Several scientists are claiming that they were misled about a new intelligent design film, the New York Times reported. Evolutionary biologist Richard Dawkins says that he was asked to be interviewed for a film about the intersection of faith and science to be titled "Crossroads." Instead, the film, which will be released next year, is now titled, "Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed," and is about academia’s alleged intolerance and suppression of those who see evidence of a supernatural intelligence in biological processes. "At no time was I given the slightest clue that these people were a creationist front," Dawkins said.
Eugenie C. Scott, a physical anthropologist who heads the National Center for Science Education, said she is willing to appear in films in which people’s views are different from hers. "I just expect people to be honest with me, and they weren’t," she said.
But a producer of the film denied that there was any deception about what the film was about, and said the film’s name change was just a marketing decision.
If the filmmakers were a bit deceptive, is that OK, given that Michael Moore does that? Or would that go against the religious views the film promotes?
Posted by Phillip Brownlee
174 Comments
It does not seem that intentionally misleading someone to do something that later would cast them in a potentially unfavorable light would fit with the (presumably) Christian morals and ideals held by most creationists.
Anthropologists are easily tricked.
Wave an artifact in front of them and they go all starry-eyed.
I do wonder why, if these people really believe in ID, do they feel the need to be so deceptive about it? Why not be honest about it, unless it’s all a scam from the get go?
Dawkins has a policy of not conducting interviews with creationists because creationists are inherently dishonest. So the creationists who interviewed him portrayed themselves as something different as creationists. Eventually he found out after hearing some of their leading questions. As expected the dishonest creationists used the footage as anti-science propaganda.
Kansas,Religious people are easily tricked- just tell ‘em it’s in the bible and they won’t even bother to go look it up!
Would this guy’s answers been any different if he knew othewise?
who knows, but he probably would not have done the interview.
What is the scientific evidence for creationism? That all science disciplines dont support creationism isn’t because of some vast science conspiracy its because creationism lacks any evidence. Science doesn’t support astrology, Mysticism, or telling the future by sqeezing the goats testilices either.
Why not? Is there some reason he won’t do interviews with creationists? Can he not back up everything he says with science? People gave Strobel such a hard time for writing his books and only interviewing people who supposedly thought the same way as him… is that because the so called real scientists would not talk to him. Technically (in Strobel’s case) he started out as an athiest so he was talking to the other side.
Perhaps a bit off topic but it makes a point.
what are “testilices”
There is also no evidence of “nothing.”
But yet, we have a word for it.
“what are “testilices”"
A series of plays written in ancient Greece. It was about hanging around, doing nothing.
Deception?
Piltdown manThe Scopes “trial” (pure theatre, the “defenedent” agreed to break the law, deliberately, to give the ACLU a case.)The “moth” story (pure fabrication, there have always been two different moths in that area, and for purposes of that film, they PINNED the white moths to the blackened tree trunks, because they would not go there on their own.)
Hey, I think Darwin has a point.
I accept Evolution as a tool that God used in His Creation plan.
I think Darwin and Evolution do a great job of organizing the species.
However, the superiority that the Evolutionists exhibit is not called for.
NO other branch of science is as prone to fakery and hoaxes as evolution.
Econ - does one financial hoax discredit ALL financial advisors?
NO other profession is as prone to fraud and thievery as financial planning.
the scopes trial wasn’t just so the ACLU would have a case the town fathers wanted something to attract publicly and $$ to a town
Econ- that is a …unique view of history.
When it comes to outright hoaxes like Plitdown man, who was it who discovered the hoax? Was it religious authorities? Some bible thumbing, goose stepping tele-vangelist? No, it was SCIENCTISTS! Scienctists looked at the data and exposed the hoax.
Your presentation of the Plitdown man as a hoax by “evolutionists” implies it was done to support a theory that cannot be supported. The FACT is that the hoax was the work of people who wanted to be famous. Facts matter.
But if you want to talk about dishonesty, why talk about Ted Haggard or other religious leaders who turn out to be total frauds?
Not defending the tactic of lying in order to get interviews, if indeed that is what happened (and the statements are apparantly contradictory on that), whether Moore does it or not, but Fleet raises a valid question:
“Would this guy’s answers been any different if he knew otherwise?”
Presumably, the answer is no, the facts are what they are (from the scientists point of view). If so, what is the problem?
Now, if the film messes with the editing to misconstrue or take out of clear context the scientists’ words, that is indeed another matter, but at least at first reading that doesn’t appear to be the case.
So, ignorant Bible-thumping creationists made a monkey out of an unsuspecting, naive evolutionist?Seems like a coloring of the facts, to me.And, NO, I don’t believe a 3-1/2-foot-tall ape was my great-grandmother. I’m just not that naive.
Should be an interesting film. I’m a Ben Stein fan.
And it’s about time the somewhat paranoid behavior of the scientific community toward ID gets exposure.
I accept Evolution as a tool that God used in His Creation plan.Posted by: Econ101 | September 27, 2007 at 02:19 PM
Econ, I agree completely.
This may be a first.
BenWhat do you want from me?I am just asking for the scientific community to show some humility.Science never has all the answers.Science never will.I hate it that science and faith are cast as enemies, by radicals on both sides.It does not have to be that way.
XXXI just marked in on my calendar.Thanks!
Poor poor Paul, you know you shouldn’t step into the scientific realm because you just continue to look foolish. The methodology of the original pepper moth study was flawed but the conclusions were accurate as later studies have revealed.
Cook, L. M., 2003. The rise and fall of the carbonaria form of the peppered moth. Quarterly Review of Biology 78(4): 399-417.Grant, Bruce S., 1999. Fine tuning the peppered moth paradigm. Evolution 53(3): 980-984.
As for the Piltdown man that was created for entertainment purposes since the intent was a hoax. Once it was allowed to be investigated by scientists it was revealed as a fraud.
As for the documentary it’s pathetic that the creationists keep whining. Perhaps if they did real science instead of the hackjobs they do then they might get published. Just because they are creationists does not entitle them to special treatment. They have to do proper science like everyone else. Instead of doing science they use lawyers, politicians and actors to promote creationism, while science relies on scientists.
If the “big bang” theory is true (and I do lean that way), something (god) had to get it all started.We went from nothing to something. The question is, is this god one who cares about us or not. One who can save us or not. Eternal life or not. I think it’s not, but something put it there to get started.
It’s kindof like this….if Fox news called me up and said they want to interview me, no way. Because I know they’ll twist whatever I have to say, or paraphrase, or talk over me or whatever.
This person probably does not wish her words to be twisted like they do.
I have a new theory, its called, Critical Engineering. This world was engineered and created by demonic knomes in 1 second. About 9.73 katrinallion years ago, to this hour. The demonic knomes came from a far away galaxy called starbucks, they came to this area of space and decided to build a new world out of space poop, a place where things are free and destined to do deeds for the demonic knomes. The knomes are growing angry with us, people have quit believing in the knomes. This infuriates them, so the knomes have decided to destroy the earld. The only thing that can stop the knomes, are the combustible Elves that live in the belly of the earth producing molten honey that keeps the earth alive.
I have a few scientists that are backing me up with irrefutable evidence.
“This person probably does not wish her words to be twisted like they do.”
I see no charge that words have been twisted.
Something from the NYT article that failed to make it into this header.
“Dr. Dawkins was an obvious choice. An eminent scientist who teaches at Oxford University in England, he is also an outspoken atheist who has repeatedly likened religious faith to a mental defect.”
I’m willing for Religion and Science to co-exist, as soon as people quit trying to push something as ridiculous like ID off as science. ID is a religous belief not science. Science is a theory that can be tested. ID cannot be tested, it is just a religious theory, it’s not even a scientific theory. I can say something as ridiculous like, invisable sharks swim in space, and that holds more water than intelligent design does.
I think Thomas Jefferson said it best. A belief in God is strictly between the individual person and God.
Meaning that the Legislative branch should be seperated from Religion.
It should be the same for science also.
If the ID people want to continue their quest. They should call it alternative science, and butt the hell out of the real world science.
“They should call it alternative science,…”
They can call it whatever they want, but it can’t be taught (in the goverment skools) as science. It should be taught as Comparitive Religion.Did we come from American Indian buffalo poop or spring from the head of Hera of some such.
Religion is not science and vice versa..I miss the Flying Spagetti Monster..my pirate clothes are collecting dust.
“evidence of a supernatural intelligence in biological processes.”
This makes me want to see the film. Someone’s found evidence of the supernatural? Pretty sweet.
However, I have a hunch that this “evidence” is nothing more than poking holes in evolutionary theory that have been beaten to death already. I’ll see it anyway.
“And, NO, I don’t believe a 3-1/2-foot-tall ape was my great-grandmother. I’m just not that naive.”
Hee. It’s ok to believe that, as long as you’re not trying to push it into the science classroom.
From the article:”As scientists at Iowa State University put it last year, supernatural explanations are “not within the scope or abilities of science.””
WHY WHY WHY is this so offensive to people? How is this difficult to understand? ID is not science, and it can’t ever be science because it offers no empirical evidence.
That doesn’t mean ID or religion is wrong, just that it doesn’t belong in this field.
“Lucee! I’m home!”
It took 30 years for the scientific community to convince itself that “piltdown man” was a hoax:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piltdown_Man
I suggest that the “scientists” on this Blog stop using evolution to disprove faith.
That would go a long way towards ending this ridiculous argument.
If you BELIEVE what you say, that science and religious faith must be kept seperate, then practice what you preach.
Science can’t prove OR disprove God.
— So QUIT antagonizing those people of faith that can’t seem to accept faith and evolution.
You are WRONG on the peppered moth history, too, Doug:
http://www.museumofhoaxes.com/hoax/weblog/permalink/peppered_moth_evolution_kit/
Econ101, I think the story of the Piltdown Man is interesting just for the conspiracy around it.
Sir Arthur Conan Doyle was a neighbor of the man who promoted the Piltdown man. It was often rumored that Doyle contributed to the scheme at the very least by complicit conspiracy or by actually helping design the hoax.
Sir Arthur Conan Doyle was the author of the “Sherlock Holmes” series of writings.
— So QUIT antagonizing those people of faith that can’t seem to accept faith and evolution.Posted by: Econ101 | September 27, 2007 at 06:50 PM
Why? What are they going to do, outlaw science?
More Peppered Moth cooking:
http://www.exchangedlife.com/Creation/pepper.shtml
Pedant
Tax dollars should NOT be spent on any activity that tries to DISPROVE faith.
It is not the job of science to disprove God. Taxpayers have a right to believe as they wish without being antagonized by taxpayer financed, and rather arrogant atheists running down their beliefs.
KansasI think he was also an opium addict.Must have been on a hell of trip when they thought of putting an orang and human skull together!
See http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/09/expelled_comes_to_the_ny_times.php for the POV of one of the scientists interviewed under false pretenses.
Paul - I have never claimed that we are infallible. My response was to your claim that we perpetrte hoaxes.
As noted above, the Piltdown hoax was EXPOSED by scientists.
You attempt at guilt by association would be the same as me saying you are a fraud because some other financial planner was a fraud.
Even my best friend whom is a strict Creationist is disgusted by the actions and the deceit used by some whom also believe in Creationism. For him the use of Intelligent design as a back door to get Creation in science classes. Is shameful and unbecoming of the Christian community, he firmly believes that creationism can stand on its own legs.
You can teach ID in school, so long as you can teach evolution in church!
God created the earth in 7 days.God knows everything you do at all times.If you believe then when you die you will go to heaven and live there forever walking on streets of gold and fly in the clouds.Give God 10% of everything you earn pre-tax.Jesus turned water into wine.Moses parted the red sea.What else is there to know.
Paul, I figured you’d show how clueless on the subject. You neglected to even reference any of the studies which I referenced on later moth studies. As usual you are out of your league, a perfect example is that you linked to an article by creationist Carl Weiland. If you are going to use a personal webpage and an article by an anti-science creationist then I know I won’t strain a neuron dealing with you today.
I hope that this film addresses the conflict inherent between science and religion when it comes to origins.
Science instructors are mandated to teach our children that Darwinian evolution is a fact when, of course, it is only science’s best guess. It has holes in it you could drive a truck through. Yet, they jealously guard any imposition of teaching our kids the problems with the theory. As if it were something sacred and unchangable. Like a religion.
So, essentially my child is taught that what he learned from me regarding his God-breathed origin is false. They do it without any proof and they do it with state sponsorship.
So what is at the intersection of science and religion? It’s called intelligent design. And it’s the future.
We can’t define the purpose of life unless we make it up.
Either that or certify the Bible, which can not be done, so that’s Religion { creationism }.
Science may inadvertently offer a meaningful explanation for the meaning of life by proving itself along the way.
Religion offers Intelligent Design { which won’t cooperate by continuing to evolve } in an attempt to stymie a perceived threat from science against their authoritarian power. All that to try to protect this self proclaimed power by discrediting science { As Religion must revisit their dogma every time science discredits it }.
All that boils down to this:
You’ll never understand much about anything unless you first understand the nature of power.
But before anything worthwhile happens, we’ll need to evolve into something smarter than we are now.
Ed Friedemann
Dougrelax would you?
There are plenty of us out here who are comfortable believing in both Creationism AND Evolution.
You would much prefer that we were all atheists.
I make you angry precisely because you want to challenge my faith and you can’t.
I have never attempted to challenge your theory. That was not my intent at all.
Faith is always trying to get its foot in the door of science. Science does not do this to faith.
No Paul, I just challenge your bad science.
“I want to know God’s thoughts; the rest are details.”
# “I am convinced that He (God) does not play dice.”
# “God is subtle but he is not malicious.”
“My religion consists of a humble admiration of the illimitable superior spirit who reveals himself in the slight details we are able to perceive with our frail and feeble mind.”
And last, but not least, “Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind.”
All Einstein quotes.
Creationists do fine, until they are asked to answer why Genesis 1, and Genesis 2 are in nearly total disagreement. That is why it cannot be treated as science.
God created… humanity debated… and so it should be!
Tara you asked “WHY WHY WHY is this so offensive to people? How is this difficult to understand? ID is not science, and it can’t ever be science because it offers no empirical evidence.”
I agree with you but keep in mind it is necessarily people are offend that ID is not science but rather that Darwinism is masquerading around as science.
Dawkins and others who willingly gloat about Darwinism show their great distaste for anything or anything that questions the status quo. The freely make fun and insult creationists, which they do because they know mainstream does not pay attention. Yet when mainstream attention gets drawn to their ignorant and petty comments they get upset. In short, the only reason some are upset is because it shows how weak and irrelevant most of the critics offer.
Patriot — “As noted above, the Piltdown hoax was EXPOSED by scientists.”
You do realize there are hundreds even thousands of scientists who accept creationism and reject darwinism…your comment seems to imply scientist=evolutionist….feel free to correct me if I misunderstood your comment
Elephant -
“ID is a religous belief not science. Science is a theory that can be tested”:
Science is a theory???? Come again, you are deeply confused. Please define science
Whatever, I meant Science has theories that can be tested under the scientific method. ID cannot be tested.
Testicles is the expunged book of the Bible about sex.
And, NO, I don’t believe a 3-1/2-foot-tall ape was my great-grandmother. I’m just not that naive.
Yet you share 95 percent of the monkey’s DNA. I suggest the next time you get a staff infection, you insist on being treated with penicillin.
Steven Hawkins (the great cosmologist who played himself in a Star Trek episode) put it well when he said that science tries to address the “HOW?” but that the “WHY?” must be left to philosophy and theology.
What lit the fuse to the Big Bang? (Or should I say Who?)
Let’s not forget that science proposes a lot of theories that get disseminated as truth and are then abandowned.
A good example would be Tyrannosaurus rex. For several decades, museums mounted all T Rexes standing up in what we might call “a chicken position” for its torso, and a long tail on the ground. Moreover, museums of natural history showed this in murals, and school textbooks reprinted them. But then anatomists determined that this posture was infeasible, rather T rex really had to hold its body and tail horizontal.
The standard historical theory on T rex’s eating habits was that it was an apex predator. Tyrannosaurus rex means “tyrant lizard king”. Now, leading-expert Jack Horner posits they were carrion-eating scavengers. A clean-up species, not a top-predator species.
Was T rex mainly aquatic? That would comport well with a very large head, and a very large tail.
The evolutionary process of science, including initial theories being proposed from unsubstantiated notions, revision as more facts come to light, and not unoften eventual repudation of original theories, should be taught in all science classes.
For example, physicists today are exploring “dark matter” and concluding that some of it must be a new form of matter not previously recognized, and “dark energy” that has antigravitational effects which are causing the expansion of the universe to accelerate.
Unfortunately, school “science” isn’t science. It’s memorize and regurgitate “facts”. Don’t worry if they later prove wrong. Kids are being graded on their ability and willingness to swallow and parrot dogma. That’s anti-science teaching.
Raising ID in classrooms is actually a scientific process: consider alternatives, debate, THINK.
Some would argue, “We can’t have school science ruined by fundamentalist ideology.” Wake up. School science is already ruined. This is because teachers colleges and graduate education schools are run by anti-math / anti-science people. If you think that really talented math and science students choose to study under anti-math/anti-science teachers, you’re NOT THINKING.
Schools refuse to pay differentials to attract math-and-science-knowledgeable teachers. The ideology of all teachers of a given number of years teaching in a district being paid equal salaries has a nice, collective-democratic fuzzy warm feel to it.
But don’t kid yourselves: it is also an ardently anti-math /anti-science sentiment. It takes more brains and a lot more work to earn a chemistry degree or a math degree than to earn a social studies degree. When the district offers a starting social studies teacher the same salary as a starting chemistry or math teacher, the district is denying the value of the hundreds of additional hours the latter teacher has put in during college, to master the subject. This is blatant disdainment, and sheer ignorance, of science and math.
It’s not me saying this. It’s a 70% drop registered by our nation’s universities in American-educated students earning math, physical science and engineering degrees over the past 40 years. Jobs in these fields pay well. But American kids just aren’t prepared for them. The international math and science tests show kids from other countries running circles around our students.
“You do realize there are hundreds even thousands of scientists who accept creationism and reject darwinism.”
Do they reject Mendelism, Newtownism, and Hubblism as well? What’s with these silly creationist terms?
DougExplain the Hoeckle Hoax:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ecH5SKxL9wk
Yes well…
Gravity is technically only a theory. Sometimes? There are those who I quietly or not so quietly wish would test the theory from a high place
Can’t we all just agree there is absolutely no faith required to believe in the self creation and self organization of matter into ever more complex configurations?
First off Paul you should get your information from a credible source, not the discredited Discovery Institute that admitted they have no scientific evidence for creationism.
Second you should actually try to explain what you are talking about. Natural Selection theory is not founded upon Haeckel’s theories. Despite the inaccuracies of his drawing the similarities of embryos are real as has been demonstrated by the use of photography. The fact that species are related to each other are confirmed by genetics and DNA.
So what’s your point? That science has progressed in the past 100 years or that creationists haven’t cracked open a book since the 19th century?
I’d criticize creationist scientific studies but none have been published yet and no alternative theories to the theory of natural selection have survived scientific review.
There’s a whole new theory of creation proposed by advocates of Superstring Theory, called The Cosmic Clap Theory (as opposed to the Big Bang). I find myself liking it on purely esthetic grounds.
It relates, interestingly enough to the creation myth propounded by J.R.R. Tolkein in his book “The Silmarilion” in that the universe and everything in it is made, at a very basic level, of music.
The fact that species are related to each other are confirmed by genetics and DNA. Posted by: Doug | September 28, 2007 at 11:58 AM
I’m afraid that is an inaccurate statement.
Care to back that up Kansas?
Not sayin’ I disagree with you, MPS, when you state “It takes more brains and a lot more work to earn a chemistry degree or a math degree than to earn a social studies degree.”
But let’s say you’ve proposed this idea to your local school board - composed entirely of folks with *zero* math/science backgrounds.
How would you (a) use evidence to back up your contention and (b) do so without engendering extreme bias?
For instance . . . on the GRE, there are substantial differences between the scores of those who’re seeking graduate studies in education and those intending to get an MS/MA/PhD in other fields. (Please, spare us your diatribe on that issue for once, okay? I’m just citing a possible source of information.) Do you know of any data that shows similar discrepancies between math/science graduates and other graduates?
Take a college level biology course Doug, I don’t have the time or interest on educating you on basic genetics.
I’ll just say that common chemical components and their variations don’t determine species on Phylogenetic classification because there is enough ancient DNA to determine what it is and certainly not relationship.
Taxonomy is still argued about and there are many opinion on how species in general should be classified.
Lot of classifications are made by morphology,locomotion and appearance etc.
What you are talking about is Phylogenetic nomenclature which is genetics. There is an insufficient or completely missing entries into the database of ancient DNA to make any assessment. So, they go back to taxonomy type classification.
Establishing species is more of setting up a knowledge base so scientists can classify organisms and establish certain parameters about those organisms that can be used for identification and further study.
It doesn’t mean there is any relationship established, it’s a way to put knowledge of different organism into a set so they can be logically studied.
It’s like saying, all spoons are metal. Which of course is not true. They have similar morphology, but may be made of wood, plastic, metal, bone and other materials.
A classification system does just that, it classifies. It does not establish relationship by genetics especially when there is insufficient data to do so.
Also, having similarity in chemical properties still doesn’t mean that there is a link because in a common ancestor.
We go back to the spoon. A spoon can have a plastic handle and a metal eating surface. It is still a spoon, but it is only related to other spoons because of morphology and function. It would not be related by chemical properties to a wooden spoon, but only in what was previously mentioned - shape and function.
It’s like the Chimp and Human. Both have similar morphology, locomotion and chemical constituents (DNA.) However, in the world of chemistry having 92-96 percent common chemical properties doesn’t establish a species relationship. It only establishes common chemical constituents.
It is nit picking, but if you wish to be scientific about it, one has to be cautious on using classification systems as proof that there is a relationship established.
“because there is enough ancient DNA”
should read as
because there is not enough ancient DNA
Kansas, to put it kindly, you don’t know what you are talking about. DNA is not merely a constituant like a metal, it is a sequence that can be mapped out and read. Identical sequences in similar creatures that reproduce indicate shared histories. These sequences exist in great abundance between humans and chimps. Such similarities indicate a shared reproductive history.
The existance of ancient DNA is, by the way, irrelevant to what Doug said. DNA sequences are compared primarily between living creatures, but there are reproductive DNA “fossils” that are shared by similar organisms.
Kansas, are there any species which do not include the four nucleotide bases in their DNA? Are there any living species without DNA? The fact is that all species have DNA with the same nucleotide basis but merely differ in the sequences.
They teach this sort of stuff in basic biology. So pay attention next time.
THIS is why Dawkins refuses to engage these people:
http://pages.sbcglobal.net/amun_ra/
Why he (and Gould) had a point, Niall Shanks disagrees: He thinks we need to find any way we can to get through to these people, because it’s too important.
He convinced me.
P.S. The money quote from Dawkins:
“Winning is not what the creationists realistically aspire to. For them, it is sufficient that the debate happens at all.”
So your saying Doug, that plants and animal species are related. They do share common nucleo bases.
All life on this planet is related, however distantly. It’s called “common origin.”
I guess profound ignorance of evolution basics is a requirement for some.
Okay, nevermind. That was gratutious.
I guess profound ignorance of evolution basics is a requirement for some.
Posted by: Rage | September 28, 2007 at 03:05 PM
I’ve taken biology, microbiology, zoology and biochemistry Rage.
I have yet to see conclusive proof that evolution from primordial ooze to modern man exists with any plausible explanation.
Perhaps you can enlighten me on exactly how this happened.
Which species of ape was our ancestor? Where is that missing link?
Tell me how an early fern evolved into a lizard.
Inquiring minds want to know.
“Tell me how an early fern evolved into a lizard.”
I took back my gratutious insult, as you were actually addressing what Doug said.
Now I feel like taking THAT back.
Tell me, oh wise one, where you heard that ferns are in the ancestral lineage of lizards?
“gratuitous”
Tell me, oh wise one, where you heard that ferns are in the ancestral lineage of lizards?
Posted by: Rage | September 28, 2007 at 03:13 PM
I haven’t heard that, it was a gratuitous remark.
I thought you may have figured out how life involved as it has today.
I’ve heard different versions from experienced PhD Professors in College. Which one is true?
What made this primordial ooze evolve into humans and how long did it take?
How come there are chimps around? Why didn’t they evolve? I mean, after all they’ve found some very, very old chimp bones and they didn’t evolve.
Was it some magical unseen die being thrown in the great gambling hall of science?
How did this all come about in such an orderly manner?
If the earth was formed in chaos, why did it all of sudden get orderly?
P.S. This paper discusses the early emergence of bilaterian animals. I just found it, but I bet it’s an interesting read.
http://earthscience.ucr.edu/people/droser/Jensen_et_2005.pdf
“If the earth was formed in chaos, why did it all of sudden get orderly?”
The assumptions inherent in that question are false. Thus negating any need for answer.
“How come there are chimps around?”
Why shouldn’t there be?
“Why didn’t they evolve?”
They did.
Aye interesting Rage, I scanned it.
But the question remains about all species being related. The paper address bilateria which suggest symmetry in development. This is a taxonomic classification based on morphology and not nucleo base adaptation.
What about the jellyfish which is radial? It is not bilaterian. What went wrong there?
The writer(s) of the paper stated “there is no widely accepted trace fossil record from sediments olderthan about 560–555 Ma.”
What happened before then, when the primordial ooze was the only game in town?
How did these symmetrically based fossils involve into upright bipedal homo sapiens? Where is that missing link between species?
How come we still have nematodes if there is evolution?
Why hasn’t the cockroach evolved into something more intelligent or why hasn’t it developed acid secreting glands to eat into canned goods?
“Why hasn’t the cockroach evolved into something more intelligent or why hasn’t it developed acid secreting glands to eat into canned goods? :)”
I have to leave, but that’s easy:(1) no specific trait is GUARANTEED to evolve and (2) canned goods are VERY new development.
BTW–here in AZ we have HUGE cockroaches–but there are few of them, no doubt due to the strain of maintaining bodies that big.
“If the earth was formed in chaos, why did it all of sudden get orderly?”
The assumptions inherent in that question are false. Thus negating any need for answer.
Posted by: Steven Davis | September 28, 2007 at 03:25 PM
Saying something is false and explaining why it is false is a challenge you are unable to accept then Steven Davis?
BTW–here in AZ we have HUGE cockroaches–but there are few of them, no doubt due to the strain of maintaining bodies that big.
Posted by: Rage | September 28, 2007 at 03:38 PM
Then you need better border control.
DougWe all understand one thing on this Blog:In DOUG’s mind, ANYONE who disagrees with Doug had no credibility.Therefore, you are simply a foil, a way to make debating points on this Blog.Nobody on this Blog expects you to subject yourself to “Blog peer review”—You are simply so much smarter than the rest of us!However, YOU and those like you are a big reason the evolution/creation silly arguments go on and on.YOU misuse evolution to try and disprove the existance of God.That is just as “unscientific” as anything the most radical creationists have done.
“If the earth was formed in chaos, why did it all of sudden get orderly?”
The assumptions inherent in that question are false. Thus negating any need for answer.
Posted by: Steven Davis | September 28, 2007 at 03:25 PM
Saying something is false and explaining why it is false is a challenge you are unable to accept then Steven Davis?
Kansas,You mean you are not intimidated by such an intelligent way to say: “I don’t have the slightest explanation so lets not go there.”?
Creationism and evolution are mutually exclusive. Evolution is by definition mindless, purposeless, and Godless, therefore no divine direction or authority can be admitted into this flawed, false theory, if even bad science can call it a theory.Meanwhile, God still rules every aspect of the universe He created.(John 1:3-5)
GREAT post MPS, nice points all around
“It is nit picking, but if you wish to be scientific about it, one has to be cautious on using classification systems as proof that there is a relationship established.”
Great post KS, one does have to be careful on the inferences drawn
Doug - “The fact is that all species have DNA with the same nucleotide basis but merely differ in the sequences.”
This is like saying all who have bank accounts have X number of dollars in there, merely in different sequences….that merely is HUGE!!!!
Dougs post
Mine: “You do realize there are hundreds even thousands of scientists who accept creationism and reject darwinism.”
Doug: “Do they reject Mendelism, Newtownism, and Hubblism as well? What’s with these silly creationist terms?”
LOL, what silly creationist term are you referring about? Darwinism? You do realize this term is used by evolutionists…..right? What “silly creationist term” are you referring to Doug
I see there are faithful evolutionists in the blogisphere who claim they’re on solid scientific (rather than philosophic or religious) ground in their myriad protestations.
Thinking, open minded scientists beg to differ.
For a daily examination of “science news” from a truly scientific perspective, don’t be afraid to visit; http://creationsafaris.com/news for the most up to date analysis.
parkayIt is entirely possible to believe in God and consider evolution as part of God’s plan.
The Bible in a written version of what was once an “oral tradition” to illiterate people.
People who did not understand microscopic particles in general, let alone DNA.
To say that we were formed from “dust” is about as complicated as the Bible could get.
The Bible never claims that it is the source of all truth. The Bible rarely even refers to itself, since the Bible is actually a creation of St. Jerome, of the Catholic Church, who combined several different, actual “books” and had them “Cannonized” by the Catholic Church.
You misuse the Bible.
I defend you when others misuse science, but you are wrong now, making brash statements about what other Christians are allowed to believe.
Parkay, are you SURE God is HE??
And if God is so good at telling people What and How to believe, then why are there so many discrepancies in that Book??
Genesis 1 and Genesis 2 are as far as I need go on the Creationist agenda… And check out the Science books used in Catholic schools some time… Might shock you, yes shock I say!! LOL
ChasActually, Genesis is pretty darn close, if you look at the order of the species, and if you look at the idea that there was first NOTHING.And, again, “dust” or “humus” — decayed oranic matter is dust.I don’t understand why some consider it blashempy to consider that we had common ancestors with monkeys, but it is perfectly OK to consider that we came from decayed animals and plants! That is what “dust” is!How in the world could you explain complex ideas to the illiterate?The Bible is not intended as a way to explain life.The Bible is a guide to how best to live our lives.
Econ - on your last comments we agree.
A funny thing about the Genesis 7 days - from a Jewish scientist at MIT. One thing he noted is that it does not refer to the “first day” but “Day One.” His point was that not only did the universe begin but also that time began.
He then went into a rether complicated derivatio including time compression near the speed of light. His point is that the days can be hundreds of millions or billions of years long; also that Day one was longer then the second day was longer than the third day etc. As the Big Bang proceeds things slow down a bit and relativistic effects lessen.
He then went from that to the scientific version of the history of the Universe - from the void and darkness to where we are today. It was a fascinating read. And eerily parallel to Genesis.
And, as you note, when we consider that the various books that make up the librar we cann the Bible were written by people it becomes all the more fascinating.
By the way - parkay, do you eat pork? Shellfish? Cheeseburgers? They are ALL forbidden in Leviticus.
Levites had cheeseburgers Ben?
Here I thought it was lamb chops day and night.
nunyer,
thanks for your comments. GRE is one metric, and it IS important. My home-schooled son is a grad student at Columbia University, so let me put some data out on that institution. At Columbia’s Teachers College, which has had more influence in public education than any other institution, the GRE general test quant score average for graduate program entrants was 621 in 2002 according to U.S. News and World Report’s “America’s Best Graduate Schools”. In the engineering school it was 764.
At Stanford, the respective GRE quant averages were 646 education, 781 engineering. BTW, both of these engineering grad schools have more Asian and Asian-American students than white American students.
At KU, the GRE quant average for grad program entrants is 546.
You can go to KSU’s and KU’s websites and examine secondary-certificate program requirements. What they show is that math and science education is curtailed. Why? Because it is impossible to combine math and science courses, AND education courses in a bachelor’s program, without something having to be given up. What’s given up is advanced, beyond-survey courses, that the math and science “nerds” strongly desire to take. So they forego the college of education courses to take advanced science and math courses. And consequentially they cannot be licensed to teach math and science in our high schools, even though they deeply understand math and science.
Let’s look at KU School of Education, Department of Educational Leadership and Policy Studies Chair.
B.A. History, Susquehanna UniversityPh.D. Higher Education, Pennsylvania State University
Dean:
B.A. History/ Political Science, SUNY AlbanyPh.D. Administrative, Institutional and Policy Studies in Education, U Chicago.
Let’s look at Professors, the highest academic, non-administrative rank achievable:
B.A. (field not specified) University of RochesterPh.D. Education, Stanford
A.B. History, Fordham UniversityPh.D. Education / Policy Studies History, U Wisconsin (Madison)
B.A. Psychology and Communications, StanfordPh.D. Higher Education, Claremont Graduate School (California)
How much math and physical science do you see represented here in the top tiers? I’m not seeing any.
Let’s look at the KU Curriculum and Teaching faculty.
Chair:
B.S. Sociology, Arizona State University [ASU]B.A. Elementary Education, ASUPh.D., Curriculum and Instruction, ASU
Professors:
B.A. English, History University of KansasPh.D. Education, Stanford
I’m not listing names, because I’m not trying to accuse individuals. But here’s the link, if you want to confirm my data. http://soe.ku.edu/
It’s a SYSTEM here. These leaders didn’t name themselves to their positions, they were CHOSEN BY OTHERS.
Let’s look at Emporia State’s Teachers College, Kansas’s first institution devoted specifically to training teachers”
Dean, Teachers College:B.M., B.M.E., B.A. Music, music education, psychology, St. Mary CollegePh.D. Special Education. Educational Psychology and Research, University of Kansas
Associate Dean: No education data reported.
Dean of Liberal Arts and Sciences:B.A. Music education, Arkansas State UniversityPh.D. (field unspecified) University of North Texas
Professors:B.A. not givenPh.D. reading, University of North Texas
School leadership: declines to reveal degrees.
B.S. Education Biology and Physical Education, Emporia State Teachers CollegePh.D. Elementary Science Education, U Texas-Austin
B.S., Elementary Education, Dickinson State University, North DakotaPh.D. Curriculum and Instruction, Kansas State University
Let’s consider Wichita State University, located in a city whose linchpin industrry, aviation is totally dependent on applied physics and engineering:
Chair, School of Education:B.S. Elementary EducationPh.D. Curriclum and Instruction
Professors:B.M.E. Music educationPh.D. Curriclum and Instruction. Early childhood
B.S. Ed, Elementary EducatiionPh.D Elementary Education/Reading
There are college of education professors who have chosen to not reveal their subject degrees, They’ve created their own “I don’t need to disclose my degrees” unaccountability. I’m just showing the highest-tier univesity teachers who elected to report.
Among those who have chosen to report, I’m not seeing any math or science degrees, because of the faculties’ reportage, not because I am skewing data.
Levites had cheeseburgers Ben?
Yes, in a sense. Mixing milk and meat. Prohidited. Read your Torah.
“At Columbia’s Teachers College, which has had more influence in public education than any other institution”
Who says Columbia has had the most influence Doc? Show some data to prove that assertion or desist in the assumptions.
BenGod loved His people.
Prior to antibiotics and preservatives, the idea of keeping food groups seperate made sense.
So, too, the ban on pork.
Apophis, have you ever heard of a “teachers college”? Yes or no? Where do you think that nom came from? John Dewey at Columbia decided to remove “normal school” from the lexicon by launching Teachers College to give teacher-training a more professional patina. Show me a titled “normal school” after 1930. Teachers College provided KU’s and ESU’s teacher-training deans nearly a century ago.
Didn’t you receive lectures in the history of American public eduction? Apparently not. Have you ever seen a not-yellow school bus? Have you? Why aren’t they white, blue, red or brown in some places? Because Teachers College thought yellow was perfect. Show me a school bus anywhere that isn’t yellow.
“How come we still have nematodes if there is evolution?”
Isn’t that like asking why we still have Europeans if there are Americans? Evolution isn’t linear, there is no set goal. If you took a basic biology course you would have known this. But if you think you are superior to a fish lets see who can breathe underwater longer.
Show me a school bus anywhere that isn’t yellow.
Posted by: MPS | September 28, 2007 at 11:26 PM
In Germany they use Mercedes buses, silver metallic gray with various kinds of striping down the sides.
Quite comfortable too as they use the same model plan as the tour buses in Germany.
Isn’t that like asking why we still have Europeans if there are Americans? Evolution isn’t linear, there is no set goal. If you took a basic biology course you would have known this. But if you think you are superior to a fish lets see who can breathe underwater longer.
Posted by: Doug | September 28, 2007 at 11:27 PM
With that analogy you can get a stale beer at the Low Life Tavern.
I’ve already taken college biology, zoology, microbiology and biochemistry. Thank you very much.
“How come we still have nematodes if there is evolution?”
Isn’t that like asking why we still have Europeans if there are Americans? Evolution isn’t linear, there is no set goal. If you took a basic biology course you would have known this. But if you think you are superior to a fish lets see who can breathe underwater longer.
Hmmm, I don’t know why that double posted. Anyway Kansas, you may have taken the classes but your questions reveal that you didn’t pay much attention. Caucasians appeared after the human population split off from the African population but that doesn’t mean we are more highly evolved, it just means we developed some different traits in our niche. The nematodes developed over 80,000 different species in their own niches. For someone as educated as yourself I wonder why you even bring such a question up.
This is all very scary. If there is a divine designer, then why, if regard to planet Earth, did this designer take several billion years of Precambrian time to finally figure out how to design life that that exceeds the form of single celled organisms. Let’s face it, the record shows that this is the record until 600 Ma or 7/8’s of the earth’s history. Was he/she trying to get it right elsewhere in the universe on getting life past the blue/green algae form?
Are there millions of parallel universes assigned to millions of “divine” student creators as part of some multidimensional graduate class in cosmic progression? If so, this student assigned to our realm is not going to receive a passing grade.
Hey, Obi . . . that wasn’t the mindless drivel we usally get around here.
Thanks.
And please, post more and post often.
*****
Real students of evolution know that there are seemingly infinite examples of “intelligent design” that aren’t intelligent at all and are exactly what one would expect from evolution–
remnants of leg bones in whales for instance or the human appendix which clearly had some function at some time in our evolutionary past, but now just causes problems if it gets impacted and infected.
These are examples of UNintelligent design and consistent with evolution.
I agree with you, but I’m only trying to address this from a larger perspctive, CapnAmerica. I previously thought about citing the human appendix as a problem concerning our “design”. How many humans did this kill before modern medical practice? Not to mention Black Death, smallpox, or what is to follow, ebola, HIV, etc.
But Capn,
Where is the remnant of the pelvis for the whale?
truthfully DOC, it’s been awhile since I took those “History of Education classes you refer to. In the here and now, that information is totally irrelevent to me.
All you want to do is to trash teachers and the system. It’s like YOU think you can do better. If you know so much, why aren’t you the Secretary of education, or at least the Commissioner of Education for the state? Could it be that you have NO qualifications to do so?
Again…………….PUT UP OR SHUT UP. Volunteer some time in an inner city classroom and tutor some “at-risk” students, under existing conditions. I would suggest maybe J Marshall Middle School as a start or maybe even Mead. Stop braying about how YOU think the system needs to be changed and step up and share your alleged expertise in the REAL world.
In response, I expect another of those lengthy MPS diatribes.
“Cheese Bus” — this is what my friends in Pennsylvania call school buses, don’t think I ever heard the phrase here.They are not exactly yellow, are they?
Econ - agreed. (We gotta quit doing this! ;^) In fact, if you read all the laws in Leviticus they make a lot of sense for that time. And I can easily see a learned man decising that there was no way he could explain to people ‘why’ so instead just said ‘because God commands it.’
Sort of like our ‘because I said so’ with our kids.
I have a ‘lwter-written-down’ oral history of one of my family members who went west to the CA gold rush as well as a lot of other adventures. While I am reasonably sure it is basically true I am also willing to bet that things got a bit ‘embellished’ along the way. The early Books were orally passed down long before they were written.
If the filmmakers were a bit deceptive, is that OK, given that Michael Moore does that?
Hey that’s a bold little statement ya slipped in there Phil.
A statement like that requires an example or two which you did not provide. You need to get with Rhonda and discuss covering that exposed right wing!
Dad used to say, “You don’t know how lucky you are, we had to walk to school in the rain and snow, and it was uphill, BOTH ways!”
The point was still true: we WERE lucky compared to what he lived through.
However, if the purpose of a story is to teach a lesson, it does not have to be word for word historically accurate.
If we did that with all of our docudramas, they would be boring and way too long.
The Bible is a work of art. Artistic license is accepted. The lessons it teaches are timeless, and that is the entire point.
Michael Moore does use deceptive figures.
Like those without health care -
48 percent
He neglects to report that over half are illegal immigrants in that 48 percent.
Mr. Moore fails to report that several million single young people and income earners over 80,000 do not have health care because the opt out and choose not to buy a health care plan.
Convenient to leave out important things when one wants to use Health Scare tactics.
Nice try Kansas for nowMoore didn’t sandbag anyone into appearing in his movies. And don’t bring up Charlie Heston. He was fair with him. It is not Moore’s fault that Hesston was going senile and would embarrass himself.
Nice diversion J R.
I didn’t mention anything about sandbagging.
I pointed out that Moore uses deceptive statistics and never reveals the truth behind them.
It would be like me saying, 1,000,000 Americans will die next year.
Without qualifying it by finishing the sentence “from natural causes.”
It’s deceptive and dishonest.
JR - “Moore didn’t sandbag anyone into appearing in his movies.”
That he purposely mislead data and facts does not bother you?
Dougie, no responses….come on you seem to want to pick on KS, so why not this wolverine
the bush apologist, taliban “christian” wolverine is in the room. Another piece of repuke scum.
I see the language of the middle school environment has rubbed off on Apophis.
Perhaps Apophis is going through empathetic puberty?
“Dougie, no responses….come on you seem to want to pick on KS, so why not this wolverine”
What does Michael Moore have to do with the subject? Perhaps I’ll respond once you start to make sense.
the troll attempts to insult me.
You are another piece of repuke scum kansas-…khan-JM and a dozen other nics.
What does Michael Moore have to do with the subject? Perhaps I’ll respond once you start to make sense.
Posted by: Doug | September 29, 2007 at 01:52 PM
I was responding to J R’s comment on Michael Moore. Read much?============================
the troll attempts to insult me.
You are another piece of repuke scum kansas-…khan-JM and a dozen other nics.
Posted by: Apophis | September 29, 2007 at 02:11 PM
Just throwing the same mud you throw at others right back at you.
“Michael Moore does use deceptive figures.
Like those without health care -
48 percent
He neglects to report that over half are illegal immigrants in that 48 percent.”
Posted by: Kansas | September 29, 2007 at 11:40 AM
Kansas, post your source showing that Moore said that “48 percent” are “without health care”.
Kansas does not seem to understand the difference between “health care” and “health insurance”.
The uninsured can still get some “health care”, in the E.R. etc. — and that causes the costs for the insured group to rise.
And Kansas… the population of the U.S. is not around 100 million.
http://www.michaelmoore.com/sicko/checkup/“SiCKO: There are nearly 50 million Americans without health insurance.
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention actually reported that 54.5 million people were uninsured for at least part of the year. Health Insurance Coverage: Early Release of Estimates from the National Health Interview Survey, 2006. Centers for Disease Control. http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nhis/earlyrelease/insur200706.pdf
* The amount of uninsured is rising every year, as premiums continue to skyrocket and wages stagnate.”
The truth hurts doesn’t it troll boy?
The truth hurts doesn’t it troll boy?
Posted by: Apophis | September 29, 2007 at 02:25 PM
Only when it’s told by truthful people which is rare on this blog and you are not included in that number.
and by THAT statement, YOU are claiming to be truthful?
Get a life troll-boy……….
“I was responding to J R’s comment on Michael Moore. Read much?”
I guess I just can’t keep the different identities that you use straight. Try sticking with one and maybe you won’t be called a troll so much.
I guess I just can’t keep the different identities that you use straight. Try sticking with one and maybe you won’t be called a troll so much.
Posted by: Doug | September 29, 2007 at 02:35 PM
If you have suspicion I am posting as someone else, write Phillip Brownlee.
I’m on the list with the Capn as those who volunteered to be outted if I post under any other “nick” than this.
Challenge it and find out your accusations are without merit and it will remove yet another excuse from the Liberal boxes of “why Libs can’t discuss topics without ad hominem.”
Go easy on Kansas… he seems to believe that 48 million Americans = 48 “percent” of the U.S. population.
That’s toooooooooooooooo good cosmos!
Yeah, it was a mistake, I meant 48 million rather than 48 percent. The results showing that Michael Moore using deceptive statistics still holds true, regardless of my unit assignment. And of course Health Insurance instead of Health Care.
Glad you figured it out.
Moore still uses Health Scare tactics by omitting statistics and that’s no exaggeration.
cosmos hasn’t figured out that permanent ignore means just that, permanently.
There is nothing “deceptive” about the nearly 50 million Americans not having health insurance.
There is no way to force those uninsured to buy health insurance — and they are causing premiums to rise, causing even more to become uninsured.
I’ve already taken college biology, zoology, microbiology and biochemistry. Thank you very much.
Posted by: Kansas | September 28, 2007 at 11:31 PM
=========================
It would seem that Kansas, according to his many posts of his educational odyssey, has taken nearly every course in the College Catalog!! But it just never shows up that much!!
And what is the degree he claims to have?? I seem to have forgotten that…
When you’re overseas and bored Chas, you have plenty of time to take college courses.
“And what is the degree he claims to have?? I seem to have forgotten that… ”
Posted by: Chas.
It might be Industrial Hygiene?
“the bush apologist, taliban “christian” wolverine is in the room. Another piece of repuke scum.”
Apophis, with all due respect, rein it in. You make yourself look very bad with these sorts of comments. kswolverine seems to focus his/her comments on evolution/creation topics. I have seen few if any postings that indicate kswolverine’s politics ot