any evidence to back up their beliefs. This brings me to a problem I have with religion in general. If you believe something is so, you either believe it because you have facts and evidence or because you have faith. The definition of faith is belief without proof (or in the face of proof you are wrong). If followers of religion follow because of faith then by definition they admit theree is no evidence to prove that anything in their holy books is factual.

So if you have no proof, why am I supposed to follow your rules or believe what you believe? Feel free to believe if you want, but don't think you have any right to impose your faith on me.

How science gets swiftboated

Mike Briggs, Indiana, Pennsylvania — Wed, 30 Apr 2008 19:12:05 GMT

Robert,

This ia a wonderful piece of writing on your part. I agree that the creationists have gone too far and, in a sense, cut God into a pale replica of his true power to create. By making the argument that God could not possibly have used evolution as a tool of creation, they minimize the very God they are trying to worship.
I am a worshipper of God and I feel that He may have used evolution as a tool of creation. But most importantly, He has commanded us to study his creation and see his personality in it. The creationists see to be doing just the opposite by looking at creation and saying God could not create that way ... !

Mike Briggs
Professor of Chemistry

How science gets swiftboated

Joe, Chicago, IL — Wed, 30 Apr 2008 19:15:17 GMT

I don't believe human thinking can totally comphrend God.

How science gets swiftboated

Brandon, Tucson, AZ — Wed, 30 Apr 2008 19:20:07 GMT

The one thing that Expelled does is show how Science is hypocritical. You can't say, ask ALL the questions, and then say, except these ones. The truth is that Darwin was wrong. There IS MICRO evolution, but not MACRO evolution. Animals, grow, change color, slight shape, but a bird is not a fish, and never will be, it is flawed. Darwin get's a bad rap for being the face of Athiest's desires to DISPROVE GOD. If they would follow the evidence, and be unbiased, we could have conversations. Unfortunately, Dawkins, etc simply resort to elementary insults, that religious people are "ignorant, retarded, etc" instead of admitting that the theory that they are making their own religion has more flaws than there being a God who had a hand in all this!

How science gets swiftboated

Derick — Wed, 30 Apr 2008 19:36:52 GMT

First of all, whether you believe ID or not, your beliefs are opinions. I absolutely love how people who constantly refer to themselves as an intellectual elite, seem to be completely unable to consider the fact that science is not absolute. Science is constantly evolving. Read a book once in a while, in fact read an old book before you treat science as dogma. Have you ever heard of phrenology?
It used to be the assertion of many in the scientific world that you can diagnose a person by analyzing the bumps on their heads. We know today, that that is ridiculous. It was believed for years though. I noticed someone made this foolish comment "Faith is in the realm of religion and not science." When you decide to believe an unproven theory, you are making a judgement based on faith. Neither religious theory nor scientific theory are based on provable fact. You choose to believe supporting evidence, that doesn't transform it into fact. Belief is not a requisite of reality. Your choice in believing or not has no bearing on the parameters of our universe.
I personally don't believe either side of the argument are open minded and analytical enough to uncover any real truth. Organized religion has always tried to run contrary to science, and science has always disregarded any belief that contradicts what it wants people to accept as fact, even though it is only theory. Experimentationary evidence certainly can make one possibility seem more likely than another, but it hardly PROVES anything. Megan M, you have said some of the most intelligent things I have seen on here, science DOES (very unscientifically) disregard anything that doesn't fit into a pre conceived theory. Scientific voices that run contrary to the establishment are routinely silenced, this is not the way science should work. Truth cannot be found by only listening to the voice you agree with.
Last I checked, we are not limited to either Darwin or ID. For some reason though, people can't seem to be objective on either side of the fence. Blind faith is not exclusive to religion, science often exists within this realm also. "Many of us believe in God and in evolution." Precisely Don, the Bible was written by men, PERIOD. You might believe that these men were divinely inspired, but either way, they had little knowledge of micro biology, I would hope that readers of the Bible are smart enough to figure that out. Creationism is simply a biblical explanation of what could not be understood scientifically at that time. Creationists seem to believe that God snapped his fingers and Earth appearred. The Bible was written by man not God. Are you so presumptive as to say you know the will of God. God is not defined or constrained by those who claim to know him. Evolution can't be true because the Bible? Nonsense, pure and simple. Biblically it is said that God made the world in six days. Out of curiousity, how could that be known, do you have God's PDA, or maybe somebody has his calender or watch. Time is a measurement of man, not God. Before the universe was created, how could time measurement exist when it is based on the parameters of the universe that hasn't been created yet? If a man from antiquity had voiced and taught the tenets of Darwinian evolution, he would likely have been stoned to death as a heretic or witch.

How science gets swiftboated

Joe, Chicago, IL — Wed, 30 Apr 2008 19:48:26 GMT

"Expelled" is not anti-science, but anti-censorship.

How science gets swiftboated

Scott S., S.W. Missouri — Wed, 30 Apr 2008 19:48:53 GMT

"No, the real controversy is that failing to gain support through scientific means these IDers have sought to create a religious controversy by lying, usurping the scientific method, the use of propaganda films, the courts and our school boards to try to force their unsubstantiated views on a generation of young people and those who are otherwise not schooled in science. This is not only disturbing to people of reason, but it is iresponsible, overtly aggressive, disingenuous, dishonest, and malicious. "
from Radagast, NY, USA

Thank you and very well put! Your words crystallize the issue here, at least for me.

Intelligent Design is religious in nature. It comes from the pulpit. Any arguments claiming otherwise are recognized as smoke-screens by all parties involved. Let's be up-front about that.

I was a public school teacher for eight years in a VERY conservative town, in a school that routinely violated (imho) the essence of separation of church/state (a teacher wears "Real Men Love Jesus" shirt, principal led prayers to Jesus during assembly, hour-long gospel music show w/ mandatory attendance, regular special speakers professing their faith at mandatory attendance assemblies, pastor led prayer to Jesus at start of school year assembly, the list could go on).

My point is that the school and district administration were and are (I no longer teach there) very aware of the fine line they walked (imo crossed) with regard to these activities. The pervading presence of the Christian religion in all the schools of the district was premeditated, planned and implemented in a manner that was as bold as possible without creating too big a risk for negative (imo positive) repercussions.

To be clear: I loved my years there, learned much about myself and how to get along with others who don't share my values, etc. The fact remains that many of the activities that I witnessed were unlawful, period. In order for ALL students AND faculty to feel safe while working in public schools and other federal and state institutions, these institutions must remain secular in nature.

The authors of our Constitution realized this and I consider this realization testimony to their genius and foresight.

The issue of giving ID equal time in public school classrooms is an aggressive and malicious attempt to circumvent one of if not THE most important and sacred (yes I said sacred) components of the Glorious Constitution that makes America the fabulous experiment that it is: the First Amendment in OUR Bill of Rights.

For crying out loud they put it FIRST!!! The VERY FIRST THING!!!!

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."

All of our children are protected by this beautiful piece of legislation. It means that there will be no established religion for America. Christians don't have to worry about having to answer to Muslim law; Muslims don't have to worry about answering to Jewish law; I don't have to worry about my children being told by a public school teacher, a figure of authority that they love and trust, that they are going to burn in hell (at least I shouldn't); etc., etc..

But the only way for this protection to keep working for all our children (in public schools) is if we agree to keep our public schools secular, to insist that schools and their employees keep their religious identities separate from their professional ones, respecting the separation of church and state.

What does that mean? Here's a good example:

A teacher is wearing a cross on a necklace (which she/he is allowed to do btw) and a student asks about its meaning.

(UNLAWFUL and INAPPROPRIATE RESPONSE) "I wear this cross because Jesus died for my sins."

(LAWFUL and APPROPRIATE RESPONSE) "This cross that I wear is a very important symbol of my personal faith (or religious beliefs)."

You see the difference. The First Amendment does not oppress free speech for Christians in public schools, but it does insist, for the safety and well-being of all students, that public school teachers, being representatives of the State while on duty, refrain from presenting their personal religious views as fact to their students. It is a simple idea that benefits EVERYONE.

So, to proponents of giving ID equal time: it would be best for everyone involved if you backed off and showed a little more respect for the document that guides the creation of the laws that give you the freedoms you DO enjoy.

To the America that understands the critical role the First Amendment plays in all of our safety and well-being: “Dudes. It may be time to draw the line.”

If the gloves need to come off, so be it.

How science gets swiftboated

Alan Boyle — Wed, 30 Apr 2008 19:55:14 GMT

Scott S., you are my hero.

How science gets swiftboated

Rufus Frazier — Wed, 30 Apr 2008 19:58:48 GMT

My my. What an amazing reaction from such a harmless little movie. Kinda reminds me of the reaction of fundy Christians to "The Last Temptation of Christ", because you don't get these kind of over heated responses except when people are defending their heartfelt religious beliefs and feeling threatened.

I can understand that, though, because "Science" has become a lot of people's religion of choice these days, even though there's nothing in the actual method which claims ultimate truth in any form, no matter what A.J Ayer says. I have some experience along those lines as I'm a Ph.D in physics.

Having actually seen the movie, unlike a large majority people posting here, I can say that I found its message of openness in scientific inquiry to be quite persuasive. Creationism isn't pushed in any way shape or form, in fact it's either implicitly criticized or ignored. As for ID, well lets just say that when they ban string theory for being unprovable I'll then be willing to listen to the closed minds who want to ban ID for the same reason.

How science gets swiftboated

Jonas, Colo Springs, CO — Wed, 30 Apr 2008 20:01:46 GMT

To the ID'ers that like the idea of "irreducible complexity" need to take a look at the arguments presented in the Dover School districts court battle over ID. The idea of irreducible design says that some organisms are so complex that if any single piece were missing the organism would cease to function. So it had to be created as a whole or it would never have been able to exist. A fovortie example of this flawed idea is the mousetrap. You remove the spring or the clasp or any one piece and it will no longer trap mice. When a scientist for the plantiffs(the evolution camp)took the stand he demonstarted the fallibility of this principle as he removed the spring from a mouse trap in full view of the court.

He had to conceed at this point that it was no longer useful for the purpose of trapping mice, but as he clipped it to his shirt, securing his tie, and making a fuctional, albeit distateful, tie clip. The same biologist then went on to illustrate how the same modification/comparison can be made in the natural world using the favortie biological example that ID'ers use, the bacterial phlagellum. Needless to say the proponents of ID lost their court battle.

That the guys who originally proposed and stood to defend the notion of "irreducible complexity" could not see this themselves displays their total ineptitude and carelessness of thought. Not only that, but it reinforces the easily observable notion that ID'ers are only looking desperately for the evidence that supports their already preformed conclusion. Truely filling in the blanks with God.

Good Game ID'ers, you tried, you lost, go home.

How science gets swiftboated

Derick — Wed, 30 Apr 2008 20:13:08 GMT

Many parts of the middle east are great examples of what can happen when you don't keep separate the powers of church and state. The Taliban exists as a result of the church's involvement in politics and policy. Many christians don't see a problem with entertwining both religion and government, but extremism is often the result. Don't take my word for it, do some reading about the taliban, the spanish inquisition, the crusades, etc.

How science gets swiftboated

Joe, Chicago, IL — Wed, 30 Apr 2008 20:29:04 GMT

The American Constitution is imploding...Ahhhhhhhh!

Just say no to the "you only can teach Darwinian Evolution" Politically Correct "Police."

How science gets swiftboated

Philip — Wed, 30 Apr 2008 20:47:27 GMT

PhantomAce,

you are wrong when you say there isn't anything in the Bible that says how God created man. according to the Bible, evolution could not have occurred due to the simple fact that man was created in God's image. The Hebrew that is used in this case implies a plasticity, which would discount any theories that God's image is merely spiritual in form. I am also not submitting that God has physical form, but God does have visible form, as seen by plenty of the prophets. If man is made in God's image, then man evolving would distort God's image. If we originally came from monkeys or protoplasm or something of the sort, then God's image has been distorted and man no longer has intrinsic value. If man lacks intrinsic value, then what would give us the right to make laws protecting the life of men? Trying to harmonize macroevolutionary science with the Judeo-Christian worldview is impossible. now microevolution on the other hand. . .

How science gets swiftboated

Martin H. Israel, Flushing, NY — Wed, 30 Apr 2008 20:52:54 GMT

Ben Stein also happens to be a lousy economist. Only last week, in his NY Times column, did he grudgingly acknowledge that there actually is and has been a subprime crisis. Up until this month, he has been denying its existence. When will he deny that the earth is round and gravitation is only a theory?

How science gets swiftboated

Tyler, Dallas, TX — Wed, 30 Apr 2008 21:32:51 GMT

I have an easy way to settle this debate right now. First off, Science has never had all the answers, or we wouldn't still be learning new things about the universe. Now what determines what is scientific fact or scientific theory is the ability to demonstrate, rationally, a connection between 2 things. Personally, I have no problem with the concept of ID, but there is not one shred of evidence to support the theory, whereas there is at least anecdotal and minimal concrete evidence to demonstrate evolution, even if it cannot be conclusively proven. It's like the difference between saying that with all the planets in the universe that there may be life somewhere else, versus claiming that life exists out there without a doubt. We know the odds are it's there, but we have 0 evidence that life exists outside of Earth.

And then on to the evidence contratry to ID. Even the least intelligent mechanical engineer could construct a bone structure much more sturdy than the ones we have now. One example: the knee. Instead of a nice, solid ball-in-socket joint, we have two sticks tied end to end with ligaments. How intelligent is that? Do people actually believe that their God built them so that they broke down so easily? How about the Fibia? That's the little bone behind the Tibia in your lower leg. It's esentially useless. Unlike the Ulna/Radius combo in your arm that allows you to rotate your arm without breaking it, the Fibia just sits there, provide little, if any structural support. And that's not even going into the nervous system, or any other the other myraid of problems with the human body.

I am not an athiest, I'm an agnostic. I believe in a higher power that is largely beyond human comprehension, but I have serious issues with ID. And until some of those human flaws are addressed from a ID standpoint, or people can offer more evidence besides something as inane as the platypus, and egg-laying mammal, as proof of ID, please keep it out of my science classes outside of the footnotes.*

*-Intelligent design is a religious theory combining the science of evolution and the concept that there is an intelligent higher power that is guiding that form of development.

How science gets swiftboated

chris slaughter, lincoln, ne — Wed, 30 Apr 2008 21:34:19 GMT

those who argue that ID should be taught, have no idea what the 'scientific method' is. If it isnt science, then it belongs in a theology class. Not a science class. Some ID believers sound very convincing... to paraphrase, 'stop persecuting scientists with differenct beliefs, let the evidence speak the truth'...

they STILL fail to mention there is no evidence of god, thus you cannot construct a testable theory, therfore, you cannot draw conclusions. Its is not scientific, it is theology.

I am spiritual. I do believe in god. I do not believe he belongs in the classroom.

How science gets swiftboated

Bob Socrates, St Louis, MO — Wed, 30 Apr 2008 21:35:08 GMT

Mankind (scientists included, and perhaps especially) are nothing more than high-order apes playing in their relative intellectual feces and calling it "art" or "science" by science's own definition.

One absolute in life is death, and until "science" is able to conquer that... "science" is merely a subset of philosophy based on perceivable models limited by that perception. Strict "scientists" opperate on the arrogant and likely preposterous assumption that man's perceptions are infallable. Like death, the fallability of man's perceptions throughout history has been proven to be a relative truth. But "intellectual" scientists ignore this basic fundamental building block of scientific method.

In the end, we are all just a bunch of monkeys stuck in an enclosed cage with buttons and animatronics whereby through interaction we are able to feed and survive for a short time. And in that time we are able to distract ourselves from the one and only one proven truth (death) and construct--relative to our comprehension--"complex" models of what drives the functionality of our existence within our little "black-box" of a cage. The more foolish monkeys treat these models as absolutes. Where as a wiser monkey, will realize the futility and meaningless of it all and be open to the idea that we are merely monkeys stuck in a cage who exist, think, and then die; the purpose of it all is moot without someone outside the cage able to take notice.

No. Science is merely a distraction that False Intellectuals use to occupy their time until they die.

So you can fling a rocket ship into space? So what. I can fling my own feces and jump up and down like a monkey in a cage. What's the point in either? Tomorrow, we are both dead and dust.

The only true and meaningful science is not that which is concerned with the study of where we have come from or the usefulness gleaned from that study; rather real science (of the intellectual kind) is that which concerns itself with where it is we are going when we--with absolute truth and certainty--exit this proverbial "cage" called life. Everything else is vane and moot... like a monkey flinging mud in a cage.

How science gets swiftboated

David Bass, Montclair, N.J. — Wed, 30 Apr 2008 21:42:56 GMT

I truly thought Ben Stein had half a brain, I really did. Please read Cornelia Dean's article in today's New York Times, "Roving Defender of Evolution, and of Room for God" about Professor Francisco J. Ayala. Believing in evolution does NOT rule out the belief in a Supreme Being. I'm stunned at Stein's tactics as described. The United States is falling farther and farther behind when it comes to science education and this sort of entertainment tripe is not going to help.
Responsible scientists admit when they make a mistake or head off in a wrong direction when they realize they have done so as revealed by evidence uncovered by the empirical method. People deeply committed to their religion seem unable to admit that the evidence they allude to to discredit evolution is nonexistent.
If the "wall" separating church & state is damaged any further here in our country, I fear for our future. Claiming the Earth is no more than 5 to 10 thousand years old is ridiculous. I could go on & on.
Wake up people.

How science gets swiftboated

Dave — Wed, 30 Apr 2008 22:00:10 GMT

Using biological complexity to infer that there must be a creator is foolish. To promulgate ID as science is unwise. Available, natural data are truncated by our ability to observe. If we could observe nothing, we would have no questions. Since we can observe facts (i.e., data), we now have questions to ask. The data are truncated, however, by our inability to perceive, let alone measure, the infinite. We can only see what we can see, whether we look through telescopes or microscopes. If God is infinite, he is beyond our ability to measure. He cannot be proven by experimentation or reproducible observation. God proves himself on an individual basis to each individual that seeks him. But I wager that no living person actually knows the entire mind and will of god. Do you think you know all his doings? Do you think the bible tells the whole story of the creation? Perhaps the narrative starts a little late. The laughable notion that all worthwhile knowledge is contained in any religious book is patently false. Furhtermore, the notion that everything in the bible is intended to be taken literally is foolishness. Science will not disprove the existence of god. I believe in biological evolution. I have no reason not to believe, and visible data back the theory. As a scientist, I am willing to accept the possibility that things could be explained otherwise. I'd like to see data. Regardless of physical evidence (or the lack thereof) I still believe in god. I have strong confidence that he is real and cares about me. I don't expect to prove him to anyone else. I think we need to keep gods, not to mention other intelligent designers who may not be quite as neat) out of our science classrooms. Let's let science be science, and let god be personal.

How science gets swiftboated

Dennis McClain-Furmanski, Dalworthington Gardens, Texas — Wed, 30 Apr 2008 22:07:55 GMT

What I say is conjecture. It can't be known to be so or not unless and until Stein comes out and admits what his bottom line motivation was for making this movie. But what I see him doing is based on his experience in academia as well as his experience in political spin-doctoring as Nixon's speech writer. I submit:

Stein's purpose is to expose "academic" bias in reactions to that which counters accepted theory. He presents pro-creationism in the movie not to promote it, but to illustrate having presented it to academics. He then shows their reactions, which are vehement beyond what's necessary. Indeed, their reactions are emotionally charged and result in attacks on him as being anti-evolution, anti-science and so forth.

In this, he exposes scientists and science-believers for what they are -- humans with human reactions. It is the flip side of what Collins and Pinch exposed in "The Golem". Scientists aren't the coldly objective neutral skeptics we believe from what we're taught, but rather real people acting as all people do when presented with that which they perceive to be an attack on them, whether or not there is an attack.

I base this opinion on my own experience. For my dissertation I worked on a project that was mentioned in "Thank You For Smoking": "Why, they've just shown that smoking can offset Parkinson's disease." It was my position then to present material about tobacco at scientific conferences which was not negative. I did not say anything good about tobacco, but did say something good about a chemical that happened to be found in tobacco. Many who heard me misheard and I was shouted down because it was claimed that I was promoting tobacco smoking. They reacted to what they were expecting and expected to react to, despite the fact that what was being presented was not exactly that.

I predict this is what Stein will say was happening when he does come out and state what his true intention was. And, he will not just say it about academia, which was the focus of the movie. He will also say it was to expose the same sort of bias in the media and the population in general.

In summary, the movie is not about creationism vs. science. It is about scientists and academics who while believing themselves to be open and accepting of different ways of thinking to be rather people acting as people often do, with territorality. Also, it is about a good part of the population, as followers of science, to react the same way. The movie is not intended to promote creationism, it is a study in the psychology of belief and believers, and the ways they react to information contrary to their beliefs, even though as they should be aware the evidence -- that which science is based on -- supports their position more than adequately making the vehemence unnecessary.

As I said, this is conjecture. Stein himself will have to say whether or not this is what he intended. But no matter what he says, if anything, about his intention, this is what I see happening. If it happens to be so that he was intending a pro-creationism screed, the result is to my mind exactly as I have stated it. As evidence to support my assertion I point to the fact that people were reacting in just this way simply from having being told what the movie was supposedly about before they had even seen it. Their reactions were just as I described while they were only reactions to hear say, not to the fact of the presented information, as the actual information had not yet been presented.

To get a scientific grasp on the phenomenon I describe, I recommend Leon Festinger's "Cognitive Dissonance". As with many good books about major advances in science the point is made very early, in the first couple chapters. It states essentially that people, when presented with two conflicting thoughts, perceptions or beliefs will feel discomfort (dissonance) and will seek through emphasis on one of these to reinforce it and so relieve the discomfort. And when it happens to be something which is a widely held concept, their public reactions will reinforce the same reactions in others, until the reactions themselves grow out of proportion to the perceived threat to their way of thinking. Don't believe for a second that this is just a steriale scientific theory. It is the basis of much of what's called psychological operations by the military, that field which describes the construction and the use of propoganda in order to not just change a way of thinking, but to get people to react. Nor is this just something done by the military -- much of politics runs on this principle, something of which a political speech writer would be acutely aware.

How science gets swiftboated

Annixter, Philadelphia, PA — Wed, 30 Apr 2008 22:16:11 GMT

Feuding professors in many fields have been busy attacking each other for centuries. The ID/Evolution spat is no more remarkable than all the others that are continually in progress.

The greatest problem with ID is that the 'theory' and its proponents are essentially dishonest, presenting as science what is really only the Bible in disguise (and a rather silly view of the Bible at that, considering all that is known about the literature of those times). Those who lie in promoting their religious ideas--and any argument in favor of teaching ID in public schools is an egregious lie--will ultimately drive away the little support they enjoy. If Christianity is to survive, it will need more powerful ammunition than these harebrained fantasies about the Creation.

There's little danger that people will go to a movie and suddenly begin to think that the Nazis are alive and well in our universities and research facilities, side by side with communists and everybody else we don't like. Some people already think that; perhaps Stein's film would like to take credit for them, but they are already here.

It sounds as though this movie is so extreme that it could become an embarrassment even to those it seems to support. Has anyone considered the possibility that the purpose of this film is to sabotage Protestant fundamentalism?

How science gets swiftboated

Justin Roberts, Kansas City — Wed, 30 Apr 2008 22:29:34 GMT

Some of the individuals here need to do a little history research. Science was involved in allowing the Holocaust to happen. It was motivated by false and bigoted Christian undertones as well.

a) Hitler was a "believer" in the bible. He was particularly enamored with the Story of Babel... "with one race and one language there is nothing man cannot accomplish". Hence, his "Arian Race" pursuit.
b) Hitler believed the passiveness of the Jews in WWI was to blame for Germany's loss, or at least a significant contributor. He resented the Jews. Also, in a chicken or egg debate, Hitler also maliciously labeled the Jews as Christ-Killers.

So far we have a biblical Holocaust... but that was not enough to stoke the fire of "well-intentioned" Germans. So Hitler turned to science and the "intellectuals". Leading to...

c) Hitler garnered the support of hand-picked scientific experts. They endorsed a propaganda campaign preying on the fears of the public in a time of economic distress. This propaganda--supported by the new and modern science of the day: Evolution and DNA--"scientifically" proved that Jewish DNA made them extremely susceptible to becoming infected with plague and illness from the rats which were numerous in the more impoverished Jewish neighborhoods. This was the national key that allowed the SS to storm the Jewish districts and sweep them off to concentration camps to "protect" the German society from an epidemic plague; all proven and supported by "science". Once isolated from the public, the Jews became out of sight and out of mind. Under the authority of more easily indoctrinated military grunts who proceeded to oversee the gross extermination of the Jews.

d) The "science" of DNA also supported the Babel philosophy and it just so happened that the Germans DNA happened to be the humanly superior DNA to all others. Inflating national pride and empowering support to the Nazi movement... creating a "wow, we're the chosen race. I knew I was special" national mentality.

So "science" propelled by governmental bigotry WAS responsible for the Holocaust. It's simply history, look it up. There's historic flyers that display this fear-mongering.

But much like the inherent fallability of "science", so many people rush to over-simplify all the complex factors that had to contribute to such a horrific historic atrocity... i.e. "Hitler was just a bigot"... well, yeah... but that can not cause an entire nation to turn its back on fundamental morality... it takes something more... it's called "irrational fear that's capable of being 'rationally' justified", and that rationality is most often provided by the "science of the day" in one form or another.

Also... isn't Ben Stein Jewish? Like he is going to be motivated to trivialize the Holocaust? C'mon... just another indication of the kind of knee-jerk reaction any threat to "science" can bring out in people in attempting to discredit the opposition without thinking rationally.

Intellect is folly absent of wisdom.

How science gets swiftboated

Jack Picknell — Wed, 30 Apr 2008 22:33:10 GMT

Science has been deified by both the general population that doesn't bother itself much with verification, and the media that trots out "experts" everytime there's a news topic. Regardless of whether Expelled is 100% accurate (it's entertainment) it raises very poignant philosophical issues.

How science gets swiftboated

Agnostic Annie, San Diego, CA — Wed, 30 Apr 2008 23:05:35 GMT

Elementary science classes teach that a hypothesis is an "educated guess" using the best knowledge of the time to answer a scientific question.
A theory on the other hand, is elevated to that level because an hypothesis has had evidence to support it time and time again. In science we can't prove that anything is absolutely true (unlike the bible which demands that it be accepted as the only truth). We can use evidence to find the best explanation for what we observe in nature. We must constantly refine our knowledge and question our ideas in science. It's just not science if we don't.
The theory of evolution has been supported over time and allows us to fight disease, understand resistance to pesticides and is the basis for the understanding we have today of the biological world.
I am a biology teacher and am truly shocked that we are even having this discussion. I teach science, not religion. If I don't have solid evidence for something I am teaching, I will not teach it in my science class. Discussions about belief are just that, and belong in the philosophy class or elsewhere. The rest of the world is passing us by as we become less and less proficient in science, and students are wasting time with these non-issues. We are going backward rather than forward and it is truly disheartening. We will not win the global science race if we do not give our students the ability to challenge the theocracy we are increasingly becoming.

How science gets swiftboated

Bill Berg, Warner Robins, GA — Wed, 30 Apr 2008 23:17:21 GMT

So can someone here point me to a theroretical molecular model of a plausible primitive "self replicating" molecular machine? Most literature assumes a working cell as a starting point. I am not looking for verbal hand waving, but actual molecular models.

How science gets swiftboated

Beverly, Seattle, Washington — Wed, 30 Apr 2008 23:48:30 GMT

Wow. The vitriol, the anger the misrepresentation. The movie really made some of you angry. I guess the religion of the Holy Church of Evolution has taken on the role once held by the Roman Catholic Church in the days of Copernicus. A closed mind, whether driven by a cleric or a scientist is still a closed mind. If the intelligent design line of reasoning is false then letting it play out will put it to rest. Personally I think that neither side has a definitive idea of what actually happened and why so why not let it go where it will? Your anger is a sign that you are afraid...only you can say, of what?

How science gets swiftboated

Alan Leyerly Federal Way, WA — Thu, 01 May 2008 00:14:37 GMT

The Exploration of outerspace begins at the epidemis and the inverse is true to explore innerspace.

How science gets swiftboated

April, Victorville, CA — Thu, 01 May 2008 01:52:36 GMT

Evolution takes more faith than creation. To think that we come from slime is idiotic. It makes as much sense as saying that if I throw a stick of dynamite into a junkyard I will get a Bently or if I through a stick of dynamite into a print shop I will get a dictionary. People deny creation simply because they want to deny that if creation is true we just might be accountable to a creator. As one writer said "a fool hath said in his heart, there is no god" Even Dawkins could not say where the first cell came from...and it is about FREEDOM of expression.....if you want to believe in evolution, go right ahead but why am I denied the right to believe in a divine creator or discuss it in the public realm. As a teacher you cannot discuss it.....I know, I am a teacher and worked in the public school system. That is the major point that Ben is attempting to make...everyone has academic freedom except those that want to give God some credit for the wonderful life he has created.

How science gets swiftboated

Dan Merlino, Enfield, CT — Thu, 01 May 2008 02:20:01 GMT

As a computer and control systems engineer I some experience with the limitations of computer simulations. They are only as good as their algorithms, initial conditions, and underlying assumptions make them. Even the most advanced weather models become useless as you get past the 5 day mark in predictions.
It comes down to this: if you assume there is no creator, then the evidence can lead you no where but evolution. If you assume there is a creator, suddenly the evidence isn't constrained to lead you in only one direction. The very same evidence leads you to design.

How science gets swiftboated

Carl, Calgary — Thu, 01 May 2008 02:40:25 GMT

Instead of getting consumed by the minutiae of evolutionary science and it's interpretations of discoveries why doesn't common sense stop one travelling down that road? If I came across even an extremely simply built house I would automatically assume someone built this house. It itself is the evidence of a designer, even if I didn't know how it was built. It would be nonsense, even if all the necessary materials miraculously just appeared in the right location in the proper forms, to believe that somehow the house put itself together. I don't care if it was given 10 billion years it would not increase the likelihood. Evolutionists look at that same house and immediately start to investigate the amount of pressure it would take to get the nails through the wood and just what angle the wind would have to hit a piece of plywood to stand it up and then blow the nails at it with sufficient velocity to penetrate the wood while a perfectly timed crosswind lifts another piece of wood into just the right spot so the nails adhere the first piece of wood to it......

Do you see what I mean? You can start trying to discern how natural forces put that house together but what genuinely rational and intelligent person would even start going down that path? Unless of course their prime interest was to appear deep and discerning and refuse to give credit where credit is due - to the builder, who, in turn, if one wished to live in that house, would then have the right to establish the rules of the house. All just basic logic that gets lost on perfectly intelligent people.

How science gets swiftboated

TheFallibleFiend, lorton, va — Thu, 01 May 2008 02:54:13 GMT

Rufus, if scientists say nothing, the ID creationists will crow that the scientists are quiet, because there is no response. If they tell the truth, the ID crowd tells more and louder lies. If we lay it on the line: The intelligentsia among the creationists lie and misrepresent basic scientific concepts and their minions are too intellectually lazy to do any real homework - then you claim that scientists have closed minds. Here's an idea: do an honest day's research on the subject. [...]

How science gets swiftboated

Alan Boyle — Thu, 01 May 2008 04:02:54 GMT

Dear Beverly: You ask a good question that I tried to address in the item: Why are biology researchers so upset? I tried to hint at an answer: that the intelligent-design approach could set back the steady march of research that is developing a better understanding of who we are and how to make things better. I'm serious about checking out what "The Making of the Fittest" has to say about intelligent design and earlier retro scientific movements - for instance, the resistance to immunization in the United States, or the resistance in the Soviet Union to concepts about DNA and genetics. If you're not able to get to the book, here are some links to information about those earlier cases:

http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/cgi/content/full/105/4/e43

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lysenkoism

How science gets swiftboated

Gneiss Guy — Thu, 01 May 2008 04:47:36 GMT

I said earlier that I find no problem integrating my belief in god with my belief in science. I also, admitted that I personnaly believe in some form of ID (but not in the ID that is being pushed around this discussion).

You people who keep spouting off like evolution is some sort scam being pushed by some cabal of evil God hating scientists should do yourselves, your families and your communities a favor and actually try to learn something about what you are fighting against, instead of regurgitating whatever your nearest religious zealot friend/preacher has told you is the truth.

So far most of you IDers make me want to hide in the shadows and publicly deny my own feelings because you are really only using ID as a way to try to force "creationism as science" on the rest of us. Your ignorance is frankly embarrasing.

The fact that all of the individual steps in various evolutionary processes are not represented in the fossil record does not in any way make evolution any less a reality, only a very few of the millions of animals that die every day will ever be preserved as fossils. It requires the perfect mix of climate, environment, speed of burial, geologic conditions, etc., etc., to produce even one fossil. Please try not to look like ignorant (stupid) fools any longer than you have to.

How science gets swiftboated

Thomas Ashby, Calgary — Thu, 01 May 2008 04:53:20 GMT

Why do anti-darwinists need a designer anyway? Is it inherently easy to sit back and just say, 'oh yeah, an incomprehensible, universal intension or "consciousness" did it all." (AKA "God") or maybe ..aliens that stumbled upon Earth some 3.8 billion years ago and decided to make DNA work for ya."

Incidently, why can't science assemble DNA from scratch yet and make it work for us? We know what it is made of and how it is assembled. Why can't we make life yet? If we could, I'd bet my life it would take off on its own and follow Darwinian change.

How science gets swiftboated

Jonathan Strutt Busselton Western Australia — Thu, 01 May 2008 07:09:14 GMT

Darwin observed natural selection. Fact. Undisputed by either side in this debate. (micro evolution and mostly observable science with some conjecture)

But natural selection mitigates AGAINST macro evolution and is non-testable, unobservable, all conjecture and therefore not necessarily science but philosophy.
Convince me. State one fact that proves any species changed into a different one and I will listen.

But I have researched, observed in the universe itself and thoroughly tested my Intelligent Designer who loves me and gave Himself for me. Good science. Works inside in my lab.

How science gets swiftboated

Jonathon Sauer, Cape Coral FL — Thu, 01 May 2008 07:27:18 GMT

The conflict is based upon a false premise. Evolution a useful description of our world. The "argument" for intelligent design presupposes that the mathmatical use of chance is a property of a contrived improbability. However, the concept of faith need not conflict with chance. The unfolding of evolution as described by science could actually be a history of a creation. Science is not ready to disprove any notion of intelligent design.

It may be useful to include religious studies in public schools - with fair and equal representations of all theologies deemed to be significant. The inclusion of theology, as a substitute for modern scientific application, is unacceptable. The basis for scientific thought rests in the discovery of the unknown. The basis for faith lies in the acceptance of known truths. Religious teachers often make false assumptions and try to apply them out of context. The problem seems to me to be a problem of faith. It is well established that, for various reasons, religious teachers have extended thier articles of faith beyond what is acceptable, creating a lot of harm. It may be possible for creation and evolution to be found mutually complementary at some point in the future. The most important thing is principle. Science operates on truth of disclosure, which is based on good record keeping. Science and religion are both dependant upon good principles, and are both corruptable.

How science gets swiftboated

Ed, Bristow, VA — Thu, 01 May 2008 07:58:01 GMT

The lesson we learn from advances in science through the ages is the commonly held beliefs of the majority of scientists in any era are utter rubbish. Darwinism is a theory, not a fact, while I don't adhere to creationism or ID, Darwinism requires as massive a belief system as they do.

You can't dismiss the large gaps in fossil records as unimportant, it is the same as extrapolating from nothing. I suggest the conclusions and assumptions you assert as Darwinistic fact based on those gaps are as valueless as saying a God created it...

How science gets swiftboated

Linda, Seattle area, Wash — Thu, 01 May 2008 08:02:07 GMT

I'm still waiting for evolution to cure the common cold, fix broken bridges, clean the polluted air, un-do global warming, cure baldness, turn all monkeys into human beings. How long can it take? There's no hurry as evolution will get to it eventually, right?

How science gets swiftboated

Carlos, Aus., Tx. — Thu, 01 May 2008 08:02:35 GMT

Wow! Some of these comments are truly insightful. What I gather is that the contest is actually between the secular vs. the religious.
The problem is that the secular establishment has been using Darwinism, not as a science, but as an ideology to drive religion out of the public square. It is the ideology, not the science, that the Darwinists so passionately defend. After all, if it were only science, the discussion would be more amicable, wouldn't it? Now, I ask you, is this is this the kind of Republic the Founding Fathers began? Not hardly. They were nearly all religious men. And it was seen by many then that Divine Intervention was present too.
Beware, you secularists. Crime doesn't arise from religious people but from the non-religious. Without God-fearing people society will rapidly descend into barbarism and paganism. It seems to me this has happened already, taking a quick look around. I'm not saying secularism is bad- only that the Founding Fathers intended it to be neutral, not hostile to religion as it has become.
Another thing, Christians have no business harrassing non-believers, they should be respected. I would characterize that as conduct unbecoming a Christian.

How science gets swiftboated

A1C Ryan F, Omaha, NE — Thu, 01 May 2008 09:40:14 GMT

To paraphrase Epicurus: "Is God willing to prevent evil but not able? Then He is not omnipotent. Is God able to prevent evil but not willing? Then He is malevolent. Is God both willing and able to prevent evil? Then where does evil come from? Is God neither willing nor able to prevent evil? Then why call him god?"
To the person who used Michael Moore as an example, He is just as much a liar and distorter of the facts as Ben Stein is. To those who believe that there is an omnipotent god that created us in his image, we have only to look at Jerry Springer to realize that such a god is an absolute failure. To those who equate the scientific term theory with the common English term theory, a theory in science is just below a law (a law being the ultimate absolute in science) in terms of validity. The term hypothesis is the appropriate term for an idea in the traditional sense, I hypothesize that tomorrow I will turn into a peanut butter and jelly sandwich. A hypothesis is an idea that has not been proven with evidence. Evolution is nearly absolute in its validity, it is simply expanded upon as our knowledge of the universe expands. To those who mentioned that science of old was turned on its head by those who broke the established consensus. This occured because the science of old was ruled by religion and not by the Scientific method (1 notice variable, 2 form hypothesis, 3 experiment based on hypothesis, 4 observe and record reults of hypothesis, 5 confirm/reject hypothesis based on results of experiment, 6 repeat experiment and acheive same results to confirm validity of hypothesis). When "science" is controlled by the words of cattle sacrificing primitives, it is very easy to disprove the generally accepted consensus with genuine experimentation. The previous sentence is not intended as an insult. It is a truth, the people of time period in which Jesus is believed to have existed sacrificed animals to honor and appease their God. Fundamentalist Christianity is idiocy at its peak. There are two separate and conflicting creation stories in the Bible. Not only that, but humans measure days in terms of rotation of the earth, the rise and fall of the sun and moon. Indeed, the poeple that wrote the Bible measured days by the rise and fall of the moon. In the "beginning" in the Bible, there is no earth, no sun, and no moon. As such, how can a day even exist in the context that the writers of the Bible referred to? The answer: it can't. Religion and God are primitive ways to make up for a lack of knowledge. Don't get me wrong, the major religions did get one thing right. The Golden Rule: Treat others as you would have them treat you. The Golden Rule is truly the key to successful human society, everything else that religion would have you believe is best left behind.

How science gets swiftboated

TheFallibleFiend, LORTON, VA — Thu, 01 May 2008 12:46:57 GMT

Chris M., Irreducible Complexity is argument from ignorance and an argument of assertion. If Behe himself can't explain something then it must be magic (i.e. a creator). He demonstrated in Dover that he wasn't even aware of the latest research on the subject - and simply asserted (without having read it) that it didn't refute his argument. Check out pages 19-21 of the transcript at http://www.aclupa.org/downloads/Day12PM.pdf

Dembski is a laughing stock. He abuses science. His book "No Free Lunch." What do the founders of the "No Free Lunch" theorems think about Dembski's math?
Check it out yourself in Wolpert's article "William Dembski's Treatment of the No Free Lunch Theorems is Written in Jello"
http://www.talkreason.org/articles/jello.cfm

Aliens are a physical entities. If they are physical entities they are amenable to scientific scrutiny - unlike magical beings.

How science gets swiftboated

TheFallibleFiend, LORTON, VA — Thu, 01 May 2008 12:57:11 GMT

Thomas Ashby asks "why can't science assemble DNA from scratch yet ...?"

There was a time when scientists had not figured out how to fly, make nuclear reactors, or go to the moon. Now all of those have been accomplished. We don't know how to assemble these things, but we are learning. And no matter what we learn the obscurantists will pule about what we don't know.

How science gets swiftboated

Carlton Lane, Kamuela, Hawaii — Thu, 01 May 2008 13:07:36 GMT

ATHEISM
Many of the contributers to this discussion have declared, up front, that they are atheists and made similar claims for famous scientists and philosophers. "Atheism" is defined as "the belief that there is no God or gods" (The Random House Dictionary). The same dictionary defines God as "the creator and ruler of the universe, regarded as almighty". Other dictionaries may differ in these definitions, but they ALL suffer from the need to rely on other words and their definitions as being understood. All dictionaries end up going circular, sooner or later, like, for example, length means extent and extent means length. Science and all other intelligent human endeavors recognize this eventual circularity and put an end to it by declaring some things to be left as undefined, things that most people are expected to be familiar with or have had adequate experience with. In physics, for example, length (distance) is left undefined. God may be well taken as undefined or somethingelse may be so taken and then God defined in terms of it. Those who have experienced God may be perfectly happy to take God as undefined, but those who have no such experience may need God to be defined in terms of something that they are familiar with or have had experience with in order to UNDERSTAND what others are trying to convey. The diehard atheist makes up or uses his/her own understanding (definition) to protect his/her atheism.
It can be helpful to all if infinity is taken as undefined and God defined in terms of infinity, because all normal humans can gain experience with infinity. For example, our counting numbers are infinite in that they go on foreveer, there can be no last or largest counting number. This infinitude is only one of the infinity in the heirachy of infinitudes which are able to be seen with help from mathematics. Great mathematicians and philosophers took their God to include all these infinities and even went beyond them in power. Incidentally, one of the infinities which is greater than the infinity of the counting numbers may be seen as having the power to create something from nothing.
Therefore, if professed atheists, base their atheism on God being finite, then they may be on solid (scientific) ground; but, if professed atheists base their atheism on the belief that there is nothing infinite, then they are inexperiencd (like Obama?) or have made an error, because infinite things do exist in our universe, even if such atheists have not experienced them; qualified humans have and can provide scientific, mathematical evidence. Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens (author of recent "God is NOT Great"), and other famous nonbelievers have their nonbelief (atheism) based on a finite god and, indeed, are well justified for finite gods of all religions, but they are not so justified for the infinite God, God defined in terms of infinity or mathematician Georg Cantor's "ABSOLUTE". Atheism for the absolute (saying that there is nothing absolute) is self-contradictory in that it claims to be that which it claims does not exist, an absolute. Using self-contradictory foundations allows one to conclude whatever one wants, perhaps, this fact is just what some atheists have in mind. Meanwhile, it seems that the wonders our universe are best discovered and confirmed by beginning with self-consistent foundations.

How science gets swiftboated

Chris Zaremba, Rochester, NY — Thu, 01 May 2008 14:01:20 GMT

I often tell people that when one looks out around one's self, barring the physical plane, everything one perceives was once just a dream in someone's head. This does not "lend" to its credibility.

Suppose for a moment that the physical plane itself is merely a manifestation of the collective guilty consciousness (ego) of the human race.

That ego manifested plane, in itself, would support the idea of an "intelligent design".

Just not the type of physics/physical-plane that theists would support that "God" created.

A subtle difference that points out that possibly both points of view are somewhat distorted.

How science gets swiftboated

Rob Crowther, Seattle, WA — Thu, 01 May 2008 14:04:08 GMT

Expelled Is Not a Film about Intelligent Design, Rather It's about Academic Freedom

MSNBC.com columnists sure have it in for Expelled. What about the movie exactly has all their knickers in a twist? It might be easier to ask what doesn’t infuriate them about this film. Last week it was Art Caplan’s ridiculously absurd charge that Ben Stein is a Holocaust denier. This week it is Alan Boyle taking aim at the film, albeit in a less inflammatory manner. At least he, unlike some critics, appears to actually have seen, and reflected on, the movie.

Continue reading "Expelled Is Not a Film about Intelligent Design, Rather It's about Academic Freedom" at www.evolutionnews.org/2008/04/httpwwwdiscoveryorgexpelled.html

How science gets swiftboated

Alan Boyle — Thu, 01 May 2008 15:38:41 GMT

Thanks, Rob: I've taken a look at the Evolution News item and have revised the intelligent-design definition slightly to bring it more in line with what you suggest. I think I've already talked about why scientists are so het up about the idea behind the movie (and you're right, a lot of folks in that community are forgoing an actual showing). What bugs me most about it is the negative-political-ad style. I can imagine if this catches on, we'll see "An Inconvenient Lie"showing up on the movie circuit (which some commenters might think would be a good thing). Researchers would suddenly find themselves having to work like politicians. The common platform that scientists work on (a platform that doesn't currently include ID) would be split along political lines (which, again, some commenters just might like to see). I think the folks who have done so much using a standard system of scientific inquiry would hate to see that happen.

I wouldn't call myself "infuriated," just worried... I did try to look into leaving a comment on Evolution News, but it doesn't look like you have that feature turned on.

How science gets swiftboated

Thomas Ashby, Calgary — Thu, 01 May 2008 16:15:35 GMT

Rob Crowther: ID isn't academic. It's a fantasy. We are back to the same argument.

How science gets swiftboated

M. Floyd — Thu, 01 May 2008 17:01:07 GMT

I feel like this opinion piece says exactly this:

People who Believe in a Higher Power = wacky

Ouch. Not the best way to open up dialogue.

Most people of faith simply want to be able to voice their views about God without being labeled "wacky". It seems that the author of this blog has missed that very point.

How science gets swiftboated

TheFallibleFiend, LORTON, VA — Thu, 01 May 2008 17:03:20 GMT

Evolution News is run by ID creationists. Of course they're going to whine. They're the people who are trying to dishonestly get their religion into the classroom by disguising it at science.

They're the ones who are incapable of getting their documents through peer reviewed journals unless it's by getting their rubbish published through questionable ethical practices.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sternberg_peer_review_controversy

How science gets swiftboated

TheFallibleFiend, LORTON, VA — Thu, 01 May 2008 17:09:54 GMT

Carlton, almost nothing you said about atheism makes any sense. Using a single definition in Random House is not the place to start for the meaning as atheists apply it to themselves. Neither your definition nor your straw man discussions of what atheists believe betray discernible understanding of the term as it is used by atheists themselves.

How science gets swiftboated

Alan Boyle — Thu, 01 May 2008 17:28:56 GMT

Dear M.: I'm sorry you got that feeling from the piece. As I hope I've made clear (remember that $100 bet?) I'm one of those people who believe in a higher power, and I don't mean to call that wacky. Folks are very much free to voice their views about God ... just not in a science class that's supported with public funds. If someone looks at a molecule of DNA (or kinesin, for that matter) and concludes that the best way to explain its existence is that it was designed by a super-being (God or space aliens), that seems a bit wacky to me. And if someone says the current path of research into evolutionary biology and genetics leads to Nazi-style excesses, that's way wacky.

How science gets swiftboated

John Doe, Mill Valley, CA — Thu, 01 May 2008 18:06:30 GMT

I really don't see how the theory of evolution is at odds with religion, unless one chooses to believe the the described 6 days of creation are literally 6 days. Let's say there is an all knowing and powerful deity (specify a religion at thjis point to get an exact title for the deity, if you must)who has chosen to pick out the planet earth from all of the plants in all the galaxies in the universe and create life. Is it reasonable to think then that the deity would choose to micromanage every tiny aspect of development on this single planet? Isn't it possible for the Intellegent Designer to have just set the ingredients in play and see what develops, hence resulting in evolution of species? It has always seemed very egotistical to assume that everything was created in place with humans as the centerpiece. Believing in a deity doesn't have to mean there isn't evolution.

How science gets swiftboated

chris, pittsburgh PA — Thu, 01 May 2008 18:09:44 GMT

to SEAN the agnostic,
"why can't atheism and science be blamed for the holocaust?"

2 reasons

1) athiesm and science arent the same thing.
and
2) "my feeling as a CHRISTIAN points me to MY LORD AND SAVIOR as a FIGHTER. it points me to the man (jesus) who once in loneliness, surrounded by a few followers, recognized these Jews for what they were and summoned men to fight against them and who GODS TRUTH was greatest not as a sufferer but as a fighter"
-ADOLPH HITLER

thats why. dont be daft.

How science gets swiftboated

Ray Riddle, Bonifay, Fl. — Thu, 01 May 2008 18:24:26 GMT

Swiftboating?? Of course you must know that "swiftboating" means exposing lies and telling the truth, right?

How science gets swiftboated

Joe, Chicago, IL — Thu, 01 May 2008 18:26:51 GMT

I don't believe there is anything wrong with researching evolutionary biology. Expelled is not communicating that from what I saw when I went to the theater.

But, not allowing any voice that offers an alternative view other than Darwinian explanations causes people to view life as insignificant. Also, promotes racisism and gender bias.

I believe you cannot keep out of the science classroom at least a few paragraphs talking about the possibility of ID.

The student asks..."What is that I'm seeing in the microscope?...motors?"

Let's not be afraid to discuss the possibilities.

How science gets swiftboated

Brandon, Pittsburgh, PA — Thu, 01 May 2008 18:42:48 GMT

This whole idea that is being brought up about teaching "intelligent design" in public school is simply hillarious.

Science in School

Religion in Church

Easy enough I think...

How science gets swiftboated

M. Hartman Arvada Colorado — Thu, 01 May 2008 19:32:38 GMT

A long, long time ago religion and science where one and the same thing. They were early man's way to explain the world around them. As man evolved (yes, evolved) the two became separate endeavors. Religion became jealous of science because it felt that man would no longer need it and it has been trying ever since to discredit science. Look at what happened to Galileo, how long did it take the church to return him to the flock? There is room for both in this world so long as people stop using religion to justify their actions. Science changes, people change, perhaps religion should too.

How science gets swiftboated

Linda, Seattle Area, Washington State — Thu, 01 May 2008 19:59:44 GMT

If all living life evolved from a single cell we would not be having these debates on origin. Truly, all people would agree and know from an innate sense that we evolved from a single cell and we would each be the ruler of our own form and characteristics but life would be a madhouse of chaos, conflict over territory, aggression, disharmony and incompatibility issues that would pale anything we know today. The only debate would be how to get along if of course we were alike enough to carry on a conversation.
Furthermore, I went and viewed the movie ‘Expelled – No Intelligence allowed’ on Saturday the 26th. The show basically comes down to the topic of academic institutions policing the speech of its members, the loss of research, scientific knowledge and progress by the termination or non-renewal of academic contracts with gifted scientists, professors and teachers if the starting point of the research is based on creation, ID or there is mere mention of creation or ID regarding origins, even if these scientists are highly respected and tenured. Loss of research grant money for the same reasons is also covered.
Ben Stein travels to destinations where he interviews people on both sides of the issue including ostracized scientists and those in fear of losing their positions if they speak out publicly. He concludes science and discovery are worse off for this intolerance.
Is the reality of what you and I did yesterday or a year ago a question for philosophy class or science class? For proof, would my journal satisfy questions? Would hard evidence be enough to prove my activities or is the evidence only circumstantial? Evidence can be incomplete and corrupted unintentionally and by natural causes. Carbon dating is unreliable, ice cores have conflicts, fallacies take on the appearance of truth and sedimentation can be slow or catastrophically fast as in the case of the 200 foot high canyons formed in just hours in the multiple of eruptions from Mt. Saint Helen in 1980. When sedimentation occurs cataclysmically objects settle incrementally by size and weight from bottom to top with the large and heavy objects settling to the bottom with smaller and lighter items coming to a rest nearer the top. This explains why the remains or fossils of large dinosaurs are found at the bottom and small skeletons or fossils in the top layers of sedimentary rock. Before they were washed into these locations at the same time they had been living on the earth the very same day and time in history.
But, we have this innate sense that there is a God – a God above all gods (manmade) who created us. He, yes He (His own choice of words), knows (that’s science) that He alone is Creator, God, Author of everything, all-powerful, all-knowing (science again) and everywhere.
Tell me why 'arts and science' are always placed together as in the ‘Arts and Science Fields,’ and ‘Arts and Science Building’? I ask evolution supporters if maybe Science and Religion do go together. Everyday there are scientists studying the brain. Can the brain be studied without the intellect’s effect on it? Can the two be divided?
When did man lose his ability to evolve if evolution is to be believed as a fact? Where did man leave this ability? It could certainly come in handy today to adapt to global warming and all the other things coming upon the earth. By the mandates of evolution, after life began on earth, it adapted in ancient times to changes occurring on the planet to survive to the present. So where is this ability today? Where is the new lung function to live with air pollution? Where is the new ability to survive on less food in a world of growing food shortages; to live in hotter climates; soil contamination and etc.?

How science gets swiftboated

paulb, new york, ny — Thu, 01 May 2008 20:18:24 GMT

He who knows not, knows not.
He who knows, knows not.
But
He who knows he knows not,
That person is on the path to enlightenment

How science gets swiftboated

randel smith, corpus christi, texas — Thu, 01 May 2008 20:23:11 GMT

teach religion in church and science in school. don't be a taliban or islamic or Christian extremist. i can believe in God AND reconcile that with science and evolution, but don't try to teach me how in school. it's personal. keep religion out of public schools unless you want to have the job of deciding which religion to promote over the others.

How science gets swiftboated

Philip — Thu, 01 May 2008 20:41:48 GMT

Alan,

your most recent post, to me, indicates that the higher power you believe in is useless. if a "superbeing" as you call it, couldn't design a molecule of dna, then what is the use of this higher power or "superbeing"? because of this, stating that you believe in God seems quite contrived and disingenuous.

How science gets swiftboated

Jac Falcon, Here, Washington — Thu, 01 May 2008 21:19:34 GMT

OH MY GOODNESS MR. BOYLE! Are you blind? First of all, if you were looking at this open mindedly, you would know this movie is about letting ID people talk. He merely got into the Nazi ideas (which really do make logical sense) to show that if that is allowed, so should ID. This movie perfectly and logically does its job: to prove the many Darwinists will not allow ID to enter the realm of debate, which is truely unfair.

How science gets swiftboated

Alan Boyle — Thu, 01 May 2008 21:20:22 GMT

Dear Philip: This is why I don't make a habit of bringing up my faith ... because the folks on the other side don't stop with wondering whether I'm an atheist or not, but keep on picking at my faith.

From my point of view, God animates all the workings of the universe, but He is no crude Tinkertoy-builder, putting together things molecule by molecule. I wouldn't cast the issue in terms of stating that God "couldn't design a molecule of DNA."

My view is that the divine design is not discerned apart from the workings of the natural world. He works through evolution, through the blend of random processes, determined phenomena and free will. Biology, physics, chemistry ... these are ways that humans come to figure out how God works in the world.

But don't expect to see "Made by God" in the fine print of DNA. I strongly hold to the view that spiritual faith and material science deal with separate questions of existence, and don't conflict with each other.

Unfortunately, people tend to talk past each other. Over the past six years, I've been writing about this issue, and people always bring up things like the Second Law of Thermodynamics, the incompleteness of the fossil record, transitional species, the issue of abiogenesis. I generally point to talkorigins.org, where these supposed holes are filled in (or acknowledged as deep issues still unsolved, such as the origin of life).

But the same issues come up again and again.... I think that's why people trying to explain the real state of evolutionary biology get frustrated, and sometimes tell folks on the other side of the fence to "shut up." The only folks who believe that biology is in "crisis," as far as I can tell, are the folks who are not actually doing the research but getting their information from Answers in Genesis. The people who are doing the research are generally pretty optimistic about the discoveries they're making.

Consider all this a "Concluding Unscientific Postscript" ...

How science gets swiftboated

TheFallibleFiend, LORTON, VA — Thu, 01 May 2008 21:53:07 GMT

"So can someone here point me to a theroretical molecular model of a plausible primitive "self replicating" molecular machine?"
That is a very good question. It is irrelevant as evidence for evolution, and unnecessary as support for evolution, but it is a good question.

How science gets swiftboated

TheFallibleFiend, LORTON, VA — Thu, 01 May 2008 21:55:11 GMT

ID is not the same as young Earth creationism (YEC) or old Earth creationism (OEC), but it is creationism nonetheless - and it is an inherently unscientific notion.

How science gets swiftboated

TheFallibleFiend, LORTON, VA — Thu, 01 May 2008 22:02:21 GMT

The movie is a blatant lie.
Nothing prevents ID people from talking.
Nothing prevents ID people from gathering to worship under the guise of doing 'research.'
What is at issue is whether ID should be taught in the science class. It should not be taught there, because it is not science.

What you have is some scientists who claim to have been persecuted, but there is scant actual evidence of it. Sternberg's story, for example, is very different from that of the museum's.

Tragically, the ID creationists tend to get their "information" only from other creationist websites - and movies from other people who have not done an honest day's research on the subject.

How science gets swiftboated

Kathy — Thu, 01 May 2008 22:13:14 GMT

I believe in God. It makes perfect sense (to me) that all that exists had its beginnings in an unfathomable fist cause or "intelligence". Regardless, I also support keeping religion and its modern vehicle, "intelligent design", out of the science curriculum. Scientific theory is based upon a foundation of facts combined with logic and current knowledge of natural processes. Scientific theories also evolve, based upon the disovery of additional facts/knowledge. Religion does not have such a foundation. It is to be respected (all people have a right to their spiritual beliefs), but it does not belong in the science classroom.

How science gets swiftboated

Carlos, Austin, Tx — Thu, 01 May 2008 22:28:48 GMT

Carlton, Thank you for your well-reasoned argument. I had to reread it several times to grasp its fine points, ( the fine print?:). However, going by the atheist's responses, they're going to continue rejecting even the best-reasoned arguments. Why?! Because of the WILL, perhaps ala Immanuel Kant, I believe it was. This is truly unfortunate because we recall that Satan and his minions were cast out of Heaven for the same reason- failure to submit their will to God's, Who is All-Good.
Now, Alan, I haven't seen the movie, but I've picked up the jist of it from these blogs. They were probably saying, not too successfully, that science needs to be regulated by religion and ethics, since science is not self-regulating. Science is not an island unto itself- it is a sub-culture of a larger culture. How many scientists are also ethicists? How much say do they have?
I take Creation as a given. And I look to science to explain how things work. But I will no longer tolerate being told I come from slime when I know full well that Fallen Man arrived on this Earth with the knowledge of good and evil built in, which requires intelligence. That comes from a Reliable Source.
BTW, let's suppose for a moment that man IS evolving into a higher being that is able to navigate around the cosmos like UFO's do. So What? You'll still be living an empty, meaningless existence. "What does it profit a man if he gains the whole world (universe) and loses his own soul"?

How science gets swiftboated

Christopher Cormier — Thu, 01 May 2008 22:38:34 GMT

"Last time I checked, Evolution was classified as a theory"
Obvious lie. Simply from the way you phrase it, you do not have the scientific knowledge of a 10th grader. Whether this is because you were never taught it, or for one reason or another you are not intelligent enough to understand it, is not important.

I found this quote to be particularly grating. I'm not an atheist - but I will say the biggest liars I have ever seen in my life are all RELIGIOUS ones. It's not a lie, if they lie for Jesus, and they think you can't see what they're doing. Sad.

How science gets swiftboated

Carlton Lane, Kamuela, Hawaii — Thu, 01 May 2008 23:38:14 GMT

ALAN BOYLE and THE FALLIBLE FRIEND.
Alan, "The concluding final postscript" displays the intelligence we are so lucky to have in your job; we all can benefit from it. Thank you for contributing so very much to the enightment of all.
The Fallible Friend, I am sorry that my writings are so unclear to you and hope this trouble does not bother all readers hereof. The DICTIONARY POINT, which you obviously missed by saying one dictionary is not enough, was that ALL dictionaries are in trouble no matter how they define atheism NOT JUST RANDOM HOUSE. Your claim that almost nothing I wrote made any sense may, indeed, be due to trouble with your definitions or usage of the words I used, again, the precise point I was making.
Again, the major point being made about the problem involved, you confirmed in SPADES by demanding your definition or that of many other atheists be the one accepted by all (here is where strawmen can readily enter). I did not demand any definition be the accepted one.I simply put forth one possible definition that might be helpful to many and clarify the source that is causing trouble and much talking past one another. I do hope that your no "sense" did not apply to the self-contradiction points. If it did, then one is prone to ask, "Just what about self-contradiction don't you understand." I do know from many years of teaching logic that not everone can readily see the logical self-contradiction in "there is nothing absolute". If you are having trouble (thought I made the self-contradiction clear but maybe not clear enough for all), try contacting an elementary logic (or mathematics) teacher; but, before you do, please, be certain to clear your mind of blocking bias to your currently strongly held beliefs that could make such a contact a waste of your time. If you are blocked by a strong belief that nothing infinite exists or you can ever be convinced of such, then don't waste any time on this matter until you find someone who can help you over this bump. Again, your "almost nothing you said about atheism makes any sense", can be easily seen as some strong bias getting in the way of your understanding of what I was trying to convey. Sorry to have upset you or possibly exposed a bias of which you were not aware, but I did want to let all readers know "there is nothing infinite" shows the bias of us all who have such limited, if any at all, experience with infinite things. Only in the human endeavor of mathematics can we see concrete, scientifc, actual evidence of infinite things, like the counting numbers going on forever and being only one kind of infinite thing amomg the infinity of such infinities. FINITE thinking (common sense) finds no sense in such things, but INFINITE thinking (common sense) finds a great deal of sense there. Again, herein lies the problem for many atheists in that their atheism fails to go beyond their (our) finite bias, even to unjustifiably denying infinity can exist. Perhaps, they do see that infinity might open their forbidden door to God and want to avoid any such an opening (enlightenment?), that might require new thinking.
Again, sorry to have troubled you.

How science gets swiftboated

Thomas Ashby, Calgary — Fri, 02 May 2008 00:18:57 GMT

Carlton Lane: Watch this video and get it straight about atheists.

http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/view/id/113

How science gets swiftboated

Ashok, NJ — Fri, 02 May 2008 01:18:53 GMT

Ben Stein NEVER attacked “Science” , Either the author is dumb or he is a liar and deceiver with the intent to deceive all the sheep here that follow him deceived and stating that it is science that Ben Stein is attacking.

NO HE IS NOT ATTACKING SCIENCE.

BEN STEIN IS ATTEMPTING TO SHOW YOU IDIOTS THAT SCIENCE HAS BEEN HICKJACKED BY THE LIKES OF RICHARD DAWKINS AND THE OTHER STAUNCH EVOLUTIONISTS.

DO YOU UNDERSTAND???? SHALL I SPELL IT OUT AGAIN..

BEN STEIN OR THE INTELLIGENT DESIGN FOLKS ARE NOT AGAINST SCIENCE. THE INTELLIGENT DESIGN ARGUMENTS ARE SCIENTIFIC.

I have read many people write “why dont the proponents of intelligent design prove their arguements?” Well Duh… they have … and the proofs are out there.

There is intelligence in the information that is in the DNA. It is not random.

THINK THINK THINK … it is healthy to think a little. Ben Stein has done a great job in producing such a powerful movie. He has the Religious Darwinists on the run using all kinds of spin and name calling tactics instead of produsing ANY relevant proof of their theory. (It does not exist … so they can not produce it. Evolutionary belief is a FAITH … which is less credible than intelligent design.) It has become a religion and some scientists are brave enough to walk away from what they see is a deception.

You folks are either the perpetrators of this dogma or victims who will, like much of Germany, misled by Hitler, and much of the USSR by Stalin who used propaganda and brainwashed them… most of the folks who do not use their minds are being brainwashed by these stupid theories and they will walk right into the New World Order … one world govenment, that all the leaders of the world are already talking about. This government will not be the democratic government that you would like to have. You will have no voice in it. It is your own stupidity that will lead you into it.

Once you believe that you are evolving chemicals and nothing more, then your life is totally meaningless. You do not know when you are going to die, It could be just today…. then what? You think that you will just become ashes or dirt. So then why not do anything you wish to do? Got the most selfish pleasures for yourself. Who is to stop you?

This is exactly why the movie shows what it does about the evil intent of this very theory. And you folks, who call yourselves scientists are following the leaders like sheep. Just wait for your slaughter. It will happen. Did you know what the topmost agenda for the new world order is?

They have it carved in stone at a site in GA. It is

“To maintain the population of the world under 500,000 people.”

How are they going to do this. There are more then 6,500,000 people now.

Think about it.!!!!!!!!!

You are being led to your slaughter, by first brainwashing you and then bringing about the New World Order where you will lose your freedoms.

Stalin and Hitler were precursors of what is happening right now, but on a global scale.

How science gets swiftboated

Ryan Rands, Houston, TX — Fri, 02 May 2008 01:25:24 GMT

It seems to me that extremists on both sides (including the author of this blog post) are "swiftboating". Many of the replies equate anyone who thinks that life did not get here by accident are automatically assumed to believe in a god as creator and are also head-in-the-sand luddites. On the other side, proponents of natural and spontaneous existence of life from non-life are branded as heretics, aethiests and much worse with an agenda to stifle true faith.

When people get highly defensive and most especially when children are used as the reason for extremist behavior, I start to wonder about nature of that person and their intent.

There isn't even a theory that life came from non-life because you can't reproduce that in an experiment. Similarly, no one can prove today that there was some force* that caused life to exist. As has been mentioned repeatedly, both require faith.

This is a perfect place to use Occam's Razor. Of two ideas that are not possible to prove, which one is the most probable?

Personally, when I look around I see proof of intelligent design far more than proof of accidental evolution. If someone else sees it the opposite way, they are free to think as they wish.

Science is inherent in my profession. 30 years ago when I got my first computer, it was said that a computer matching the human brain would be as big as a building (and memory storage in two more). As Moore's Law has progressed for those 30 years, people are still saying that a computer equivalent to the human brain would be as big as a building. That's because our understanding of the human brain (aided by computers themselves) has grown apace with development of computers. We now understand far more about the complexity of the human brain than we did even 30 years ago.

I love science and discovery and while I also believe in a single god as creator, I can understand why some people object to god being taught in a science class. However, when some people vehemently oppose the thought of our impressionable children being exposed to the idea that maybe life didn't come from non-life, I concur that this behavior is approaching fascism. I firmly agree that any discussion of 'How did we get here?' should give equal time to life from non-life as well as the opposite idea.

Finally, I had little interest in seeing this movie, but based on the backlash it has provoked I will see it now. From what I've read, it has indeed 'hit a nerve' with pro-evolution extremists in science and academia.

*I'm specifically not saying intelligent design (even in lower case) in this case as people here have repeatedly confused the suggestion of intelligent design for religion and even belief in a supreme being.

How science gets swiftboated

Hank, Melbourne, Australia — Fri, 02 May 2008 02:12:33 GMT

Expelled isn't about Academic Freedom. "Big Science" isn't out to crush opposition to long-held dogmas like some beaker-wielding Vatican. There's no Science Pope forcing ID'ers to recant on pain of death.

The scientific community loves new ideas, even controversial ones & even ones that don't work. Why? Because science doesn't progress without them. Even wrong ideas are valuable because their discovery rules out a fruitless avenue of research and leaves scientists to concentrate on other things.

Science is about observing nature. It is a Description, NOT a Prescription. You observe, you record, then when you have a handle on what's happening you can use your info to predict, theorise or hypothesise. If your data and theories stand up to honest, unbiased scrutiny they're accepted into the body of knowledge. That's science.

Intelligent Design supporters simply haven't done enough to earn ID the right to be taught as science. If ID has scientific merit, it will survive the very same steps that all real science goes through. It hasn't so far, but to conflate that into a vast conspiracy is beyond naive, beyond ignorant and far beyond dishonest. The producers of Expelled have displayed remarkable dishonesty at every turn, starting long before shooting even started - fooling Dawkins & Myers into believing the film would be called "Crossroads" and be about the intersection of science and religion. Instead, it's a hit-piece against science which blames the Holocaust on Darwin! Well, they should blame it on Newton too - Hitler did believe in Gravity.

And why is biology the only branch of science that ID creationists choose to assault like this? Is it because astronomy, geology, palaeontology, archaeology, cosmology, physics, chemistry have long disproven & debunked ALL biblically-derived knowledge over the millenia and biology is religion's Final Frontier? Why are religionists so desperate to have their faith taught in schools - and why do they stoop to such despicable tactics as dishonouring the memories of 6 million Holocaust victims by presenting pure falsehoods as the reasons for their suffering? Hitler never once mentions Darwin in Mein Kampf - he mentions Louis Pasteur though. Should we declare an ID fatwa on immunology?

If it's academic freedom people are talking about, why not teach the following alternative theories in other sciences?

Chemistry - alchemy (Newton believe in it, after all) & ancient greek chemisty with the four-element periodic table
Sex Education - Intelligent Avian Delivery (storks)
Gravity - Intelligent Sucking
Astronomy - astrology (Chinese & european - gotta teach both sides)
Maths - numerology

I believe I've made my point.
But to me it's absolutley no surprise that this farce is happening in the US, home of shysters like Benny Hinn. If an Australian Stein-equivalent tried this crap in Australia he'd be laughed out of every theatre in the country.

How science gets swiftboated

Pamela, Indianapolis, IN — Fri, 02 May 2008 02:37:38 GMT

I studied the Bible intently for 7 years. After the first year of private Christian school, I decided to go to the public school to save my family money. Creation was firmly ingrained in my belief system. My experience in the 8th grade science class was just like the scene out of the movie. I was a know-it-all who knew that scientists had it wrong.

My basis for this belief? I studied the genealogy of the Bible and thought I was the very first person to conclude that according to the Bible, the Earth is 6,000 years old. The Bible gives exact lineage from Adam to Moses. Moses supposedly lived within 50 years of King Tut. More modern history fills in the gaps. They weren't teaching that in the churches because it was better to keep it vague and hope that churchgoers wouldn't have time to delve into everything. That creates too many questions that the leaders of the churches don't have answers to.

This film is the death throe of a dying ancient belief used to control the masses, gain wealth, power and land. We can still see this struggle waging on in our modern society. Thank GOD for modern education because without it we would be lost as a society. Actually, thank Darwin, even if he did drag his feet for decades because of his knowledge that evolution was in direct contrast to biblical teachings.

How science gets swiftboated

Jonas, Colo Springs — Fri, 02 May 2008 05:13:10 GMT

Why do so many believe that morality cannot exist without God? It seems that more often than not this argument comes from the lips of religious people. I for one am not religious nor was I raised to be, however, I have ALWAYS had a strong conscience and I have ALWAYS felt accountable to it. I feel guilt and shame when I ignore it. I feel satisfied when I listen.

It is this accountablity that I feel towards my very real conscience that has made me into a genuine humanitarian.

How dare you charge that I have no sense of morality.
How dare you insinuate that I, as a non-believe am predisposed to ignore my conscience.

I am accoutable to MYSELF. That is from where my morality comes from.

It would seem that the many religious people, for whom morality cannot exist without a God or creator, are simply to weak of spirit to hold themselves accountable without a third party, i.e. God, looking over thier shoulders.

Because something is beyond the scope of your ability or experience it does not mean that it doesnt exist. Athiest should also adhere to that principle and stop being so damn militant and obtuse in your judgement of anothers spirituality. In my view, to declare that their IS NO GOD is the same leap as saying that their is. The human experience thus far has been short, we are galactic infants, how can we presume to know ANYTHING as definitive as the origins of existance.

This is why I am an agnostic and firmly believe that humans have not arrived at a point to make any other rational conclusion.

That said, ID is faith based, it DOES NOT adhere to the scientific method. But please, intoduce it as a humanities or philosophy course and I will sign up.

How science gets swiftboated

Judith Headley Cheyenne, Wyoming — Fri, 02 May 2008 10:48:59 GMT

I believe that God in His intellegent wisdom, made everything the way it is, so if it is designed to evolve, so be it.

How science gets swiftboated

Richard Wagner — Fri, 02 May 2008 13:40:01 GMT

Science should not be political, but it is THE SCIENTISTS that are making it so. Part of the scientific proceedure is demonstration or verification. Why do today's scientists over look this??? If you believe in the "Big Bang", SHOW ME ONE! If you believe that lighning striking a mud puddle created self-replicating life, show me! Is this asking so much???? Politically correct, left leaning loon scientists are just too egocentric to say : "We just don't know". And if you just don't know, isn't ANY theory on the table????

How science gets swiftboated

Agnostic from Florida — Fri, 02 May 2008 14:19:34 GMT

"Evolution is not only the foundation of modern biology, but the creationist/ID crowd has had almost 150 years to try to refute it, and failed miserably. Hopefully the upcoming 200th anniversary of Darwin's birth will spur more and better antidotes to Expelled and all it represents."

HAHAHA
[...]

Theres nothing to refute, and the only time its been attempted is when science tries to push religion out of the classroom etc... Evolution came with its own noose to hang itself on, ABSOLUTELY NO PROOF!! And this goes to macro evolution, not micro evolution, even the bible points out micro evolution with small detail here and there, its macro evolution that has no proof whatsoever which science tries to force onto everyone. And to the [person] expelling crap about evolution NOT being a theory; ok, so its not a theory then... which theory or combination or theories were used to PROVE it?

hah, see its a neverending cycle, science uses theories to PROVE theories, anyone studying science in any university knows this its a principle.. and a theory is just science's way of saying "ok this is a placeholder for the truth, so after a while it will be truth if we have not REAL truth" THATS SCIENCE whether you bloated science nerds like it or not.

How science gets swiftboated

Chris, Chesterfield — Fri, 02 May 2008 15:24:20 GMT

Never mind Big Science, what about Big Snake Oil ?

How science gets swiftboated

Billy Bob, Seattle Washington — Fri, 02 May 2008 15:58:52 GMT

Richard, you that was a wonderful parody post. Although evolution (and a whole subset of practices and variants) has been verified time and again, the doubting Thomases of the lazy faithful conflate cosmology with biology and demand some grand three-dimensional demonstration of the whole story of the universe right in their living room. In other words, they want a third creation story (yes, there are two different ones in the Bible).

The saddest part is how inexpensive it was for Ben Stein to cheapen the Holocaust by comparing concentration camps to people being denied tenure for shoddy work. I guess whatever keeps his career going...

How science gets swiftboated

Thomas Ashby, Calgary — Fri, 02 May 2008 16:34:05 GMT

Judith Headley: That reasoning is paradoxical because evolution works exclusively on its own with no "tweaking" or guidance from an outside source. So either God has a lot of time on their hands as it sits back and watches the universe and the world evolve or this God is dead or this God never existed in the first place. You can't have it both ways.

How science gets swiftboated

Wade Whitlock, Aberdeen, MD — Fri, 02 May 2008 17:52:01 GMT

Cathe of Sherman - I agree, don't let professors determine your beliefs. Test them and compare against rigorous experiments and repeatable observations. Whoops! Sorry, that would be science, wouldn't it?

So, trot out your designer to face the same review any scientist does and we shall see what we see. If you can't produce then you have no standing.

If you insist on living in the Dark Ages (which were effectively controlled by the Roman Catholic Church of Rome) try giving up the advances that religions haven't provided. Should make for an interesting experiment in evolution - What?

How science gets swiftboated

Dr Benway — Fri, 02 May 2008 18:12:54 GMT

Rob Crowther Seattle WA: "Expelled Is Not a Film about Intelligent Design, Rather It's about Academic Freedom"

Talk of "freedom" apart from the rules that define its limits is nothing more than pandering and feel-good-speak.

I wish the general public were more aware of the evidentiary rules necessary for scientific work.

How science gets swiftboated

John Smyth, Tx — Fri, 02 May 2008 18:48:29 GMT

Stein is no dummy. In fact he was the top of his class at Yale Law school in 1970. No one is debating that change happens over time. What is in question is whether or not it is random mutation or the intentional effort of a creator that is responsible for the design which we see as scientists. It is the theology of Darwinism that has become problematic. If the hypothesis is that "random" action and mutation caused the life and the complexity we see around us and under the microscope, then we must PROVE that this is likely. We can't begin to do so. Darwinist have no idea how life began. No idea how all the information provided by DNA got there in the first place. NO IDEA. Some of us think we see evidence of a creator in the evidence that is comin g forward. We think the evidence points toward intentionality and stands against those who claim the complexity we see is an accident. One could argue that this doesn't add much to the scientific endeavor, and I might agree. However, an atheistic interpretation doesn't add a lot either. Dawkins is a philosopher pretending to be a scientist. His evidence does not prove that God is not involved in the creation of life or its progress across the ages. I don't have a problem with many of Darwin's ideas, but when Darwinism crosses over to metaphysics it has ceased to be science and it is increasingly obvious that it can not sustain its metaphysical claims. Because this is true, a debate of other options seems appropriate.

How science gets swiftboated

Slartibartfast, Durham, NC — Fri, 02 May 2008 19:15:03 GMT

Quoting Jonas:

"How dare you charge that I have no sense of morality.
How dare you insinuate that, as a non-believe(r) am predisposed to ignore my conscience"

Thank you. As an atheist, a moral person, and a humanitarian, I also resent the implication that I couldn't possibly be a good person without some kind of religious belief. I try to be nice to people because it makes me feel good - is this any more or less valid than being a good person for fear of God's wrath? I believe that, in this context, a person's actions are what's important and I believe my actions define me as a good person.

Quoting Richard Wagner:

"Science should not be political, but it is THE SCIENTISTS that are making it so. Part of the scientific proceedure is demonstration or verification. Why do today's scientists over look this??? If you believe in the "Big Bang", SHOW ME ONE! If you believe that lighning striking a mud puddle created self-replicating life, show me! Is this asking so much???? Politically correct, left leaning loon scientists are just too egocentric to say : "We just don't know". And if you just don't know, isn't ANY theory on the table????"

Certainly demonstration and verification is an important part of the scientific process and scientists are aware of this (I am a scientist, by the way), but that doesn't mean that we should stop our work to explain everything to someone who comes in off of the street and questions the well established foundations of our field with no empirical evidence to back them up. I will, however take some of my time to answer your questions.

I don't believe in the "Big Bang", so I wont show you one. I happen to think that the plasma cosmology is a much more satisfying explanation of the origin of the universe, but as I don't have any hypotheses supported by experimental evidence to back up that belief, I don't expect cosmologists to care about what I believe. As far as "ligh(t)ning striking a mud puddle" creating life goes, The Miller-Urey experiments showed that amino acids spontaneously form under conditions similar to those on Earth 4.4-2.7 billion years ago. It is not currently understood how single-celled life arose from amino acids, but research is ongoing (look up Abiogenesis on Wikipedia for an overview of some of the theories on how this might have occurred - it should also be noted here that the theory of evolution describes how life evolved, not how life originated i.e. how we got from the single cell to the diversity of life today, not how we got from the primordial soup to single celled life). In other words (from a left leaning loon scientist who's not big on political correctness): We just don't know... yet, but we're working on it. This does not mean that any theory is on the table, rather it means that any theory may be put on the table. To have your theory considered by scientists, all you have to do is come up with a hypothesis (the flying spaghetti monster reached out with his noodley appendage...), use this hypothesis to make a testable (falsifiable) prediction, conduct an experiment to test your prediction (preferably several times), revise or refine your hypothesis based on the results of your experiment, and write up the results (good or bad). If you do this scientists will gladly consider your hypothesis (it doesn't get to be a theory until it has withstood years of repeated testing and has a mountain of evidence supporting it (like the theory of evolution)). In general, scientists don't care to take the time to answer unsupported challenges because they are aware of the mountain of evidence that supports their view and, quite frankly, don't think that unscientific challenges should be taken seriously. People become scientists in order to do research which they feel is interesting and important. I myself am doing research trying to understand cancer. I've taken the time to write this response because I feel that it is important for lay people to understand the scientist's position so they can stop attempts to undermine scientific education and let us do our jobs. In other words, to all you IDers out there: Stop wasting my time with your unsupported, unscientific ideas and let me try to cure cancer!

How science gets swiftboated

Joe, Chicago, IL — Fri, 02 May 2008 19:21:16 GMT

"What is your world view?"

The “facts” don’t speak for themselves, but must be interpreted. That is, there aren’t separate sets of “evidences” for evolution without design and ID—we all deal with the same evidence (we all live on the same earth, have the same fossils, observe the same animals, etc.). The difference lies in how we interpret what we study.

How science gets swiftboated

mike, seattle, wa — Fri, 02 May 2008 20:04:00 GMT

This reminds me of a great conversation I had with my mother, who is very, very religious. We were discussing the age of the earth and I was telling her of all the different methods that are available to determine how old something is. Every single one points to an earth that is much more than 6,000 years old.

After much discussion she said that "god could have changed the way things like radioactive decay work, making them show what we see".

Once she said that I really knew that when confronted with evidence to the contrary once you invoke a supreme being all bets are off. If you hold that something bigger and better than us must have made things, then there is no possible way to persue anything. All things are possible and nothing I see or do or measure can be right. After all if the laws of physics can be changed, anything else is possible.

The problem with this approach is that now why should we try to learn more about anything? Indeed when the church ruled the western world we call it the "Dark Ages". As others have pointed out, much knowledge about science was lost when religion held absolute sway, because those ideas did not coincide with religion.

Why anyone would want to go back to a time when there was essentially no scientific progress baffles me. Unless you are literally a ludditte most of us could not handle a mideval lifestyle.

While I certainly agree that at the most philosophical you can call science a religion, this again serves no useful purpose. Either you accept that what we observe is real or we can do nothing and go nowhere.

Finally this all should be part of a philosophy class. We have mostly dismissed the greek religion (Zeus and his friends) as fanatsy, but we still use the philosophy (Plato and his pals) as something that still is useful in debating things. Does this not show that religion is fleeting, but discourse and science are lasting?

How science gets swiftboated

Carlton Lane, Kamuela, Hawaii — Fri, 02 May 2008 20:10:13 GMT

CARLOS of Austin
Thank you, Carlos, for your kind and insightful comments. Did you see the atheist's reply to my comment before or after your comment to me and Alan? If after, you can see and enjoy how prescient you are. Failure to study the infinite or denying its existence causes many to fall into the errors inherent in finite common sense which can be readily avoided by developing infinite common sense. Here's a simple example. Finite common sense insists that no matter how many 9's are added to the string of 9's in 4.999999 you will never get to 5. Infinite common sense, helped by mathematial proof, sees that an infinity of 9's will do the job or that 4.9999......, where the ...... indicates that the string of 9's goes on forever, is infinite, the smallest infinitude which is that of the counting numbers, is exactly 5. Finite common sense (the predominant bias of all humans) simply can't or will not understand this fact of mathematics. How this smallest (lowest powered of the infinities) infinitude manages to accomplish this deed remains a complete mystery, even contradictory, to finite common sense. Another example is finite common sense insisting that there must be more, twice as many, numbers in a listing of all the counting numbers, all the evens and all the odds combined than either evens or odds alone. For finite lists finite common sense is right, but for infinite lists finite common sense gets it WRONG and it takes infinite common sense (reasoning) to see that there are no less even counting numbers than evens and odds combined, all the counting numbers. This fact rattles everyone's common sense because everyone has far more experience with and understanding of finite things than infinite things.
Einstein said that (finite) common sense is common prejudice laid down in one's early years. Another example, along similar lines, is that the understanding that comes with infinite common sense allows one to, correctly, see that removing the infinite list of even counting numbers from the infinite list of even and odd counting numbers combined leaves behind an undiminished infinitude list of odd counting numbers, not a list of smaller infinitude than before the removal began. That is, one can remove an infinity from infinity and not diminish the original infinity. IMPOSSIBLE for finite common sense where removal always makes less or a part is always less than the whole. "Part" and "whole" have very different meanings in the infinite realm.
Sorry to go on so long and, maybe, not be clear enough, but I was trying to be as brief as possible for those who never had seen these things in their mathematics classes. One really needs to read a book on this subject to see what I'm trying to present, but maybe one's appetite may be enticed by this brief taste.
Well, Carlos, you know that some die hard atheists and agnostics will want nothing to do with infinity and my blundering here has, probably, confirmed their resolve to stay away from infinity. After all, physics, biology, chemistry, etc. avoid or go to great lengths to remove any infinities because their appearance usually indictes a problem has arisen for a finite theory. So, maybe, some atheists can be seen as simply trying to follow science's staying finite, but then they can't expect to validly claim universality for their approach. Infinite things do exist in our universe and mathematics helps us to investigate them in a way similar to the way mathematics helps science to investigate finite physical things. The bona fide scientist knows science treats and can only treat a certain part of our universe. Such partial knowledge must be recognized as not the whole story. Knowledge about the infinite, especially as uncovered by mathematics, is another part of our universe that should not be neglected if we are truly interested in the whole story.

How science gets swiftboated

Bill, Owosso, MI — Fri, 02 May 2008 20:39:08 GMT

I think that these comments are missing the point. Ben Stein was trying to argue for the teaching of ALL theories in the classroom. Because neither evolution nor creation has been thoroughly proven and never will be, then why don't we teach both and let the students continue research and make their own conclusion instead of brainwashing them into only one viewpoint?

I am a Christian and believe in creationism, but what I want to know from those who preach evolutionism is, have you ever read Darwin's books and researched the subject objectively? Darwin did believe in evolution, but not between species. Bacteria did not turn into fish which turned into frogs which turned into reptiles, etc. What he believed was that minor changes within the species was possible. If a human lived in a sunny climate, their skin would eventually darken to prevent excessive burning. This is what happens when we tan. It is that type of change Darwin believed.

Before evolutinist get all up in arms about this, why not go and research the subject on your own rather than relying on the teachers and professors that have brainwashed you?

How science gets swiftboated

Sarah Vines — Fri, 02 May 2008 21:57:43 GMT

Well, I just got told by one of my Christian friends to go see the movie because it would "prove" that all evolutionists were atheists and communists. I replied that I sure wasn't an athiest or communist, but was definitely an "evolutionist". (I wasn't going to tell him that I was pagan, though :)

How science gets swiftboated

T. L. W. Hood, Wildomar, CA — Fri, 02 May 2008 23:59:32 GMT

Why are evolutionists so defensive?

Me thinks thou dost protest too loudly.

How science gets swiftboated

TheFallibleFiend, Lorton, va — Sat, 03 May 2008 02:07:26 GMT

"f you believe in the "Big Bang", SHOW ME ONE! "
No one has shown you an electron, either. Do you reject their existence as well? Do you think the Internet runs on magic beans?

How science gets swiftboated

Thomas Ashby, Calgary — Sat, 03 May 2008 02:08:33 GMT

Bill Owosso, MI... Darwin laid the foundation. Isn't that obvious? Darwin showed with theory and extraordinary insight and that there is no "hand-o-God". And..so what? Why do people need a "hand-o-God"?

How science gets swiftboated

TheFallibleFiend, Lorton, va — Sat, 03 May 2008 02:11:46 GMT

agnostic, apparently you're not actually an agnostic. Scientific theories are never proven. None. They are confirmed or they are disproved, but they are not proven. You need to quit relying on the version of how science operates that you learned in 3rd grade and study the actual article. Science does not require us to have absolute certainty and it is incapable of supplying us that security. Quit reading Answers in Genesis and other anti-science sites. Check a real science book out of the library and start learning.

How science gets swiftboated

TheFallibleFiend, Lorton, va — Sat, 03 May 2008 02:12:58 GMT

"Once she said that I really knew that when confronted with evidence to the contrary once you invoke a supreme being all bets are off."

Bingo! Some kind of God might exist. God might be "a truth." Science cannot address it.

How science gets swiftboated

TheFallibleFiend, Lorton, va — Sat, 03 May 2008 02:14:23 GMT

Joe in Chicago wrote:
"we all deal with the same evidence "
We all have access to the same evidence. Some of us (IDers and other creationists) elect to ignore most of it.

How science gets swiftboated

TheFallibleFiend, Lorton, va — Sat, 03 May 2008 02:15:33 GMT

"After all, physics, biology, chemistry, etc. avoid or go to great lengths to remove any infinities because their appearance usually indictes a problem has arisen for a finite theory."
Carlton, this is just being silly

How science gets swiftboated

TheFallibleFiend, Lorton, va — Sat, 03 May 2008 02:19:44 GMT

"Ben Stein was trying to argue for the teaching of ALL theories in the classroom"
Ben Stein was lying. ID is not a scientific theory at all. Many IDers and creationists actually admit this - especially to their private congregations. In public they say "let's talk science" in private their "wedge documents" and the like demonstrate incontrovertibly that they are attempting to turn science into a tool for religion.

"have you ever read Darwin's books and researched the subject objectively? "
Yes. I have.

"Darwin did believe in evolution, but not between species."
Obviously you have not. Darwin certainly did accept that evolution produced speciation. That's why the title of his book was "Origin of Species," i.e. where species come from.

The big difference between evolutionists and creationists is the difference in research methodology. Creationists cannot distinguish between fact and urban legend.

How science gets swiftboated

TheFallibleFiend, Lorton, va — Sat, 03 May 2008 02:21:56 GMT

TL wrote: "Why are evolutionists so defensive?"
We're not defensive. Creationists are spreading misinformation, because they are too intellectually lazy to do an honest day's homework on the subject. We are correcting them.

How science gets swiftboated

Craig Walsh, Denver, Co — Sat, 03 May 2008 03:55:55 GMT

Humbling, is a word I find that most appropriately demonstrates an attitude one should have regarding the pursuit and accumulation of knowledge. If we tried to quantify the amount of knowledge that exists, we would probably agree that it’s infinite (at least relative to our puny minds). One could spend every waking moment absorbing knowledge and accumulate very little. Even the knowledge we’ve accumulated would have to be held in contempt as we have no idea how everything “really” works, because we didn’t create it nor where we there when it was created. It baffles me that any human could be absolutely confident in asserting anything as factual—existential is a more appropriate prospective. 2 humans can view the same set of results and have diametrically opposite points of view—existential (what do you want it to mean and better yet what do you want to convince other humans it means).

I don’t believe there ever existed a human being capable of the thoughts and concepts in the Bible; therefore they must have come from an entity with far superior capabilities.

How science gets swiftboated

Jon, Portland, OR — Sat, 03 May 2008 08:56:25 GMT

I don't think anyone needs to worry about this film too much. The people watching it are the people who already want creationism in science classes anyway. It's basically preaching to the choir.

I think the problem here is that some religious people think that the theory of evolution is trying to say there is no God when in fact it doesn't concern itself with the supernatural at all. Science is concerned only with natural phenomena that can be studied, tested, measured, and evaluated.

How science gets swiftboated

Carlton Lane, Kamuela, Hawaii — Sat, 03 May 2008 14:18:28 GMT

THEFALLIBLEFRIEND
Just when I saw that you seemed to be seeing things clearly with your "Bingo! Some kind of God might exist. God might be a 'truth'. Science cannot address it.", your later comment to me quoting my "After all physics, biology, chemistry, etc. avoid ...... infinities ......" and following it with your "this is just being silly" made me worry about you again. Here's an example of what I was talking about which I do hope you may now be able to appreciate. Bona fide physicists recognize that current quantum theory and gravitation theory produce singularities, mathematical infinities (both theories are based on mathematics), when attempts are made to unite them. These resulting infinities need to be REMOVED and, therefore, physicists and mathematicians are trying to find a unifying theory that removes this problematic (and used by physicists as an indicator of theory failure) infinity. Some trial unifying string theories are rejected when they produce such infinities even though the postulated finite string can remove some of the infinities inherent in the point-particle concept. Because the "Big Bang" theory can lead to a grand singularity, infinity, (the "big bang") (and for other reasons), bona fide physicists know that physics CAN'T get us a physical or mathematical picture at time zero (currently very close to zero but impossible to treat exactly zero). Finally, although there are many more examples, bona fide physicists know that things with non-zero rest mass (things having weight, say, on Earth) can't move with the maximum speed of light because, if such were possible, physical and mathematical infinties would arise. Physics eshews (do you like that better than "avoids"? infinities, hence, holds such speed for bodies with mass to be IMPOSSIBLE in our physical universe. If you find all this "silly", then I guess I'll just have to go on being concerned for you (praying for you?).
Oh, by the way, God MIGHT be THE truth not just your "a truth", but I am certain that we will have a problem with the defibnition of "truth". Can you consider the possibility of the idea that God might be INFINITE truth? INFINITE love? Now "love" presents a really big problem in its definition; so, maybe, it, like some people take "God", is better left UNDEFINED, that is, leaving it to one's "experience with" or "feeling for" love. I'm sticking with taking INFINITY as the "undefined" (then defining "God" in terms of infinity) because atheists, agnostics, and others can be shown how to develop "a feeling for" and "experience with" infinity, through simple mathematics, like counting, even if they have no prior "experience with" or "feeling for" God. Many atheists and agnostics, of course, still have the right to deny the existence of infinite things, but they can't, logically or credibly, simultaneously, continue their FAITH in mathematics or science based on mathematics. Well, I guess freedom of thought should still not be denied even if a thought is clearly self-contradictory. As some say, true freedom or tolerance allows everyone to have the right to be wrong or self-contradictory if they so desire. Einstein's Specal Reativity made it clear to the human race that mutual-contradicion can be O.K. and defended in our physical universe, but self-contradiction is NOT the same as mutual-contradiction. For example, in our phyical universe, observers in UNIFORM (no change in velocity allowed) motion can claim being at rest for themselves and motion for the other, mutually contradict, but self-contradiction will be exposed by our self-consistent physical universe.
Special Relativity not only indicates that we are in an equal opportunity universe but also in a universe that supports toleration.

How science gets swiftboated

Rann Xerox — Sat, 03 May 2008 16:45:27 GMT

My wife and I have home schooled our children now for about 10 years. We do this for many reasons, one of which is the very narrow mindedness of the public school systems with their dogmas of science, politics, etc. My wife and I are both college educated with graduate degrees and we teach evolution because, as a theory, it has stood the tests of critical analysis. I also believe in Intelligent Design. Maybe not in ways that the people in this film do, but I believe that God plays a distant part in the universe. I believe it was Einstein who once said that God was a master clock maker and he created this great work we call the universe, wound it up, and let it play out. I do not think God is going to heal my sick child or end world hunger but God is the spark that is in all of us.

How science gets swiftboated

Dr Benway — Sun, 04 May 2008 03:34:53 GMT

A common pro-ID argument. It is true that we filter facts through pre-existing expectations or biases. To some extent, we see what we imagine we ought to see.

Yet science doesn't end here. If it did, we'd never make any intellectual progress.

After one cycle of looking at facts and creating an explanatory hypothesis, another cycle begins. We use our hypothesis to make predictions. Then we check to see how well our predictions match observed reality. The record of our observations becomes a new set of facts to explain. These facts may cause us to refine or abandon our original hypothesis in favor of some alternate explanation. But whatever the status of our explanatory model at this point, we will again subject it to some test. That test will produce new facts. Those new facts will be used to refine our hypothesis. And on and on the cycle will repeat.

Thus we gradually bootstrap our way from superstition and guesswork toward a more realistic understanding of this world we share.

Tell me, ID proponents, what does your hypothesis predict? When will you subject your hypothesis to some test?

How science gets swiftboated

Dr Benway — Sun, 04 May 2008 04:26:50 GMT

T. L. W. Hood, Wildomar, CA: "Why are evolutionists so defensive?"

Because, without a basic understanding of the scientific method among the general population, the enterprise of science becomes vulnerable to corruption.

We humans are fragile creatures at the mercy of our hopes and fears. Our needs are constantly getting in the way of our understanding of how things work.

Modern, controlled research is a relatively recent development in human history (post WWII for medicine, just to give some perspective). Every inch forward has been a battle. We could lose the whole, fragile system of scientific progress in a very short period of time. Superstition and pseudoscience are far more natural for us than rigorous, rule-based methods of analysis.

The fact that a well-educated person like Ben Stein cannot distinguish rhetoric from rational argument is concerning. The fact that millions of Americans will take this bad movie seriously scares the crap out of me.

If the day arrives when we can no longer respect and trust the opinions of mainstream scientists in their field of expertise, we've lost our democracy. If truth becomes a political commodity, hello 1984.

How science gets swiftboated

Carlton Lane, Kamuela, Hawaii — Sun, 04 May 2008 05:09:25 GMT

RANN XEROX
Right on Rann! I am certain that you know what you mean by your "spark", but it is likely that there are some readers of this dialogue, who may not understand you, even make strawsparks (their own definitions) to be able to discount you. For you and others, who might find it helpful, please, let me try to provide a possible insight.
If humans were TOTALLY finite, they could not discover or understand the infinite (some understanding of the infinite makes this obvious). Through mathematics humans HAVE discovered the infinite and DO have some understanding of it (just like mathematics has helped and is helping humans to discover the physics of our universe). Therefore, there must be something in humans that is infinite (your "spark"?). RIGHT ON RANN.

How science gets swiftboated

Carlos, Austin, Tx. — Sun, 04 May 2008 07:52:09 GMT

Hi, Carlton. I just got back and read your last comment. The answer to your query is 'before'. I'm not prescient, fortunately. While I was mainly responding to you and then Alan, it did indeed prompt me to add pertinent comments to both.
Well, I don't know what to add here. All the lucid arguments here, yours included, have been shouted down by the new Illuminati. I ardently hope that cooler heads prevail in Academe. Otherwise...
On Creationism and ID, I have almost no idea what those are. Regarding science, I have a great admiration for those scientists whose hard work has resulted in wonderful discoveries and are still doing so today. My only contention with it is, and always has been since I was a schoolboy back in the sixties, the origin of man. I heard it in school and elsewhere over and over, always feeling uncomfortable with it but not knowing why. Perhaps it was because I attended Catholic school through the fourth grade (public school thereafter) and instinctively felt it was a denial of God. I've gone along with Darwinism until now. Now I see there's no certainty about it even though it's being 'preached' that way. Therefore, choosing between God and Darwin, I deny Darwin. I hope he didn't wind up on the menu at the 'roast'.
I have to be honest with you. I think I probably have somewhat of an advantage over some people here- because I had a Visitor from Heaven once, long ago. I had become an unbeliever before that occurrence- during public school- didn't believe that God stuff and didn't really want to hear it. I just wanted to be left alone. But an extremely traumatic event happened which had me contemplating suicide. Instead, one night I got down on my knees ( I remember how difficult that was to do- bending my own will) before bed and said some half-remembered prayers. Later that night my Visitor came. That was the beginning of a complete reorientation of my life, which took years and much studying, privately.
What I write is the result of that reorientation. There may also be some inspiration involved.
P.S. I did my studying back in the eighty's, so I appreciate the refresher on cognitive dissonance and the self-contradiction of 'nothing is absolute'. All the best to you.

How science gets swiftboated

Stuart McClain, Largo, Fl. — Sun, 04 May 2008 09:05:00 GMT

I have not seen expelled so I can't comment on what Ben Stein said or didn't say. I can comment on the tone of your article though and some of the claims you make with regards to intelligent design.

First off believing in Intelligent Design does not immediately mean you believe in God, it simply says that some of the evidence out there calls into question Darwin's theory of evolution. Let's face it when Darwin came up with his theory he did not have the advantages of the breakthroughs modern science has. They did not have electron microscopes that can see things on a cellular level so basically many of his claims have been shown to not hold water. He believed that all life forms basically evolved from one life form that climbed out of the primordial goop and from there different conditions caused evolution down many paths. He used a tree as an exemplar, at it's base was the original life form and then it's branches are the differing evolutionary paths that life took from there, unfortunately the fossil record does not bear this out, basically in the Cambrian period there was a veritable explosion of life forms which continue to this day in their same basic form. To be sure some very small evolutionary changes have been oberved, but nothing on the scle of what we should see were Darwin correct.

Secondly when we look at nature in it's various forms we see things like the simple little flagellum, according to Darwin's theory it should not exist, because the neccesary conditions could never have existed for it to have evolved into what it is, in fact the very specialized components of this little guy would have rather deevolved the things that make it such an effective little bugger.

My point is as much as you folks in the evolutionary camp want to say the jury is in, it's not, there are too many things out there that just don't fit your models, they don't fit all of intelligent designs models either, if you are an honest juror you would have to say a verdict cannot be made at this stage because we do not have conclusive evidence. There has been a tendency on the evolutionists side of things to try and force the data to fit your conclusions rather than following the scientific method and not coming to the table with a preconcieved idea at all. You are not honest with yourselves or others, just very angry any time someone has a differing opinion. at least the folks in the creationist camp are clear about their point of view not being from a scientific one, it is faith based, you come to it through means other than the scientific method and they don't try to force a round peg into a square hole like you folks do.

Frankly your article in my opinion is little more than an angry screech against an opinion you don't care for, it is filled with anger and hatefulness, not a detatched journalistic or scientific approach, so if every thing you said about Ben Stein's movie is true, well your article is a mirror image of it because you do the same types of things. I recommend you gain some distance and take some vallium.

How science gets swiftboated

ron, south bend, Indiana — Sun, 04 May 2008 23:26:42 GMT

Mr. Boyle does little to contribute to an otherwise well written article by referencing wikipedia as an explanation of his use of the term swiftboating. As far as journalistic integrity is concerned it would be more helpful if he defined the term in the article itself of used less of a 'buzzword' to further his cause.

The danger is, of course, that Mr. Boyle can easily change the wikipedia article to suit his own purposes with the reader unaware of the misdirection, all the while pretending that since it is an outside article is far more reputable than if he had defined the term himself.

This is a serious issue that needs the attention of MSNBC editors and editorial staff. Wikipedia is not a journalistic resource, and while it is a wonderful tool for gathering information, responsible journalism should show some professionalism in it's use.

I restrain myself from commenting on the issues of the article, because I believe this needs to be addressed before the mistake is made again. Because if it happens again, be assured that I will be changing the wikipedia article to mean whatever I want it to mean in the context of MSNBC's formally reliable news.

How science gets swiftboated

kevin Ivers — Mon, 05 May 2008 01:13:40 GMT

No inteligence allowed that sums up the evolutionary arguement study the world, and study the world of insects their adaptations to their environment, are what they are not evolution even the ape or monkeycannot evolve into another species ,One Question if we evolved from the ape why are they still on this earth

How science gets swiftboated

Alan Boyle — Mon, 05 May 2008 04:54:38 GMT

Ron, I returned to the controversy over "swiftboating" in this item:

http://cosmiclog.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/04/30/965849.aspx

I might have to take a page from Ben Stein's playbook and write "I will not use the word swiftboating" on the blackboard. ;-) But I think a safe definition would be any negative campaign ads that raise questions about the animus motivating the sponsors of the ads themselves, particularly if the charges go back many years. By this definition, ads that questioned President Bush's National Guard service *might* have been considered swiftboating as well. But far be it from me to add fuel to the Swift Boat fire. By the way, for what it's worth, I've never gotten involved in Wikipedia authoring.

How science gets swiftboated

David Junker — Mon, 05 May 2008 09:20:42 GMT

On Ben Stein’s Expelled….: “If the fittest ARE to be the ones who survive, why are we so very zealous in ‘saving the planet?’ Maybe there exists not only the Creator, but the Savior in whose ‘image’ we ARE intricately designed.”

How science gets swiftboated

Carlton, Kamula, Hawaii — Mon, 05 May 2008 11:46:33 GMT

CARLOS from CARLTON
(ATHEISTS BEWARE)
Thank you, Carlos, for taking time to reply and setting down more good things for contemplation by others and the "new illuminati". Even though some of the "new illuminati", who could benefit from them, may not read them, some others may find them helpful for true illumination and as a strong defense against the errors of the "new illuminati".
Not everyone can have (some may even not want) "a Visitor" experience, but all normal humans can experience, even partially understand, infinity. Those who have experienced the infinite (God?) tend to be far more tolerant and humble than some who have not and this fact is to be expected if one has an infinite experience which can be the beginning of infinite common sense in contrast to finite common sense.
Carlos, please, forgive me for "preaching to the chior" (I know you do understand these things already), but I know that you share my hope that some may eventually hear "our resounding hymns" even if they are plugging their ears.

How science gets swiftboated

Joel CT — Tue, 06 May 2008 01:20:36 GMT

all i have to say is that, well, i guess people believe what they will, there are different people, dif. beliefs, but im goin with the most proven theory, if someone can come up with proven evidencefor ID, ill sure as heck believe them

How science gets swiftboated

Thomas Ashby, Calgary — Tue, 06 May 2008 01:46:59 GMT

Carlton Kamula..what is this obsession with the infinite you have?

Fallible...I agree that anti-evolutionist/creation types (AKA purveyors of ID) are too lazy, too deluded or just too uneducated/stupid to bother with evolution. Getting "high on God" instead of really seeing the magnificense and liberating intelligence of evolution is tragically immoral.

How science gets swiftboated

Carlton , Kamuela, Hawaii — Tue, 06 May 2008 03:57:49 GMT

THOMAS ASHBY (OBSESSION?)
If you are a scientist, your comments do not reflect a very consistent one. Where is your scientific evidence that people you refer to as "too
lazy, too deluded, etc." are such?. Any data you have is too limited for any bona fide science and such strong derogating pronouncements, with such limited data, need a strong bias to be uttered (not all bias is bad, but it is not good when based on such limited data). Seems that you may be more personal belief (bias) oriented than scientifically oriented. Where is your evidence that I am "obsessed" (abnormally preoccupied or do you have another definition?) with infinity? Like it or not obsession is used to indicate an "abnormality" and, surely, you are also suggesting with "lazy", "deluded","uneducated/stupid" abnormal or bad things in others as well. Your approach does not suggest very nice things about yourself. Taking a closer look at your comments may help you to see how they work against the things you really care about and want to have people listen to.
I do care deeply (NOT OBSESSIVELY which is an abnormality) about helping other humans. I, for one, might be tempted to see your passion for atheism as an obsession, but I shall leave it to competent "shrinks" to make such judgements knowing that they can often be wrong like us fellow humans in spite of their expertise. Humility and tolerance are best for us all. :-)

How science gets swiftboated

Thomas Ashby. Calgary — Tue, 06 May 2008 22:56:22 GMT

Carlton, kamuela...I used the term loosely because most or all of your drawn out writing mentions the infinite. Maybe you are just bent on words? Most probably don't have the time to critque and at least try to understand just what it is you spend reams of paragraphs talking about. :-)

How science gets swiftboated

Carlos, Austin, Tx. — Wed, 07 May 2008 00:15:57 GMT

Hi, Carlton, I have a hot news flash for you. I had a eureka moment during which it became clear to me what is happening. Darwinism is ,in fact, the ideology/philosophy/religion (your choice) of the secular establishment. It is, actually, the only alternative to religion that non-believers have. Therefore, when Darwinism is questioned, their 'true-believers see that as an attack upon their 'faith', and rise to defend it.
What is so beguiling about Darwinism is that it's couched in scientific terms, so that an attack upon Darwinism is perceived as an attack upon science. But to those standing outside its sphere of influence, the emperor has no clothes!( Nice going, Stuart McClain!) That is, when Darwinism is looked at from a comfortable distance, a reasonable observer will see there's nothing there but assertions based on expectations and false assumptions. That is NOT how science works.
Now, I only hope that those in Academia can also step back from Darwinist influence and refresh their perpective. If they can, this will no doubt end the conflict between REAL science and religion.
Best regards to all.

How science gets swiftboated

Slartibartfast, Durham, NC — Wed, 07 May 2008 04:36:44 GMT

Dr Benway:

Well said.

Carlton Lane:

You are confusing the relationship of mathematics and science - and before you object that I don't understand your infinite common sense, let me say that as someone who has a Ph.D. in Mathematics and works as a scientist that I understand what you are saying all too well. The concept of infinity is a mathematical one, it has no relevance in science (I'll get to your philosophical point of defining God in terms of infinity in a bit). In mathematics, one deals with proof - I don't believe that the Pythagorean Theorem is true, I know it is true because I can prove it, the same way you can prove that the even numbers have the same cardinality as all of the counting numbers (note for non-mathematicians: cardinality is basically the size of an infinite set) and it would be ridiculous to argue the point. Science, however, is about empirical evidence - it is about what can be observed and measured. In science we have theories which are hypotheses supported by experimental evidence, though they can never be proven, if you want to attack one you must have experimental evidence of your own to support your attack (otherwise scientists have no basis (and no reason) to evaluate the validity of your argument. Empirical evidence (necessary for any scientific argument) is something that must be measured - and you can't measure the infinite, therefore the infinite has no place in science. You talk about 'singularities', but you confuse the mathematical and scientific definitions of these terms. A mathematical singularity is indeed an infinity (typically the result of dividing a finite quantity by zero), a scientific singularity (a black hole) is a region where matter is so dense that light itself cannot escape. Because light cannot escape the event horizon of a black hole, science can say nothing about what's going on inside of the event horizon. Specifically, you cannot say that there is a point of infinite density in a black hole - talking about the interior of a black hole is scientifically meaningless because there is no way to experiment on it and collect evidence.

As to your philosophical point (and while I am happy to talk about philosophy, let me be clear that these sort of speculations do not belong in a scientific discussion, be it in person, in a scientific journal or especially in a scientific classroom) are you sure you want to define God in terms of infinity? If so (as I assume you know) this implies that there is a greater God behind your creator. For any given infinite set, there is another set which is of a larger order of infinity (e.g. there are more real numbers than there are integers). So if you define God this way, you must believe in an infinite series of Gods, each one greater than the last. This logic holds for an intelligent designer as well - if life could only be designed by an intelligent agent, then the intelligent agent surely could not have arisen without the intervention of more intelligent agent and so on. You can believe in this infinite recursion of gods if you wish, but I find it absurd.

Carlton:

The Theory of Evolution (not Darwinism, whatever that is) is neither an ideology, a philosophy, nor a religious belief of the 'secular establishment' or anyone else. It is a scientific theory supported by an enormous amount of evidence. If you wish to make a scientific objection to the theory (I described how to do that in my previous post - form a hypothesis, make a prediction, test the prediction, document the results), then any worthwhile scientist will consider your arguments on the merits of your evidence. If you do not do this, then any heuristic arguments that you make are irrelevant (scientifically speaking, of course, they may be interesting from a philosophical or theological point of view but they are meaningless as evidence in a scientific debate). Our (scientists) objection is not to the point of view which you espouse, but to the manner in which you are presenting your argument. Unscientific arguments (be they persuasive or not) do not belong in peer reviewed scientific journals and they especially do not belong in scientific classrooms (where students need to be taught how the scientific method works, the theories that are supported by evidence (and the evidence that supports them), and how to go about gathering evidence to support (or disprove) a hypothesis. The reason that I (as well as other scientists) are so passionate about people like you trying to get unscientific ideas into science classes is that we feel that it is extremely dangerous for you to do so (not to mention unconstitutional). We (the U.S.) are falling behind other countries in science education and people trying to get creationism (or ID) into classrooms are trying to pull us back into the 13th century. I, for one, would like the USA to be at the forefront of scientific exploration instead of held back by an antiquated worldview while the other great nations of the world surge ahead in the race for discovery.

As far as the evidence for evolution is concerned, while there are debates about the relative importance of various mechanisms of evolution and new mechanisms that we don't know of may come to light, there is an enormous amount of evidence supporting the idea that all of the species of life we see around us today are a result of evolution. Every time a scientist walks into a lab they are putting their hypotheses on the line - it takes only one experiment or fossil to destroy evolution (e.g. a rabbit fossil in the Cambrian era). There are over 210,000 articles in the PubMed research database with the keyword evolution, none of which provides evidence against it. And while the elusive chimera that disproves evolution may be found tomorrow, I'm not holding my breath. Don't take my word for it, take a look at the evidence yourself, you may learn something...

How science gets swiftboated

Thomas Ashby, Calgary — Wed, 07 May 2008 15:41:58 GMT

Carlos..there is nothing ideological/philosophical or religious about the origin of species and natural selection no more than the theory of relativity.

Those who do take these ideas and put them in that domain are idiots.